core strategy pre-submission responses for print ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 368366�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Alan�Headford�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP74�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�10.5�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
This�clause�of�the�policy�is�unsound�because�it�is�behind�the�times�when�it�implies�minimising�the�carbon�footpint�by�reducing�car�usage.����In�the�near�future�cars�will�be�designed�to�run�on�hydrogen�and�this�fuel�will�be�made�in�increasingly�effcient�ways���e.g.�witness�the�Honda�Clarity.���MK�Council�would�therefore�be�very�short�sighted�if�it�was�to�spoil�the�current�grid�sysytem,�as�it�seems�it�is�already�doing�in�some�parts.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�Council�recognises�that�reducing�the�number�of�cars�may�harm�the�basic�grid�concept�of�the�city�if,�as�is�likely,�cars�become�inherrently�greener�as�science�and�engineering�advances�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 801 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271774�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Joanna�Barker�
Consultee�Organisation:� Places�for�People�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 268966�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Robert�Purton�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP55�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�published�documentation�makes�no�reference�to�extant�planning�permissions�and�previously�adopted�site�specific�SPG�and�SPDs�for�both�Brooklands�and�Brook�Furlong.����
Insufficient�justification�has�been�provided�for�the�variation�in�published�national�objectives�and�standards.�
Proposed�Change:�
‘Housing�should�meet�the�Council's�adopted�standards�of�energy�efficiency,�renewable�energy�generation,�carbon�neutrality,�safety�and�‘life�time�homes'.�Some�dwellings�should�support�home�based�working�and�all�homes�should�have�high�quality�ICT�connectivity.'����
Should�be�deleted�from�Policy�CS10�as�without�an�empirical�justification�the�Council�is�seeking�to�set�standards�which�are�different�from�nationally�researched�building�regulations�and�guidelines.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�issues�raised�in�this�series�of�representations�relate�to�the�delivery�of�the�Brooklands�scheme�which�already�benefits�from�an�allocation�n�the�extant�Local�Plan,�has�a�hybrid�planning�permission,�an�adopted�Development�Brief,�an�adopted�Design�Code�a�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 802 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP247�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�cannot�require�higher�than�minimum�national�construction�standards�to�be�met.��The�Council�must�provide�an�appropriate�definition�of�the�term�'home�based�working'.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�paragraph�3�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 803 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414470�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Consultee�Organisation:� DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP281�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�cannot�require�higher�than�minimum�national�construction�standards�to�be�met.��The�Council�must�provide�an�appropriate�definition�of�the�term�'home�based�working'.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�paragraph�3.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�voice�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 804 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273046�
Consultee�Name:� � Gallagher�Estates�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gallagher�Estates�
Agent�ID:� � � 414811�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Greg�Mitchell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP432�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
CS10,�paragraphs�10.6�and�10.7��
The�current�MK�Tariff�Agreement�sets�out�the�affordable�housing�requirements�for�Glebe�Farm�and�Eagle�Farm.�Policy�CS10�and�paragraph�10.7�need�to�acknowledge�this�situation�in�order�to�properly�and�accurately�explain�the�housing�policy�context�as�it�applies�to�the�wider�SE�SDA.�Effectively�therefore�paragraph�10.6�is�also�applicable�to�those�SRAs�that�are�included�within�the�Tariff�agreement.�
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�Policy�CS10�and�paragraphs�10.6�and�10.7�so�that�they�acknowledge�the�fact�that�Glebe�farm�and�Eagle�Farm�whilst�being�part�of�the�wider�SE�SDA�are�included�within�the�existing�MK�Tariff�Agreement.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�the�Core�Strategy�and�these�representations�is�properly�and�appropriately�examined.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 805 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 415652�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Richard�Alden�
Consultee�Organisation:� National�Grid�Property�Ltd�
Agent�ID:� � � 415656�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mike�Woolner�
Agent�Organisation:� � Firstplan�
Representation�ID:� � PSP585�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Paragraph�4.44�of�PPS12�states�that�Core�Strategies�should�be�effective�and�this�means�that�they�must�be�flexible�as�well�as�deliverable�and�being�able�to�be�monitored.��
National�Grid�supports�Policy�CS10�in�principle.�However,�for�the�Policy�to�be�effective,�it�must�take�into�consideration�how�economic�circumstances�can�affect�the�delivery�of�a�site.��
Paragraph�4.46�of�PPS12�states�that�a�strategy�is�unlikely�to�be�effective�if�it�cannot�deal�with�changing�circumstances.�Many�National�Grid�sites�can�give�rise�to�significant�abnormal�costs:�for�example�costs�associated�with�drainage�and�remediation.�As�such,�issues�such�as�affordable�housing,�sustainability,�and�development�contributions�may�require�a�policy�like�Policy�CS10�to�be�applied�with�flexibility.��
Proposed�Change:�
Accordingly�it�would�be�best�if�Policy�CS10�makes�reference�to�economics,�viability,�drainage,�flood�mitigation,�and�contamination�as�issues�to�be�addressed�in�assessing�housing�developments.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 806 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP608�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Para.�4.10��
Housing�tenure�and�size�(6.2)��
(a)�There�is�no�debate�about�future�housing�tenures.�CS.10�states�that�the�Council�"will�plan�to�meet�housing�needs....",�but�does�not�address�how�the�unaffordability�characteristic�of�so�called�affordable�housing�is�to�be�achieved.��
(b)�No�broad�tenure�indications�are�given�but�while�mention�of�tenure�is�made�in�Para.�10.6�and�10.7�but�no�split�is�set�out�for�the�plan�period.�Are�we�coming�to�the�end�of�the�ability�for�most�families�to�buy�their�own�home�so�that�shortly�it�will�no�longer�even�be�an�aspiration?�Could�we�be�approaching�a�return�to�the�Victorian�model�of�most�families�renting�their�flats�and�houses?�If�this�is�the�case,�what�are�the�implications,�if�any,�for�Milton�Keynes?�Again�the�LDF�does�not�engage�in�such�fundamental�thinking.�So�much�for�MK�being�a�city,�"that�thinks�differently"�and�"embraces�evolution".�There�is�a�disappointing�lack�of�curiosity�here.��
(c)�Currently,�the�only�way�people�can�come�and�live�in�MK�is�if�they�can�buy.�There�is�not�enough�family�rental�stock�on�offer.�London,�under�Ken�Livingstone�was�starting�to�achieve�a�50%�social�share�from�development�and�MK�should�have�that�as�one�of�its�housing�targets�under�Policy�CS�10.��
(d)�No�attempt�is�made�to�define�what�"affordable"�housing�is�but�the�general�understanding�is�that�"affordable"�basically�means�unaffordable.�Essentially�this�is�a�central�government�issue�but�that�does�not�preclude�local�government�from�raising�the�matter�on�behalf�of�its�constituents�and�suggesting�what�it�thinks�"affordable"�means.��
(e)�The�LDF�fails�to�engage�with�headline�issues.�It�should�give�thought�to�the�possible�direction�that�housing�might�be�going,�should�be�interested�in�securing�as�much�social�housing�as�it�can�for�the�community�and�debate�what�is�housing�"affordability".��
Quantity�(6.3)��
(a)�Housing�figures�and�programmes�are�to�be�found�in�Section�5�but�for�easier�document�reading�they�could�usefully�be�summarized�within�Section�10.�Basically,�41,000�new�dwellings�at�a�rate�of�2,000�dws.�per�annum�over�the�twenty�years�2006�to�2026�is�proposed.��
(b)�Irrespective�of�the�several�promised�(Paras.�10.6/10.7)�policy�reviews�etc.�everyone�knows�from�the�2004�Kate�Barker�housing�report�that�the�UK�should�be�building�about�500,000�dwellings�a�year�as�opposed�to�the�pre�credit�'crunch'�250,000�pa.�target.�Barker's�500,000�is�twice�currently�proclaimed�rates�of�build�and�probably�four�times�what�is�actually�being�built.��
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 807 of 969
(c)�Applying�Barker�to�Milton�Keynes,�the�41,000�dw.�figure�by�2026�means�that�if�we�need�twice�as�much,�the�solution�would�be�to�achieve�these�completions�in�half�that�time,�ie.�by�2018�by�building�at�a�rate�of�about�4,000�dws.�per�annum.�With�a�50%�share�for�social�rental�and�shared�ownership�housing,�a�rate�of�at�least�2,000�such�social�dwellings�per�year�results�which�would�guarantee�firmer�overall�economic�growth�for�the�city.��
(d)�Proceeding�like�this�would�probably�trigger�a�review�of�the�MKSM�sub�regional�strategy.�The�latter�should�be�pleased�that�MK�is�both�able�and�willing�to�grow�in�contrast�to�other�adjacent�areas�that�are�showing�an�inability�to�do�so.�Naturally,�housing�growth�would�reinforce�MK�as�a�employment�focus�which�would�be�all�to�the�good�of�the�city�and�make�it�more�resistant�to�economic�turmoil.��
Quality�(6.4)��
(a)�It�is�a�mistake�to�delay�until�2016�to�introduce�the�higher�Level�6�of�the�"Code�for�Sustainable�Homes"�environmental�building�standards.�MK�should�persuade�all�developers�to�move�from�the�current�Level�3�to�Level�6�now.�If�MK�is�as�truly�interested�in�housing�innovation�as�Para.�10.1�suggests�then�it�should�persuade�developers�to�adopt�the�higher�standards�straightaway.�This�would�benefit�the�occupants�for�very�little�extra�cost�and�contribute�to�reducing�MK's�and�GB's�carbon�footprint.�The�Development�Corporation�did�this�back�in�the�early�80s�without�any�problems�so�MK�can�do�it�again�now.��
(b)�A�standing�ienvironmental�invitation�for�a�development�area�should�be�to�make�progress�with�promoting�the�use�of�photo�voltaic�panels�via�its�housing�programmes�plus�any�other�development�options.�The�LDF�should�encourage�developers�to�incorporate�these�devices�and�make�dwellings�net�energy�contributors�to�the�national�grid.�To�achieve�this,�the�MK�Council�should�work�with�other�like�minded�adjacent�authorities�combining�to�create�a�sub�regional�market�for�this�technology.��
(c)�No�mention�is�made�to�internal�dwelling�size�despite�recurrent�national�concerns�about�how�small�dwellings�and�room�sizes�have�become�and�how�unacceptable�this�will�be�for�future�generations:�'family�cramming'�can�not�be�the�way�forward.�In�November�2007�English�Partnerships�announced�that�in�future�all�their�housing�would�subscribe�to�Parker�Morris�internal�space�standards.�Recently�Boris�Johnson�announced�that�London�will�apply�Parker�Morris�plus�10%�standards�for�all�its�social�housing.��
Proposed�Change:�
(a)�Para.�10.5�slightly�raises�the�matter�of�residential�parking�and�providing�more�carbon�friendly�alternatives�but�fails�to�arrive�at�any�conclusion.�It�could�have�discussed�the�concept�of�higher�density/lower�unit�costs�coupled�to�public�transport�accessibility�and�the�LDF�presents�the�opportunity�to�discuss�this�but�there�is�no�such�debate.��
(b)�The�Housing�LDF�should�declare�that�the�way�forward�for�MK�is�to�adopt�a�more�urban�approach�in�relation�to�residential�design.�This�would�support�a�greater�sense�of�community�vitality,�lessen�development�costs,�reduce�the�cost�of�dwellings�and�support�a�move�to�public�transport.��
(c)�Currently,�the�only�way�people�can�come�and�live�in�MK�is�if�they�can�buy.�There�is�not�enough�family�rental�stock�on�offer.�London,�under�Ken�Livingstone�was�starting�to�achieve�a�50%�social�share�from�development�and�MK�should�have�that�as�one�of�its�housing�targets�under�Policy�CS�10.��
(d)�No�attempt�is�made�to�define�what�"affordable"�housing�is�but�the�general�understanding�is�that�"affordable"�basically�means�unaffordable.�Essentially�this�is�a�central�government�issue�but�that�does�not�preclude�local�government�from�raising�the�matter�on�behalf�of�its�constituents�and�suggesting�what�it�thinks�"affordable"�means.��
(e)�The�LDF�should�apply�a�Baker�approach�to�housing�in�MK�and�double�the�rate�of�expansion�suitably�supported�by�central�infrastructure�funding.��
(f)�Milton�Keynes,�being�so�at�the�fore�for�all�things,�"embracing�evolution�etc",�should�also�apply�the�Parker�Morris�+�10%�internal�space�standard�for�all�its�social�housing.�and�convince�the�private�sector�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 808 of 969
does�likewise.��
(g)�The�LDF�seems�only�to�be�interested�in�new�housing�with�no�mention�made�to�the�unsatisfactory�standard�of�maintenance�that�relates�to�most�of�the�Council's�rental�housing�stock.�This�is�a�serious�problem�for�the�occupants�and�needs�to�be�resolved�in�a�coherent�way.�This�issue�is�avoided�by�the�Council.��
(h)�The�LDF�should�ensure�that�MK�builds�better�insulated,�bigger�homes�with�photo�voltaic�roofs�fit�for�the�future�and�also�sorts�out�the�condition�of�the�Council's�own�rental�stock.��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
to�better�argue�the�basic�points�that�I�have�raised.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 809 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 416224�
Consultee�Name:� � Ms�Catriona�Riddell�
Consultee�Organisation:� South�East�England�Partnership�Board�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP627�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�10�Housing�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
�See�attached�letter��
Representation�2:�Housing�Design�and�Density��
We�would�like�to�see�Policy�CS10�make�a�commitment�to�contributing�to�the�regional�density�target�of�40�dwellings�per�hectare,�as�set�out�in�Policy�H5�of�the�South�East�Plan�and�examine�how�higher�densities�might�be�achieved�locally.�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
See�attached�file�overleaf�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 810 of 969
Bob Wilson Development Plans Manager Milton Keynes Council Spatial Planning Division Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Central Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire, MK9 3EJ
31 March 2010 BY EMAIL
Dear Mr Wilson,
MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION
Under Section 24 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the South East England Partnership Board as the Regional Planning Body (RPB) assesses consultations on Development Plan Documents (DPDs) on the extent to which they would cause significant harm to the implementation of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and therefore whether the document is in ‘general conformity’ with the RSS. Under the Act, the current statutory RSS for the South East is the South East Plan (May 2009). The Partnership Board is of the view that the Core Strategy is in general conformity with the South East Plan.
We also wish to make a number of other representations on the document (Regulation 27), which are outlined in the attached schedule. These additional comments indicate how it is considered the DPD should expand upon guidance in the RSS and take forward the regional context. We do not consider it necessary to participate at the oral examination.
I trust that the above is of assistance. Please contact Tom Kingston on 01483 555200 or at [email protected] if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Yours sincerely,
Catriona Riddell Director of Planning
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 811 of 969
South East England Regional Assembly – Representations on theProposed Submission Core Strategy for Milton Keynes, February 2010 (Regulation 27)
Representation 1: Affordable HousingWe acknowledge there is an adopted saved local plan policy covering affordable housing and that the Development Management DPD will include detail on affordable housing. However, to assist delivery of Policy H3 and MKAV2 of the South East Plan we would like to see a specific affordable housing policy set out within the core strategy.
Representation 2: Housing Design and Density We would like to see Policy CS10 make a commitment to contributing to the regional density target of 40 dwellings per hectare, as set out in Policy H5 of the South East Plan and examine how higher densities might be achieved locally.
Representation 3: InfrastructureWithin Policy CS22 or the supporting text we would welcome reference to the definition of infrastructure as set out within the South East Plan (in the box beneath paragraph 5.22) and to Policy CC8: Green Infrastructure (with the box beneath paragraph 5.27).
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 812 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413791�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andy�Barton�
Consultee�Organisation:� Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP150�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�10.7�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Final�sentence.�Until�further�investigations�and�negotiations�have�taken�place�and�further�evidence�has�been�collected,�it�is�not�possible�to�confirm�‘ensuring'�MK�SHMA�needs�are�met.�In�addition�the�statement�seeks�to�control�factors�outside�of�the�legal�scope�of�the�MK�Core�Strategy,�and�goes�beyond�issues�regarding�the�impacts�of�the�these�developments�on�MK,�rather�attempting�to�influence�the�totality�of�the�development.�
Proposed�Change:�
Deletion�of�final�sentence�of�Paragraph.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Yes���to�be�able�to�explain�and�expand�on�the�issues�summarised�in�the�representation�by�the�local�planning�authority�responsible�for�the�delivery�of�the�SW�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 813 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP417�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�10.7�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�approach�to�affordable�housing�is�contrary�to�the�guidance�contained�in�PPS12�paragraph�6.1.��Requirements�should�be�set�in�a�relevant�DPD�and�the�SEP�sets�a�target�of�30%�in�the�MK�Growth�Area.��This�should�be�reflected�in�Core�Strategy�Policy.�
Proposed�Change:�
Affordable�housing�target�for�the�SE�SDA�to�be�set�out�in�DPD�policy,�preferably�the�Core�Strategy.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 814 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP490�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�10.7�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
��Paragraph�10.7�allows�for�a�different�approach�to�the�provision�of�affordable�housing�in�the�SWSDA�(30%)�from�that�proposed�in�the�SESDA�(set�through�the�Development�Framework).�Instead�the�affordable�housing�requirement�should�be�set�as�a�standard�across�the�Growth�Area�and�on�that�basis�there�should�be�no�differentiation�between�the�two�SDAs.�This�matter�has�been�addressed�at�previous�inquiries/examinations�and�a�consistent�position�has�been�established.�The�South�East�Plan�Panel�Report�(August�2007)�addresses�the�matter�of�affordable�housing�at�paragraph�23.58�and�states:��
‘�The�30%�affordable�housing�target�in�policy�MKAV1�was�not�examined,�although�we�assume�that�this�lower�levelrelates�to�the�existence�of�an�extensive�stock�of�affordable�housing�in�this�former�new�town.�The�affordable�housing�omponent�within�the�planned�urban�extensions�to�Milton�Keynes�should�be�guided�by�this�policy,�even�where�they�my�be�located�in�a�neighbouring�local�authority'.��
The�same�point�was�more�recently�addressed�during�the�examination�of�the�Central�Bedfordshire�Core�Strategy.�The�nspector's�Report�(September�2009)�at�paragraph�3.40�states�as�follows:��
‘...the�fact�remains�that�when�completed�the�housing�which�falls�within�Central�Bedfordshire�will�be�seen�as�part�of�anurban�extension�to�Milton�Keynes.�It�makes�no�sense�for�the�policy�for�the�proportion�of�affordable�housing�to�be�equired�with�the�Central�Bedfordshire�part�to�be�different�to�that�for�Milton�Keynes�simply�because�it�is�within�another�dministrative�area'.��
In�light�of�the�above,�the�proportion�of�affordable�housing�across�the�Milton�Keynes�Growth�Area�should�be�consistent�ith�that�in�the�SEP�at�Policy�MKAV2�i.e.�30%.������
Proposed�Change:�
��Paragraph�10.7�to�be�amended�to�read�as�follows:��
‘The�affordable�housing�requirements�for�both�the�SESDA�and�SWSDA�will�be�in�accordance�with�that�specified�for�the�whole�of�the�Growth�Area�in�the�South�East�Plan�i.e.�30%.�Joint�working�with�the�adjoining�authorities�of�Central�Bedfordshire�and�Aylesbury�Vale�Councils�will�ensure�that�the�type�of�affordable�housing�that�is�provided�within�this�verall�proportion�responds�to�the�needs�identified�in�the�Milton�Keynes�Strategic�Housing�Market�Assessment.'��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Consortium�has�a�particular�interest�in�the�formulation�of�the�Core�Strategy,�given�the�key�development�proposals�to�the�South�East�of�Milton�Keynes.�The�Consortium�therefore�wishes�to�be�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 815 of 969
allowed�to�represent�its�interest�at�the�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 816 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413884�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Shapley�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckinghamshire�County�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP565�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�10.7�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Paragraph�10.7�states�that�housing�need�in�the�South�West�SDA�will�be�addressed�by�Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�and�will�meet�needs�identified�in�the�Milton�Keynes�Strategic�Housing�Market�Assessment.�It�is�not�clear�from�this�statement�nor�from�the�Housing�Market�Assessment�what�these�specific�needs�are�and�there�is�no�reference�to�the�Buckinghamshire�Strategic�Housing�Market�Assessment�or�to�Aylesbury�Vale's�Affordable�Housing�Viability�Study�for�example.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�text�needs�amending�to�reflect�the�fact�that�this�SDA�is�outside�Milton�Keynes'�boundary.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 817 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 270739�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�A�Francis�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Green�Party�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP508�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Comments�relate�to�CS7,�CS11,�paragraphs�7.1�to�7.12�and�11.1�to�11.26��
The�LDF�CS�is�unsound�at�the�moment�because�the�transport�section�fails�to�provide�policies�to�deal�with�the�predicted�extra�transport�demand�from�the�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�and�fails�to�take�into�account�the�changes�necessary�to�cope�with�climate�change�and�peak�oil.�It�proposes�continueing�‘business�as�usual'�rather�than�adapting�to�climate�change�and�peak�oil�which�will�have�a�huge�impact�on�MK�over�the�plan�period.�Contrary�to�what�some�of�our�residents,�and�possibly�some�councilors,�think�MK�is�part�of�the�world�and�so�will�not�be�immune�to�these�world�changing�events.�The�LDF�CS�should�try�to�mitigate�the�negative�aspects�of�these�events.�As�far�as�transport�is�concerned�it�doesn't�and�therefore�it�is�not�sound.����
We�are�concerned�that�the�planning�and�transport�policies�in�the�CS�will�constrain�what�can�be�in�the�more�detailed�transport�policies�that�will�emerge�in�LTP3�next�year.��
MK�is�planned�to�expand�by�about�70000�dwellings�with�at�least�a�similar�number�of�jobs.�Most�of�those�jobs�will�be�in�CMK.�The�CS�does�not�explain�how�the�transport�network�would�be�able�to�cope�with�the�all�the�extra�people�travelling�to�the�extra�jobs,�approximately�double�the�number�in�CMK.�The�Transport�Strategy�Review�indicated�that�the�road�network�could�only�handle�a�25%�increase�in�traffic.�So�most�of�the�extra�jobs�would�need�to�be�accessed�by�public�transport,�walking�or�cycling.�This�would�require�a�vast�increase�in�public�transport�capacity,�at�least�a�factor�of�5�increase�and�perhaps�a�factor�of�10�increase.�However�the�CS�gives�no�indication�of�how�this�might�be�achieved.�It�is�therefore�unsound.��
See�below�for�more��
General����
The�LDF�CS�is�unsound�at�the�moment�because�the�transport�section�fails�to�provide�policies�to�deal�with�the�predicted�extra�transport�demand�from�the�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�and�fails�to�take�into�account�the�changes�necessary�to�cope�with�climate�change�and�peak�oil.�It�proposes�continueing�‘business�as�usual'�rather�than�adapting�to�climate�change�and�peak�oil�which�will�have�a�huge�impact�on�MK�over�the�plan�period.�Contrary�to�what�some�of�our�residents,�and�possibly�some�councilors,�think�MK�is�part�of�the�world�and�so�will�not�be�immune�to�these�world�changing�events.�The�LDF�CS�should�try�to�mitigate�the�negative�aspects�of�these�events.�As�far�as�transport�is�concerned�it�doesn't�and�therefore�it�is�not�sound.����
We�are�concerned�that�the�planning�and�transport�policies�in�the�CS�will�constrain�what�can�be�in�the�more�detailed�transport�policies�that�will�emerge�in�LTP3�next�year.����
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 818 of 969
MK�expansion����
MK�is�planned�to�expand�by�about�70000�dwellings�with�at�least�a�similar�number�of�jobs.�Most�of�those�jobs�will�be�in�CMK.�The�CS�does�not�explain�how�the�transport�network�would�be�able�to�cope�with�the�all�the�extra�people�travelling�to�the�extra�jobs,�approximately�double�the�number�in�CMK.�The�Transport�Strategy�Review�indicated�that�the�road�network�could�only�handle�a�25%�increase�in�traffic.�So�most�of�the�extra�jobs�would�need�to�be�accessed�by�public�transport,�walking�or�cycling.�This�would�require�a�vast�increase�in�public�transport�capacity,�at�least�a�factor�of�5�increase�and�perhaps�a�factor�of�10�increase.�However�the�CS�gives�no�indication�of�how�this�might�be�achieved.�It�is�therefore�unsound.����
Climate�Change����
The�Climate�Change�Bill�originally�proposed�a�reduction�in�CO2�emissions�of�60%�by�2050.�This�has�been�increased�to�80%�by�2050.�To�achieve�that�reduction�by�2050�will�require�a�reduction�of�about�50%�by�2031,�the�end�point�of�the�MK�growth�strategy.�The�CS�should�have�policies�to�reduce�CO2�emissions�from�the�transport�sector�by�50%.�The�government�has�committed�the�UK�to�reducing�CO2�emissions�by�2020�by�at�least�20%.�The�CS�must�take�this�into�account.����
Peak�Oil����
The�CS�fails�to�address�the�issue�of�Peak�Oil.�The�global�rate�of�oil�extraction�is�expected�to�peak�within�the�next�few�years,�if�it�has�not�already�done�so.�Together�with�the�increase�in�demand�for�oil�from�developing�economies�in�countries�such�as�China�and�India�this�will�lead�to�significant�increase�in�the�cost�of�oil.�That�will�change�the�economics�of�transport�and�will�lead�to�a�modal�shift�away�from�those�modes,�such�as�the�car,�which�are�heavily�dependent�upon�oil.�The�CS�should�take�account�of�this.����
If�MK�is�to�be�a�genuinely�Sustainable�Community,�where�all�citizens�have�good�access�to�facilities,�the�economy�is�not�damaged�by�traffic�congestion�and�the�global�environment�is�not�damaged�by�climate�change�and�pollution,�then�we�will�need�a�much�larger�modal�shift�to�sustainable�transport�modes�than�proposed�in�the�CS.����
Proposed�changes����
The�CS�transport�section�should�be�redrafted�to�provide�policies�to�deal�with�the�predicted�extra�transport�demand�from�the�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�and�to�take�into�account�the�changes�necessary�to�cope�with�climate�change�and�peak�oil.����
Comments�on�specific�paragraphs����
Table�2.1�Weaknesses�should�include���High�dependence�on�cars����
2.9�It's�the�huge�amount�and�low�cost�of�parking�in�CMK,�as�well�as�grid�roads,�that�lead�to�low�bus�use�in�MK.�Compared�to�other�large�towns�in�SE�MK�has�about�4�times�as�much�car�parking,�at�a�quarter�of�the�cost�and�unsurprisingly�also�has�about�a�quarter�of�the�bus�use�(see�statistics�below�taken�from�Transport�Strategy�Review)����
2.12�Its�not�just�more�deprived�areas�such�as�Netherfield�that�need�better�public�transport.�PT�should�be�for�everyone�in�order�to�reduce�dependence�on�cars�and�reduce�CO2�emissions.�Its�not�just�for�poor�or�those�who�have�no�choice.�That�is�very�old�fashioned�thinking.�Its�about�sustainability�as�well�as�social�equity.�PT�must�be�an�option�for�everyone,�and�must�be�attractive�to�those�with�cars�as�well�as�those�without.����
10.5�Instead�of�providing�more�car�parking�in�residential�areas,�ie�accepting�high�car�ownership,�the�CS�should�be�tackling�car�dependency.�This�is�a�plan�for�the�future���as�currently�drafted�it�is�a�plan�for�the�past.�The�CS�should�advocate�measures�such�as�car�clubs,�travel�planning�and�better�PT�to�reduce�the�amount�of�car�parking�required.����
11.2�Those�WITH�cars�should�also�be�able�to�access�employment,�etc�without�having�to�use�their�cars,�as�is�common�in�cities�throughout�continental�Europe.����
11.4�Again�this�is�just�proposing�that�the�future�is�the�same�as�the�past.�This�will�not�be�an�option�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 819 of 969
because�of�climate�change�and�peak�oil.������
We�endorse�the�comments�by�MK�Forum�on�transport�in�MK.�There�is�clearly�a�mismatch�between�the�numbers�of�workers�proposed�to�arrive�in�CMK�by�car�and�the�number�of�parking�spaces�available�to�them�so�far�more�will�have�to�travel�by�bus.�This�combined�with�the�expansion�of�MK�and�modal�shift�required�to�reduce�CO2�emissions�means�that�bus�useage�has�to�increase�by�about�a�factor�of�10.�
Proposed�Change:�
CS�Sections�7�and�11�fail�to�provide�policies�to�deal�with�the�predicted�extra�transport�demand�from�the�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�and�fails�to�take�into�account�the�changes�necessary�to�cope�with�climate�change�and�peak�oil.�Further�studies�need�to�be�undertaken�and�policies�included�that�will�state�how�the�increased�number�of�residents�and�workers�will�be�able�to�move�around�Milton�Keynes,�especially�Central�MK.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�LDF�CS�is�unsound�at�the�moment�because�the�transport�section�fails�to�provide�policies�to�deal�with�the�predicted�extra�transport�demand�from�the�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�and�fails�to�take�into�account�the�changes�necessary�to�cope�with�climate�cha�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 820 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP609�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.2�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Council�Policy�Compatibility�(3.3)��
(a)�Transport�targets�were�agreed�by�the�full�Council�on�13�November�2007�(ref.�Meeting�minutes:�Agenda�item�5(b)(vi):�Para.12.�The�Council�agreed�that�there�would�be...."a�10%�increase�in�public�transport�per�year"�and�that�there�would�be�"a�1%�modal�shift�from�car�to�public�transport�year�on�year".�Over�the�16�years�of�the�remaining�plan�period�this�means�that�for�public�transport�the�10%�annual�increase�will�result�in�roughly�a�450%�rise.�Thus�the�1%�annual�car�to�bus�modal�shift�from�the�current�(93/3%�car/bus)�relationship�will�result,�at�year�16,�a�reduction�down�to�78.4%�for�the�car�mode�and�thus�a�growth�to�about�10%�for�the�bus�mode�(plus�about�10%�for�'other'�modes�to�arrive�at�100%).��
(b)�Straightaway�it�can�be�seen�that�this�is�not�the�same�modal�split�as�the�LDF's�Para.�11.5�'status�quo'�end�state�modal�split.�Assuming�that�the�LDF�should�be�Council�policy�compatible�there�now�exists�three�end�state�modal�splits�to�describe�the�car/bus�relationship�for�2026���93/3�(LDF),�78/10�(13�Nov.�07�Council)�and�34/40�(SITS).�MK�is�spoilt�for�choice.�The�Council's�approach�to�its�transport�LDF�can�not�be�taken�seriously.��
(c)�Given�the�evident�confusion�it�is�obvious�that�the�Council�has�yet�to�decide�what�its�transport�LDF�should�be�in�which�case�its�transport�LDF�must�be�judged�"unjustified"�and�"ineffective".��
SITS�Compatibility�(3.4)���
(a)�SITS�(the�Sustainable�Integrated�Transport�Strategy)�was�approved�in�December�1999�by�the�full�MK�Council�and,�despite�the�passage�of�time�and�neglect�by�successive�administrations,�it�remains�the�Council's�official�transport�strategy�to�this�day.��
(b)�The�LDF�wrongly�claims�(Para.�11.2)�that�it,�"reflects�the�objectives�of�SITS...".�Whereas�the�LDF�proposes�to�maintain�the�current�modal�split�in�favour�of�the�car�over�the�plan�period,�SITS�emphatically�moves�in�the�opposite�direction.�The�two�strategies�are�irreconcilable�and�I�can�say�this�with�some�reasonable�authority,�being�the�author�of�SITS.��
(c)�SITS�(Para.�4.2)�clearly�states�that�the�Council's�strategy�is�to�"bring�about�a�significant�shift....to�public�transport".�SITS�(Para.6.6)�sets�out�a�modal�split�which�indicates�the�process�of�the�shift�to�public�transport�seriously�beginning�to�happen�by�2011.�The�contrast�between�LDF�and�SITS�could�not�be�greater�and�it�is�an�insult�to�state�that�in�any�way�the�LDF�'reflects'�SITS.�What�the�LDF�actually�'reflects'�is�a�Jeremy�Clarkson,�macho,�Esso�fuelled�"Top�Gearism"�where�the�car�is�'king'�and�anyone�who�does�not�have�at�least�two,�irrespective�of�their�age�or�disability,�is�a�bit�of�a�'looser'.��
(d)�The�true�meaning�of�Para.11.5�is�that�the�MK�Council�proposes�to�abandon�SITS.�I�have�no�objection�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 821 of 969
in�principle�to�them�doing�that�but�I�will�expect�them�to�say�so�openly�and�argue�the�case�for�doing�so.�They�have�done�neither.�This�is�very�sloppy�planning.��
(e)�Had�SITS�been�implemented�beyond�2002�instead�of�being�ignored,�MK�would�now�be�approaching�a�25%�public�transport�share�for�the�journey�to�work�instead�of�the�current�derisory�9%�and�with�car�dependancy�reduced�from�73%�to�55%.�The�statistics�for�all�city�trips,�not�just�journey�to�work,�registers�an�even�more�damming�contrast�between�modes�with�an�imbalance�of�93%�car�to�3%�bus�modes.��
(f)�SITS�did�not�project�beyond�2011.�If�its�1991�to�2011�journey�to�work�targets�(ref.�SITS:�Para.�6.6)�were�extrapolated�to�2026�they�would�arrive�at�a�34%�40%�car�bus�modal�split.�This�is�based�on�the�SITS�Para.�6.6�rate�of�change�of�a�7%�reduction�every�5�years�for�the�car�mode�and�a�5%�increase�per�5�years�for�the�bus�mode.�Updating�SITS�would�seem�a�god�idea.��
(g)�Sadly,�the�bus�orientated�SITS�has�been�shelved�by�the�same�Council�that�has�now�produced�the�car�orientated�LDF.�If,�instead�of�being�neglected,�SITS�had�been�steadily�implemented�over�the�last�10�years,�Milton�Keynes�would�now�have�a�25%�(and�rising)�modal�share�in�favour�of�public�transport�instead�of�the�current�miserable�3%�for�all�city�wide�trips.�A�fair�question�to�as�is,�in�the�10�years�of�non�SITS�implementation,�how�many�tonnes�of�Co2�have�unnecessarily�pumped�into�the�atmosphere?��
(h)�As�yet�another�example�of�the�LDF�not�conforming�with�internal�MK�policies�the�LDF�must�be�judged�"not�justified"�and�"not�effective".�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
I�am�happy�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination.�This�would�enable�me�to�elaborate�a�little�more�fully,�if�that�would�be�helpful,�on�some�of�the�points�that�I�have�raised�particularly�in�relation�to�social�equity/sustainable�accessibility�issues.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 822 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271628�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�S�Vincent�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP22�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.3�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
Proposed�Change:�
The�grid�roads�are�essential�to�Milton�Keynes�and�it�is�important�that�the�grid�roads�system�is�implemented�in�all�new�developments�that�are�part�of�Milton�Keynes���for�the�foreseeable�future�we�will�be�dependent�upon�cars�and�public�transport�such�as�buses.�The�grid�roads�give�the�most�efficient�flow�of�traffic�around�MK�and�saves�pollution�and�energy�by�not�snarling�up�with�long�tail�backs�that�are�common�in�other�places�of�a�similar�size.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 823 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414637�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Iain�Sear�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP415�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.5�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
The�statement�that�cars�or�their�successors�will�remain�a�significant�mode�of�transport�due�to�the�design�of�Milton�Keynes�is�at�odd�with�the�evidence�of�car�use�in�other�uk�cities�and�that�around�the�world�where�car�use�increases�in�line�with�prosperity.��
It�is�mis�leading�to�suggest�that�the�car�will�remain�significant�in�the�2026�time�frame�(only�16�years)�becuase�of�the�MK�design.�It�will�remain�significant�everywhere�in�the�uk�for�various�reasons.�
Proposed�Change:�
the�removal�of�this�statement�because�it�is�misleading�and�may�lead�to�bad�planning�or�be�used�to�justify�poor�decision�making.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 824 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP610�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.5�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Generally�(3.1)��
(a)�One�would�expect�the�transport�strategy�to�be�headlined�under�Policy�SC�11�on�page�77.�In�reality�it�is�to�be�found�diplomatically�buried�in�Para.�11.5.�Why�is�the�Council�being�so�discreet�with�the�most�crucial�element�of�its�transport�strategy,�why�is�it�not�proud�to�clearly�set�out�its�proposals?�Interestingly,�the�whole�history�of�the�LDF�has�been�one�of�a�reluctance�to�address�modal�split�and�city�wide�accessibility�all�set�within�a�proper�socioeconomic�context.�The�failure�to�register�the�modal�split�within�Policy�SC11�is�an�act�of�calculated�evasion.��
(b)�SITS�is�the�Council's�transport�strategy.�In�proposing�a�radically�different�(as�set�out�in�Para.11.5)�transport�strategy,�the�LDF�needs�to�explain�what�is�wrong�with�the�Council's�current�SITS�approach,�irrespective�of�how�poorly�to�date�it�has�been�implemented.�The�LDF�would�then�need�to�explain�how�the�new�proposed�car�centric�approach�would�be�a�better�way�forward�for�everyone�in�MK.��
(c)�Additionally,�the�new�Para.�11.5�strategy�('continue�with�car�dependency')�is�contradicted�in�Para.�11.1�which�says�that�there�is�a�"need�to�cut�the�city's�carbon�footprint".�More�cars�surely�means�more�pollution�unless�one�is�persuaded�that�zero�energy�vehicles�will�dominate�the�roads�during�the�plan�term,�which�is�not�likely�to�be�the�case.�Para.�11.5�also�runs�foul�of�the�Government's�Sustainable�Development�Commission�which,�in�September�2005,�said�that�Milton�Keynes�expansion�should�be�carbon�neutral.�Carbon�neutrality�is�not�mentioned�anywhere�within�the�LDF.��
(d)�These�contradictions�mean�that�there�is�a�serious�lack�of�clarity�in�the�LDF�strategy�to�the�point�where�it�can�be�said�that�the�new�Para.�11.5�policy�has�not�been�"justified".��
Social�implications�(3.5)��
(a)�Despite�being�'the�city�designed�for�the�car',�19%�of�MK�households,�mostly�lower�income,�do�not�have�a�car�and�thus,�to�a�greater�or�lessor�extent,�have�a�serious�problem�getting�about�their�city.�For�already�disadvantaged�citizens�to�be�further�disadvantaged�by�being�given�an�'accessibility�deficit'�due�to�their�Council�pursuing�excessive�car�orientation,�is�highly�discriminatory�and�morally�despicable.��
(b)�Further,�if�one�examines�MK's�population�profile�for�those�above�the�age�of�10�and,�aggregating�the�young�(too�young�to�drive),�the�poor�(too�poor�to�drive)�and�the�elderly�(too�old�to�drive�or�never�learned�to�drive),�it�can�be�calculated�that�about�60%�of�the�city�population�are�thus�represented.�Deducting�for�those�below�the�age�of�10,�a�figure�of�about�30%�emerges�that�represents�motorists�with�immediate�car�access�and�who�greatly�benefit�from�the�excessive�car�emphasis�that�is�Milton�Keynes.��
(c)�Thus�the�city�that�we�have�inherited�from�the�1970�Milton�Keynes�Development�Corporation�with�its�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 825 of 969
low�development�density�and�high�car�dependancy�favours�the�fortunate�30%�who�are�motorists.�The�rest,�the�60%�majority,�are�basically�left�to�fend�for�themselves.�It�this�way�MK�is�indeed�not�like�any�other�city,�as�is�commonly�claimed.�In�any�other�'real'�city�those�without�cars,�which�will�often�include�the�higher�income�groups,�will�have�a�comprehensive�and�reliable�public�transport�system�to�meet�their�needs.�The�dreadful�truth�is�that�Milton�Keynes's�car�centric�nature�has�turned�out�to�be�a�serious�mistake:�we�are�building�the�wrong�kind�of�city.��
(d)�Having�built�the�wrong�kind�of�city�to�date�is�bad�enough�but�this�is�now�being�compounded�by�the�MK�Council�proposing,�via�its�Para.�11.5,�to�continue�with�this�failed�approach�for�the�next�16�years.�This�will�disadvantage�yet�another�generation�of�MK�people�with�the�burden�of�an�accessibility�deficit�with�all�the�social,�cultural,�educational�and�economic�disadvantage�that�that�implies.�We�are�already�building�the�wrong�type�of�city�and�the�Council's�LDF�proposes�to�continue�doing�so.�The�transport�LDF�does�not�serve�the�good�of�the�people���a�minimum�legal�and�democratic�norm���because�the�majority�suffer.�This�is�a�total�disgrace.��
(e)�As�the�interest�of�the�people�will�not�be�well�served���the�Council�should�be�'standing�up'�for�the�many���the�transport�LDF�must�be�judged�"unjustified"�and�"ineffective".�Since�it�is�at�odds�with�minimum�legal�and�democratic�norms�it�is�not�"national�policy�consistent"�either.��
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
I�am�happy�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination.�This�would�enable�me�to�elaborate�a�little�more�fully,�if�that�would�be�helpful,�on�some�of�the�points�that�I�have�raised�particularly�in�relation�to�social�equity/sustainable�accessibility�issues.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 826 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP492�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.6�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Also�relevant�to�figure�5.2��
Paragraph�11.6�refers�to�Figure�5.2�which�indicates�the�main�public�transport�routes�and�proposed�park�and�ride�sites�in�and�around�the�city.�Access�to�Milton�Keynes�from�the�south�east�via�M1�junction�13�and�along�the�A421�is�one�of�the�principal�approaches�to�the�city.�Because�of�this�it�is�a�vital�part�of�the�public�transport�strategy�for�the�city�that�a�park�and�ride�facility�is�located�in�the�A421�corridor�to�the�south�east�of�the�city.�The�Key�Diagram�shows�a�park�and�ride�site�at�that�point�on�the�A421�where�it�enters�the�Milton�Keynes�authority�area.�The�location�indicated�in�the�Picture�is�not�preferred�as�it�rules�out�the�possibility�of�the�park�and�ride�benefitting�from�an�interchange�with�both�bus�and�rail�services.��
There�is�only�one�location�that�can�achieve�this�level�of�interchange�with�public�transport�services�and�that�is�for�the�park�and�ride�to�be�located�to�the�immediate�west�of�M1�Junction�13.�Identifying�the�location�of�the�A421�park�&�ride�at�Junction�13�would�allow�for�interchange�between�car,�bus�and�rail�services.�This�location�would�also�benefit�from�improvement�in�services�on�East���West�Rail.�This�location�therefore�‘future�proofs'�the�park�&�ride�so�that�these�locational�benefits�can�be�secured,�even�if�the�benefit�is�not�immediately�realised.�This�change�would�also�make�the�wording�of�the�paragraph�consistent�with�the�wording�of�Policy�CS11,�bulletpoint�8.�
Proposed�Change:�
��In�relation�to�the�objectives�described�in�paragraph�11.6,�the�Key�Diagram�should�be�amended�so�that�the�location�of�the�park�and�ride�to�the�south�east�of�Milton�Keynes�is�positioned�at�M1�junction�13.��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Consortium�has�a�particular�interest�in�the�formulation�of�the�Core�Strategy,�given�the�key�development�proposals�to�the�South�East�of�Milton�Keynes.�The�Consortium�therefore�wishes�to�be�allowed�to�represent�its�interest�at�the�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 827 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414637�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Iain�Sear�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP419�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.8�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
When�parking�management�was�introduced�in�CMK�significant�parking�charge�funds�did�not�go�to�improved�transport�although�it�was�claimed�all�the�money�raised�would�go�here.�The�new�money�simply�displaced�existing�funding�with�only�small�levels�of�additional�funding.��
For�this�policy�to�be�effective�in�future�parking�management�in�CMK�funds�should�be�ring�frenced�for�public�transport�or�other�transport�improvements.�
Proposed�Change:�
Ensure�parking�fees�are�ring�fenced�for�new�transport�expenditure�in�the�policy.�Without�this�wording�the�policy�may�be�ineffective�compared�to�how�it�could�have�been�revolutionary.��
Without�this�or�some�other�similar�commitment�in�policy�the�assumption�will�be�that�the�policy�is�not�aimed�at�transport�solutions�but�fund�raising�and�lose�support�of�the�population.�Thus�becoming�even�less�effective.��
Based�on�the�previous�experince�of�CMK�traffic�management�i.e.�mainly�parking�charges�it�is�not�justified�to�say�this�has�had�a�major�effect�other�than�raising�money,�this�brings�into�doubt�the�future�policy.�Clarification�here�could�remove�that�doubt�and�make�the�claims�justifed.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 828 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414637�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Iain�Sear�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP416�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.9�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
The�problem�with�the�statement�is�it�is�ineffective�becuase�settlements�being�served�by�buses�is�not�the�same�as�destinations�being�served.�For�example�a�hospital�or�major�employer�(e.g.�FCO�at�hanslope)�might�not�ber�served�by�public�transport.��
Proposed�Change:�
The�policy�should�be�edited�to�ensure�all�major�destinations�not�just�settlements�and�villages�are�linked�to�public�transport.�Without�this�it�cannot�be�an�effective�solution�to�public�transport�requirements.�
Appear�at�Examination:� �
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 829 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP612�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.1�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Environmental�implications�(3.6)��
(a)�The�average�family�car�emits�about�5�metric�tones�of�Co2�per�annum.�Assuming�1�car�per�MK�household�(19%�of�MK�households�do�not�own�a�car)�with�80,000�households�therefore�400,000�tones�of�Co2�represents�MK's�current�per�annum�level�of�Co2�car�pollution.�As�the�city�is�planned�to�grow�by�a�55%�increase�in�households�over�the�plan�period,�by�extrapolition,�Co2�levels�of�pollution�will�also�increase�by�another�220,000�tones�giving�620,000�tonnes�at�2026.�To�this�needs�to�be�added�another�30%,�or�300,000�tonnes,�to�allow�for�the�increasing�level�of�car�ownership�that�will�happen�over�the�plan�period.�Thus�crudely,�by�2026�a�grand�total�of�920,000�(almost�1�million)�tonnes�of�Co2�can�be�expected�to�be�emitted�per�annum.�This�gives�a�130%�increase�in�Co2�emissions�for�a�population�increase�of�55%�which�represents�a�wholly�unsatisfactory�balance�between�citizen�travel�convenience�and�maintaining�good�environmental�conditions�for�all.�This�imbalance�therefore�represents�a�poor�policy�choice�and�can�thus�be�described�as�an�inappropriate�strategy�as�there�are�better�ways�to�secure�city�accessibility.�The�strategy�of�continued�car�dependancy�can�thus�be�judged�not�"justified".��
(b)�The�Climate�Change�Act�2008�calls�for�national�Co2�emissions�to�be�reduced�by�34%�by�2020.�While�Central�Government�may�dictate�in�reality�it�will�be�down�to�Local�Government�up�and�down�the�land�to�deliver�on�this�by�pressing�all�appropriate�'buttons'�and�induce�their�populations�to�behave�in�ever�more�environmentally�friendly�ways.�Thus�MK�will�be�legally�required,�like�all�other�authorities,�to�pursue�greater�sustainability�as�a�matter�of�policy���unless�there�is�some�good�reason�for�MK�to�be�exempt.�I�can�think�of�no�reason�why�it�should.�If�MK�is�determined�to�'buck�the�trend'�and�behave�in�a�deviant�way�its�transport�strategy,�as�set�out�in�Para.�11.5,�must�be�judged�"unjustified",�"ineffective"�and�not�"national�policy�consistent".��
(c)�A�34%�statutory�reduction�at�2020�will�mean�that�instead�of�reaching�the�LDF�level�of�about�650,000�metric�tonnes�of�Co2�(this�being�an�extrapolition�of�the�current�growth�trend)�it�should,�under�the�Act�not�exceed�433,334�metric�tonnes�but�in�reality�there�will�be�a�LDF�sanctioned�overshoot�of�217,000�tonnes�or�about�50%.�This�illustrates�the�extent�to�which�the�LDF�fails�to�provide�proper�protection�for�the�environment,�ignores�the�views�of�the�Government's�Sustainable�Development�Commission�and�wittingly�or�unwittingly�breaks�the�law.�Therefore�MK�must�stop�proposing�a�strategy�that�is�illegal�and�find�one�that�will�be�consistent�with�national�policy�ie,�the�law.��
(d)�Also,�the�Road�Reduction�Act�seems�not�to�apply�to�Milton�Keynes.�Notwithstanding�MK's�role�as�a�growth�center�there�will�be�a�disproportionate�increase�in�vehicular�traffic�encouraged�by�LDF�Para.�11.5�as,�though�traffic�demand�management�is�mentioned�in�the�text,�no�indication�in�principle�of�any�sort�of�policies�are�hinted�at�within�the�LDF.�This�'hands�off'�approach�will�encourage�those�without�cars�to�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 830 of 969
obtain�them�over�the�coming�years�and�again�compound�the�reality�of�vehicular�growth�and�use.��
(e)�As�the�LDF�transport�Para.�11.5�strategy�conflicts�with�the�Climate�Change�Act�and�the�Road�Reduction�Act�without�explaination�it�can�not�be�a�"justified"�policy,�not�"effective�and�not�"national�policy�consistent".�It�is�also�at�odds�with�the�rest�of�the�document's�fine�sounding�advocacy�in�favour�of�caring�for�the�environment.��
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
I�am�happy�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination.�This�would�enable�me�to�elaborate�a�little�more�fully,�if�that�would�be�helpful,�on�some�of�the�points�that�I�have�raised�particularly�in�relation�to�social�equity/sustainable�accessibility�issues.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 831 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP613�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.11�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Community�Strategy�Compatibility�(3.2)��
(a)�In�relation�to�transport,�the�MK�Community�Strategy�(Revision�2008)�indicated�that�it�sought�the�long�promised�but�never�delivered�MKDC�Master�Plan�goal�no.2���"Easy�Movement".�The�Community�Strategy�also�spoke�about�"reinventing�the�city".�While�MK�has�'easy�movement'�for�the�few,�the�majority�need�to�cadge�lifts�in�cars�and�rely�on�a�virtual�'rural�level'�of�public�transport�service.�The�Community�Strategy�was�right�to�flag�up�this�issue�which�always�comes�to�the�fore�in�public�consultation�about�city�development.��
(b)�The�LDF�makes�no�attempt�to�address�this�matter.�The�LDF�text�is�peppered�with�worthy�sustainable�references,�for�example,�"step�change�in�improvements�to�public�transport..."(Policy�CS11),�"more�sustainable�transport�choice�for�car�owners..."�(Policy�CS11),�"Council�will�promote�(traffic)�demand�management..."�(Para.�11.7),�"(Council�will)��encourage�more�journeys�by�bus..."�(Para.11.8),�etc.��
However,�there�is�no�indication�whatever�of,�in�principle,�what�'buttons'�the�Council�will�press�to�achieve�these�very�laudable�ends.��
(c)�There�is�no�sustainable�modal�split�indicated���in�clear�contrast�to�the�SITS�transport�strategy��that�would�begin�to�illustrate�how�MK�is�to�become�more�sustainable�.�There�is�no�broad�indication�of�what�sort�of�traffic�demand�management�the�Council�have�in�mind.�Do�they�see�car�park�charging�as�a�source�of�income�or�as�a�short�term�mechanism�to�secure�a�modal�shift�to�public�transport?�The�Council�is�fixated�on�continued�car�dependancy,�they�will�not�admit�it,�but�their�Para.�11.5�illustrates�what�their�future�modal�split�is�to�be���'more�of�the�same'.�The�current�modal�split�for�all�MK�trips�of�93%�cars,�3%�public�transport�and�4%�'other'�is�to�be�the�new�modal�split�for�2026�give�or�take�an�extra�bus�here�and�there.�This�is�out�of�step�with�what�the�Community�Strategy�says.�I�thought�that�the�LDF�was�supposed�to�be�essentially�the�Community�Strategy�interpreted�topographically.��
(d)�The�transport�LDF�is�out�of�step�with�what�the�Community�Strategy�wants�and�does�not�explain�why.�Therefore�the�transport�LDF�shouldt�be�judged�"Unjustified"�and�not�"Effective"�either.�
Proposed�Change:�
What�the�Transport�LDF�should�say��
(a)�The�LDF�should�commence�by�describing�the�MK�status�quo�which�seriously�discriminates�against�the�majority�of�its�citizens�and�gives�rise�to�too�much�pollution�and�that�this�situation�needs�to�change.�It�should�be�stated�that�as�planning�exists�to�benefit�everyone,�the�LDF�must�provide�non�discriminatory�city�wide�accessibility�and�no�longer�discriminate�against�any�social�category�particularly�those,�who�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 832 of 969
through�no�fault�of�their�own,�are�unable�own�a�car�and�drive�themselves.��
(b)�It�should�address�the�issue�of�growing�traffic�congestion.�This�is�a�theme�much�discussed�elsewhere�in�Council�papers�and�reports�where�conclusions�have�been�arrived�at�that�indicate�a�capacity�constraint�situation�emerging�in�due�course�that�will�oblige�MK�to�more�seriously�promote�the�use�of�public�transport.�None�of�this�gets�a�mention�within�the�LDF�which�suggests�a�highly�selective�approach�to�policy�making.��
(c)�It�should�say�that�it�will�now�set�Milton�Keynes�in�a�new�direction�that�will�contribute�to�it�significantly�reducing�its�transport�carbon�footprint�and�in�every�way�contribute�to�achieving�Government�Co2�reductions�nationally.�The�Transport�LDF�will�also�support�the�various�other�national�and�local�policies�including�MK's�own�Sustainable�Community�Strategy.�Central�to�this�is�the�setting�out�of�a�modal�split�for�movement.��
(d)�In�pursuit�of�greater�ecological�sustainability,�greater�social�equity�and�greater�document�clarity�the�LDF�should�declare�a�long�term�modal�split�in�favour�of�public�transport.�For,�say,�2040,�this�should�give�a�80%�to�20%�relationship�between�the�use�of�public�transport�(buses,�but�not�excluding�the�introduction�of�trams,�and�taxis).�This�gives�a�context�for�the�LDF�up�to�2026.�For�that�year�it�would�be�reasonable�to�secure�a�modal�split�of�40/34%�bus/car�for�the�journey�to�work�and�47/45%�bus/car�for�all�MK�trips.�The�rate�of�change�from�the�current�Para.�11.5�modal�split�to,�in�the�first�instance,�the�2026�goal,�expressed�in,�say,�5�year�intervals,�can�be�calculated.��
(e)�Should�secure�the�modal�transition�in�favour�of�public�transport�by�the�application�of�traffic�demand�management�measures�(alluded�to�within�the�LDF�but�not�elaborated�on).�The�most�obvious�opportunity�to�begin�the�process�of�modal�shifting�is�at�the�city�center�where�car�parking�charges�can�be�progressively�raised�(starting�with�the�elimination�of�all�free�public�spaces)�to�the�point�where�charges�cease�to�be�a�convenient�income�source�and�become�a�tool�for�transport�management.�In�due�course,�as�spaces�begin�not�to�be�used�because�of�their�cost,�they�can�be�surrendered�for�development�purposes�related�to�city�center�expansion.��
(f)�The�modal�transition�process�starts�with�city�center�and�can�then�'ripple�out'�to�benefit�the�rest�of�the�city.�This�is�pure�SITS�circa�1999�and�the�regret�is�that�a�period�of�10�years�has�lapsed�when�nothing�along�these�lines�has�been�initiated.�Indeed,�the�Council's�car�parking�charges,�in�real�terms,�are�lower�today�than�they�were�10�years�ago:�there�is�no�need�for�the�council�to�subsidise�the�motorist�and�the�private�sector�economy�in�general.��
(g)�The�LDF,�instead�of�claiming�that�it�'reflects'�SITS,�should�embrace�and�implement�it.�Without�doubt,�given�that�it�is�approaching�12�years�old,�SITS�deserves�a�review�and�given�an�extended�life�beyond�201.�This�is�work�that�should�have�been�undertaken�within�the�last�3�or�4�years.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
to�better�argue�the�basic�position�that�I�have�indicated�in�my�comments.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 833 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414614�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Christopher�Wayman�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckingham�Town�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP355�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.13�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Lack�of�consideration�of�the�traffic�flows�on�the�whole�of�the�A421�with�particular�reference�to�its�concentration�of�distribution�centres.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�increased�traffic�on�the�main�western�section�of�the�A421�west�of�MK,�which�is�the�main�route�from�Milton�Keynes�and�the�East/M1�to�M40/A34�Oxford,�Wales�and�the�West�Country�requires�dualling�and�traffic�flow�improvement�around�Buckingham.��
There�is�a�concentration�of�distribution�centres�along�the�A421�through�Milton�Keynes�from�J13/Ridgemnont�via�Kingston�in�the�east�and�Snellshall�to�the�west,�and�the�traffic�generation�is�only�getting�larger�with�more�employment�being�developed,�and�the�forthcoming�western�extension.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Members�feel�that�attendance�at�the�hearing�gives�them�the�opportunity�to�enlarge�on�their�response�in�light�of�other�submissions.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 834 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271774�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Joanna�Barker�
Consultee�Organisation:� Places�for�People�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 268966�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Robert�Purton�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP54�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
The�published�documentation�makes�no�reference�to�extant�planning�permissions�and�previously�adopted�site�specific�SPG�and�SPDs�for�both�Brooklands�and�Brook�Furlong.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�Eastern�Expansion�Area�benefits�from�a�partially�built�city�street.�It�would�be�in�appropriate�to�complete�the�primary�movement�tier�of�transport�in�this�designated�area�of�growth�with�sections�of�grid�roads�or�by�retrofitting�the�area�with�reserves�for�mass�transit�schemes�which�have�failed�to�be�provided�elsewhere�since�the�new�towns�inception�in�1967.���
�The�Eastern�Expansion�Area�has�been�specifically�designed�to�obviate�the�problems�of�noise�and�air�quality�from�the�M1�motorway.�The�provision�of�a�possible�Junction�13a�to�the�immediate�south�of�Brooklands�could�create�a�noise�and�or�air�quality�window�that�would�materially�harm�the�residential�amenity�of�future�residents�of�this�area.������
With�respect�to�the�Eastern�Expansion�Area�all�references�to�grid�roads,�mass�transit�reserves�and�Junction�13a�should�be�deleted�from�this�policy.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�issues�raised�in�this�series�of�representations�relate�to�the�delivery�of�the�Brooklands�scheme�which�already�benefits�from�an�allocation�n�the�extant�Local�Plan,�has�a�hybrid�planning�permission,�an�adopted�Development�Brief,�an�adopted�Design�Code�a�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 835 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 270442�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Alice�Crampin�
Consultee�Organisation:� CPRE�Bedfordshire�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP107�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
Object�strongly�to�Milton�Keynes�Council's�apparent�unilateral�prescriptions�for�transport�infrastructure�in�Bedfordshire.�A�new�junction�on�the�M1�(13a),�bridges�over�the�M1�and�a�possible�Park�and�Ride�facility�outside�Milton�Keynes�are�all�being�put�forward.����
There�has�been�no�consultation�on�these�proposals�in�the�Bedfordshire�areas�that�would�be�affected.�
Proposed�Change:�
These�suggestions�need�to�be�qualified,�by�making�them�subject�to�consultation�and�agreement�with�the�neighbouring�authority.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 836 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413791�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andy�Barton�
Consultee�Organisation:� Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP148�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
There�is�a�notable�lack�of�reference�in�this�entire�section�and�policy�to�the�support�of�delivery�of�East�West�Rail,�or�the�need�to�improve�road�connections�between�Aylesbury�and�MK,�or�recognise�that�developments�within�MK�will�need�to�contribute�to�these�subregional�connections.�
Proposed�Change:�
Inclusion�of�new�Paragraph�regarding�EW�rail�and�inclusion�within�the�policy�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 837 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272967�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Sheila�Keene�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Partnerships�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP273�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
The�reference�in�Policy�CS11�to�encouraging�greater�movement�by�cycling�and�walking�is�supported,�as�is�reference�to�the�Redway�network.�The�supporting�text�could�provide�further�detail�on�this�important�asset�and�explore�ways�in�which�it�can�be�developed�and/or�expanded�in�the�future�to�provide�a�safe�and�effective�network�to�serve�MK�and�the�growth�areas.�Future�use�of�the�Redways�will�also�have�wider�benefits�in�terms�of�health�and�well�being�and�as�such�links�could�be�made�within�the�Core�Strategy�to�policy�CS19.�The�inclusion�of�additional�text�about�the�Redways�will�increase�the�emphasis�on�their�expansion�and�upkeep�and�reinforce�their�importance�as�a�major�asset�of�MK,�linking�this�with�health�benefits�and�Policy�CS19.���
Paragraph�11.13�is�supported�insofar�as�it�makes�reference�to�the�MKSM�transport�strategy.�This�paragraph�could�be�expanded�to�acknowledge�more�specifically�the�transport�work�being�undertaken�within�MKSM�and�how�proposed�sub�regional�transport�improvements�may�influence�the�Core�Strategy.�This�suggested�change�acknowledges�that�transportation�improvements�also�rely�upon�regional�investment�and�decision�making�by�others,�including�government�and�the�South�East�England�Partnership�Board.�
Proposed�Change:�
See�answer�to�question�4�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 838 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414581�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andrew�Thomas�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Forum�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP329�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Comments�relate�to�paragraphs�11.2�to�11.9.��
There�is�a�complete�absence�of�an�evidence�based�long�term�transport�strategy�to�enable�achievement�of�Milton�Keynes'�projected�housing�and�employment�growth�to�2026.�The�Council�has�several�short�term�transport�related�strategies,�but�none�of�them�are�based�on�reliable�modelling�of�anticipated�increases�in�travel�movements�for�the�next�15�years�related�to�the�proposed�distribution�of�spatial�developments�proposed�in�the�Core�Strategy.�What�the�Core�Strategy�refers�to�in�paragraphs�11.2�to�11.9�are:����
a)�a�statement�of�policy�direction�from�1999,�‘A�Sustainable�Integrated�Transport�Strategy'.�It�is�questionable�whether�this�set�of�policies�continues�to�be�held�in�their�entirety�by�the�Council�and�in�any�case�the�Core�Strategy�does�not�fully�reflect�these;����
b)�a�‘Local�Transport�Plan'�(LTP2)�for�the�period�2006/07�2010/11,�which�is�entering�its�final�implementation�year�and�is�to�be�replaced�by�LTP3;����
c)�The�‘Milton�Keynes�Transport�Strategy�Review'�(reference�number�B20)�is�shown�in�Appendix�B�dated�as�2008,�though�the�correct�date�is�March�2007.�Precisely�the�same�document�first�appeared�on�the�Milton�Keynes�Council�website�in�2007,�dated�March�2007.�Neither�the�March�2007�nor�the�September�2008�Transport�Strategy�Review�has�ever�been�approved�as�Council�policy.�When�the�Council�formally�consulted�on�the�Review�in�autumn�2008�it�simply�gave�the�document�a�new�date�of�September�2008,�but�in�all�other�respects�the�two�documents�are�identical.����
d)�paragraph�11.3�refers�to�the�‘Transport�Strategy'�(December�2008),�but�this�does�not�appear�in�Appendix�B�‘Bibliography�and�Relevant�Documents',�which�lists�a�different�document,�the�‘Milton�Keynes�Transport�Strategy�Review'�2008�(reference�number�B20�and�one�beneath�it,�the�‘Milton�Keynes�Transport�Review�as�Milton�Keynes�Grows'�(reference�number�B21).�The�latter�appears�to�be�the�same�document�that�was�approved�by�the�MK�Council�Cabinet�on�16th�December�2008�under�the�title�‘Transport�Strategy',�but�that�title�has�been�changed�subsequently,�presumably�to�reflect�the�fact�that�it�is�not�really�a�strategy,�but�is�derived�from�a�review.�The�‘Transport�Strategy',�which�was�approved�by�the�Council's�Cabinet�in�December�2008,�is�a�seven�page�document�that�gives�a�four�page�summary�of�the�Transport�Review�followed�by�less�than�three�pages�of�‘Key�Strategy�Priorities'.�Appendix�B,�instead�of�providing�a�link�to�the�‘Transport�Strategy'�document�says,�"Available�for�viewing�in�hard�copy�only",�which�is�disturbing�given�the�apparently�important�status�given�to�it�by�the�Cabinet�as�the�Council's�transport�strategy.�However,�it�can�be�found�as�a�paper�on�the�Cabinet�agenda�for�16th�December�2008.�The�"Strategy�Priorities"�in�the�‘Transport�Strategy'�are�broad�statements�of�general�principle�that�are�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 839 of 969
unsubstantiated�and�not�applied�in�any�specific�way.�These�refer�to�two�other�strategies,�the�‘Bus�Strategy'�and�the�‘Parking�Strategy';����
e)�the�December�2008�‘Bus�Strategy'�is�a�short�term�strategy�related�to�LTP2,�so�is�about�to�enter�its�final�implementation�year;����
f)�a�‘Parking�Strategy�for�Central�Milton�Keynes'�(CMK)�2008,�which�lacks�evidence�on�current�and�future�parking�space�numbers�and�their�relationship�to�proposed�development�of�CMK;�and����
g)�various�other�strategies�such�as�one�for�walking.��
The�‘Parking�Strategy�for�Central�Milton�Keynes'�(page�9)�refers�to�"Absence�of�a�Transport�Model�for�CMK"�and�says�"...�there�is�not�currently�a�micro�simulation�model�for�Central�Milton�Keynes�and�until�one�is�available�(anticipated�for�Autumn�2009)�it�will�not�be�possible�to�test�scenarios�...";�and,�at�the�end�of�that�Strategy�says,�in�bold�,�"More�empirical�evidence�is�required�to�support�many�of�the�proposals."�.�At�the�time�of�the�consultation�on�the�Pre�Submission�version�of�the�Core�Strategy�(February�&�March�2010)�this�modelling�remains�unavailable.�These�statements�are�disturbing,�as�they�make�clear�that�the�policy�proposals�are�untested�and�that�there�is�a�lack�of�evidence�that�they�are�achievable.�It�also�suggests�that�evidence�is�seen�as�necessary�only�to�support�a�proposal�(a�post�hoc�rationalisation)�rather�than�to�shape�proposals�in�the�most�appropriate�form.�This�raises�the�wider�issue�of�city�wide�transport�modelling,�which�is�also�not�available.�In�the�light�of�these�facts,�it�is�clear�that�the�transportation�elements�of�the�Core�Strategy�are�largely�aspirational�summaries�of�national�guidance�applied�to�a�highly�distinctive�urban�form�without�any�adequate�evidence�base�to�know�whether�or�not�they�can�be�made�to�work.�It�is�reasonable�therefore�to�conclude�that�the�Core�Strategy's�proposed�distribution�and�scale�of�development�are�based�on�an�untested�and�uncertain�transport�policy�foundation.�This�raises�considerable�doubts�over�whether�the�Core�Strategy�is�achievable�in�its�present�form.��
Elsewhere�in�the�Core�Strategy,�paragraph�7.6�says�"The�Park�and�Ride�Strategy�(69)�sets�out�how�the�number�of�car�trips�into�the�city�centre�will�reduce�and�be�replaced�by�trips�by�bus"�.�When�one�consults�reference�number�69�it�becomes�clear�that�there�is�no�"Park�and�Ride�Strategy"�but�merely�four�paragraphs�discussing�the�merits�and�demerits�of�Park�&�Ride�and�the�Council's�current�support�for�one�Park�&�Ride�scheme,�pursuit�of�one�further�site�and,�"other�locations�have�been�suggested�but�do�not�yet�have�policy�backing."�.�We�understand�that�a�draft�of�a�park�and�ride�strategy�is�in�preparation.�However�this�had�not�been�completed�in�time�for�it�to�influence�the�shape�of�the�Core�Strategy.��
Volumes�of�peak�time�traffic�movements�relate�significantly�to�travel�to�work�numbers.�Elsewhere�in�the�Core�Strategy,�paragraph�5.20�"...�seeks�to�continue�the�current�employment�growth�rate�of�1.5�jobs�per�new�home"�,�thereby�requiring�about�70,000�new�jobs�by�2026.�However,�the�Council's�key�transport�documents�referred�to�as�a�basis�for�the�transport�policies�underlying�the�Core�Strategy,�were�based�on�one�job�per�new�home,�so�assume�significantly�fewer�journeys�to�work.�The�December�2008�‘Transport�Strategy'�is�based�on�the�March�2007�‘Transport�Strategy�Review':�both�of�these�assume�one�job�per�new�home�rather�that�the�1.5�which�forms�the�basis�of�the�Core�Strategy's�employment�figures.�Even�at�this�substantially�lower�employment�growth�rate�the�‘Transport�Strategy'�predicts�that�the�increase�in�travel�demand�(from�a�base�year�of�2001)�will�be�of�the�order�of�31%�by�2016�and�57%�by�2031,�but�that�it�will�be�only�practical�to�increase�the�overall�capacity�of�the�Milton�Keynes�grid�road�network�by�about�25%.�To�address�this�dilemma,�the�‘Transport�Strategy'�and�the�Review�that�preceded�it,�propose�a�further�programme�of�work�to�develop�an�overarching�transport�strategy�which�can�effectively�underpin�the�planned�growth�of�Milton�Keynes.�Much�of�this�further�work�is�incomplete�and,�in�many�instances,�has�not�even�been�started.����
In�view�of�the�substantially�incomplete�nature�of�the�transport�studies�available�to�the�Council,�it�is�not�possible�to�know�whether�the�transport�policies�implicit�in�the�Core�Strategy�are�capable�of�being�implemented.�This�also�suggests�that�the�Core�Strategy�is�led�by�housing�and�employment�projections�which�have�been�related�to�a�specific�set�of�spatial�development�proposals,�tested�in�terms�of�land�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 840 of 969
available�for�these�purposes,�but�without�a�parallel�set�of�transport�proposals�that�give�confidence�that�the�spatial�proposals�can�be�made�to�work�in�terms�of�movement�and�particularly�travel�to�work.�
Proposed�Change:�
In�the�absence�of�essential�transport�modelling�data�and�achievable�transport�plans�based�on�these,�it�is�difficult�to�know�what�changes�to�the�Core�Strategy�would�enable�it�to�be�sound.�The�evidence�base�is�lacking.�The�transport�policy�is�not�justified.�The�transport�choices�made�in�the�plan�are�not�backed�up�by�facts,�so�the�spatial�assumptions�lack�credibility�in�relation�to�their�transport�requirements.�In�this�respect�the�Core�Strategy�is�not�sound.�
Appear�at�Examination:� �
Reason�for�appearing:�
We�do�not�have�a�preference�for�participating�at�the�oral�examination�but�we�are�willing�to�do�so�at�the�discretion�of�the�Inspector,�subject�to�our�availability.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 841 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273046�
Consultee�Name:� � Gallagher�Estates�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gallagher�Estates�
Agent�ID:� � � 414811�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Greg�Mitchell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP431�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
CS11,�paragraph�11.13��
There�is�no�justification�or�evidence�base�that�supports�a�new�M1�J13a.�It�is�however�acknowledged�that�the�SE�SDA�should�include�provision�for�safeguarding�a�route�for�a�possible�crossing�of�the�M1.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�all�reference�to�M1�J13a�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�the�Core�Strategy�and�these�representations�is�properly�and�appropriately�examined.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 842 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273046�
Consultee�Name:� � Gallagher�Estates�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gallagher�Estates�
Agent�ID:� � � 414811�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Greg�Mitchell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP453�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
�8th�Bullet�Point��
The�proposal�to�deliver�new�Park�and�Ride�is�supported.�However,�the�policy�should�be�amended�to�make�specific�reference�to�the�Park�and�Ride�site�that�is�shown�on�the�Key�Diagram�(Figure�5.2)�located�on�the�A4146�at�the�edge�of�the�administrative�boundary�between�Milton�Keynes�and�Aylesbury�Vale�DC.�
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�Policy�CS11�(8�th�Bullet�Point)�to�make�specific�reference�to�the�Park�and�Ride�site�that�is�shown�on�the�Key�Diagram�(Figure�5.2)�located�on�the�A4146�at�the�edge�of�the�administrative�boundary�between�Milton�Keynes�and�Aylesbury�Vale�DC.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�the�Core�Strategy�and�these�representations�is�properly�and�appropriately�examined.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 843 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272020�
Consultee�Name:� � Gazeley�UK�Ltd�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gazeley�UK�Limited�
Agent�ID:� � � 415084�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Joseph�Thomas�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP499�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
PPS12�is�clear�that�for�a�DPD�to�be�deemed�sound�it�is�important�that�the�delivery�partners�and�key�stakeholders�are�signed�up�to�the�strategy.��
These�representations�are�made�on�behalf�of�Gazeley�UK�Ltd�and�its�partner�Land�Securities�as�key�stakeholders�in�Milton�Keynes�with�land�control�interests�in�the�strategically�important�employment�locations�within�the�eastern�expansion�area,�namely�Magna�Park�and�the�Glebe�Land.��The�design�principles�for�these�sites�that�includes�the�extension�of�city�streets�have�been�shaped�by�working�closely�with�Milton�Keynes�Partnership�(MKP)�and�are�now�firmly�set�within�planning�instruments�such�as�the�Eastern�Expansion�Area�Development�Framework,�detailed�design�codes�and�development�briefs�and�planning�consents.��These�provisions�cannot�be�reversed�unless�planning�permissions�are�revoked.��
We�disagree�therefore�with�the�Council's�blanket�approach�set�out�in�Policy�CS11�to�extend�the�city's�grid�road�network�into�new�development�areas�as�it�does�not�reflect�an�'effective'�strategy�with�key�stakeholder�support.��It�would�also�create�a�confused�approach�to�the�design�of�the�street�network�within�areas�of�the�eastern�expansion�area�already�with�planning�consents�which�have�begun�to�build�out�the�city�streets�as�part�of�their�planning�consents.�
Proposed�Change:�
We�believe�that�the�first�bullet�point�for�Policy�CS11�be�amended�to�reflect�key�design�principles�agreed�between�MKP�and�Gazeley�UK�Ltd�regarding�the�street�network�and�set�out�in�planning�consents�for�the�eastern�expansion�area�that�includes�Magna�Park�and�Glebe�Land.��As�such�we�would�recommend�that�the�first�bullet�point�be�reworded�as�follows:��
"With�the�exception�of�those�areas�where�planning�permission�has�been�granted�for�the�extension�of�city�streets,�maintaining�and�future�proofing�the�city's�grid�road�network�and�extending�it�into�new�development�areas�whilst�safeguarding�the�corridors�for�possible�mass�transit�schemes."�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�the�appropriate�empircal�evidence�base�is�considered.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 844 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP502�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
The�Consortium�is�broadly�in�agreement�with�the�objectives�and�measures�defined�in�Policy�CS11.�However,�the�Consortium�is�concerned�that�the�creation�of�a�new�Junction�13a�is�not�consistent�with�these�objectives.�Whilst�the�evidence�base�for�dualling�of�the�A421�and�for�park�and�ride�is�robust,�there�is�inadequate�evidence�to�justify�the�case�for�a�new�junction�on�the�motorway.�The�capacity�of�the�present�M1�Junction�13�was�examined�during�the�inquiry�into�the�present�improvements.�The�inspector�confirmed�that�the�redesigned�junction�could�accommodate�planned�growth�and�those�improvements�are�now�being�implemented.�In�light�of�the�capacity�that�exists�at�M1�Junction�13�(once�completed)�there�is�no�case�for�introducing�a�further�junction�on�this�section�of�the�M1.�The�Highways�Agency�has�confirmed�this�position�and�has�consistently�objected�to�proposals�for�Junction�13A.�It�should�not�therefore�be�a�requirement�of�Policy�CS11�that�a�new�Junction�13a�be�created�on�the�M1�Motorway.��
Proposed�Change:�
Policy�CS11�bulletpoint�7�to�be�amended�by�deleting�reference�to�a�new�Junction�13�a.��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Consortium�has�a�particular�interest�in�the�formulation�of�the�Core�Strategy,�given�the�key�development�proposals�to�the�South�East�of�Milton�Keynes.�The�Consortium�therefore�wishes�to�be�allowed�to�represent�its�interest�at�the�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 845 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413884�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Shapley�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckinghamshire�County�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP567�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�11�A�Well�Connected�Milton�Keynes�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Policy�CS�11�(p77)���"Maintaining...�the�city's�grid�road�network�and�extending�it�into�new�development�areas..."�and�"...extending�the�redways�network�throughout�major�new�development�areas"�.�By�the�Council's�own�admission,�grid�roads�do�not�provide�for�the�most�sustainable�modes�of�travel,�and�paragraph�11.5�concedes�that�the�private�car�(or�"successor�powered�personal�vehicles"�)�will�"...�remain�a�significant�mode�of�transport�in�Milton�Keynes.�This�stems�from�the�city�layout,�resulting�in�higher�car�ownership�levels�in�Milton�Keynes�than�the�national�rate..."�It�is�unjustifiable�to�attempt�to�impose�a�layout�that�promotes�car�use�over�and�above�more�sustainable�forms�of�transport,�and�it�is�difficult�to�see�how�this�would�help�to�reduce�the�Borough's�carbon�footprint�(a�core�element�of�this�policy),�thus�it�is�also�ineffective.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�text�needs�amending�so�as�grids�roads�are�not�promoted�outside�Milton�Keynes'�boundary,�and�justification�for�promotion�of�the�grid�road�system�in�terms�of�sustainability�needs�to�be�provided,�if�available.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
So�as�the�County�Council�(as�principal�authority�for�the�SW�SDA)�can�expand�upon�its�concerns�above.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 846 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414637�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Iain�Sear�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP425�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.15�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
The�current�transport�plans�LTP2�and�MKP�LIP�do�not�address�how�the�transport�challenged�of�MK�will�be�resolved.�They�detail�minor�(percentage�wise)�modal�shift�to�public�transport�and�therefore�do�achieve�thier�required�goals�of�either�meeting�national�policy�or�meeting�the�prime�requirement�of�meeting�MK�transport�requirements.��
The�most�costly�expenditure�listed�is�unlikely�to�be�feasible�given�current�rates�of�progress...��the�east�west�rail�link�a�multi�million�pound�investment�(210m�GBP).�Have�other�alternative�forms�of�public�transport�been�considered.�i.e.�guided�coach�way.�The�current�speed�of�the�Bletchley�to�Bedford�train�service�is�slower�than�the�same�route�taken�in�a�bus!��
Some�examples�of�more�effective�policy�would�be:��
�A�mass�transit�system�(e.g.guided�busses�along�grid�roads)��
�By�passes�to�villages�into�MK�(e.g.�hanslope)��
�Additional�M1�North�MK�junction�and�newport�bypass�to�reduce�congestion�in�newport�pagnell.��
�Fly�over�at�M1�Junction�14�to�improve�Junction�traffic�flow.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�scale�of�the�pajor�proposals�will�not�meet�the�problems.�They�should�be�augmented�with�projects�that�address�the�key�problem�areas�directly.�e.g.��
Newport�Pagnell�Congestion�would�be�best�addressed�with�a�new�M1�junction�to�the�north�of�NP�Services,�land�should�be�reserved�for�this�and�a�link�road�to�by�pass�the�new�developments�linking�into�the�grid�system.��
Proposal���Roads�that�are�"Grid�Like"�and�serve�as�a�grid�road�but�are�not�actually�grid�roads�have�suffer�speed�restrictions�and�also�have�limited�the�future�growth�of�the�city.�i.e.��Wolverton/Newport�Roads.�Broughton�M1�Kingston�road.�These�should�be�protected�to�prevent��further�restrictions�and�limitations�on�growth.��
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 847 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP632�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.18�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Reference�should�not�be�to�a�'Development�Framework�for�the�South�West�SDA'�but�'AVDC's�Masterplan�&�Delivery�SPD'�
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�the�final�sentence�to�read�'Additional�Park�and�Ride�facilities�will�be�planned�as�part�of�the�work�on�the�Development�Framework�for�the�South�East�and�AVDC's�Masterplan�&�Delivery�SPD�for�the�South�West�SDA'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 848 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413791�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andy�Barton�
Consultee�Organisation:� Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP151�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�11.23�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Paragraph�needs�to�include�references�to�working�with�adjoining�planning�and�transport�authorities.�
Proposed�Change:�
Paragraph�needs�to�include�references�to�working�with�adjoining�planning�and�transport�authorities.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 849 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP246�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.3�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�may�not�legitimately�seek�to�achieve�higher�than�national�minimum�standards�for�the�construction�of�new�homes�or�other�buildings�as�proposed�in�the�third�sentence�of�this�paragraph.�The�justification�that�is�provided�in�the�final�sentence�is�at�best�partial,�new�homes�and�buildings�will�be�built�to�considerably�higher�standards�than�the�existing�building�stock�in�Milton�Keynes�and�to�which�the�Council�might�more�effectively�divert�their�attention�in�terms�of�improvements�that�will�serve�to�reduce�climate�change�impacts�
Proposed�Change:�
Replace�the�words�'designed�to�the�highesst�possible�viable�standards�to�minimise�their�environmental�impacts'�with�'built�to�national�minimum�standards�of�sustainable�construction'.�Delete�the�final�sentence.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 850 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP413�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.3�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�may�not�leitimately�seek�to�achieve�higher�than�national�minimum�standards�for�the�construction�of�new�homes�or�other�buildings�as�proposed�in�the�third�sentence�of�this�paragraph.��The�justification�that�is�provided�in�the�final�sentence�is�at�best�partial,�new�homes�and�buildings�will�be�built�to�considerably�higher�standardsthan�the�existing�building�stock�in�Milton�Keynes�and�to�which�the�Council�might�more�effectively�divert�their�attention�in�terms�of�improvements�that�will�serve�to�reduce�climate�change�impacts.�
Proposed�Change:�
Replace�the�words�'designed�to�the�highest�possible�viable�standards�to�minimise�their�environmental�impacts'�with�'built�to�national�minimum�standards�of�sustainable�construction'.�Delete�the�final�sentence.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 851 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271774�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Joanna�Barker�
Consultee�Organisation:� Places�for�People�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 268966�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Robert�Purton�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP53�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�12�Developing�Successful�Neighbourhoods�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�published�documentation�makes�no�reference�to�extant�planning�permissions�and�previously�adopted�site�specific�SPG�and�SPDs�for�Brooklands�and�Brook�Furlong.����
Insufficient�justification�has�been�provided�for�the�variation�in�published�national�objectives�and�standards.�
Proposed�Change:�
No�definition�is�given�to�as�to�what�are�‘noisy'�uses.����
The�Eastern�Expansion�Area�includes�areas�of�mixed�use�that�have�permitted�mixes�of�B2,�B8�and�C3�areas�in�order�to�create�a�vibrant�place.�Instead�of�seeking�to�avoid�the�creation�of�such�areas�the�text�should�seek�to�include�references�to�Building�Regulations�and�WHO�standards�for�acceptable�living�conditions�as�without�an�empirical�justification�the�Council�is�seeking�to�set�standards�which�are�different�from�nationally�researched�guidelines.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�issues�raised�in�this�series�of�representations�relate�to�the�delivery�of�the�Brooklands�scheme�which�already�benefits�from�an�allocation�n�the�extant�Local�Plan,�has�a�hybrid�planning�permission,�an�adopted�Development�Brief,�an�adopted�Design�Code�a�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 852 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272967�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Sheila�Keene�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Partnerships�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP275�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�12�Developing�Successful�Neighbourhoods�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
MKP�supports�the�criteria�of�Policy�CS12�and�proposes�two�minor�changes�to�reflect�the�importance�of�social�inclusion,�as�set�out�within�national�planning�policy�(PPS�1).�Local�economic�development�is�an�important�component�of�successful�communities�and,�as�such�it�is�requested�that�two�additional�criteria�be�added�to�acknowledge:��
� The�importance�of�social�inclusion�within�new�neighbourhoods,�a�key�theme�and�policy�objective�within�PPS�1;�and��
� Encourage�appropriate�small�scale�employment�uses�within�neighbourhoods�which�can�make�a�positive�contribution�towards�place�making�and�creating�successful�communities.�
Proposed�Change:�
See�answer�to�question�4�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 853 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413791�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andy�Barton�
Consultee�Organisation:� Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP152�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.12�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
The�statement�seeks�to�control�factors�outside�of�the�legal�remit�of�the�MK�Core�Strategy,�as�it�is�regarding�development�outside�of�its�legal�coverage.�
Proposed�Change:�
Deletion�of�first�sentence�of�Paragraph.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 854 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271774�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Joanna�Barker�
Consultee�Organisation:� Places�for�People�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 268966�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Robert�Purton�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP52�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�13�Ensuring�High�Quality,�Well�Designed�Places�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�published�documentation�makes�no�reference�to�extant�planning�permissions�and�previously�adopted�site�specific�SPG�and�SPDs�for�Brooklands�and�Brook�Furlong.����
Insufficient�justification�has�been�provided�for�the�variation�in�published�national�objectives�and�standards.�
Proposed�Change:�
High�quality�well�designed�places�are�encouraged.�However,�not�all�such�places�need�to�be�‘contemporary',�‘innovative'�or�offer�‘exemplar�architecture'.��
No�definition�is�given�to�as�to�what�these�phrases�mean�or�to�the�values�that�could�obtained�by�reflecting�vernacular�architectural�geometry,�proportions�and�styles�in�appropriate�instances.����
The�consideration�of�maximising�solar�performance�should�not�be�at�the�expense�of�other�factors,�in�the�creation�of�a�successful�place,�such�as�security.����
The�Council's�car�parking�standards�do�not�accept�that�garages�can�be�considered�as�part�of�a�private�car�parking�solution.�Sadly,�this�frequently�leads�to�a�car�dominated�environment.����
The�provision�of�unlit�Redways�in�an�entirely�landscaped�setting�can�cause�problems�of�isolation,�poor�legibility�and�issues�relating�to�a�lack�of�surveillance�in�creating�a�safe�sense�of�place.�All�of�which�can�lead�to�Redways�being�underused�by�cyclists.����
A�more�balanced�approach�should�be�provided�rather�than�demanding�that�each�bullet�point�will�be�delivered.�For�example�in�Conservation�Area�or�where�master�planning�decisions�have�already�been�made�then�this�policy�would�be�more�meaningful�if�it�related�to�the�national�requirements�of�the�Design�and�Access�Statement�regulations.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�issues�raised�in�this�series�of�representations�relate�to�the�delivery�of�the�Brooklands�scheme�which�already�benefits�from�an�allocation�n�the�extant�Local�Plan,�has�a�hybrid�planning�permission,�an�adopted�Development�Brief,�an�adopted�Design�Code�a�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 855 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272967�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Sheila�Keene�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Partnerships�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP277�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.19�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
Relates�to�para�12.19��12.23.�The�supporting�text�of�Chapter�12�(Tackling�Climate�Change�&�Building�Sustainable�Communities)�should�include�reference�to�the�range�of�initiatives�being�undertaken�as�part�of�the�Low�Carbon�Living�Project.�This�project�has�been�mentioned�in�our�comments�on�Objective�10�and�brings�together�a�number�of�initiatives�including:�resident�engagement�and�learning,�the�Low�Carbon�MK�Prospectus;�the�Electric�Vehicle�Trial;�Low�Carbon�Networks�(Smart�Grids);�Anaerobic�Digestion�Plant�and�Gas�Scrubber;�The�"Concerto"�Project;�Housing�Demonstrator�(Homeworld�2);�and�research.���
Whilst�some�of�the�initiatives�do�not�require�support�from�planning�policy�and�some�are�already�referenced�(Concerto�is�mentioned�in�paragraph�12.29),�others�may�benefit�from�referencing�within�the�Core�Strategy.�For�example,�MKC�could�consider�including�support�for�the�Homeworld�2�project.�This�is�intended�to�trial�between�100�200�house�types�on�a�site�within�MK�together�with�smart�grid�technologies�and�study�how�residents�adapt�and�live�in�these�environments.�This�will�be�led�by�MKP�together�with�MKC.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�proposed�changes�are�intended�to�enable�the�policy�to�reflect�an�important�low�carbon�initiative�project�where�there�are�direct�spatial�implications�(and�where�CS�policy�support�would�assist�in�future�delivery).�It�is�suggested�that�a�new�paragraph�be�inserted�into�the�introductory�section�of�this�chapter,�making�reference�to�the�Low�Carbon�Living�Project�(as�set�out�about�in�Question�4).�The�individual�initiatives�could�also�be�referenced�within�the�relevant�delivery�sections�of�some�chapters�ie.�Smart�Grids�and�Electric�Cars�in�Chapter�11�(including�providing�further�detail�in�paragraph�11.10).�Other�initiatives�could�be�included�in�Chapter�12.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 856 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP261�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.22�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
We�object�to�the�assertion�that�there�are�'significant�opportunities�in�the�SDAs�for�an�area�wide�approach�to�low�or�zero�carbon�development...'�which�is�unsubstantiated�by�the�available�evidence�base.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�'low�or�zero�carbon�development'�from�paragraph�12.22�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 857 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271774�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Joanna�Barker�
Consultee�Organisation:� Places�for�People�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 268966�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Robert�Purton�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP49�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�published�documentation�makes�no�reference�to�extant�planning�permissions�and�previously�adopted�site�specific�SPG�and�SPDs�for�both�Brooklands�and�Brook�Furlong.����
Insufficient�justification�has�been�provided�for�the�variation�in�published�national�objectives�and�standards�
Proposed�Change:�
Nationally�recognised�standards�relating�to�sustainability�do�not�provide�different�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�or�BREEAM�requirements�based�simply�on�the�location�of�developments.�This�unjustified�sub�division�of�national�advice�is�without�any�rationale�justification�or�empirical�evidence.����
There�is�no�nationally�recognised�measurement�of�zero�carbon�or�carbon�neutrality.�Consequently,�to�draft�a�policy�that�seeks�to�exceed�national�standards���where�they�do�exist���without�any�empirical�evidence�is�meaningless.����
Equally,�to�seek�contributions�towards�an�unspecified,�justified�or�regulated�carbon�off�set�fund�is�unreasonable�and�as�such�is�contrary�to�best�practice�advice.����
The�policy�should�be�less�prescriptive�and�relate�closely�to�national�guidance.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�issues�raised�in�this�series�of�representations�relate�to�the�delivery�of�the�Brooklands�scheme�which�already�benefits�from�an�allocation�n�the�extant�Local�Plan,�has�a�hybrid�planning�permission,�an�adopted�Development�Brief,�an�adopted�Design�Code�a�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 858 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413886�
Consultee�Name:� � Persimmon�
Consultee�Organisation:� Persimmon�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 413885�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Stephen�Bawtree�
Agent�Organisation:� � Pegasus�Planning�Group�
Representation�ID:� � PSP172�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
By�seeking�to�apply�Code�Level�4�to�new�development�across�the�City,�the�Core�Strategy�pre�empts�the�application�of�national�standards�through�Building�Regulations.��
Whilst�Persimmon�Homes�welcome�the�phased�approach�to�introducing�sustainable�construction,�the�roll�out�of�these�standards�should�be�on�a�considered,�national�basis�rather�than�sporadically�in�an�uncoordinated�and�haphazard�manner�through�individual�Core�Strategies�
Proposed�Change:�
To�either�delete�Policy�CS14�or�to�amend�Policy�CS14�to�note�that�national�standards�will�be�applied�and�that�applicants�must�deomstrate�that�such�standards�have�been�met.�Whilst�it�is�acceptable�to�encourage�improved�standards�of�sustainable�construction,�if�this�is�national�then�Policy�CS14�should�allow�an�appropriate�discount�of�the�tariff�rate�in�recognition�of�the�additional�costs�to�achieve�a�higher�Code�level.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
For�the�Inspector�to�be�able�to�examine�and�debate�the�need�for�and�merits�of�additional�site�allocations�to�provide�a�flexible,�robust�and�deliverable�Core�Strategy�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 859 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP237�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�policy�is�poorly�drafted;�it�needs�to�set�out�clearly�the�baseline�against�which�development�is�expected�to�acheive�any�reduction�in�what�are�presumably�carbon�dioxide�emissions.��These�matters�are,�in�our�view,�legitimately�and�more�appropriately�addressed�throguh�national�standards�of�sustainable�construction,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�Part�B�from�Policy�CS14�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 860 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP244�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�may�not�legitimately�seek�to�achieve�higher�than�national�minimum�standards�for�the�construction�of�new�homes�or�other�buildings.�There�matters�are,�in�our�view,�legitimately�and�more�appropriately�addressed�through�national�standards�of�sustainable�construction,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations.�There�is�no�justification�or�evidence�base�supporting�the�starting�threshold�for�applications�of�the�thresholds�
Proposed�Change:�
Replace�text�and�table�with�the�following�words,�'The�Council�will�expect�development�to�meet�national�minimum�standards�of�sustainable�construction�of�new�buildings�including�homes.�However,�where�appropriate�and�viable,�it�will�encourage�developers�to�exceed�recognised�national�standards�(e.g.�as�measured�against�the�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�and�the�Building�Research�Establishment�Environmental�Assessment�Method)'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 861 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414470�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Consultee�Organisation:� DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP270�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�may�not�legitimately�seek�to�achieve�higher�than�national�minimum�standards�for�the�construction�of�new�homes�or�other�buildings.��These�matters�are,�in�our�view,�legitimately�and�more�appropriately�addressed�through�national�standards�of�sustainable�construction,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations.��There�is�no�justification�or�evidence�base�supporting�the�starting�threshold�for�the�application�of�the�thresholds.�
Proposed�Change:�
Replace�text�and�table�with�following�words,�'The�Council�will�expect�development�to�meet�national�minimum�standards�of�sustainable�construction�of�new�buildings�including�homes.��However,�where�appropriate�and�viable,�it�will�encourage�developers�to�exceed�recognised�national�standards�(e.g.�as�measured�against�the�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�and�the�Building�Research�Establishment�Environmental�Assessment�Method)'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�express�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 862 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP335�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�requirement�for�a�contribution�into�the�Milton�Keynes�Carbon�Offset�Fund�does�not�comply�with�the�principles�for�Circular�5/2005�guidance�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�the�final�sentence�of�Policy�CS14�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 863 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272985�
Consultee�Name:� � O+H�Properties�Ltd�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268933�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Will�Cobley�
Agent�Organisation:� � Terence�O'Rourke�
Representation�ID:� � PSP348�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Policy�CS14�rebuires�new�developments�over�5�dwellings�or�1,000sbm�commercial�floor�space�to�achieve�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�level�4,�BREEAM�of�very�good�or�Excellent�and�either�a�10f%or�20%�reduction�in�carbon�dioxide�emissions�through�the�use�of�renewable�energy�or�low�carbon�technologies.�These�categories�of�development�will�also�be�expected�to�make�contributions�towards�Milton�Keynes�Carbon�Offset�Fund.��
Policy�CC4�7Sustainable�Design�and�Construction�in�the�South�East�Plan�acknowledges�that�there�will�be�situations�where�it�could�be�appropriate�for�local�planning�authorities�to�anticipate�levels�of�building�sustainability�in�advance�of�those�set�out�nationally,�however�in�such�cases�the�policy�goes�on�to�stress�that�the�local�authority�must�be�able�to�demonstrate�clearly�the�local�circumstances�that�warrant�and�allow�this�and�set�them�out�in�the�development�plan�documents.�It�is�not�considered�that�the�Council�has�met�this�test�within�the�Core�Strategy�and�there�is�concern�that�overly�prescriptive�environmental�requirements�within�the�Core�Strategy�could�jeopodise�the�viability�and�delivery�of�development,�particularly�within�the�SDA.��
In�this�context�and�having�regard�to�the�economic�downturn,�it�is�considered�that�the�text�should�apply�a�more�flexible�approach,�in�which�the�aims�of�achieving�the�highest�standards�of�sustainable�construction�are�subject�to�detailed�assessment�at�the�application�stage,�to�ensure�their�viability�and�feasibility�within�the�particular�development.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�Council�needs�to�clearly�set�out�why�sustainable�construction�levels�above�national�requirements�are�justified�for�inclusion�within�policy�CS�14.�In�the�absence�of�such�justification,�the�policy�should�only�refer�to�higher�targets�as�an�aspiration,�not�a�mandatory�requirement.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 864 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP404�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Policy�CS14�B��
The�policy�is�poorly�drafted;�it�needs�to�set�out�clearly�the�baseline�against�which�development�is�expected�to�achieve�any�reduction�in�what�are�presumably�carbon�dioxide�emissions.��These�matters�are,�in�our�view,�legitimately�and�more�appropriately�addressed�trough�national�standards�of�sustainable�construction,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�Part�B�from�Policy�CS14.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 865 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP407�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�absence�of�appropriate�justification,�the�Council�may�not�legitimately�seek�to�achieve�higher�than�national�minimum�standards�for�the�construction�of�new�homes�or�other�buildings.��These�matters�are,�in�our�view,�legitimately�and�more�appropriately�addressed�through�national�standards�of�sustainable�construction,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations.��There�is�no�justification�or�evidence�base�supporting�the�starting�threshold�for�application�of�the�thresholds.�
Proposed�Change:�
Replace�text�and�table�with�the�following�words,�'The�Council�will�expect�development�to�meet�national�and�minimum�standards�of�sustainable�construction�of�new�buildings�including�homes.��However,�where�appropriate�and�viable,�it�will�encourage�developers�to�exceed�recognised�national�standards�(e.g.�as�measured�against�the�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�and�the�Building�Research�Establishment�Environmental�Assessment�Method)'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 866 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273046�
Consultee�Name:� � Gallagher�Estates�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gallagher�Estates�
Agent�ID:� � � 414811�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Greg�Mitchell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP429�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
CS14�and�CS15,�paragraphs�12.19�12.31��
Concern�is�raised�about�the�evidence�base�that�underlies�Policies�CS�14�and�15.�Self�evidently�there�are�issues�associated�with�compliance�with�the�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�that�will�require�further�examination�at�the�stage�at�which�a�‘future�DPD'�is�prepared.�We�have�made�other�representations�to�the�lack�of�any�justification�for�seeking�to�impose�ecotown�standards�in�the�SDAs.�In�this�context�we�have�great�concern�about�the�implications�of�Policy�CS�15�that�will�seek�to�promote�the�use�of�Community�Energy�Networks.�The�evidence�base�to�support�CS15�lacks�substance�and�it�is�not�sufficient�merely�to�defer�consideration�of�the�detail�to�a�later�stage�through�the�preparation�of�a�DPD.��
Our�preference�would�be�for�the�CS�to�concentrate�on�the�delivery�of�appropriate�levels�of�sustainable�construction�and�not�be�distracted�by�Community�Energy�Networks�that�are�only�one�element�of�the�sustainable�construction�process.�Sustainable�Construction�technologies�are�developing�rapidly�and�the�Core�Strategy�should�concentrate�on�one�element�at�this�stage�that�may�not�prove�to�be�feasible�at�the�local�level.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�Policy�CS�15�and�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�Policy�CS�14�is�as�robust�as�possible.
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�the�Core�Strategy�and�these�representations�is�properly�and�appropriately�examined.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 867 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP503�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
Whilst�the�Consortium�is�broadly�supportive�of�the�objective�of�achieving�more�sustainable�design�in�buildings,�it�is�essential�that�these�measures�are�technically�feasible�and�financially�viable.�The�extreme�variability�in�the�residential�and�commercial�markets�in�recent�times�means�that�the�test�of�viability�is�particularly�relevant.�The�PPS�1Supplement�‘Planning�and�Climate�Change'�at�paragraph�33�states:��
‘Any�policy�relating�to�local�requirements�for�decentralised�energy�supply�to�new�development�or�for�sustainable�buildings�should�be�set�out�in�a�DPD,�not�a�supplementary�planning�document,�so�as�to�ensure�examination�by�an�independent�Inspector.�In�doing�so,�planning�authorities�should:��
��ensure�what�is�proposed�is�evidence�based�and�viable,�having�regard�to�the�overall�costs�of�bringing�sites�to�the�market�(including�the�costs�of�any�necessary�supporting�infrastructure)�and�the�need�to�avoid�any�adverse�impact�on�the�development�needs�of�communities;����
The�Consortium�also�notes�that�the�Impetus�report�acknowledges�a�lack�of�evidence�in�relation�to�the�combined�costs�of�the�approach�defined�in�Policy�CS14�as�follows:��
‘Unfortunately�there�is�no�data�that�provides�additional�cost�estimates�for�both�the�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�and�aMerton�Rule'�requirement�or�BREEAM�and�a�‘Merton�Rule'�requirement'.���
In�addition,�the�Council�has�not�addressed�the�specific�concerns�about�the�policies�raised�by�developers�during�stakeholder�consultation�and�which�the�Impetus�report�recommends�should�be�addressed�as�part�of�supporting�guidance�alongside�the�policy�i.e.�the�role�of�off�site�renewable�energy�and�increased�costs.��
The�standards�proposed�in�Policy�CS14�for�the�SESDA�are�also�premature�in�advance�of�the�more�detailed�site�planning�work�being�undertaken�for�the�Development�Framework.��
In�light�of�the�above,�the�Consortium�considers�that�the�evidence�base�in�support�of�Policy�CS14�is�not�sufficiently�robust�to�support�the�very�prescriptive�approach�set�out�in�the�policy.�The�policy�should�therefore�be�reworded�to�explicitly�allow�flexibility�as�well�as�cost�reduction�measures�if�the�policy�requirement�is�applied.��
Proposed�Change:�
Policy�CS14�be�amended�to�allow�flexibility�in�the�application�of�the�policy,�for�example�by�stating�that�the�targets�are�aspirational�rather�than�prescriptive,�with�reference�to�‘at�least'�being�deleted.�One�way�to�achieve�this�is�for�the�policy�tobe�worded�to�‘�encourage�'�rather�than�require�these�measures.�Furthermore,�there�should�be�acknowledgement,�as�in�the�Impetus�report,�that�the�costs�of�imposing�the�sustainable�design�objectives�may�be�offset�by�a�reduction�in�other�costlypolicy�requirements,�such�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 868 of 969
as�affordable�housing.��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Consortium�has�a�particular�interest�in�the�formulation�of�the�Core�Strategy,�given�the�key�development�proposals�to�the�South�East�of�Milton�Keynes.�The�Consortium�therefore�wishes�to�be�allowed�to�represent�its�interest�at�the�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 869 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 415560�
Consultee�Name:� � Joint�Owners�of�thecentre:mk�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268946�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Sid�Hadjioannou�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP584�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Policy�CS14�increases�sustainable�construction�targets�over�and�above�existing�adopted�Local�Plan�requirements�for�developments�of�over�5�dwellings�or�1,000�sq�m�of�non�residential�floorspace�now�requiring�such�developments�within�CMK�to�achieve:����
� Code�Level�4�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes;��
� BREEAM�excellent;��
� 20%�CO2�reduction�through�renewable�energy�and/or�low�carbon�technologies;�and��
� Make�a�contribution�to�the�Milton�Keynes�Carbon�Offset�fund.���
In�respect�of�the�MK�carbon�offset�fund,�the�Sustainability�Checklist�(Non�Housing�Developments)�at�page�5�of�the�current�Milton�Keynes�Sustainable�Construction�(April�2007)�SPD�states�that�this�is�N/A�for�developments�which�achieve�a�20%���50%�reduction�in�CO2�from�on�site�renewable�energy�sources.�Policy�D4�within�the�Local�Plan�currently�provides�flexibility�in�complying�with�this�policy�whereby�a�strong�emphasis�on�one�element�e.g.�renewable�energy,�may�result�in�relaxing�another.�Moreover,�the�SPD�states�that�compliance�with�either�Eco�Homes�or�BREEAM�(Excellent)�will�satisfy�all�the�policy�requirements,�except�for�carbon�neutrality.��
Whilst�we�support�energy�efficient�designs,�in�order�to�create�carbon�zero�communities,�and�in�particular�that�the�Council�recognises�that�the�delivery�of�renewable�must�be�viable,�Policy�CS14�should�not�place�an�undue�additional�burden�on�developers�through�unreasonable�requirements.�Policy�CS14�should�take�into�account�the�levels�achieved�in�terms�of�the�Sustainable�Homes�ratings,�BREEAM�etc�and�as�such,�should�follow�the�existing�requirements.��
As�currently�worded,�schemes�will�be�expected�to�achieve�either�Very�Good�or�Excellent�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�and/or�BREEAM�and�a�minimum�low�carbon�dioxide�through�renewable�energy�and/or�low�carbon�technologies�and�provide�a�contribution�into�the�MK�Carbon�Offset�Fund.�This�approach�will�place�an�additional�burden�on�the�viability�of�schemes.��
Furthermore,�Policy�CS14�requires�developments�of�over�5�dwellings�or�1,000�sq�m�of�non�residential�floorspace�will�be�expected�to�achieve:��
"at�least�the�following�standards,�or�any�new�standards�set�out�in�a�future�DPD,�unless�the�Local�Planning�Authority�is�satisfied�that�the�application�demonstrates�the�requirements�would�not�be�technically�or�financially�viable."��
The�policy�does�not�however�set�out�the�criteria�by�which�a�development�would�not�be�technically�or�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 870 of 969
financially�viable,�and�as�such,�it�is�considered�that�for�certainty�the�existing�Policy�D4�(adopted�Local�Plan)�and�SPD�should�be�proposed.�
Proposed�Change:�
We�recommend�that�the�wording�of�the�first�paragraph�of�Policy�CS7�is�amended�to�read:��
"To�achieve�the�Council's�objective�of�carbon�neutrality,�all�new�developments�of�over�5�dwellings�or�1,000�sq�m�of�non�residential�floorspace�will�be�expected�to�achieve�either�the�following�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes/BREEAM�standards�at�A�or�the�renewable�energy/low�carbon�technologies�standards�at�B..."��
We�recommend�that�the�wording�of�the�first�paragraph�in�Policy�CS14�also�sets�out�the�criteria�by�which�a�development�would�not�be�technically�of�financially�viable�to�meet�the�identified�Sustainable�Construction�standards.��
We�recommend�that�the�table�be�amended�as�follows:������
�
�
�� Area� Older�Town�Centres�&�CMK�
City�estates,�including�CMK�New�Developments�
Strategic�Development�Areas
Rural�Area�
Conversion�or�alternation�of�existing�buildings�
A�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�
Code�Level�4� Code�Level�4� Code�Level�4� Code�Level�4�
EcoHomes�Very�Good�
�� BREEM� Very�Good� Excellent� Excellent� Very�Good�
Very�Good�
B�Minimum�carbon�dioxide�reduction�through�renewable�energy�and/or�low�carbon�technologies�
�� �� 10%� 20%� 20%� 10%� 10%�
Appear�at�Examination:� �
Reason�for�appearing:�
Our�client�the�Joint�Owners�are�keen�to�ensure�that�the�policy�framework�facilitates�and�assists�the�delivery�of�the�planned�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�in�terms�of�housing�growth�and�the�level�of�anticipated�retail�capacity�identified�in�the�Retail�Capaci�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 871 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272974�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Martyn�Twigg�
Consultee�Organisation:� Fox�Strategic�Land�and�Property�on�behalf�of�Bellow�Hill�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP590�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Policy�CS14�is�unsound.�There�is�a�substantial�amount�of�uncertainty�about�how�regulatory�regime�for�energy�reduction�from�housing�is�to�be�achieved,�and�the�Code�for�Sustainable�Homes�targets�and�requirements�are�being�reviewed.�The�requirement�for�dwellings�to�achieve�Code�Level�4�is�therefore�unsound.��
The�requirements�of�CS14�also�go�further�than�national�policy�and�RSS.�
Proposed�Change:�
CS14�should�be�amended�to�be�consistent�with�the�national�guidance�and�RSS�for�energy�and�carbon�reduction.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Bellow�Hill�Consortium's�representation�as�a�whole�relate�to�a�major�site�which�can�accommodate�about�3,000�homes�and�infrastructure�which�has�implications�for�the�overarching�objectives/principles�and�strategy�of�the�CS.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 872 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP631�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�14�Sustainable�Construction�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�requirement�for�a�contribution�into�the�Milton�Keynes�Carbon�Offset�Fund�does�not�comply�with�the�principles�of�Circular�05/2005�guidance.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�the�final�sentence�of�Policy�CS14�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 873 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271774�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Joanna�Barker�
Consultee�Organisation:� Places�for�People�Homes�
Agent�ID:� � � 268966�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Robert�Purton�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP51�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�15�Community�Energy�Networks�and�Large�Scale�Renewable�Energy�Schemes�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�published�documentation�makes�no�reference�to�extant�planning�permissions�and�previously�adopted�site�specific�SPG�and�SPDs�for�Brooklands.����
Insufficient�justification�has�been�provided�for�the�variation�in�published�national�objectives�and�standards.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�encouragement�of�this�as�an�objective�is�a�laudable�approach.�However,�no�justification�or�rationale�empirical�base�has�been�provided�for�the�arbitrary�imposition�of�100�and�200�homes�as�triggers�or�consideration�of�legal�issues�or�capacity�of�supply�where�an�existing�network�may�exist.�Equally,�no�consideration�has�been�given�to�changing�technologies�over�the�life�time�of�the�plan�or�the�viability�of�the�renewable�energy�source�over�the�lifetime�of�the�prescribed�energy�source.����
The�policy�should�be�less�prescriptive�and�relate�more�closely�to�national�guidance.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�issues�raised�in�this�series�of�representations�relate�to�the�delivery�of�the�Brooklands�scheme�which�already�benefits�from�an�allocation�n�the�extant�Local�Plan,�has�a�hybrid�planning�permission,�an�adopted�Development�Brief,�an�adopted�Design�Code�a�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 874 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP242�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�15�Community�Energy�Networks�and�Large�Scale�Renewable�Energy�Schemes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
There�is�no�adequate�evidence�base�or�justification�for�the�policy�
Proposed�Change:�
Policy�CS15�should�be�deleted�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 875 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP332�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�15�Community�Energy�Networks�and�Large�Scale�Renewable�Energy�Schemes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
There�is�no�adequate�evidence�base�or�justification�for�the�policy�
Proposed�Change:�
Policy�CS15�should�be�deleted�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 876 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272985�
Consultee�Name:� � O+H�Properties�Ltd�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268933�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Will�Cobley�
Agent�Organisation:� � Terence�O'Rourke�
Representation�ID:� � PSP356�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�15�Community�Energy�Networks�and�Large�Scale�Renewable�Energy�Schemes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Policy�CS�15�requires�larger�residential�developments�to�either�show�the�potential�for�or�incorporate�community�energy�networks.�The�policy�includes�thresholds�of�100�and�200�dwellings�respectively.�
Paragraph�26,�sub�section�7iii�of�PPS1�Delivering�Sustainable�Development�states�that�in�preparing�development�plans,�planning�authorities�should�not�impose�disproportionate�costs,�in�terms�of�environmental�and�social�impacts,�or�by�unnecessarily�constraining�otherwise�beneficial�economic�or�social�development.The�mandatory�inclusion�of�community�energy�networks�within�residential�schemes�would�have�significant�financial�implications,�which�could�impact�on�their�overall�deliverability.�In�applying�the�thresholds�in�policy�CS15,�the�Council�has�failed�to�justify�why�these�are�appropriate�or�reasonably�related,�given�the�potential�cost�implications.�
Proposed�Change:�
To�ensure�that�policy�CS�15�meets�the�test�of�soundness,�the�Council�must�set�out�how�the�proposed�residential�thresholds�have�been�arrived�upon�and�provide�appropriate�justification.�At�present�these�appear�arbitrary�in�the�context�of�the�requirement.��
The�policy�wording�should�also�retain�sufficient�flexibility�to�ensure�that�the�requirement�does�not�preclude,�otherwise�appropriate�developments�coming�forward�on�the�basis�of�financial�costs.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 877 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP505�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�15�Community�Energy�Networks�and�Large�Scale�Renewable�Energy�Schemes�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
��The�requirement�for�development�of�more�than�200�homes�to�include�community�energy�networks�is�excessive�and�not�supported�by�the�evidence�base.�Setting�the�limit�at�200�dwellings�is�arbitrary�and�needs�to�be�deleted�by�a�larger�figure�where�evidence�shows�such�schemes�are�more�likely�to�be�both�feasible�and�viable.�Whilst�the�tests�of�feasibility�and�viability�are�included,�the�Consortium�considers�that�given�the�lack�of�evidence�to�support�the�policy,�the�wording�of�the�policy�should�be�downgraded�to�refer�to�‘encourage'�rather�than�‘require'.��
Proposed�Change:�
�Policy�CS15�to�be�reworded�to�increase�the�figure�of�200�to�a�figure�at�which�the�evidence�base�demonstrates�likely�viability.�The�wording�should�be�one�of�‘to�encourage'�rather�than�for�community�energy�networks�to�be�‘required'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Consortium�has�a�particular�interest�in�the�formulation�of�the�Core�Strategy,�given�the�key�development�proposals�to�the�South�East�of�Milton�Keynes.�The�Consortium�therefore�wishes�to�be�allowed�to�represent�its�interest�at�the�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 878 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP241�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.25�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�is�an�example�of�the�additional�complexity�and�burden�introduced�to�the�system�by�duplication�of�requirements�that�is�adequately�dealt�with�by�other�means�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�paragraph�12.25�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 879 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP322�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.25�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�is�an�example�of�the�additional�complexity�and�burden�introduced�to�the�system�by�duplication�of�requirements�that�is�adequately�dealt�with�by�other�means,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�paragraph�12.25�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 880 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP493�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.25�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
�The�requirement�for�‘early�code�assessment'�is�excessive,�both�in�terms�of�the�level�of�detail�that�is�appropriate�in�a�Core�Strategy�and�in�terms�of�the�level�of�information�that�is�required�potentially�at�the�outline�planning�application�stage.�
Proposed�Change:�
��Paragraph�12.25�to�be�deleted.��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 881 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP236�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.28�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�is�an�example�of�the�additional�complexity�and�burden�introduced�to�the�system�by�duplication�of�requirements�that�is�adequately�dealt�with�by�other�means,�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�paragraph�12.28�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 882 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP328�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�12.28�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�is�an�example�of�the�additional�complexity�and�burden�introduced�to�the�system�by�duplication�of�requirements�that�is�adequately�dealt�with�by�other�means�e.g.�the�Building�Regulations�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�paragraph�12.28�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 883 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414665�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andrew�Fisher�
Consultee�Organisation:� EEDA�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP376�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�13�Delivering�Economic�Prosperity�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
The�plan�identifies�at�para�13.9�the�intention�to�move�the�economic�focus�and,�indeed,�sites,�away�from�the�distribution�and�logistics�sectors�towards�offices�and�high�technology.�This�builds�on�the�statement�at�para�2.19�of�the�plan�that�emphasises�this�shift�in�economic�focus.����
Whilst�this�is�perhaps�understandable�in�securing�a�more�balanced�economic�approach�for�Milton�Keynes,�the�de�selection�of�logistics�and�distribution�sites�through�this�core�strategy�could�have�implications�for�the�economic�aspirations�of�neighbouring�authorities�in�the�East�of�England.�It�is�not�clear�that�this�has�been�considered�in�the�approach�that�is�being�proposed.����
Finally,�EEDA�would�be�keen�to�ensure�that�the�approach�to�the�development�of�the�University�Centre�Milton�Keynes�to�full�University�Status�is�complimentary�to�the�offer�of�Cranfield�in�delivering�a�comprehensive�learning�offer�for�the�sub�region.�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� �
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 884 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272020�
Consultee�Name:� � Gazeley�UK�Ltd�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gazeley�UK�Limited�
Agent�ID:� � � 415084�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Joseph�Thomas�
Agent�Organisation:� � David�Lock�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP560�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�13.9�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
We�consider�that�the�Core�Strategy�fails�to�reflect�adequately�a�robust�and�sound�approach�in�terms�of�its�economic�development�strategy�as�set�out�in�paragra[h�13.9.�Whilst�we�support�statements�made�in�paragraph�13.9�that�seek�to�achieve�a�more�diverse�economy�in�Milton�Keynes,�we�feel�that�initiative�described�later�on�to�reallocate�sites�from�industrial�and�distribution�sectors�to�office�and�high�technology�uses,�contradict�these�statements�by�representing�an�approach�that�disproportionately�favours�the�office�and�service�industry.��
The�approach�to�reallocate�industrial�and�distribution�sites�to�other�uses�does�not�represent�a�strategy�underpinned�by�a�robust�eveidence�base���see�our�comments�to�para�5.22���and�presents�a�mistaken�view�of�the�logistics/distribution�sector�that�doess�require�a�large�amount�of�high�end�technology.�The�Magna�Park�and�Glebe�Land�sites�are�ideally�located�being�in�close�proximity�to�two�motorway�junctions�to�provide�leading�edge�development�which�accords�with�best�practice�and�will�play�a�key�role�in�providing�Milton�Keynes'�competitive�edge�within�the�logistics/distribution�sector.�The�approach�set�out�in�paragraph�13.9�should�therefore�be�equally�as�explicit�in�its�support�for�logistics/distribution�uses�as�it�is�for�other�employment�uses.�This�would�represent�a�more�balanced�approach�that�would�help�foster�econimic�diversity�and�capitalise�on�Milton�Keynes'�stratgeic�position�to�meet�the�demand�for�the�logistics/distribution�sector�in�the�future.�
Proposed�Change:�
Paragraph�13.9�should�be�reworded�to�reflect�the�following:��
'The�intention�is�to�continue�to�rpovide�1.5�jobs�per�household�as�the�city�grows.�Although�there�is�enough�employment�land�to�meet�our�job�targets,�we�need�to�attract�the�right�type�of�employment�that�will�strengthen�and�diversify�the�local�economy�and�help�it�flourish�in�the�future,�while�maintaining�the�current�strengths.�We�will�continue�to�keep�our�industrial�and�engineering�base�and�logitsics�in�the�city�and�in�the�existing�extension�areas.'�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�appropriate�empirical�evidence�base�is�considered.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 885 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP614�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�13.11�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Para�13.11�/�13.12��
Delivering�Economic�Prosperity��
(a)�Policy�CS16�points�to�the�"expansion�of�further�education�as�a�key�project"�but�this�is�only�half�of�the�task.�If�MK�seriously�wants�to�be�a�"knowledge�based�economy",�which�is�a�good�idea�(Para.�13.11),�then�possessing�its�own�'uni'�will�not�be�enough.�Solid�educational�foundations�will�need�to�be�in�place�to�enable�tertiary�'flowers'�to�bloom.�Without�appropriate�attention�and�investment�at�the�primary�and�secondary�educational�levels,�boosting�the�tertiary�level�will�not�give�the�high�returns�that�are�seemingly�anticipated.��
(b)�Solid�primary�(and�pre�primary�also)�foundations�means�offering�a�high�quality�service�which�can�only�be�achieved�by�smaller�primary�class�sizes�with�the�aim�of�imaginatively�equipping�children�with�the�learning�basics�to�enable�them�to�be�more�motivated�and�do�better�at�secondary�level.�This�calls�for�primary�class�sizes�not�exceeding�15�children���as�in�the�private�sector.�Expecting�a�sole�'uni'�to�transform�MK's�economic�fortunes�is�unrealistic�and�will�not�work.��
(c)�Smaller�primary�classes�suggests�smaller�primary�schools�too.�Thus�instead�of�the�'standard'�240�pupil�size�primary�school�it�could�be�attractive�to�think�in�terms�of�facilities�of�half�that�size�which�would�be�much�less�intimidating�for�small�people.�This�obviously�has�land�use�implications.��
(d)�An�accelerated�social�rental�and�shared�ownership�housing�stock�building�programme�(see�above�"Housing")�worth�approaching�2000�dwellings�per�year�would�reinforce�the�economic�base�of�Milton�Keynes.�This�approach�would�replicate�the�origins�of�the�new�city�where,�in�the�early�1970s,�the�easy�availability�of�new�housing,�mostly�rental�stock,�ensured�the�'take�off'�of�Milton�Keynes.�If�MK�indeed�sees�itself�as�"a�growing�city�that�thinks�differently,�etc",�as�it�claims,�here�is�a�challenge�that,�if�accepted,�would�confirm�that�boast.�Moving�in�this�direction�would�be�capitalising�on�the�inherent�energy�of�MK�plus�its�spatial�capacity�to�grow,�make�itself�more�viable�and�attractive�and�better�contribute�to�the�sub�regional�and�national�economy.��
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
I�am�happy�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination.�This�would�enable�me�to�elaborate�a�little�more�fully,�if�that�would�be�helpful,�on�some�of�the�points�that�I�have�raised�particularly�in�relation�to�social�equity/sustainable�accessibility�issues.�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 886 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272967�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Sheila�Keene�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Partnerships�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP282�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�16�Delivering�Economic�Prosperity�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
MKP�strongly�supports�the�wording�of�Paragraph�13.9�and�the�acknowledgement�given�to�the�need�to�reallocate�employment�sites�in�the�future.�Given�the�rapidly�changing�nature�of�demand�flexibility�is�very�important�in�order�to�keep�pace�with�demand�and�provide�attractive�investment�options�to�the�market.�This�is�in�accordance�with�Policy�EC2�(B)�of�PPS�4�(Planning�for�Sustainable�Economic�Growth),�which�supports�a�flexible�approach�to�changing�economic�circumstances.��
However,�Policy�CS16�could�benefit�from�some�change�in�emphasis�to�include�reference�to�additional�factors,�such�as�the�low�carbon�economy�and�the�critical�importance�of�attracting�inward�investment.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�proposed�changes�and�support�for�paragraph�13.9�will�assist�in�ensuring�that�the�emphasis�and�content�of�the�policy�provides�the�most�up�to�date,�flexible�and�appropriate�economic�development�objectives�for�MK,�based�on�the�ongoing�work�of�key�partners.�Two�additional�criteria�are�proposed�for�inclusion�within�policy�CS16,�as�follows:��
� Take�advantage�of�the�opportunities�for�business�and�skills�enhancement�offered�by�lower�carbon�initiatives�and�emerging�government�policy;�and��
� Build�on�the�City's�success�in,�and�create�a�positive�environment�for,�continuing�inward�investment�(this�bullet�point�could�either�supplement�or�replace�bullet�point�7�of�the�draft�policy).�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 887 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414614�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Christopher�Wayman�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckingham�Town�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP359�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�16�Delivering�Economic�Prosperity�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Children�from�the�SDA�will�be�eligible�to�sit�the�11�plus�(633�places�are�proposed�as�the�requirement),�none�of�whom�can�be�accommodated�in�MK.�
Proposed�Change:�
40%�of�the�limited�number�of�grammar�school�places�in�Buckingham�are�already�taken�by�students�from�MK.�We�are�concerned�that�this�growth�will�lead�to�the�crowding�out�of�local,�Buckingham,�students�from�the�Royal�Latin�School.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Members�feel�that�attendance�at�the�hearing�gives�them�the�opportunity�to�enlarge�on�their�response�in�light�of�other�submissions.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 888 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413590�
Consultee�Name:� � Professor�Keith�Straughan�
Consultee�Organisation:� UCMK�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP444�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�16�Delivering�Economic�Prosperity�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
The�University�Centre�Milton�Keynes�supports�the�soundness�of�the�references�to�the�development�of�higher�education�in�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy.�A�statement�setting�out�UCMK's�support�and�comments�is�attached.��
Statement�from�University�Centre�Milton�Keynes�in�response�to�the�Milton�Keynes�Local�Development�Framework�Core�Strategy��
1.�The�University�Centre�Milton�Keynes�(UCMK)�very�much�welcomes�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy�and�the�opportunity�to�comment�on�it.�In�particular,�we�welcome�the�prominence�given�within�the�strategy�to�the�city's�aspirations�for�a�local�University�of�Milton�Keynes,�of�which�UCMK�is�the�precursor.�We�strongly�endorse�the�city's�plans�for�the�development�of�higher�education�locally.�We�believe�they�are�sound,�fully�justified,�effective,�and�consistent�with�national�and�regional�policy.����
2.�Our�vision�is�of�Milton�Keynes�as�the�vibrant�regional�centre�of�the�Milton�Keynes�and�South�Midlands�(MKSM)�area.�Moreover,�we�believe�that�the�city�should�set�its�aspirations�ambitiously,�yet�realistically�bounded,�as�an�emerging�international�visionary�city.�We�consider�the�evolution�of�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes�to�be�an�integral�part�of�that�vision�supporting�the�economic,�social�and�cultural�development�of�the�city�and�complementing�the�existing�universities�in�the�region:�the�Open�University�with�its�headquarters�in�Milton�Keynes;�the�specialist�postgraduate�Cranfield�University�just�outside�the�city�boundary;�the�University�of�Bedfordshire�in�Luton�and�Bedford;�and�the�University�of�Northampton.�Milton�Keynes�needs,�and�its�potential�students�and�businesses�demand,�a�local�university�in�order�to�create,�attract�and�nurture�the�knowledge�based�jobs�of�the�future.����
3.�2020�Vision���Towards�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes�has�informed�the�development�of�the�Core�Strategy�and�UCMK�welcomes�the�frequent�reference�to�that�document.�UCMK�was�established�in�September�2008�with�significant�capital�investment�from�Milton�Keynes�Partnership�(MKP),�SEEDA�and�Milton�Keynes�College�as�a�first�step�towards�realisation�of�the�vision�for�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes.�Further�Tariff�Funds�for�higher�education,�as�agreed�with�local�developers,�are�included�in�the�MKP�Local�Investment�Plan.�UCMK,�and�ultimately�the�University�of�Milton�Keynes,�provides�a�growing�number�of�higher�education�taught�programmes�and�an�increasing�contribution�to�knowledge�transfer,�innovation�and�R&D�through�for�example�its�partnership�with�the�Open�University,�Cranfield�University�and�civic�interests�in�developing�the�Milton�Keynes�Low�Carbon�Living�Prospectus.�UCMK�is�also�increasingly�involved�in�developing�R&D�activities�with�its�partner�University�of�Bedfordshire�and�University�of�Northampton.����
4.�There�is�no�national�planning�authority�for�establishing�a�new�University.�2020�Vision�is�therefore�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 889 of 969
predicated�on�the�evolution�of�UCMK�into�a�full�university.�In�this�aim,�UCMK�has�been�greatly�encouraged�by�the�Government's�initiative�to�support�the�establishment�of�new�local�university�centres�in�England�under�an�initiative�known�as�New�University�Challenge�administered�through�the�Higher�Education�Funding�Council�for�England�(HEFCE).�UCMK�through�its�partner,�the�University�of�Bedfordshire,�has�been�selected�by�HEFCE�as�one�of�only�6�towns/areas�with�plans�of�sufficient�quality�to�be�invited�to�make�a�formal�bid�for�development�funding�under�this�initiative�(and�the�only�city/town�in�the�MKSM�area).�Unfortunately�the�timing�of�that�bid�is�now�dependent�on�the�next�public�spending�review�and�meanwhile�higher�education�nationally�is�facing�cutbacks�in�expenditure�and�very�tight�control�of�funded�student�numbers.�Local�developmental�financial�support�is�strong�but�cannot�wholly�substitute�for�core�HEFCE�recurrent�funded�student�numbers.�Nonetheless,�UCMK�is�developing�creative�business�planning�scenarios�to�enable�realistic�growth�of�its�activities�in�spite�of�the�prevailing�fiscal�constraints.����
5.�This�is�the�context�for�some�of�the�spatial�planning�uncertainty�and�timeframe�for�the�evolution�of�the�new�university.�Paragraph�7.11�of�the�Core�Strategy�acknowledges�this�uncertainty�and�UCMK�welcomes�the�willingness�of�the�Milton�Keynes�Council�to�modify�existing�planning�guidelines�in�Central�Milton�Keynes�if�this�proves�necessary.�In�respect�of�possible�student�residences�we�would�like�to�emphasise�that�there�is�no�assumption�that�these�need�to�be�contiguous�with�the�University's�estate.�The�essential�requirement�is�good�public�transport�access�between�the�residences�and�the�estate.����
6.�We�affirm�the�statement�in�Paragraph�13.12�that�although�the�university's�estates�strategy�is�still�being�developed�the�working�assumption�is�for�a�"strong�central�Milton�Keynes�presence�but�with�some�dispersed�facilities".�UCMK�is�committed�to�developing�new�and�innovative�forms�of�accessible�and�efficient�delivery�of�higher�education�and�has�pioneered�the�"Cloud�University"�model�as�its�paradigm.�This�federated�model�is�based�on�partnership,�shared�ownership,�and�distributed�delivery�using�modern�communication�technologies.����
7.�UCMK�would�welcome�the�opportunity�to�meet�with�the�Inspector�in�order�to�further�develop�these�points�and�to�respond�to�questions.����
Yours�faithfully���������Professor�Keith�Straughan�Dean�University�Centre�Milton�Keynes�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Although�UCMK�is�not�seeking�a�change�to�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy�it�would�welcome�the�opportunity�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination�in�order�to�further�develop�these�comments�and�to�respond�to�questions.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 890 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414918�
Consultee�Name:� � Dr�Ann�Limb�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Higher�Education�Board�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP448�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�16�Delivering�Economic�Prosperity�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
Comments�also�relate�to�CS3,�CS7,�paras�5.45,�7.11,�13.12,�13.32�and�table�5.7��
The�Milton�Keynes�Higher�Education�Board�supports�the�soundness�of�the�references�to�the�development�of�higher�education�in�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy.�A�statement�setting�out�the�Board's�support�and�comments�is�attached�together�with�a�vision�statement�adopted�by�the�Board�"2020�Vision���Towards�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes".��
Statement�from�Milton�Keynes�Higher�Education�Board�in�response�to�the�Milton�Keynes�Local�Development�Framework�Core�Strategy��
1.�Milton�Keynes�Higher�Education�Board�(MKHEB)�comprises�members�drawn�from�Milton�Keynes�Council,�Milton�Keynes�Partnership,�the�business�community,�education,�the�third�sector�and�regional�agencies.�It�has�been�established�to�develop�a�vision�and�strategy�for�the�development�of�higher�education�in�Milton�Keynes.�It�welcomes�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy�and�the�opportunity�to�comment�on�it.�The�focus�of�our�comments�is�in�respect�of�soundness�as�it�relates�to�the�development�of�higher�education�in�Milton�Keynes.�In�brief�the�Board�considers�these�plans�for�the�development�of�higher�education�locally�to�be�sound:�and�in�particular�to�be�fully�justified;�to�be�effective;�and�to�be�consistent�with�national�policy.����
2.�The�Board's�vision�is�of�Milton�Keynes�as�the�vibrant�regional�centre�of�the�Milton�Keynes�and�South�Midlands�(MKSM)�area.�It�considers�the�evolution�of�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes�to�be�an�integral�part�of�that�vision�supporting�the�economic,�social�and�cultural�development�of�the�city�and�complementing�the�existing�universities�in�the�region:�the�national�and�international�Open�University�with�its�headquarters�in�Milton�Keynes;�the�specialist�postgraduate�Cranfield�University�just�outside�the�city�boundary;�the�University�of�Bedfordshire�in�Luton�and�Bedford;�and�the�University�of�Northampton�in�Northamptonshire.�Milton�Keynes�needs,�and�its�potential�students�and�businesses�demand,�a�local�university�in�order�to�attract�and�create�the�knowledge�based�jobs�of�the�future.����
3.�2020�Vision���Towards�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes�(copy�attached)�has�informed�the�development�of�the�Core�Strategy�and�the�Board�endorses�the�many�references�to�that�document.�University�Centre�Milton�Keynes�(UCMK)�was�established�in�September�2008�with�significant�capital�investment�from�Milton�Keynes�Partnership�(MKP),�SEEDA�and�Milton�Keynes�College�as�a�first�step�towards�realisation�of�the�vision�for�a�University�of�Milton�Keynes.�Further�Tariff�Funds�for�higher�education�as�agreed�with�local�developers�are�included�in�the�MKP�Local�Investment�Plan.�UCMK,�and�ultimately�the�University�of�Milton�Keynes,�provides�a�growing�number�of�higher�education�taught�programmes�and�an�increasing�contribution�to�knowledge�transfer�through�for�example�its�partnership�with�the�Open�University,�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 891 of 969
Cranfield�University�and�civic�interests�in�developing�the�Milton�Keynes�Low�Carbon�Living�Prospectus.����
4.�There�is�no�national�planning�authority�for�establishing�a�new�University.�2020�Vision�is�therefore�predicated�on�the�evolution�of�UCMK�into�a�full�university.�In�this�aim,�the�Board�has�been�greatly�encouraged�by�the�Government's�initiative�to�support�the�establishment�of�some�20�new�local�university�centres�in�England�by�2014�under�an�initiative�known�as�New�University�Challenge�administered�through�the�Higher�Education�Funding�Council�for�England�(HEFCE).�UCMK�through�its�lead/accountable�Higher�Education�Institution�partner�the�University�of�Bedfordshire�has�been�selected�by�HEFCE�as�one�of�only�6�towns/areas�with�plans�of�sufficient�quality�to�be�invited�to�make�a�formal�bid�for�development�funding�under�this�initiative�(and�the�only�city/town�in�the�MKSM�area).�Unfortunately�the�timing�of�that�bid�is�now�dependent�on�the�next�public�spending�review�and�meanwhile�higher�education�nationally�is�facing�cutbacks�in�expenditure�and�very�tight�control�of�funded�student�numbers.�Local�development�financial�support�is�strong�but�cannot�wholly�substitute�for�core�HEFCE�recurrent�funded�student�numbers.����
5.�This�is�the�context�for�some�of�the�spatial�planning�uncertainty�and�timeframe�for�the�evolution�of�the�new�university.�Paragraph�7.11�of�the�Core�Strategy�acknowledges�this�uncertainty�and�the�Board�welcomes�the�willingness�of�the�Milton�Keynes�Council�to�modify�existing�planning�guidelines�in�Central�Milton�Keynes�if�this�proves�necessary.�In�respect�of�possible�student�residences�the�Board�would�like�to�clarify�that�there�is�no�assumption�that�these�need�to�be�contiguous�with�the�University's�estate.�The�essential�requirement�is�good�public�transport�access�between�the�residences�and�the�estate.����
6.�The�Board�confirms�the�statement�in�Paragraph�13.12�that�although�the�university's�estates�strategy�is�still�being�developed�the�working�assumption�is�for�a�"strong�central�Milton�Keynes�presence�but�with�some�dispersed�facilities".�The�Board�is�committed�to�developing�new�and�innovative�forms�of�accessible�delivery�of�higher�education�and�has�adopted�the�"Cloud�University"�model�as�its�paradigm.�This�federated�model�is�based�on�partnership,�shared�ownership,�and�distributed�delivery�using�modern�communication�technologies.����
7.�The�Board�would�welcome�the�opportunity�for�its�chair�and�officers�to�meet�with�the�Inspector�in�order�to�further�develop�these�points�and�to�respond�to�questions.���
Dr.�Ann�Limb�Chair,�MKHEB�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Although�the�Milton�Keynes�Higher�Education�Board�is�not�seeking�a�change�to�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy�its�chair�and�officers�would�welcome�the�opportunity�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination�in�order�to�further�develop�these�comments�and�to�resp�
See�attached�file�overleaf�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 892 of 969
2020 Vision Towards a University of Milton Keynes
PREFACEThis document has been developed by the Milton Keynes Higher Education Strategic Development Board (MK HESDB) on behalf of the community as a statement of the vision, values, strategic aims and high level milestones for the development of a University of Milton Keynes. It follows formal consultation with, and takes account of, inputs from key civic partners (Milton Keynes Council, Milton Keynes Local Strategic Partnership, Milton Keynes Partnership, Milton Keynes Economy and Learning Partnership), Milton Keynes College, Milton Keynes Business Leaders Partnership, Milton Keynes Council of Voluntary Organisations, The Open University, HCA Sustainable Communities Academy, SEEDA, MKSM and other local community groups who have all confirmed their active support.
The MK HESDB brings together civic interests, business representatives, educationalists, the third sector, SEEDA, MKSM, LSC Thames Valley and independent members (see Annex 1). It seeks to maximise the impact of investment funding from a variety of public and private sources.
A key role of the MK HESDB is to develop, in conjunction with key stakeholders, the vision and strategy for higher education in Milton Keynes over the next 25 years and, specifically, to support Milton Keynes College as the institutional lead in the evolution of the University Centre Milton Keynes (UCMK) to form the basis of the University of Milton Keynes.
The document is being supported by:
� a detailed STAGE TWO business plan for the development of higher education through UCMK for the period up to and including academic year 2012/13
� a submission for funding to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Strategic Development Fund under the Government’s ‘New University Challenge’ policy initiative planned for the end of 2009
� long term STAGE THREE and STAGE FOUR strategic and business plans leading to the University of Milton Keynes by 2020.
(See page 7 for the definition of the developmental stages.)
THE CONTEXTMilton Keynes is a modern, rapidly growing city in southern Central England and the largest new urban area in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) region. It has a strong entrepreneurial drive and a palpable ambition which is focused on its shared sense of community, purpose and achievement.
As a result of strategic national initiatives, by the year 2031 Milton Keynes will be a city with a population of 325,000 (and within a few years of this 350,000) and will have:
� strengthened its position as a cultural, heritage and business capital of the local region (MKSM)
� consolidated its strategic location at the crossroads of a major national public transportation hub for both E-W and N-S routes across the UK and Europe.
The city is an attractive location for new UK and international scientific enterprises and research-based, knowledge-intensive businesses. Its Economic Vision is predicated on a knowledge-based economy. This new wave of 21st century skills and innovation builds on a tradition dating back to the last century when Bletchley Park was headquarters of the Second World War ‘code breakers’.
Milton Keynes is also recognised world-wide as an exemplar of innovative and sustainable city design and planning.
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 893 of 969
Milton Keynes has its own regional theatre and art gallery, and is also the home to the aspiring premiership football club, MK Dons, who play in a new UEFA-standard stadium located in the city.
It hosts the Open University, an acknowledged world leader in blended open learning, and Cranfield University, a special centre for postgraduate provision and research, is nearby. However, the city lacks a local undergraduate university presence.
Our region’s University will fill this gap. It will contribute to fulfilling the city’s vision and will resonate with Milton Keynes’ unique contemporary features.
THE VISION Our vision is that quality locally provided higher education will be at the heart of the economic development, future growth, prosperity, culture, equality, and social cohesion of the Milton Keynes community and the MKSM region.
Those living in Milton Keynes and its wider region should be stimulated to study at HE level to both increase and widen participation, and to have access to a quality HE offering locally if that is their preference. Those studying in Milton Keynes should be supported in securing attractive careers in Milton Keynes as part of its knowledge based economy and encouraged to live in and to contribute to the future of Milton Keynes. Our HE provision should be distinctive, innovative in design, flexible in delivery and relevant to the needs of the student and the community.
Businesses should be confident in investing in Milton Keynes, secure in the knowledge that there will be a local pool of talented, skilled graduates and that they will have ready access to high quality R&D expertise.
WHAT KIND OF GRADUATES? The University of Milton Keynes will seek to nurture and form graduates and other students who:
� are active and informed global citizens
� are work aware and employable
� are socially open and engaged
� have well developed analytical and communication skills
� are internationally minded
� possess the capacity to respond to fast-moving societal changes
� are ambitious and inspirational
� have an entrepreneurial drive
� are personally resilient
� are technologically equipped and articulate as 21st century citizens
WHAT KIND OF PROVISION? The University will design its curriculum offering to achieve these goals for every student. This will require innovative course design with stimulating and relevant content delivered in flexible and accessible formats using leading-edge media and teaching staff. The University will offer flexible provision with clear entry, progression and exit points and an imaginative approach to entry requirements.
In addition to a core provision which equips each student to exude confidently the characteristics outlined above, the University Centre will further develop thematic specialisms which exploit synergies with local partners (business, public, voluntary, academic and community) and which address local, regional and national needs. They will focus on Faculties of:
� Digital Age
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 894 of 969
� High Value Engineering and Manufacturing
� Health and Wellbeing
� Sustainable Development
� Creative Technologies
� Leadership and Enterprise
� Education
It is envisaged that each theme will be broadly defined – flexibility of provision and multidisciplinary approaches will be encouraged. Moreover, each theme will try to exploit synergies with the Milton Keynes context and with the expertise of local corporate and HEI expertise.
For example, an important strand running through the Digital Age theme will be digital forensics. This recognises the growing importance of this topic within the IT and telecoms industries, acknowledges the considerable leading edge expertise of local businesses and academics, and reflects the geographical location of Milton Keynes as the home to a large component of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of other security services, and of Bletchley Park (the birthplace of modern cryptography).
Within the Health & Wellbeing theme, emerging strands will include diagnostic imaging and assistive devices, both of which acknowledge research expertise at UCMK, the Open University and Cranfield University.
Final examples drawn from the Sustainable Development theme are strands of activity focussed on sustainable communities, sustainable logistics and the leadership and shaping of place. These acknowledge Milton Keynes’ international standing as a leading exemplar of place-shaping. This has resulted in the Homes and Communities Agency Academy designating UCMK as an emerging Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Communities.
Note that the inclusion of Education as a distinct theme is at the explicit request of the local authority who view this provision as a key component in resolving some of the quality issues besetting local educational provision.
These thematic specialisms may eventually be set within a matrix of additional curriculum offerings which are deemed important for the educational needs of the local community or in response to student or employer demand. A key aim is to identify distinctive provision that will be attractive and responsive to the skills agenda of local business sectors.
Ultimately provision will be available at Foundation Degree, Honours Degree, and Postgraduate Degree level targeted to meet the needs of school/college leavers, adults and business/employer professional development. Current provision is focussed on Foundation Degrees together with a PGCE (Post Compulsory) and a portfolio of professionally-relevant higher education qualifications. It is intended to introduce an MBA from 2009/10 and honours degree top-ups from 2010/11.
Entry requirements to these qualifications will be flexible and appropriate to the needs of the provision and established quality assurance standards and will be in line with our commitment to widen participation. The primary emphasis will be the potential of the student to achieve the specified learning objectives.
High academic standards and quality will drive the provision and its delivery to the student. The explicit ambition is that the provision will be recognised to be sector-leading in terms of the quality of its pedagogy and innovative in its delivery.
WHAT KIND OF UNIVERSITY? To achieve these goals, our new University will be:
� driven by the needs of students
� employer-led with a focus on employment-related skills and innovation
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 895 of 969
� academically rigorous and vocationally relevant
� ambitious and capable of achieving high standards in all its activities
� innovative and inspirational in increasing and widening participation by encouraging students (and their parents) from non-traditional as well as traditional backgrounds, by offering clear progression opportunities to higher education, and by achieving fair access for all students regardless of background or age
� engaged in ground-breaking partnerships with local secondary and junior schools and acting as a catalyst for raising school standards
� committed to working in partnership with local universities, civic bodies, employers, the third sector and other agencies, across traditional regional boundaries, where appropriate
� attractive to students from the local community as well as the surrounding region, the UK and overseas through the development of highly competitive fee structures and an integrated physical offering embedded within the distinctive features of the Milton Keynes community
� actively engaged in knowledge transfer and R&D with business and HE partners to stimulate enterprise and to stimulate and shape the knowledge economy
� a catalyst to develop and retain talented, skilled graduates in the area
� a generator of high skill knowledge-based jobs
� readily accessible to students by offering a variety of study modes optimised through the imaginative use of communication technologies including cloud HE and leading-edge pedagogy
� integrated with the community and contributing to its leadership, its social and cultural life, and its sense of identity
� global in outlook
� a key delivery component of the Milton Keynes Economic Vision
� responsive to and will contribute to driving dynamic national, regional, and local contexts, policies and targets
� sustainable with a robust business model and effective governance
� an agent to help the community to articulate its self-understanding and aspirations and to act as an engaged and friendly critic.
The University will have an inspirational physical presence in the city, the first phase of which – the University Centre Milton Keynes (UCMK) – opened in September 2008. The design of UCMK, and of the University which will grow from it, will reflect the success of Milton Keynes as a significant regional centre and exemplar of sustainability, as well as the city’s emerging role as a centre of national cultural heritage and technological innovation.
CORE VALUES The University’s core values will be based on the following cornerstones:
� quality and integrity in all that we do
� inclusiveness
� the centrality of the student in determining the shape and content of the teaching provision
� distinctive innovation – pedagogical, cultural, scientific and technological
� high level business/employer engagement
� environmental sustainability
� creative civic partnerships.
DISTINCTIVENESS
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 896 of 969
The University of Milton Keynes will be both distinctive in what it offers and locally market driven. The challenge is to ensure that the offer is responsive to what students and the community want and at the same time to be recognised as competitively distinctive and of the highest standards. The features of this 2020 Vision that characterise that distinctiveness (including a few practical examples for each feature) are:
� innovative partnerships and effective community embeddedness
o substantial financial and in-kind support from Milton Keynes Partnership and Milton Keynes Council
o creative multi-lateral teaching and knowledge transfer partnerships with five neighbouring universities and full integration into the Milton Keynes Science and Innovation habitat
o strong and sustained inter-action with local businesses, the third sector and other community groups
� distinctive and relevant thematic provision which anticipates and responds to the needs and distinctive offer of the region
o designation as an HCA Academy Centre of Excellence in sustainable communities
o direct synergies with Milton Keynes’ unique features as Europe’s fastest-growing new city, including sustainability, the knowledge economy, logistics and entrepreneurship
� leading-edge pedagogy and delivery of the learning environment
o appointment of the UK’s first professors of praxis
o sector-leading partnerships with employers in the design and delivery of relevant courses
o pioneers in the development of cloud HE (see Annex 2)
� innovative relationships with the FE and schools sectors to develop creative, attractive and holistic pathways for skills and learning
o the pivotal role of an FE college in the leadership and management of UCMK
o formal arrangements with local secondary schools and with their primary feeder schools to build aspiration and guarantee progression
THE UNIVERSITY OF MILTON KEYNES The establishment of the University of Milton Keynes capable of embodying the vision, values and strategic aims outlined here is the explicit goal of the Milton Keynes community.
A University, attracting aspirational and talented students from the locality as well as from the rest of the country and overseas, will ensure that in terms of knowledge, skills and research Milton Keynes remains one of the nation’s leading cities, driving innovation, managed environmental change, and community coherence and well-being. This goal has strong cross-party and cross-regional political and community support.
The route to this goal is challenging. Higher education is funded nationally and there are limited mechanisms available for establishing a new university. We will take advantage of any that arise, such as the current opportunities presented by the Government’s New University Challenge initiative (DIUS 2008) working closely with UCMK’s accountable (lead) HEI, the University of Bedfordshire.
Our approach is ambitious and pragmatic. We will work incrementally with current higher and further education partners, the private sector and other public funding bodies to build on the experience of the past and to create the medium and long term critical mass needed to realise our vision and achieve lasting viability and sustainability.
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 897 of 969
MILESTONES The key milestones are envisaged to be:
� STAGE ONE – by 2008/09 o opening of University Centre Milton Keynes, managed by Milton Keynes College,
delivery of high quality HE in collaboration with our HEI and business partners, and establishment of strong links and progression opportunities with secondary and primary schools and adult education providers in order to raise aspirations and demand for locally offered higher education
� STAGE TWO – by 2012/13 o accelerated development of the HE curriculum, quality of provision and growth of FTE
student numbers, resulting in UCMK securing: the offer of three year honours degrees; delegated powers from partner HEIs; Foundation Degree awarding powers; and direct HEFCE funding to enable a degree of academic and financial independence for UCMK
o active knowledge transfer and R&D activity in concert with the Open University, Cranfield University, MK Science and Innovation, and the Innovation Growth Team, and the making of this expertise available to local businesses and employers
o refinement of the Cloud HE paradigm
� STAGE THREE – by 2017/18 o taught degree awarding powers secured, research infrastructure developed and
University College status achieved
� STAGE FOUR – by 2020/21 o further development of HE teaching, research and knowledge transfer and agreement
on the model for delivering university provision culminating in the granting of full university status by the Privy Council
SUCCESS TO DATE The enterprise begins with the explicit cross-party political and community support. To this important base has been added substantial capital underpinning.
MKP’s Business Plan includes £14.25 million for higher education capital development from tariff funding agreed with private developers, of which £2.1 million has been committed to fit out the new University Centre at 200 Silbury Boulevard. English Partnerships has invested a further £4.8 million in the purchase of 200 Silbury Boulevard. SEEDA and Milton Keynes College have each invested significant development funding in equipping the Centre. SEEDA, MKP, the OU and Cranfield University have invested £300,000 in the establishment of the MK Science and Innovation initiative to provide a direct link with knowledge-intensive business development. This already represents a significant capital investment from the community. From this secure base the Board will be pro-active in leveraging further investment funds.
Milton Keynes College has already developed effective and robust partnerships with a number of local HEIs (currently the University of Bedfordshire, the University of Northampton, the Open University and Oxford Brookes University) which have led to the College delivering HE provision with external validation to more than 2000 students over the past five years. These relationships underpin the launch of UCMK with a portfolio of established Foundation Degrees and base student numbers from the outset. Moreover, the College is already very active with its partners (HE and business) in the area of curriculum development which will ensure the credibility of its HE offering in terms of relevance, quality and numbers. The University of Bedfordshire has agreed to take on the role of accountable (lead) HEI for HEFCE bidding purposes.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORSThe goal for Milton Keynes is to have its own university as outlined in this document which is able to meet the needs of the city, region and nation by 2020.
Realisation of this goal will depend on a range of critical success factors including:
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 898 of 969
the short-term success of Milton Keynes College in building higher education sustainably with its HEI partners in STAGE TWO, the period 2008/9 to 2012/13
� Achievement of consistently high quality assessments under internal and external review processes
� the development of innovative funding models building on the resources that the community and other relevant funding bodies are able to deploy
� the collective ability and will to hold to, and implement, a distinctive higher education model that respects the distinctiveness of the locality as well as meeting student and employer needs of 21st century UK
� the ability to respond creatively and effectively to changing governmental higher education policies
� the success with which the Open University and Cranfield University are able to articulate and coordinate their research strengths for the benefit of local and regional business and to synergise these activities in concert with UCMK and the emerging University of Milton Keynes and with the MK Science and Innovation initiative
� engagement of civic, business and community partners through full and regular involvement of major employers including the third sector, and regular communication via business groups on their ongoing higher educational requirements
� the ambition and steadfastness of civic and educational leaders and of the business community in committing to the realisation of this common goal of the establishment of the University of Milton Keynes which will be of benefit to all in Milton Keynes and the MKSM region as well as to the nation as a whole
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 899 of 969
Annex 1
Membership of the Milton Keynes Higher Education Strategic Development Board as at June 2009
Milton Keynes Partnership (1 member): Ann Limb, Chair MKP (appointed Chair of the Board)
Milton Keynes Council: (2 members) Sam Crooks, Leader of the Council, and Geoff Snelson, Corporate Director Strategy, Governance and Performance
Milton Keynes Economy and Learning Partnership (3 members of whom at least 2 should come from the business community): Roger Bowden, Chairman, Niftylift Ltd; Pete Winkelman, Chairman, MK Dons ; Colin Fox, Executive Director MKELP
Milton Keynes Council of Voluntary Organisations (1 member): Ruth Stone, Director
Milton Keynes Secondary School Heads (1 member): Glen Martin, Head Teacher, Shenley Brook End School
Milton Keynes College (2 members): Francesca Skelton, Chair of Governors; Rob Badcock, Principal and Chief Executive
Open University (1 member): Brenda Gourley, Vice Chancellor alternate Alan Tait, Pro Vice Chancellor (Curriculum and Awards)
University of Bedfordshire as University Challenge Accountable HEI (as required by HEFCE) and appointed by Milton Keynes College (1 member): Les Ebdon, Vice Chancellor
LSC Thames Valley (1 member): Linda Jarvis, Partnership Director (under review)
Independent members (2); Phil Smith, Chairman, MK Business Leaders Partnership Ltd; Walter Greaves, Chairman, MK Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Secretary Joe Clinch, HE Adviser, Milton Keynes Economy and Learning Partnership
By invitation: Keith Straughan, Dean UCMK/Vice Principal (Higher Education), Milton Keynes College
Hilary Chipping, Director, Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Board;
Warren Ralls, Area Director, Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, SEEDA
Brigid Heywood, Pro Vice Chancellor (Research and Enterprise), Open University;
Carol Cairns, Operations Manager, Milton Keynes Partnership;
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 900 of 969
Annex 2
Cloud HE
We have stated that our HE provision will be distinctive, innovative in design, flexible in delivery and relevant to the needs of the student and the community.
In this context, the education partners are committed to effective partnership working which values and honours the distinctive contribution of partners across the educational spectrum – school, FE and HE – and which maintains a creative interface between academic, civic, corporate and third sector partners. To this commitment is added the imperative to set innovative pedagogy at the centre of our quest to build local university provision responsive to the fast changing context of the 21st century globally-connected world.
The education partners believe that Milton Keynes and the MKSM growth region present a fascinating and rich context in which new models of partnership working and new approaches to pedagogy might be developed. We will underpin the practical development of the University Centre Milton Keynes (UCMK) with a programme of pedagogical scholarship to determine how these insights might best shape the development of UCMK and our idea of a university.
We are mindful of the paradigm shift taking place within the IT community as a result of cloud computing, Web 2.0 and service-oriented architectures. There exist many parallels between the drivers for Web 2.0 and the desire to embed a locally responsive HE presence driven by a flexible network of partnership resources.
For example, at its optimum Web 2.0 brings a richer experience and resource base to the ‘desktop’ of the individual user although in actuality the user no longer has the full paraphernalia associated with the computing process on her or his desk. In the HE context, there is an overwhelming need to deliver a high-quality, physical HE presence to the Milton Keynes community without necessarily investing in the full range of university infrastructural elements which together drive huge capital and operational costs into the business plan. A service-oriented architecture coupled with a truly effective and dynamic partnership model has the potential to deliver the ‘university’ experience required by the city at a fraction of the traditional cost. A useful corollary benefit would be a more dynamic and responsive educational entity which is better able to respond to fast-changing economic and educational contexts. Furthermore, such a structure lends itself to the possibility of creative collaboration between university centres serving different physical communities but driven by a common ‘back office’ infrastructure. This latter example, finds a particular resonance within the contemporary MKSM context.
We are committed to exploring how these parallels, and the insights derived from other projects (national and international), might inspire innovative and sustainable approaches to the delivery of HE within Milton Keynes and MKSM.
Such an approach brings many difficult challenges, pedagogic and technical. The education partners are well-placed to develop such ideas. The commitment of Microsoft to work with us in this development brings unique technical expertise and resources to the project.
This is an ambitious strand within our proposal but, we believe, a realistic one. The potential benefits for HE in MKSM are considerable, as are the broader implications for the sector.
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 901 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413791�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andy�Barton�
Consultee�Organisation:� Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP146�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�17�Supporting�Small�Businesses�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�statement�seeks�to�control�factors�outside�of�the�legal�remit�of�the�MK�Core�Strategy,�as�it�is�regarding�development�outside�of�its�legal�coverage.�
Proposed�Change:�
Deletion�of�second�bullet�in�Policy�CS17�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Yes���to�be�able�to�explain�and�expand�on�the�issues�summarised�in�the�representation�by�the�local�planning�authority�responsible�for�the�delivery�of�the�SW�SDA.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 902 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414546�
Consultee�Name:� � Connolly�Homes�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP316�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�17�Supporting�Small�Businesses�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Live/work�units�are�not�defined�in�the�Core�Strategy�and�are�generally�complex�and�expensive�to�deliver�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�reference�to�live/work�units�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Connolly�Homes�controls�significant�areas�of�land�within�the�SE�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 903 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 339902�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Robert�Powell�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP28�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�18�Improving�access�to�local�services�and�facilities�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Thank�you�for�the�opportunity�to�comment�on�the�Core�Strategy���Pre�Submission�Version.����
In�planning�for�sustainable�development,�PPS1�page�8�paragraph�16�states�"Planning�policies�should�take�into�account�the�needs�of�all�the�community�including�particular�requirements�relating�to...religion."��
While�the�Core�Strategy���Preferred�Options�document�September�2007�indicates�a�preferred�policy�direction�to�include�the�needs�of�faith�communities�it�is�possible�that�their�requirements�for�places�of�worship�could�be�disregarded�by�being�included�in�the�term�"community�facilities".����
As�we�are�aware,�this�term�covers�a�wide�range�of�possible�uses�of�both�a�commercial�and�public�nature.�It�is�a�term�that�can�and�often�is�used�to�encapsulate�a�variety�of�facilities�and�services�extending�well�beyond�even�those�uses�falling�within�Classes�D1�and�D2�of�the�Use�Classes�Order.����
Unless�provision�is�made�in�the�Core�Strategy�document�for�the�specific�allocation�of�land�for�Class�D1�uses,�the�needs�of�the�community�for�places�of�worship�(Class�D1(h))�in�suitable�locations�may�not�be�met.�
Proposed�Change:�
I�therefore�seek�the�inclusion�of�the�phrase�"places�of�worship"�alongside�sport�and�community�facilities�on�page�93�in�the�box�entitled�Policy�CS�18.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 904 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272964�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Phil�Bowsher�
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Parks�Trust�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP319�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�18�Improving�access�to�local�services�and�facilities�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
This�policy�is�not�as�effective�as�it�needs�to�be�in�ensuring�the�viability�of�existing�local�centres.�The�policy�only�refers�to�the�protection�of�local�centres,�which�will�not�be�effective�in�ensuring�their�viability,�where�some�change�and�redevelopment�may�become�necessary.�We�believe�it�is�an�objective�of�the�Core�Strategy�to�maintain�the�viability�of�local�centres�but�as�currently�worded�Policy�CS�18�only�refers�to�their�protection,�which�is�less�effective�than�it�should�be�in�ensuring�their�economic�viability.�
Proposed�Change:�
Change�the�first�bullet�point�of�Policy�CS�18�to�say:��
"Implementing�Core�Strategy�and�future�Development�Management�DPD�policies�that�protect�and�promote�the�economic�viability�of�public�open�space,�leisure,�recreation,�sport�and�community�facilities,�local�centres�and�village�shops,�pubs�and�Post�Offices."�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 905 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272992�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�D�Marle�
Consultee�Organisation:� C/O�DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP238�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�19�Healthier�and�Safer�Communities�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Relates�to�fourth�bullet�point.��
This�criterion�would�appear�to�restrict�consideration�of�the�extension�of�the�linear�park�system�only�so�far�as�they�might�extend�into�new�development.�It�may�well�be�the�case�that�opportunities�arise�to�secure�extensions�that�do�not�penetrate�new�development�areas.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�the�words�'into�new�developments'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�voice�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 906 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272967�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Sheila�Keene�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Partnerships�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP284�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�19�Healthier�and�Safer�Communities�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
MKP�support�reference�in�Policy�CS19�to�Secured�by�Design�as�an�important�reference�document�for�planning�authorities�in�executing�their�development�control�function.��
The�policy�or�supporting�text�should�also�make�reference�to�the�specific�requirements�of�emergency�services�being�taken�into�account�in�the�design�and�location�of�new�development,�acknowledging�the�specific�requirements�of�the�emergency�services�when�planning�for�growth.�
Proposed�Change:�
See�response�to�question�4�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 907 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414524�
Consultee�Name:� � Galliford�Try�Strategic�Land�
Consultee�Organisation:� Galliford�Try�Strategic�Land�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP324�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�19�Healthier�and�Safer�Communities�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Bullet�Point�4��
This�criterion�would�appear�to�restrict�consideration�of�the�extension�of�the�linear�park�system�only�so�far�as�they�might�extend�into�new�development.��It�may�well�be�the�case�that�opportunities�arise�to�secure�extensions�that�do�not�penetrate�new�development�areas.�
Proposed�Change:�
Delete�the�words�'into�new�developments'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 908 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413884�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Shapley�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckinghamshire�County�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP569�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�19�Healthier�and�Safer�Communities�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Policy�CS19�seeks�to�extend�the�linear�parks�into�new�developments,�and�we�would�simply�repeat�our�concern�that�the�Core�Strategy�is�the�wrong�place�for�such�detail�and�as�such�would�be�neither�justified�nor�effective�if�retained.�
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�text�so�that�the�policy�of�extending�linear�parks�does�not�apply�to�SDAs�outside�the�Borough's�boundaries.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 909 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 269759�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Murray�Burring�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP27�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.1�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
There�is�no�mention�of�the�protection�of�historical�artefacts�in�which�the�local�community�has�a�stake.�Only�historical�sites,�buildings�and�areas�are�mentioned.�In�compliance�with�Government�policy�there�should�be�the�intention�to�protect�historical�artefacts�which�are�in�danger�of�being�lost�or�destroyed.�
Proposed�Change:�
Protection�of�historical�artefacts�should�be�added�to�the�wording�of�this�section�to�make�it�compliant�with�national�policy.�The�council�has�previously�stated�its�intention�to�fully�support�Milton�Keynes�Museum�in�its�preservartion�and�presentation�of�locally�important�historical�artefacts.�It�is�the�only�local�organisation�to�do�so.�Its�progress�in�this�area�could�be�used�to�monitor�the�effectiveness�of�this�policy.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 910 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413211�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Michael�O'Sullivan�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP615�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.1�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
paras�15.1�/�15.2��
Heritage��
Only�two�paragraphs�(15.1�and�15.2)�are�devoted�to�this�topic,�ie�"heritage",�which�understates�the�importance�of�heritage�and�coverage�should�be�expanded�to�indicate�the�scale�and�variety�of�what�is�involved.��
Mention�could�be�made�of�how�under�resourced�conservation�is�within�the�Council�and�that�steps�will�be�taken�to�address�this.�Mention�could�be�made,�for�example,�of�the�need�to�secure�listed�status�for�the�iconic�"Shopping�Building"�at�city�centre.�Finally,�in�addition�to�the�need�to�protect�modern�architecture,�architecture�from�the�interwar�period�should�not�be�neglected.��
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
I�am�happy�to�participate�in�the�oral�examination.�This�would�enable�me�to�elaborate�a�little�more�fully,�if�that�would�be�helpful,�on�some�of�the�points�that�I�have�raised�particularly�in�relation�to�social�equity/sustainable�accessibility�issues.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 911 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272992�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�D�Marle�
Consultee�Organisation:� C/O�DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP235�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.3�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
The�final�sentence�of�paragraph�15.3�only�addresses�the�extension�of�the�linear�park�system�in�the�context�of�the�identified�expansion�areas�and�the�SDA.�It�should�be�acknowldeged�that�other�opportunities�may�arise�to�extend�the�linear�park�system�through�the�identification�of�further�development�opportunities�in�the�site�allocations�DPD.�
Proposed�Change:�
Add�the�following�sentence�to�paragraph�15.3�'Where�appropriate�opportunities�will�also�be�pursued�to�extend�the�linear�parks�system�in�conjuntion�with�development�identified�in�the�Site�Allocations�DPD.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�voice�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 912 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414524�
Consultee�Name:� � Galliford�Try�Strategic�Land�
Consultee�Organisation:� Galliford�Try�Strategic�Land�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP317�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.3�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
The�final�sentence�of�paragraph�15.3�only�addresses�the�extension�of�the�linear�park�system�in�the�context�of�the�identified�expansion�areas�and�the�SDA.��It�should�be�acknowledged�that�other�opportunities�may�arise�to�extend�the�linear�park�system�through�the�identification�of�further�development�opportunities�in�the�Site�Allocations�DPD.�
Proposed�Change:�
Add�the�following�sentence�to�paragraph�15.3�'Where�appropriate�opportunities�will�also�be�pursued�to�extend�the�linear�parks�system�in�conjunction�with�development�identified�in�the�Site�Allocations�DPD'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�voice�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 913 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 402329�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Chris�Coppock�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP365�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.5�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Minor�textual�or�footnote�changes�are�needed�to�bring�the�para�into�line�with�national�and�local�(Bucks�&�MK)�policy�and�improve�clarity.��These�are�detailed�below.�
Proposed�Change:�
1)�Add�to�footnote�119:�"Of�national�sites�there�are�two,�and�part�of�a�third,�Sites�of�Special�Scientific�Interest�in�Milton�Keynes.�This�is�below�the�national�average�both�in�number�and�by�total�SSSI�area.�There�are�no�geological�SSSIs�in�MK."��
Reason�:�This�adds�to�completeness�and�supports�existing�text�which�reads:�"With�relatively�few�national�sites..."��
2)�In�line�4�change�"...County�and�Local�sites..."�to�"...county�and�locally�designated�sites...".��
Reason�:��The�existing�text�incorrectly�reflects�the�agreed�site�designation�framework�for�Bucks/MK.�This�was�overhauled�following�national�guidance�(Local�Sites:�guidance�on�their�identification,�selection�and�management�(Defra,�2006)).�County�level�wildlife�sites�in�Bucks/MK�are�now�called�Local�Wildlife�Sites�and�these�must�not�be�confused�with�sites�designated�more�locally�by�districts/UAs.�In�MK�the�latter�are�Local�Nature�Reserves�(which�also�receive�national�sanction�from�Natural�England)�and�MK�Wildlife�Corridors.��
County�level�geological�sites�are�now�called�Local�Geological�Sites�(formerly�Regionally�Important�Geological�Sites)�and�there�is�no�district/UA�level�equivalent.��
The�current�MK�Local�Plan�also�refers�to�"Local�Wildlife�Sites"�which�is�a�non�conforming�local�name�for�Bucks�Biological�&�Geological�Notification�Sites�(BNS).�The�BNS�designation�is�now�being�phased�out�as�sites�are�reviewed�and�either�upgraded�to�Local�Wildlife�Site�(new�sense)�or�denotified.�
3)��Add�to�footnote�121�reference�to�the�UK�Biodiversity�Action�Plan�(UKBAP).��
Reason�:�UKBAP�has�a�statutory�basis�as�its�priority�habitats�and�species�may�be�(and�are)�designated�Habitats�and�Species�of�Principal�Importance�for�the�Conservation�of�Biodiversity�in�England�(HPIs�and�SPIs)�by�the�Secretary�of�State�under�s.41�of�the�Natural�Environment�&�Rural�Communities�Act�2006.��HPIs�in�particular�are�a�core�criterion�for�selecting�Local�Wildlife�Sites�(new�sense)�in�Bucks/MK.���
The�Bucks/MK�BAP�aims�to�translate�UKBAP�to�local�level,�but�there�are�differences�of�emphasis�from�UKBAP�and�its�priority�habitats�and�"key�associated�species"�have�no�statutory�basis.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 914 of 969
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 915 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414840�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Heather�Lewis�
Consultee�Organisation:� Bucks,�Berks�and�Oxfordshire�Wildlife�Trust�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP438�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.5�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�paragraph�is�not�fully�in�line�with�the�requirements�of�Planning�POlicy�Statement�9;��Biodiversity�and�Geological�Conservation�in�that�the�policy�requires�Local�Development�Frameworks�to�'identify�any�areas�or�sites�for�the�restoration�and�creation�of�new�habitats�..'�(Paragraph�5).��
"The�Bucks�and�Milton�Keynes�Biodiversity�Partnership�have�identified�a�number�of�‘Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas'�in�MK.�BAP�Priority�Habitats�within�those�areas�will�be�targeted�for�protection,�restoration�and�creation.�Four�of�these�areas�have�regional�importance�(122)�."�
Requested�that�the�‘four�areas�of�regional�importance'�as�stated�within�the�contextual�text.����
The�contextual�text�for�this�paragraph�should�also�refer�back�to�relevant�Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas�reference�documents.�
Proposed�Change:�
"The�Bucks�and�Milton�Keynes�Biodiversity�Partnership�have�identified�a�number�of�‘Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas'�in�MK.�BAP�Priority�Habitats�within�those�areas�will�be�targeted�for�protection,�restoration�and�creation.�Four�of�these�areas�have�regional�importance�(122)�."��
Requested�that�the�‘four�areas�of�regional�importance'�as�stated�within�the�contextual�text.��
The�contextual�text�for�this�paragraph�should�also�refer�back�to�relevant�Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas�reference�documents.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 916 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 270004�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Jez�Elkin�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckinghamshire�&�Milton�Keynes�Biodiversity�Partnership�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP39�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
PPS9�1�(vi)�states�that�mitigation�should�be�used�where�there�is�no�reasonable�other�option�for�a�development�that�will�have�a�negative�impact�on�biodiversity.��If�mitigation�is�not�possible�then�compensation�measures�should�be�sought.��This�hierachy�is�not�clear�in�the�policy.��
Otherwise�I�fully�support�this�Policy��
Proposed�Change:�
ensure�that�damage�to�the�biodiversity�and�geological�resource�of�the�Borough�will�be�avoided�wherever�possible.�Where�unavoidable�it�will�be�minimised�through�mitigation�or�if�mitigation�is�not�possible�by�compensation����
This�will�make�compliant�with�PPS9�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 917 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413500�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Brian�Cawley�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 413507�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Frazer�Hickling�
Agent�Organisation:� � Phillips�Planning�Services�
Representation�ID:� � PSP87�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
We�support�the�aims�and�objectives�of�Policy�CS�20�relating�to�the�historic�and�natural�environment.�However,�we�would�highlight�that�with�the�step�change�in�growth,�and�the�Council's�commitments�to�growth�across�the�rural�areas;�new�development�will�have�an�impact�on�both�the�historic�and�natural�environment.�However,�the�issues�of�impact�must�be�considered�in�balance�with�the�strategic�planning�objective�of�sustainable�growth.�Where�new�development�is�proposed�that�will�extend�beyond�the�existing�settlement�boundaries,�it�is�important�that�it�protects�and�enhances�the�character�of�the�local�landscape�or�historic�environment,�and�therefore�in�the�emerging�Site�Allocations�DPD,�we�request�that�a�transparent�Site�Appraisal�methodology�is�adopted�as�the�basis�for�site�assessment,�so�these�matters�can�be�given�due�consideration�and�weighted�accordingly.�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 918 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272992�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�D�Marle�
Consultee�Organisation:� C/O�DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP301�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Paragraph�2�of�Policy�CS20�appears�to�pay�no�regard�to�the�Core�Strategy's�Spatial�Vision�or�Strategic�Objectives�and�completely�ignores�the�potential�for�extending�the�linear�park�system�to�the�north�of�the�city�in�the�Ouse�and�Ouzel�valleys.�
Proposed�Change:�
Insert�the�words�'...and�along�the�Ouse�and�Ouzel�Valleys�to�the�north'�after�the�word�'extension'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�voice�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 919 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414524�
Consultee�Name:� � Galliford�Try�Strategic�Land�
Consultee�Organisation:� Galliford�Try�Strategic�Land�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP313�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Paragraph�2�of�Policy�CS20��
This�paragraph�of�Policy�CS20�appears�to�pay�no�regard�to�the�Core�Strategy's�Spatial�Vision�or�Strategic�Objectives�and�completely�ignores�the�potential�for�extending�the�linear�park�system�to�the�north�of�the�city�in�the�Ouse�and�Ouzel�valleys.�
Proposed�Change:�
Insert�the�words�'...and�along�the�Ouse�and�Ouzel�Valleys�to�the�north'�after�the�word�'extension'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�voice�our�views�in�person.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 920 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 402329�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Chris�Coppock�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP368�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Minor�textual�changes�are�needed�to�make�the�policy�more�effective.�
Proposed�Change:�
1)��In�line�3�delete�or�amend�"areas".��
Reason�:�meaningless.��
2)��In�lines�3�or�4�add�"biodiversity".��
Reason�:�buildings,�structures,�parks,�gardens�and�landscapes�may�all�have�biodiversity�interest,�and�some�built�structures�are�critical�for�statutorily�protected�or�conservation�priority�species,�which�is�often�overlooked.��
3)�Add�to�bullets�under��
� "In�order�to�maximise�biodiversity�we�will:"�Support�biodiversity�recording�and�monitoring,�in�particular�the�work�of�the�Buckinghamshire�&�Milton�Keynes�Environmental�Records�Centre.��
Reason�:�Required�by�PPS9�(Key�Principles�1(i))�which�states:�"Development�plan�policies�and�planning�decisions�should�be�based�upon�up�to�date�information�about�...�the�biodiversity�and�geological�resources�of�the�area."��
MKC�is�a�funding�partner�of�Bucks�&�MK�Environmental�Records�Centre�which�is�part�of�a�national�network�of�Local�Biological�Records�Centres�endorsed�by�relevant�government�departments.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 921 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414840�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Heather�Lewis�
Consultee�Organisation:� Bucks,�Berks�and�Oxfordshire�Wildlife�Trust�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP440�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�3rd�bullet�point�is�not�fully�in�line�with�the�requirements�of�Planning�Policy�Statement�9;�Biodiversity�and�Geological�Conservation�in�that�the�policy�requires�Local�Development�Frameworks�to�'enhance�and�restore�the�diversity�of�England's�wildlife'.��
‘ensure�that�damage�to�the�biodiversity�and�geological�resource�of�the�Borough�will�be�avoided�wherever�possible.�Where�unavoidable�it�will�be�minimised�through�mitigation�and�compensation'�insert�text�‘by�provision�of�replacement�habitat�of�higher�quality�to�achieve�a�net�gain�in�biodiversity'.��
The�final�bullet�point�paragraph�is�not�fully�in�line�with�the�requirements�of�Planning�Policy�Statement�9;�Biodiversity�and�Geological�Conservation�in�that�the�policy�requires�Local�Development�Frameworks�to�'identify�any�areas�or�sites�for�the�restoration�and�creation�of�new�habitats�..'�(Paragraph�5).��
Final�bullet�point��
‘seek�opportunities�for�habitat�protection,�restoration�and�creation�to�meet�the�objectives�of�the�UK�and�Bucks�&�Milton�Keynes�Biodiversity�Action�Plan'�insert�text�‘and�aims�of�the�Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas'.��
Proposed�Change:�
3rd�bullet�point;��
‘ensure�that�damage�to�the�biodiversity�and�geological�resource�of�the�Borough�will�be�avoided�wherever�possible.�Where�unavoidable�it�will�be�minimised�through�mitigation�and�compensation'�insert�text�‘by�provision�of�replacement�habitat�of�higher�quality�to�achieve�a�net�gain�in�biodiversity'.��
Final�bullet�point;��
‘seek�opportunities�for�habitat�protection,�restoration�and�creation�to�meet�the�objectives�of�the�UK�and�Bucks�&�Milton�Keynes�Biodiversity�Action�Plan'�insert�text�‘and�aims�of�the�Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 922 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413884�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Shapley�
Consultee�Organisation:� Buckinghamshire�County�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP570�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Policy�CS20�seeks�to�extend�the�linear�parks�into�new�developments,�and�we�would�simply�repeat�our�concern�that�the�Core�Strategy�is�the�wrong�place�for�such�detail�and�as�such�would�be�neither�justified�nor�effective�if�retained.�
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�text�so�that�the�policy�of�extending�linear�parks�does�not�apply�to�SDAs�outside�the�Borough's�boundaries.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 923 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 415560�
Consultee�Name:� � Joint�Owners�of�thecentre:mk�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 268946�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Sid�Hadjioannou�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP604�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�20�The�Historic�and�Natural�Environment�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
We�support�the�Council's�approach�to�protect�and�enhance�the�character,�diversity�and�cultural�significance�of�the�Borough's�historic�assets�e.g.�Listed�Buildings,�Conservation�Areas,�although�this�should�not�affect�the�ability�of�New�Town�buildings�to�adapt�to�changing�needs�in�their�respective�Use�Classes,�i.e.�leisure,�retail�and�office�uses.�
Proposed�Change:�
We�recommend�that�the�wording�of�the�first�paragraph�of�Policy�CS20�is�amended�to�read:��
"New�developments�should�protect�and�enhance�the�character,�diversity�and�cultural�significance�of�the�Borough's�historic�assests�e.g.�Listed�Buildings,�Conservation�Areas,�whilst�ensuring�important�elements�of�the�20th�Century�New�Town�architecture�retain�the�flexibility�to�adapt�and�meet�changing�needs.�Development�proposals�must�consider�the�character,�appearance�and�setting�of�buildings,�structures,�areas,�parks�and�gardens�and�landscapes�that�are�of�historic,�architectural,�cultural�or�archaeological�interest."�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Our�client�the�Joint�Owners�are�keen�to�ensure�that�the�policy�framework�facilitates�and�assists�the�delivery�of�the�planned�expansion�of�Milton�Keynes�in�terms�of�housing�growth�and�the�lvel�of�anticiapted�retail�capacity�identified�for�CMK�in�the�Retail�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 924 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414840�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Heather�Lewis�
Consultee�Organisation:� Bucks,�Berks�and�Oxfordshire�Wildlife�Trust�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP439�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�15.7�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
This�paragraph�is�not�fully�in�line�with�the�requirements�of�Planning�Policy�Statement�9;�Biodiversity�and�Geological�Conservation�in�that�the�policy�requires�Local�Development�Frameworks�to�'identify�any�areas�or�sites�for�the�restoration�and�creation�of�new�habitats�..'�(Paragraph�5).��
‘The�Development�Management�DPD�will�include�detailed�policies�on�heritage�protection.�It�will�also�include�policies�on�landscape�and�nature�conservation�and�standards�of�open�space�provision.'��
Insert�text�as�follows;��
The�Development�Management�DPD�will�include�detailed�policies�on�heritage�protection.�It�will�also�include�policies�on�landscape�and�nature�conservation�‘indicating�on�maps�the�location�of�all�national,�regional�and�locally�designated�biodiversity�sites�within�the�Borough�and�locations�of�Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas'�and�standards�of�open�space�provision.����
Proposed�Change:�
‘The�Development�Management�DPD�will�include�detailed�policies�on�heritage�protection.�It�will�also�include�policies�on�landscape�and�nature�conservation�and�standards�of�open�space�provision.'��
Insert�text�as�follows;��
The�Development�Management�DPD�will�include�detailed�policies�on�heritage�protection.�It�will�also�include�policies�on�landscape�and�nature�conservation�‘indicating�on�maps�the�location�of�all�national,�regional�and�locally�designated�biodiversity�sites�within�the�Borough�and�locations�of�Biodiversity�Opportunity�Areas'�and�standards�of�open�space�provision.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 925 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 270917�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Tim�Deal�
Consultee�Organisation:� Lafarge�Aggregates�Limited�
Agent�ID:� � � 354559�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Spencer�Warren�
Agent�Organisation:� � Heaton�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP57�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�21�Minerals�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
We�note�that�future�mineral�development�within�Milton�Keynes�will�be�planned�for�within�two�mineral�Development�Plan�Documents.�Policy�CS21�of�the�Core�Strategy�sets�out�the�scope�and�purpose�of�the�Minerals�Core�Strategy.�Whilst�we�are�generally�supportive�of�the�approach�in�Policy�CS21�we�have�a�couple�of�amendments�to�suggest�to�ensure�compliance�with�MPS1�and�provide�a�platform�to�allow�for�mineral�resources�to�be�available�to�meet�the�anticipated�demand�from�the�substantial�growth�over�the�Plan�period.����
Firstly,�we�feel�that�there�should�be�an�additional�bullet�point�within�Policy�CS21�that�will�ensure�that�the�Minerals�Core�Strategy�acknowledges�the�implications�of�the�proposed�growth�over�the�Plan�period.�Paragraph�15.11�of�the�Core�Strategy�acknowledges�that�each�dwelling�and�its�infrastructure�requires�about�400�tonnes�of�aggregates.�This�equates�to�a�total�requirement�of�14�million�tonnes�up�to�2026,�875,000�tonnes�per�annum.�We�recognise�that�this�is�a�significant�increase�on�the�current�apportionment�figure�of�120,000�tonnes�per�annum�and�understand�that�it�will�be�difficult�for�Milton�Keynes�to�supply�all�the�aggregates�required,�particularly�crushed�rock.�However,�imports�should�not�be�relied�upon�alone�and�at�the�very�least�Milton�Keynes�must�ensure�that�they�allocate�sufficient�reserves�to�meet�their�apportionment�figure.�We�recommend�that�the�Core�Strategy�should�ensure�that�strategic�measures�are�in�place�to�secure�this�shortfall,�either�through�additional�reserves�being�permitted�within�Milton�Keynes�or�securing�the�supply�through�imports.�To�meet�the�expected�demand�for�imports�there�will�need�to�be�sufficient�infrastructure�(i.e.�rail�heads)�in�place�to�facilitate�this�demand.�We�believe�that�this�addition�will�provide�clarity�over�the�deliverability�of�the�Core�Strategy.����
Secondly,�we�recommend�amending�the�bullet�point�which�states,�"protecting�known�reserves�through�Mineral�Safeguarding�Areas"�.�Para�9�of�MPS1�states�it�is�one�of�the�national�objectives�to�safeguard�mineral�resources�as�far�as�possible.�This�is�re�iterated�within�Para�13�of�MPS1�which�recommends�that�mineral�resources�are�safeguarded�and�that�LDDS�define�MSAs.�
Proposed�Change:�
To�meet�our�concerns�over�future�supply�we�recommend�the�inclusion�of�a�additional�text�that�acknowledges�the�potential�for�a�shortfall�in�supply�to�meet�the�anticipated�increase�in�demand�and�that�this�may�have�to�be�met�by�an�increase�in�provision�within�Milton�Keynes�or�an�increase�in�imports�or�a�combination�of�both.�If�the�majority�of�the�expected�demand�is�to�be�met�through�imports�we�recommend�that�a�strategy�is�in�place�to�ensure�that�import�facilities�(i.e.�rail�heads)�are�available.��
We�recommend�that�the�sixth�bullet�point�in�Policy�CS21�is�amended�by�replacing�the�word�‘reserves'�with�‘resources'.�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 926 of 969
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 927 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 415002�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Malcolm�Ratcliff�
Consultee�Organisation:� Mineral�Products�Association�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP455�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�21�Minerals�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Policy�CS21��
The�MPA�believes�that�this�policy�is�UNSOUND�by�reason�of�NOT�BEING�CONSISTENT�WITH�NATIONAL�POLICY�(MPS1�Annex�1,�paras�3.1�&�3.6�and�PPS12�paras�4.1�4.5).����
PPS12�para�4.1�states�that�"Every�local�planning�authority�should�produce�a�core�strategy�which�includes:�(3)�a�delivery�strategy....�This�should�set�out�how�much�development�is�intended�to�happen�where,�when,�and�by�what�means�it�will�be�delivered."�The�Core�Strategy�fails�to�do�this�in�respect�of�aggregate�minerals.����
Notwithstanding�the�intention�to�produce�a�Minerals�Core�Strategy�in�a�further�DPD,�we�believe�that�this�guidance�cited�from�PPS12�should�apply�to�the�main�Core�Strategy�from�which�the�Minerals�Core�Strategy�will�be�developed.�At�present�the�Core�Strategy�does�little�more�than�outline�the�broad�content�of�the�Local�Development�Scheme�and�this�is�unacceptable.�In�addition,�even�though�the�precise�change�in�the�sub�regional�apportionment�as�a�result�of�revised�aggregates�forecasts�and�regional�policy�review�is�presently�unknown�it�is�likely�that�the�mineral�planning�authority�will�see�a�substantial�increase�in�its�apportionment,�and�we�believe�this�should�be�indicated�in�the�Core�Strategy.����
Accordingly,�Policy�CS21�should�contain�within�it�the�following,��
� A�broad�commitment�to�provide�for�the�sub�regional�apportionment�in�numerical�terms�including�a�flexible�approach�to�potential�increases�in�the�apportionment.��
� A�broad�commitment�to�maintain�a�landbank�in�accordance�with�national�and�regional�policy.��
� A�broad�commitment�to�identify�a�Mineral�Safeguarding�Area�which�incorporates�the�British�Geological�Surveys�best�practice�advice�which�indicates�that�the�Core�Strategy�should�include�the�objective�of�the�safeguarding�policy,�how�MSAs�will�be�defined�and�the�policies�through�which�they�have�effect.�
Proposed�Change:�
We�therefore�suggest�the�following�rewording�for�the�policy�(deletions�=�strike�through;�additions�=�bold)����
Policy�CS�21�Minerals��
Over�the�period�to�2026�a�significant�amount�of�growth�will�be�talking�place�as�the�plan�area�lies�at�the�centre�of�the�Milton�Keynes�and�South�Midlands�Growth�Area.�In�delivering�growth�there�will�be�an�increased�use�of�recycled�and�secondary�aggregates�in�preference�to�primary�materials.�However,�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 928 of 969
where�this�is�not�practicable�the�mineral�planning�authority�will�provide�for�a�steady�and�adequate�supply�of�locally�won�sand�and�gravel�to�be�maintained�in�accordance�with�regional�guidance.��
At�the�same�time�the�economic�mineral�resource�will�be�protected�for�the�long�term�by�identifying�a�Mineral�Safeguarding�Area�(MSA)�which�will�avoid�the�needless�sterilisation�of�mineral�resources�by�development.�In�addition,�the�MSA�will�be�extended�to�include�existing�and�planned�sites�for�the�storage,�handling,�processing�and�bulk�transport�of�primary�and�recycled/secondary�materials,�including�rail�depots.�The�definition�of�the�MSA�will�extend�into�urban�and�designated�areas;�take�account�of�the�operational�limits�of�mineral�deposits�to�be�protected;�and�will�include�areas�beyond�the�outcrop�as�a�buffer�against�proximal�development.�More�detailed�policies�for�the�operation�of�the�MSA�will�be�provided�in�the�Mineral�Sites�and�Policies�DPD.��
Therefore,�the�mineral�planning�authority�will�maintain�a�sand�and�gravel�landbank�of�at�least�seven�years�and�will�provide�for�the�identification�of�sufficient�resources�to�meet�its�sub�regional�apportionment.�Accordingly,�provision�will�be�made�for�a�minimum�of�2.04�Million�tonnes�of�sand�and�gravel�over�the�plan�period.�This�figure�will�be�subject�to�review�as�expected�changes�to�the�sub�regional�apportionment�are�confirmed.����
In�order�to�To�manage�future�mineral�development�and�integrating�integrate�the�social,�environmental�and�economic�costs�and�benefits�of�mineral�working�and�restoration�,�two�mineral�Development�Plan�Documents�(DPDs)�will�be�prepared�in�accordance�with�the�timescales�set�out�in�the�Local�Development�Scheme�(April�2009);�a�Minerals�Core�Strategy�and�a�Minerals�Sites�and�Policies�DPD.���The�scope�and�purpose�of�the�Minerals�Core�Strategy�will�be�to�set�out�the�Council's�policies�on:�how�we�propose�to�address�the�primary�land�won�aggregates�apportionment�set�out�in�the�SEP�(Partial�Review�of�Policy�M3),�including�testing�the�deliverability�and�sustainability�of�the�sub�regional�apportionment�for�the�Borough�the�vision�and�objectives�for�future�mineral�development�the�spatial�strategy�for�mineral�development�our�commitment�to�maintaining�a�landbank�of�permitted�reserves�encouraging�recycled�and�secondary�aggregates�to�meet�the�SEP�Policy�M2�protecting�known�reserves�through�Mineral�Safeguarding�Areas�safeguarding�existing,�planned,�proposed�or�potential�sites�for�storage,�handling,�processing�and�bulk�transport�of�primary�and�recycled/secondary�materials,�including�rail�depots�the�restoration,�reclamation,�after�use�and�aftercare�of�sites�identifying�broad�areas�of�search�or�preferred�areas�criteria�and�spatial�guidance�for�considering�sites�and�planning�applications�monitoring�and�implementation�framework���In�addition,�the�Minerals�Sites�and�Policies�DPD�will:�allocate�specific�sites�for�future�mineral�development�include�specific�development�management�policies�to�control�the�impacts�of�minerals�development�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Mineral�Products�Association�is�the�principal�trade�association�representing�the�quarrying�industry�in�Great�Britain.�Our�members�represent�100%�of�GB�cement�production,�90%�of�GB�aggregates�production�and�95%�of�GB�asphalt�and�ready�mixed�concrete�pr�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 929 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273110�
Consultee�Name:� � Kirsten�Hannaford�Hill�
Consultee�Organisation:� Cemex�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP624�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�21�Minerals�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
In�general�terms�it�is�considered�that�the�core�strategy�document�provides�satisfactory�aims�and�objectives�and�overview�of�development�issues�in�Milton�Keynes.�
It�is�hoped�that�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy�complements�the�Milton�Keynes�Mineral�Core�Strategy�and�site�allocation�document�to�provide�a�sound�approach�to�safeguarding�and�developing�mineral�reserves�in�Milton�Keynes.���
It�may�have�been�beneficial�to�see�a�policy�within�the�Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy�safeguarding�mineral�reserves�and�ancillary�plant�/infrastructure�as�they�are�of�strategic�importance�in�the�development�of�Milton�Keynes�and�aims�and�visions�highlighted�in�the�Core�Strategy.�
I�hope�the�above�is�useful�in�assisting�this�stage�of�the�Development�Framework�in�Milton�Keynes�and�I�look�forward�to�future�consultation�documents�especially�regarding�Minerals�and�waste�development.��
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� �
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 930 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413791�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Andy�Barton�
Consultee�Organisation:� Aylesbury�Vale�District�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP153�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�16�Delivering�Infrastructure�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
MK�Core�Strategy�as�a�whole�fails�to�recognise�the�implications�of�the�CIL�regulations,�and�the�effect�that�this�will�have�on�any�future�MK�Tariff�arrangements,�when�‘pooled�contributions'�are�unable�to�be�applied�after�April�2014.�
Proposed�Change:�
Plan�needs�to�be�updated�(in�this�and�related�locations)�to�become�in�line�with�CIL�regulations,�which�will�render�the�MK�Tariff�unable�to�be�extended�into�the�future.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 931 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273009�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Frank�Donlon�
Consultee�Organisation:� North�Bucks�Parishes�Planning�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP166�
Consultation�Point:� � Figure�16.1�Milton�Keynes�(Urban�Area�and�Planning�Functions�Order�2004)�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
Whilst�this�map�may�correctly�show�the�"�urban�area�and�planning�functions�order�2004"�NBPPC�contests�that�the�boundaries�must�be�revised�to�accurately�record�the�development�as�approved�in�the�adopted�2005�MK�Local�Plan,�following�the�Inspector's�decision,�later�approved�and�adopted�by�MKC�and�MKP�(now�HCA).�Otherwise�the�map�gives�the�unwarranted�indication�that�development�could�occur�in�the,�now�deleted�and�discredited�Area�10.4,�to�the�south�of�the�approved�Western�Expansion�Area.�
Proposed�Change:�
If�the�map�cannot�be�amended�(for�legal�reasons)�then�an�explanation�must�be�provided�to�the�effect�that�development�to�the�north�west�and�west�of�Oakhill�Wood�has�been�shown�to�be�an�unacceptable�location�due�to�the�important�landscape�considerations�beyond�Shenley�Ridge.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�represent�most�strongly�the�views�of�our�20�Parish�Council�members�in�the�North�Bucks�area�of�Aylesbury�Vale�including�the�most�affected�communities�of�Newton�Longville�and�Mursley.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 932 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271256�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�M�S�Hedges�
Consultee�Organisation:� Nash�Parish�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP186�
Consultation�Point:� � Figure�16.1�Milton�Keynes�(Urban�Area�and�Planning�Functions�Order�2004)�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
See�Q5�
Proposed�Change:�
This�map�may�correctly�show�the�'Urban�Area�and�Planning�Functions�Order�2004'�but�the�boundaries�must�be�revised�to�accurately�record�the�development,�as�approved�and�adopted�by�MKC�and�MKP�(now�HCA).��If�the�map�boundareis�are�not�revised�it�will�give�the�unwarranted�indication�that�development�could�occur�in�the,�now�deleted�and�discredited�area�10.4�to�the�south�of�the�approved�western�expansion�area.�If�legal�reasons�prohibit�any�map�amendments,�then�an�explanation�must�be�provided�to�the�effect�that�development�to�the�north�west�and�west�of�Oakhill�Wood�has�been�shown�to�be�an�unacceptable�location�due�to�the�important�landscape�considerations�beyond�Shenley�Ridge�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 933 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 269165�
Consultee�Name:� � Ms�Suzanne�Lindsey�
Consultee�Organisation:� Whaddon�Parish�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP209�
Consultation�Point:� � Figure�16.1�Milton�Keynes�(Urban�Area�and�Planning�Functions�Order�2004)�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
Whilst�this�map�may�correctly�show�the�'urban�areea�and�planning�functions�order�2004',�WPC�would�suggest�that�the�boundaries�should�be�redrawn�to�accurately�record�development�as�approved�in�the�adopted�2005�MK�Local�Plan,�following�the�inspector's�decision,�later�approved�and�adopted�by�MKP�(now�HCA)�and�MKC.��
Otherwise�the�map�gives�the�unwarranted�indication�that�development�could�occur�in�the�now�deleted�and�discredited�area�10.4�to�the�south�of�the�approved�western�expansion�area.��
If�this�map�cannot�be�amended�(for�legal�or�other�reasons)�then�an�explanation�should�be�provided�to�the�effect�that�development�to�the�north�west�and�west�of�Oakhill�Wood�has�been�shown�to�be�an�unacceptable�location�due�to�the�importance�of�the�landscape�considerations�beyond�the�Shenley�Ridge�
Proposed�Change:�
Refer�to�Q4�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 934 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 269505�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Janet�A�Pickup�
Consultee�Organisation:� Newton�Longville�Parish�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP91�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�22�Delivering�Infrastructure�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
FIGURE�16.1�PAGE�100�(map)���
Whilst�this�map�may�correctly�show�the�"�urban�area�and�planning�functions�order�2004"�Newton�Longville�PC�would�argue�that�the�boundaries�should�be�revised�to�accurately�record�the�development�as�approved�in�the�adopted�2005�MK�Local�Plan,�following�the�Inspector's�decision,�later�approved�and�adopted�by�MKC�and�MKP�(now�HCA).�
Proposed�Change:�
Otherwise�the�map�gives�the�unwarranted�indication�that�development�could�occur�in�the,�now�deleted�and�discredited�Area�10.4,�to�the�south�of�the�approved�Western�Expansion�Area.�If�the�map�cannot�be�amended�(for�legal�reasons)�then�an�explanation�should�be�provided�to�the�effect�that�development�to�the�north�west�and�west�of�Oakhill�Wood�has�been�shown�to�be�an�unacceptable�location�due�to�the�important�landscape�considerations�beyond�Shenley�Wood.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 935 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272964�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Phil�Bowsher�
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Parks�Trust�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP320�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�22�Delivering�Infrastructure�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
This�policy�and�its�supporting�section�makes�limited�reference�to�the�delivery�of�utilities�and�services�infrastructure.�The�concern�of�the�Parks�Trust�makes�the�Core�Strategy�less�effective�than�it�needs�to�be�in�ensuring�that�utilities�infrastructure,�as�it�is�provided�to�meet�the�needs�of�the�growing�city�of�Milton�Keynes,�does�not�damage�the�city's�green�landscape,�specifically�the�grid�road�landscapes�and�linear�parks�system.�Whilst�The�Parks�Trust�recognises�and�accepts�that�the�grid�road�corridors�were�always�intended�to�serve�as�utility�routes�and�it�is�not�our�intention�to�place�barriers�against�this�provision,�we�nonetheless�feel�it�important�for�the�Core�Strategy�to�recognise�that�delivering�all�the�necessary�utility�services�and�supplies�must�be�carefully�managed�and�should�not�be�achieved�at�the�detriment�of�the�city's�landscape,�through�which�most�of�the�ultilities�infrastructure�passes.�Some�more�specific�recognition�of�this�within�the�Core�Strategy�would�make�it�more�effective�in�ensuring�growth�and�infrastructure�provision�is�managed�in�line�with�other�objectives.�
Proposed�Change:�
Policy�CS�22�should�include�some�additional�wording�within�the�second�bullet�point�to�say��
"there�is�a�reliable�mechanism�in�place�to�ensure�that�it�is�delivered�in�the�right�place�at�the�right�time,�to�the�required�minimum�standards�demanded�by�this�Council�and�its�partners�and�in�a�managed�way�to�ensure�existing�features�of�value�are�not�damaged�or�that�appropriate�mitigation�measures�are�put�in�place�to�ensure�the�character�and�quality�of�place�are�not�degraded."�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 936 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272974�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Martyn�Twigg�
Consultee�Organisation:� Fox�Strategic�Land�and�Property�on�behalf�of�Bellow�Hill�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP591�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�22�Delivering�Infrastructure�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Whilst�recognising�the�importance�of�the�timely�delivery�of�infrastructure�to�successful�community�building,�the�application�of�a�'standard�formulae'�is�unsound.�Some�developments�may�have�higher�or�lower�infrastructure�requirements�and�the�application�of�standard�formulae�is�therefore�inappropriate�as�it�does�not�reflect�the�different�requirements�of�sites.��
A�standard�formulae�approach�is�not�consistent�with�Circular�05/05�where�planning�obligations�and�costs�are�required�to�meet�the�requirements�of�specific�developments.�A�standard�formulae�cannot�therefore�comply�with�the�tests�in�Circular�05/05�
Proposed�Change:�
CS22�should�be�amended�to�provide�for�infrastructure�costs�to�be�provided�appropriate�to�a�particular�development.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Bellow�Hill�Consortium's�representation�as�a�whole�relate�to�a�major�site�which�can�accommodate�about�3,000�homes�and�infrastructure�which�has�implications�for�the�overarching�objectives/principles�and�strategy�of�the�CS.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 937 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 416224�
Consultee�Name:� � Ms�Catriona�Riddell�
Consultee�Organisation:� South�East�England�Partnership�Board�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP628�
Consultation�Point:� � Policy�CS�22�Delivering�Infrastructure�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
See�attached�letter��
Representation�3:�Infrastructure��
Within�Policy�CS22�or�the�supporting�text�we�would�welcome�reference�to�the�definition�of�infrastructure�as�set�out�within�the�South�East�Plan�(in�the�box�beneath�paragraph�5.22)�and�to�Policy�CC8:�Green�Infrastructure�(with�the�box�beneath�paragraph�5.27).�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
See�attached�file�overleaf�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 938 of 969
Bob Wilson Development Plans Manager Milton Keynes Council Spatial Planning Division Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Central Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire, MK9 3EJ
31 March 2010 BY EMAIL
Dear Mr Wilson,
MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION
Under Section 24 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the South East England Partnership Board as the Regional Planning Body (RPB) assesses consultations on Development Plan Documents (DPDs) on the extent to which they would cause significant harm to the implementation of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and therefore whether the document is in ‘general conformity’ with the RSS. Under the Act, the current statutory RSS for the South East is the South East Plan (May 2009). The Partnership Board is of the view that the Core Strategy is in general conformity with the South East Plan.
We also wish to make a number of other representations on the document (Regulation 27), which are outlined in the attached schedule. These additional comments indicate how it is considered the DPD should expand upon guidance in the RSS and take forward the regional context. We do not consider it necessary to participate at the oral examination.
I trust that the above is of assistance. Please contact Tom Kingston on 01483 555200 or at [email protected] if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Yours sincerely,
Catriona Riddell Director of Planning
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 939 of 969
South East England Regional Assembly – Representations on theProposed Submission Core Strategy for Milton Keynes, February 2010 (Regulation 27)
Representation 1: Affordable HousingWe acknowledge there is an adopted saved local plan policy covering affordable housing and that the Development Management DPD will include detail on affordable housing. However, to assist delivery of Policy H3 and MKAV2 of the South East Plan we would like to see a specific affordable housing policy set out within the core strategy.
Representation 2: Housing Design and Density We would like to see Policy CS10 make a commitment to contributing to the regional density target of 40 dwellings per hectare, as set out in Policy H5 of the South East Plan and examine how higher densities might be achieved locally.
Representation 3: InfrastructureWithin Policy CS22 or the supporting text we would welcome reference to the definition of infrastructure as set out within the South East Plan (in the box beneath paragraph 5.22) and to Policy CC8: Green Infrastructure (with the box beneath paragraph 5.27).
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 940 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272967�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Sheila�Keene�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Partnerships�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP287�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�16.11�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
Reference�is�made�in�paragraph�16.2�to�the�Local�Investment�Plan�(LIP).�The�LIP�provides�the�investment�priorities�that�have�been�agreed�with�MKP's�partners�in�Milton�Keynes�over�the�short�term�and�presents�a�detailed�list�of�future�priorities�up�to�2021.�It�draws�together�a�comprehensive�programme�of�projects�and�provides�a�coherent�approach�to�the�funding�and�implementation�activities�of�other�infrastructure�providers�and�partners.�It�should�be�noted�that�although�the�LIP�provides�a�robust�basis�for�promoting�infrastructure�delivery�in�the�short�to�medium�term,�it�does�not�provide�a�comprehensive�list�of�infrastructure�needs,�cost�estimates�and�responsibilities�for�delivery�of�all�requirements�over�the�plan�period.�Further�work�will�be�required�with�the�relevant�service�providers�to�identify�and�cost�theses�beyond�the�time�horizon�of�the�LIP.��
With�regard�to�delivery�the�future�availability�of�funding�is�uncertain.�The�CS�usefully�acknowledges�this�point�through�general�references�to�possible�funding�sources.�In�addition�to�making�reference�to�funding�sources�the�policy�should�have�the�flexibility�to�allow�for�different�solutions�/�models�of�delivery�to�emerge,�including�the�potential�introduction�of�CIL�as�a�successor�to�the�MK�Tariff.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�supporting�text�of�the�Delivering�Infrastructure�Chapter�should�include�an�additional�paragraph�to�clarify�the�role�of�MKP�and�the�Local�Investment�Plan.�In�addition�the�policy�should�be�more�flexible�particularly�around�the�way�in�which�developer�contributions�may�be�secured�to�deliver�infrastructure.�This�would�recognise�uncertainty�around�the�possible�introduction�of�CIL�as�a�successor�to�the�tariff.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 941 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414551�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Peter�Smith�
Consultee�Organisation:� Thames�Valley�Police�
Agent�ID:� � � 414536�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Alderson�
Agent�Organisation:� � WYG�Planning�&�Design�
Representation�ID:� � PSP366�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�16.11�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Proposed�Change:�
The�reference�to�"emergency�services"�should�be�replaced�by�"police,�fire�and�rescue,�and�ambulance�services".��This�would�make�it�consistent�with�the�definition�of�Social�and�Community�infrastructure�at�Appendix�A�of�the�document�and�ensue�effectiveness�in�terms�of�implementing�policy�in�practice.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 942 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272974�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Martyn�Twigg�
Consultee�Organisation:� Fox�Strategic�Land�and�Property�on�behalf�of�Bellow�Hill�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP588�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�17.1�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Paras�17.1�to�17.8��
Chapter�17�does�not�contain�a�policy�or�mechanisms�to�put�in�place�as�alternative�strategy�if�either�delivery�of�housing�falls�behind�the�RSS�requirement,�or�difficulties�are�encountered�which�delay�the�delivery�of�allocated�housing�sites.�The�CS�does�not�provide�flexibility�to�adapt�to�changes�in�circumstances.�This�is�unsound.��
The�CS�should�therefore�provide�a�policy�mechanism�to�provide�for�a�review�of�the�CS,�or�identify�a�series�of�contingency�or�safeguarded�sites�that�can�be�brought�forward�to�meet�shortfalls�in�housing.�
Proposed�Change:�
A�policy�should�be�provided�in�the�CS�to�enable�it�to�be�reviewed�or�for�‘safeguarded�sites'�(see�our�other�representations)�to�be�drawn�down�where�delivery�of�housing�falls�substantially�behind�target.�Where�delivery�falls�behind�RSS�requirement�by�10%�or�more�for�3�consecutive�years�safeguarded�housing�sites�should�be�released�for�development.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Bellow�Hill�Consortium’s�representation�as�a�whole�relate�to�a�major�site�which�can�accommodate�about�3,000�homes�and�infrastructure�which�has�implications�for�the�overarching�objectives/principles�and�strategy�of�the�CS.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 943 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 270456�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�J�Mountford�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP71�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�17.8�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
It�is�not�sufficiently�clear�which�body�will�be�responsible�for�overrall�delivery�of�the�strategy.�Indeed,�whilst�para�17.7�states�that�MK�Council�will�not�be�soley�responsible�for�delivery,�there�is�no�hint�or�statement�as�to�which�body�WILL�be�responsible.�JDTs�are�all�very�well,�but�some�body���preferably�locally�democratically�accountable���must�be�responsible�for�pplanning�and�delivering�the�strategy,�otherwise�despite�any�amount�of�"monitoring",�delivery�will�surely�fail�and�effective�cost�management�will�not�take�place.�A�strategy�document�which�excludes�definition�of�this�key�responsibility�is,�in�my�opinion�fundamentally�flawed..�
Proposed�Change:�
My�statement�above,�is,�I�think�self�explanatory.�Paragraph�17�needs�to�propose�assignment�of�overrall�responsibility�for�delivery�of�this�strategy,�or,�as�a�second�best,�to�state�that�an�initial�task�of�the�Council�and/or�Government�or�the�owner�of�this�strategy�will�be�to�assign�that�responsibility�unequivocally.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 944 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 354565�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Charlotte�Frizzell�
Consultee�Organisation:� Natural�England�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP294�
Consultation�Point:� � Table�17.1�Core�Strategy�Critical�Success�Factors�and�Monitoring�Indicators�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Objective�13�target:�Ensure�that�there�is�no�net�loss�of�recognised�biodiversity�habitats.�This�is�not�as�positive�a�target�as�PPS9�and�NRM5�advises.�PPS9�states�that�'plan�policies...�should�aim�to�maintain,�and�enhance,�restore�or�add�to�biodiversity'�and�NRM5�of�the�South�East�Plan�states�that�‘�Local�planning�authorities�and�other�bodies�shall�avoid�a�net�loss�of�biodiversity,�and�actively�pursue�opportunities�to�achieve�a�net�gain�across�the�region'.�
Proposed�Change:�
Natural�England�suggests�that�the�target�should�be�more�positive,�and�aim�for�gains�in�biodiversity,�rather�than�prevention�of�loss.�This�should�be�in�the�form�of�gain�of�BAP�habitat�or�species.�For�example�'To�increase�BAP�priority�habitat�by�X�ha�by�2015.��
This�would�bring�it�into�line�with�PPS9�Key�Principle�(ii):�‘Plan�policies�and�planning�decisions�should�aim�to�maintain,�and�enhance,�restore�or�add�to�biodiversity�and�geological�conservation�interests'.�Further,�Policy�NRM5�in�the�South�east�plan�states:�‘�Local�planning�authorities�and�other�bodies�shall�avoid�a�net�loss�of�biodiversity,�and�actively�pursue�opportunities�to�achieve�a�net�gain�across�the�region'.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 945 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 402329�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Chris�Coppock�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP387�
Consultation�Point:� � Table�17.1�Core�Strategy�Critical�Success�Factors�and�Monitoring�Indicators�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Proposed�Change:�
In�Table�17.1:��
1)�the�Objectives�(buried�in�the�early�part�of�the�document)�should�be�restated.��
2)�the�derivation�and�selection�of�targets�and�indicator�bundles�is�not�transparent,�and�the�latter�are�not�cross�referenced�to�the�former.�
Reasons�:�Table�7.1�is�not�clear,�and�needs�more�work�to�make�it�useful.��
In�detail:��
3)�Re�Objective�13:�in�4th�column�bullet�2�change�"Local�Wildlife�sites�and�Biological�Notification�Sites"�to�"designated�wildlife�sites".��
Reason�:�covers�all�sites:�see�also�my�response�to�15.5�which�explains.��
4)�Re�Objective�13:�in�3rd�column�bullet�5�after�"net�loss"�insert�"or�deterioration".��
Reason�:�self�explanatory.��
5)�Re�Objective�13:�suggest�delete�3rd�column�bullet�6�referring�to�SSSIs.�Reason�:�may�be�redundant�as�a�statutory�remit�of�Natural�England�working�with�site�owners�and�covered�by�bullet�5.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 946 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273046�
Consultee�Name:� � Gallagher�Estates�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gallagher�Estates�
Agent�ID:� � � 414811�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Greg�Mitchell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP454�
Consultation�Point:� � Table�17.1�Core�Strategy�Critical�Success�Factors�and�Monitoring�Indicators�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Whilst�we�support�the�commitment�of�MKC�to�adopt�an�SPD�for�the�SE�SDA�by�2011,�table�17.1�should�acknowledge�that�this�is�the�starting�point�for�beginning�the�first�phase�of�delivery�of�the�SE�SDA.�There�is�no�justification�to�delay�development�until�after�2016.�Indeed,�the�evidence�strongly�indicates�that�every�effort�should�be�made�to�commence�development�of�the�SE�SDA�as�soon�as�possible�i.e.�in�the�period�2011�2016.�
Proposed�Change:�
Table�17.1�should�acknowledge�that�this�is�the�starting�point�for�beginning�the�first�phase�of�delivery�of�the�SE�SDA.�There�is�no�justification�to�delay�development�until�after�2016.�Indeed,�the�evidence�strongly�indicates�that�every�effort�should�be�made�to�commence�the�first�phase�of�development�in�the�SE�SDA�as�soon�as�possible�i.e.�in�the�period�2011�2016�and�that�this�should�be�focussed�on�Glebe�Farm�and�Eagle�Farm�(the�existing�Local�Plan�SRAs�that�are�included�within�the�existing�MK�Tariff�Agreement).�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�the�Core�Strategy�and�these�representations�is�properly�and�appropriately�examined.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 947 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 413552�
Consultee�Name:� � Wavendon�Properties�
Consultee�Organisation:� Wavendon�Properties�
Agent�ID:� � � 413543�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Alcock�
Agent�Organisation:� � Halcrow�Group�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP105�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�18�Development�Timeline�and�Housing�Trajectory�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
We�object�to�the�development�timeline�and�housing�trajectory�outlined�in�paragraphs�18.2,�18.3�and�18.4.�The�policy�should�be�worded�so�as�to�permit�early�release�of�land�within�the�SESDA�if�necessary.�The�wording�of�18.3�should�refer�to�the�first�phase�of�housebuilding�in�the�SESDA�beginning�in�this�period�if�this�is�required�to�deliver�the�targets.�This�will�allow�the�SESDA�to�respond�to�any�changes�in�the�housing�trajectory.�The�SESDA�is�deliverable�and�there�are�no�significant�constraints�to�development�in�terms�of�land�ownership,�current�use,�landscape,�drainage�or�highways.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�Council�should�amend�paragraph�18.2�so�that�it�states�"The�Council,�in�co�operation�with�Central�Bedfordshire,�will�adopt�the�masterplan�and�delivery�SPD�for�the�SESDA�and�will�allow�the�first�applications�for�the�SESDA�to�be�submitted�within�this�phase"�(2006���2011).����
The�Council�should�amend�paragraph�18.3�so�that�it�states�"The�first�phase�of�housebuilding�within�the�SESDA�begins,�on�those�sites�deemed�suitable�for�early�release�in�the�previous�five�year�period"�(2011���2016).�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Our�objection�relates�to�a�number�of�other�inter�related�comments�and�objections,�which�should�be�considered�in�the�main.�To�do�this,�it�requires�participation�at�an�oral�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 948 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273028�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�James�Robinson�
Consultee�Organisation:� Midsummer�Housing�Association�
Agent�ID:� � � 413988�
Agent�Name:� � � Ms�Angela�Banks�
Agent�Organisation:� � PRP�Planning�
Representation�ID:� � PSP176�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�18�Development�Timeline�and�Housing�Trajectory�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Chapter�18�Development�Timeline�and�Housing�Trajectory��
Paragraph�18.2�refers�to�the�first�5�year�period�to�2011�and�what�is�expected�to�be�achieved�in�this�time.�Given�the�current�development�climate,�it�is�extremely�unlikely�that�significant�progress�will�be�made�in�respect�of�the�eastern�expansion�area,�the�western�expansion�area,�a�masterplan�and�delivery�SPD�or�outline�planning�application�for�the�SW�SDA.����
Paragraph�18.3�refers�to�development�to�2016,�which�is�considerable�and�very�unlikely.����
Paragraph�18.4�refers�to�development�between�2016�and�2026,�which�is�even�greater�than�the�previous�five�year�periods,�which�we�consider�to�be�very�optimistic.����
We�suggest�that�in�order�to�achieve�the�development�timeline�and�housing�trajectory,�more�innovative�action�is�required�through�the�Core�Strategy�and�this�can�be�achieved�through�the�inclusion�of�a�reserve�strategic�development�area���identified�at�Lavente�Gate�as�proposed�by�Midsummer�Guinness�Housing�Association�and�including�Eaton�Leys�owned�by�Gallaghers.�
Proposed�Change:�
We�suggest�that�in�order�to�achieve�the�development�timeline�and�housing�trajectory,�more�innovative�action�is�required�through�the�Core�Strategy�and�this�can�be�achieved�through�the�inclusion�of�a�reserve�strategic�development�area���identified�at�Lavente�Gate�as�proposed�by�Midsummer�Guinness�Housing�Association�and�including�Eaton�Leys�owned�by�Gallaghers.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
In�order�to�clarify�and�debate�the�representations�made�and�answer�any�queries�that�the�Inspector�may�raise�in�relation�to�our�objections,�comments�and�suggestions.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 949 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273018�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� SEMK�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268944�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Jackson�
Agent�Organisation:� � Savills�
Representation�ID:� � PSP506�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�18�Development�Timeline�and�Housing�Trajectory�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�current�market�environment�there�is�a�requirement�for�more�flexible�an�adaptable�development�strategies.�Section�18�takes�a�very�prescriptive�approach�and�the�Consortium�considers�that�Development�Timeline�unnecessarily�holds�back�land�supply�that�can�make�a�positive�contribution�to�achieving�housing�targets.�The�Core�Strategy�acknowledges�the�challenges�to�delivery�in�the�current�market,�but�does�not�acknowledge�its�role�in�identifying�means�of�addressing�these�difficulties.�Instead,�the�Core�Strategy�assumes�that�the�market�will�deliver�despite�the�tightly�constrained�policy�framework�that�includes�excessive�control�on�the�phasing�of�land�for�development�and�the�imposition�of�exacting�environmental�standards�ahead�of�that�required�by�the�relevant�national�guidelines.�The�Consortium�does�not�consider�that�this�approach�is�sufficient.��
On�the�matter�of�phasing,�the�Consortium�sets�out�below�changes�to�the�Development�Timeline�that�allow�the�earlier�delivery�of�the�Central�Bedfordshire�part�of�the�SESDA.�In�the�context�of�the�overall�Growth�Area,�the�local�authority�boundary�is�irrelevant�and�should�not�form�the�basis�of�the�phasing�strategy�for�the�SESDA.�Instead�the�basis�for�the�phased�delivery�of�the�SESDA�should�be�determined�on�the�ability�to�deliver�alongside�the�necessary�supporting�infrastructure.�These�are�issues�to�be�addressed�through�the�preparation�of�the�Development�Framework�and�it�is�important�that�the�preparation�of�that�document�is�sufficiently�advanced�in�its�preparation�to�enable�it�to�contribute�meaningfully�to�the�policies�and�proposals�of�the�Core�Strategy.��
PPS12�requires�that�the�planning�process�should�identify�and�have�evidence�for�the�costs�of�funding�infrastructure�and�reliable�sources�of�funding.�So�far�this�has�not�been�done�and�the�Consortium�has�proposed�that�this�can�best�be�achieved�by�preparation�of�an�Infrastructure�Delivery�Plan�to�be�prepared�in�support�of�the�Core�Strategy�and�which�benefits�from�detailed�input�from�the�SESDA�Development�Framework.�In�this�regard,�the�Consortium�sees�a�particular�incongruity�between�the�objective�in�2011�2016�of�delivering�A421�dualling�between�Kingston�and�M1�Junction�13�and�the�later�2016�2021�objective�of�housebuilding�beginning�in�the�SESDA�and�infrastructure�being�completed�alongside�that.�It�is�sensible�in�terms�of�funding�and�practical�implementation�for�the�delivery�of�the�SESDA�to�take�place�alongside�the�construction�of�the�A421.�This�would�involve�commencement�of�residential�development�in�the�SESDA�pre�2016�to�be�consistent�with�Table�17.1,�Objective�16�and�Paragraph�18.3�bullet�point�6.��
Furthermore,�the�Housing�Trajectory�does�not�identify�what�interventions�it�will�use�in�the�event�that�there�is�a�shortfall�in�delivery.�This�matter�is�addressed�in�PPS12�paragraph�4.46�and�PPS3�paragraph�63,�which�requires�that:��
‘Local�Planning�authorities�should�indicate�what�ranges�of�housing�delivery�...�are�acceptable�and�what�actions�may.'be�taken�in�what�circumstances,�so�that�there�are�clear�and�transparent�points�that�will�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 950 of 969
trigger�management�action'�.��
The�Consortium�has�already�identified�the�fact�that�it�considers�that�the�Development�Timeline�needlessly�delays�the�delivery�of�parts�of�the�SESDA�and�the�remedies�for�this�in�terms�of�changes�to�paragraphs�18.2�18.5�set�out�below.�A�‘management�action'�that�the�Core�Strategy�could�identify�therefore�is�an�accelerated�timescale�to�deliver�an�increase�in�land�supply�in�response�to�the�monitoring�process�identifying�shortfalls.�This�scenario�might�see�for�example�multiple�starts�at�a�variety�of�locations�within�the�SESDA,�such�that�a�wider�range�of�choice�can�be�created�in�the�market�place�in�terms�of�location�and�product,�and�thus�speeding�delivery.��
For�consistency�with�the�remainder�of�the�Core�Strategy�and�to�ensure�the�objectives�of�the�document�are�achieved�consistent�with�the�SEP�and�PPSs�a�number�of�amendments�are�required.�
Proposed�Change:�
Paragraph�18.3�to�be�amended:��
2011�2016:�bulletpoint�3�to�be�amended�in�accordance�with�the�following:��
‘The�first�planning�applications�will�be�submitted�for�the�South�East�SDA�and�a�tariff�agreement�established�with�work�beginning�on�necessary�initial�infrastructure,�services�and�the�first�phases�of�residential�development�being�implemented.'��
Paragraph�18.4�to�be�amended:��
2016�2021:�the�pace�of�development�picks�up�in�the�South�East�SDA�as�housebuilding�continues�in�the�Milton�Keynes�portion�and�extends�into�Central�Bedfordshire.�Delivery�of�services�to�be�implemented�alongside�phased�implementation�of�new�housing�including�schools�and�the�linear�park.'��
Paragraph�18.5�to�be�amended:��
2021�2026:�South�East�SDA�comprehensively�completed�across�Milton�Keynes�and�Central�Bedfordshire.�
Housing�Trajectory�section�amended:��
Additional�text�is�required�to�set�out�the�targets�for�housing�delivery�that�the�Council�is�aiming�to�achieve�during�specific�periods�of�the�plan,�for�example�replicating�the�5�year�periods�set�out�in�paragraphs�18.2�18.5.�The�tolerance�range�for�these�targets�should�also�be�stated�and�the�management�actions�that�will�be�taken�in�the�event�that�monitoring�shows�that�the�target�levels�of�supply�are�not�being�achieved.�These�management�actions�should�include�exploring�means�of�accelerating�delivery�including�multiple�site�starts�within�the�SDAs�where�this�is�consistent�with�delivering�the�Development�Framework�in�accordance�with�the�principles�of�sustainable�development.'�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Consortium�has�a�particular�interest�in�the�formulation�of�the�Core�Strategy,�given�the�key�development�proposals�to�the�South�East�of�Milton�Keynes.�The�Consortium�therefore�wishes�to�be�allowed�to�represent�its�interest�at�the�examination.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 951 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 415258�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Duncan�Phillips�
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Burford�Group�and�Merton�College�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP530�
Consultation�Point:� � Chapter�18�Development�Timeline�and�Housing�Trajectory�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
In�the�current�market�environment�there�is�a�requirement�for�more�flexible�and�adaptable�development�strategies.�Section�18�takes�a�very�prescriptive�approach�and�the�Burford�Group�considers�that�Development�Timeline�unnecessarily�holds�back�land�supply�from�within�the�SESDA�that�can�make�a�positive�contribution�to�achieving�housing�targets.�Instead�the�text�for�each�5�year�period�of�the�plan�should�be�amended�to�show�a�more�rapid�progression�though�the�planning�stages�to�delivery�of�the�SESDA.��
Furthermore,�the�Housing�Trajectory�does�not�identify�what�interventions�it�will�use�in�the�event�that�there�is�a�shortfall�in�delivery.�This�matter�is�addressed�in�PPS12�paragraph�4.46�and�PPS3�paragraph�63,�which�requires�that:��
‘�Local�Planning�authorities�should�indicate�what�ranges�of�housing�delivery�...�are�acceptable�and�what�actions�may�be�taken�in�what�circumstances,�so�that�there�are�clear�and�transparent�points�that�will�trigger�management�action�.'��
A�‘management�action'�that�the�Core�Strategy�could�identify�therefore�is�an�accelerated�timescale�to�deliver�an�increase�in�land�supply�in�response�to�the�monitoring�process�identifying�shortfalls.�This�should�include�advancing�delivery�of�the�SESDA�though�an�increased�rate�of�release�of�phases�of�the�development.��
For�consistency�with�the�remainder�of�the�Core�Strategy�and�to�ensure�the�objectives�of�the�document�are�achieved�consistent�with�the�SEP�and�PPSs�a�number�of�amendments�are�required.�
Proposed�Change:�
Paragraph�18.2�to�be�amended:��
2006�2011:�delete�bulletpoint�11�and�replace�with�the�following:�‘Adoption�of�an�SPD/Development�Framework�for�the�South�East�SDA'.��
Paragraph�18.3�to�be�amended:��
2011�2016:�bulletpoint�3�to�be�amended�in�accordance�with�the�following:�‘The�first�planning�applications�will�be�submitted�for�the�South�East�SDA�and�a�tariff�agreement�established�with�work�beginning�on�necessary�initial�infrastructure,�services�and�the�first�phases�of�residential�development�being�implemented.'��
Paragraph�18.4�to�be�amended:��
2016�2021:�the�pace�of�development�picks�up�in�the�South�East�SDA�as�housebuilding�continues�in�the�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 952 of 969
Milton�Keynes�portion�and�extends�into�Central�Bedfordshire.�Delivery�of�services�to�be�implemented�alongside�phased�implementation�of�new�housing�including�schools�and�the�linear�park.'��
Paragraph�18.5�to�be�amended:��
2021�2026:�South�East�SDA�comprehensively�completed�across�Milton�Keynes�and�Central�Bedfordshire.�
Housing�Trajectory�section�amended:�Additional�text�is�required�to�set�out�the�targets�for�housing�delivery�that�the�Council�is�aiming�to�achieve�during�specific�periods�of�the�plan,�for�example�replicating�the�5�year�periods�set�out�in�paragraphs�18.2�18.5.�The�tolerance�range�for�these�targets�should�also�be�stated�and�the�management�actions�that�will�be�taken�in�the�event�that�monitoring�shows�that�the�target�levels�of�supply�are�not�being�achieved.�These�management�actions�should�include�exploring�means�of�accelerating�delivery�including�multiple�site�starts�within�the�SDAs�where�this�is�consistent�with�delivering�the�Development�Framework�in�accordance�with�the�principles�of�sustainable�development.'�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Burford�Group�has�a�key�land�interest�which�forms�part�of�the�proposed�South�East�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 953 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 272974�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Martyn�Twigg�
Consultee�Organisation:� Fox�Strategic�Land�and�Property�on�behalf�of�Bellow�Hill�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP589�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.1�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
Paras�18.1�to�18.8��
Chapter�18�seeks�to�provide�a�phased�approach�to�delivery�in�5�year�tranches.�There�is�no�basis�in�RSS�for�this�approach.�The�phased�approach�to�delivery�is�therefore�inconsistent�with�RSS�and�is�unsound.��
The�issue�of�the�phasing�housing�requirements�of�RSS�has�been�discussed�at�a�number�of�recent�Public�Inquiries�in�Leeds.�In�those�cases�Leeds�City�Council�sought�to�rely�on�a�Local�Area�Agreement�(LAA)�with�Governmnet�Office�for�Yorkshire�and�Humber�to�provide�a�justification�for�a�lower�5�year�requirement�against�RSS.�The�context�of�Leeds�was�that�RSS�provided�a�substantial�increase�in�the�annualised�housing�requirement�from�2008���but�RSS�did�provide�a�reduced�requirement�from�2004�2008.�Clearly,�in�that�case�the�SoS�did�provide�a�specific�phased�approach�to�delivery�in�recognition�of�the�challenges�of�the�substantial�increased�requirement�(which�is�much�greater�than�even�Milton�Keynes�is�required�to�achieve).�In�the�case�of�the�SEP,�the�SoS�did�not�provide�a�similar�phases�requirement.�Had�the�SoS�considered�it�appropriate�to�introduce�a�similar�phased�approach�to�delivery�in�the�SEP�he�would�have�done�so���and�the�fact�of�the�matter�is�that�he�did�not.��
Indeed�Policy�H2viii�of�the�SEP�requires�Council's�to�clawback�the�backlog�of�unmet�housing�by�2016.�Reducing�the�RSS�requirement�now�is�entirely�inconsistent�with�that�requirement�of�the�development�plan.��
It�is�implied�apparent�from�the�Council's�recently�published�"Assessment�of�5�Year�Land�Supply"�that�the�Council�consider�that�it�has�a�5�year�supply�against�a�‘Local�Area�Agreement'�which�has�been�agreed�with�GOSE.�It�is�vitally�important�to�recognise�that�a�LAA�is�not�intended�to�replace�the�requirements�of�RSS.�The�CS�should�make�clear�that�the�annual�requirement�is�that�set�out�in�the�RSS.��
It�is�from�the�above,�that�the�only�figures�which�can�be�used�against�which�the�5�year�requirement�can�be�calculated�are�those�in�RSS,�and�there�is�not�basis�fo�a�phased�approach�to�delivery.�This�should�be�recognised�in�the�CS.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�housing�trajectory�should�be�amended�to�remove�any�phasing�of�housing�land�supply�as�this�has�no�basis�in�RSS.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Bellow�Hill�Consortium’s�representation�as�a�whole�relate�to�a�major�site�which�can�accommodate�about�3,000�homes�and�infrastructure�which�has�implications�for�the�overarching�objectives/principles�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 954 of 969
and�strategy�of�the�CS.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 955 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 407821�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Fairfield�Partnership�
Agent�ID:� � � 407820�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Kevin�Coleman�
Agent�Organisation:� � JB�Planning�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP228�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.2�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified�
Comments:�
The�2�nd�to�last�bullet�point�refers�to�work�beginning�on�the�SE�SDA�masterplan�in�this�period.�Our�understanding�from�the�landowner/stakeholder�workshop�is�that�the�Masterplan�will�be�completed�in�2011.�The�text�should�state:��
"Adoption�of�masterplan�for�the�South�East�SDA�(in�co�operation�with�Central�Bedfordshire)"�
Proposed�Change:�
Amendment:�Change�2nd�to�last�bullet�to�say:��
"Adoption�of�masterplan�for�the�South�East�SDA�(in�co�operation�with�Central�Bedfordshire)"��
Reason:�The�text�as�currently�drafted�is�inconsistent�with�the�proposed�programme�for�the�SE�SDA�Masterplan,�and�is�therefore�not�the�most�appropriate�compared�to�the�reasonable�alternative,�and�not�evidence�based.��
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
This�is�a�significiant�issue�which�in�our�opinion�warrants�debate�at�the�Examination,�to�which�we�would�wish�to�be�party�both�to�answer�any�questions�the�Inspector�may�have�of�our�reasoning�and�to�enable�us�to�respond�to�the�views�of�other�participants.�T�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 956 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273046�
Consultee�Name:� � Gallagher�Estates�
Consultee�Organisation:� Gallagher�Estates�
Agent�ID:� � � 414811�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Greg�Mitchell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Turley�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP426�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.2�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Paragraphs�18.2�18.8�and�Figure�18.1��
Paragraph�18.3�should�include�a�statement�whereby�the�first�phase�of�delivery�of�the�SE�SDA�takes�place�in�the�period�2011�2016.�There�is�no�justification�to�delay�the�beginning�of�housebuilding�until�after�2016�(as�proposed�in�paragraph�18.4).�Indeed,�the�evidence�strongly�indicates�that�every�effort�should�be�made�to�commence�the�first�phase�of�development�in�the�SE�SDA�as�soon�as�possible�i.e.�in�the�period�2011�2016�and�that�this�should�be�focussed�on�Glebe�Farm�and�Eagle�Farm�(the�existing�Local�Plan�SRAs�that�are�included�within�the�existing�MK�Tariff�Agreement).��
The�attached�analysis�of�the�performance�of�the�Housing�Trajectory�reveals�that�there�is�short�term�problem�of�housing�supply�(assessed�against�the�Council's�own�criteria)�that�MKC�is�not�taking�any�action�to�rectify.�The�Core�Strategy�as�presently�drafted�virtually�guarantees�that�the�short�problem�of�housing�supply�will�not�be�dealt�with.��
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�paragraphs�18.2���18.8�and�Figure�18.1�to�confirm�that�the�first�phase�of�delivery�of�the�SE�SDA�takes�place�in�the�period�2011�2016�and�that�this�should�be�focussed�on�Glebe�Farm�and�Eagle�Farm�(the�existing�Local�Plan�SRAs�that�are�included�within�the�existing�MK�Tariff�Agreement).�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�ensure�that�the�evidence�base�that�supports�the�Core�Strategy�and�these�representations�is�properly�and�appropriately�examined.�
See�table�overleaf�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 957 of 969
� MK
Hou
sing
Tra
ject
ory
Ana
lysi
s
Cum
ulat
ive
SEP
Ann
ual
Pro
visi
on20
06-2
026
Act
ual
Ann
ual
Com
plet
ions
2006
-200
9
Est
imat
edA
nnua
lC
ompl
etio
ns20
09-2
026
Cum
ulat
ive
Com
plet
ions
2006
-202
6
% o
f C
umul
ativ
eSE
PH
ousi
ng
Del
iver
yTa
rget
% o
fA
nnua
lH
ousi
ng
Del
iver
yTa
rget
MK
Est
imat
e of
D
eliv
ery
ofD
wel
lings
5 Y
ear
Tota
lC
umul
ativ
e 5
Yea
rTo
tal
1 20
06-2
007
2068
16
60
1660
80.3
80.3
1620
2 20
07-2
008
4136
23
01
3961
95.8
111.
316
20
3
2008
-200
9 62
04
1841
58
0293
.589
.016
20
4
2009
-201
0 82
72
12
9670
9885
.862
.716
20
5
2010
-201
1 10
340
10
0781
0578
.448
.716
2081
0081
00
6 20
11-2
012
1240
8
1541
9646
77.7
74.5
2184
7 20
12-2
013
1447
6
2119
1176
581
.310
2.5
2184
8 20
13-2
014
1654
4
2435
1420
085
.811
7.7
2184
9 20
14-2
015
1861
2
2450
1665
089
.511
8.5
2184
10
2015
-201
6 20
680
23
7519
025
92.0
114.
821
8410
920
1902
0 11
20
16-2
017
2274
8
2325
2135
093
.911
2.4
2396
12
2017
-201
8 24
816
23
2523
675
95.4
112.
423
96
13
20
18-2
019
2688
4
2225
2590
096
.310
7.6
2396
14
2019
-202
0 28
952
25
0028
400
98.1
120.
923
96
15
20
20-2
021
3102
0
2300
3070
099
.011
1.2
2396
1198
031
000
16
2021
-202
2 33
088
22
0032
900
99.4
106.
420
72
17
20
22-2
023
3515
6
2025
3492
599
.397
.920
72
18
20
23-2
024
3722
4
1975
3690
099
.195
.520
72
19
20
24-2
025
3929
2
1925
3882
598
.893
.120
72
20
20
25-2
026
4136
0
1875
4070
098
.490
.720
7210
360
4136
0
Tota
l 41
360
5802
3489
840
700
41
360
� �
Core
Str
ateg
y: P
re-S
ubm
issi
on P
ublic
atio
n Re
spon
ses,
Feb
ruar
y-M
arch
201
0
Page
958
of 9
69
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 407821�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Fairfield�Partnership�
Agent�ID:� � � 407820�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Kevin�Coleman�
Agent�Organisation:� � JB�Planning�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP229�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.3�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
In�accordance�with�our�representations�elsewhere�regarding�phasing�of�the�SE�SDA,�we�propose�an�amendment�to�the�3�rd�bullet�point�as�follows:��
"The�first�planning�applications�will�be�submitted�for�the�South�East�SDA�and�a�tariff�agreement�to�partially�fund�the�required�infrastructure�is�agreed.�Towards�the�end�of�the�period�work�begins�on�necessary�strategic�infrastructure�and�services,�including�grid�road�extensions,�alongside�initial�phases�of�residential�development�"��
(new�wording�underlined)�
Proposed�Change:�
Amendment:�3rd�bullet�point�to�state:��
"The�first�planning�applications�will�be�submitted�for�the�South�East�SDA�and�a�tariff�agreement�to�partially�fund�the�required�infrastructure�is�agreed.�Towards�the�end�of�the�period�work�begins�on�necessary�strategic�infrastructure�and�services,�including�grid�road�extensions,�alongside�initial�phases�of�residential�development�"��
(new�wording�underlined)��
Reason:�As�currently�drafted,�the�Plan�is�not�effective�in�terms�of�delivering�the�development�required�in�the�SE�SDA�in�the�Plan�period,�is�not�flexible�in�terms�of�the�timing�of�delivery,�and�is�not�the�most�appropriate�having�regard�to�the�reasonable�alternatives�(including�providing�flexibility�for�some�development�in�the�SE�SDA�prior�to�2016).�The�proposed�amendments�provide�that�flexibility�and�increase�the�effectiveness�of�the�Plan.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
This�is�a�significiant�issue�which�in�our�opinion�warrants�debate�at�the�Examination,�to�which�we�would�wish�to�be�party�both�to�answer�any�questions�the�Inspector�may�have�of�our�reasoning�and�to�enable�us�to�respond�to�the�views�of�other�participants.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 959 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 407821�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Fairfield�Partnership�
Agent�ID:� � � 407820�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Kevin�Coleman�
Agent�Organisation:� � JB�Planning�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP230�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.4�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
In�accordance�with�our�representations�elsewhere�regarding�phasing�of�the�SE�SDA,�we�propose�an�amendment�to�the�1st�bullet�point�as�follows:��
"The�pace�of�development�picks�up�in�the�South�East�SDA�as�housebuilding�increases�after�2016�in�the�Milton�Keynes�portion�of�the�SDA.�Infrastructure�is�completed�alongside�housing�including�7�primary�and�2�secondary�schools.�The�linear�park�system�is�extended�into�this�part�of�the�Borough"��
(new�wording�underlined)�
Proposed�Change:�
Amendment:�1st�bullet�to�be:��
"The�pace�of�development�picks�up�in�the�South�East�SDA�as�housebuilding�increases�after�2016�in�the�Milton�Keynes�portion�of�the�SDA.�Infrastructure�is�completed�alongside�housing�including�7�primary�and�2�secondary�schools.�The�linear�park�system�is�extended�into�this�part�of�the�Borough"��
(new�wording�underlined)��
Reason:�As�currently�drafted,�the�Plan�is�not�effective�in�terms�of�delivering�the�development�required�in�the�SE�SDA�in�the�Plan�period,�is�not�flexible�in�terms�of�the�timing�of�delivery,�and�is�not�the�most�appropriate�having�regard�to�the�reasonable�alternatives�(including�providing�flexibility�for�some�development�in�the�SE�SDA�prior�to�2016).�The�proposed�amendments�provide�that�flexibility�and�increase�the�effectiveness�of�the�Plan.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
This�is�a�significiant�issue�which�in�our�opinion�warrants�debate�at�the�Examination,�to�which�we�would�wish�to�be�party�both�to�answer�any�questions�the�Inspector�may�have�of�our�reasoning�and�to�enable�us�to�respond�to�the�views�of�other�participants.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 960 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273044�
Consultee�Name:� � Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Consultee�Organisation:� Salden�Chase�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � 268959�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Mark�Hyde�
Agent�Organisation:� � DLP�Planning�Ltd�
Representation�ID:� � PSP239�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.4�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
Object�to�4th�bullet�point�which�should�be�included�in�paragraph�18.3�
Proposed�Change:�
Amend�final�bullet�point�of�paragraph�18.3�to�read�'Detailed�planning�applications�submitted�for�the�SW�SDA�and�development�commences'�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
The�Salden�Chase�Consortium�is�the�consortium�of�national�housebuilders�and�developers�who�are�delivering�the�SW�SDA�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 961 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 407821�
Consultee�Name:� � �
Consultee�Organisation:� The�Fairfield�Partnership�
Agent�ID:� � � 407820�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�Kevin�Coleman�
Agent�Organisation:� � JB�Planning�Associates�
Representation�ID:� � PSP231�
Consultation�Point:� � Paragraph�18.5�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective�
Comments:�
The�South�East�Plan�requires�the�delivery�of�an�additional�4,800�within�the�SE�SDA�(in�addition�to�the�2500�identified�for�the�existing�SRAs)�by�2026.�This�Core�Strategy�is�setting�out�to�under�pro�vide�against�that�requirement.�It�is�essential�therefore�that�development�begins�within�the�SE�SDA�at�the�earliest�opportunity,�and�the�CS�should�not�be�precluding�residential�development�prior�to�2016.��
In�accordance�with�our�representations�elsewhere�regarding�phasing�of�the�SE�SDA,�we�propose�an�amendment�to�the�2nd�bullet�point�as�follows:��
"Milton�Keynes�Council�area�of�South�East�SDA�nearing�completion�by�2026.�It�is�[likely]�possible�that�some�development�in�the�SDA�will�be�completed�post�2026,�depending�upon�the�extent�of�residential�development�secured�in�the�early�phases�before�2016�.��
(new�wording�underlined,�deleted�wording�in�square�brackets)�
Proposed�Change:�
Amendment:�Alter�2nd�bullet�as�follows:��
"Milton�Keynes�Council�area�of�South�East�SDA�nearing�completion�by�2026.�It�is�[likely]�possible�that�some�development�in�the�SDA�will�be�completed�post�2026,�depending�upon�the�extent�of�residential�development�secured�in�the�early�phases�before�2016�.��
(new�wording�underlined,�deleted�wording�in�square�brackets)��
Reason:�As�currently�drafted,�the�Plan�is�not�effective�in�terms�of�delivering�the�development�required�in�the�SE�SDA�in�the�Plan�period,�is�not�flexible�in�terms�of�the�timing�of�delivery,�and�is�not�the�most�appropriate�having�regard�to�the�reasonable�alternatives�(including�providing�flexibility�for�some�development�in�the�SE�SDA�prior�to�2016).�The�proposed�amendments�provide�that�flexibility�and�increase�the�effectiveness�of�the�Plan.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
This�is�a�significiant�issue�which�in�our�opinion�warrants�debate�at�the�Examination,�to�which�we�would�wish�to�be�party�both�to�answer�any�questions�the�Inspector�may�have�of�our�reasoning�and�to�enable�us�to�respond�to�the�views�of�other�participants.�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 962 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 269505�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�Janet�A�Pickup�
Consultee�Organisation:� Newton�Longville�Parish�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP93�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
GLOSSARY���MK�TARIFF���
Newton�Longville�PC�believes�that�this�currently�stands�at�£18,500�per�unit.�
Proposed�Change:�
This�figure�would�appear�to�be�inadequate�given�that�infrastructure,�labour�costs,�etc.�has�escalated.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 963 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 273009�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Frank�Donlon�
Consultee�Organisation:� North�Bucks�Parishes�Planning�Consortium�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP167�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � �
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
NBPPC�understands�that�this�currently�stands�at�£18,500�per�unit,�this�figure�must�have�been�negotiated�several�years�ago,�since�when�infrastructure,�labour�costs,�etc.�must�have�escalated.�
Proposed�Change:�
NBPPC�question�whether�this�figure�is�high�enough,�should�be�index�linked,�or�renegotiable�depending�on�the�specific�and�particular�requirements�of�any�major�development�or�SDA.��
The�SWSDA�for�instance�must�include�a�link�road,�between�the�A421�and�the�A4146,�which�we�argue�is�required�as�a�specific�result�of�development.�Therefore�funding�must�be�provided�over�and�above�to�the�tariff�figure.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
To�represent�most�strongly�the�views�of�our�20�Parish�Council�members�in�the�North�Bucks�area�of�Aylesbury�Vale�including�the�most�affected�communities�of�Newton�Longville�and�Mursley.�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 964 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 271256�
Consultee�Name:� � Mrs�M�S�Hedges�
Consultee�Organisation:� Nash�Parish�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP187�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Refers�to�Tariff�entry�in�Glossary.��
We�believe�this�figure�currently�amounts�to�£18,500�per�unit.�This�figure�must�be�somewhat�historic,�having�been�negotiated�several�years�ago�and�since�then�there�has�been�a�significant�increase�in�infrastructure�and�labour�costs�etc.�
Proposed�Change:�
Nash�Parish�Council�question�whether�this�figure�is�high�enough.�Should�it�be�index�linked�or�re�negotiable�depending�on�the�specific�and�particular�requirements�of�any�major�development�or�SDA?��
For�example,�the�SW�SDA�must�include�a�link�road�(between�the�A421�and�A4146)�wich�surely�is�required�as�a�specific�result�of�development.�Funding�must�therefore�be�provided�over�and�above�the�tariff�figure.�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 965 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 269165�
Consultee�Name:� � Ms�Suzanne�Lindsey�
Consultee�Organisation:� Whaddon�Parish�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP208�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Refers�to�MK�Tariff�entry�in�the�Glossary.��
WPC�believes�that�the�tariff�currently�stands�at�£18,500�per�unit.�This�figure�was�negotiated�several�years�ago,�since�when�infrastructure,�labour�costs,�materials�etc.�have�substantially�increased.�WPC�questions�whether�or�not�this�figure�is�high�enough,�or�should�be�index�linked,�or�renegotiable�depending�on�the�specific�and�particular�requirements�of�any�major�development�or�SDA.��
The�SWSDA�for�example,�includes�a�link�road�which�we�would�argue�is�required�as�a�specific�result�of�this�development,�and�should�therefore�be�paid�for�in�addition�to�the�tariff�figure.�
Proposed�Change:�
Wording�should�be�incorporated�that�allows�the�tariff�to�be�renegotiated/incresed�where�necessary�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 966 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 414551�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Peter�Smith�
Consultee�Organisation:� Thames�Valley�Police�
Agent�ID:� � � 414536�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�David�Alderson�
Agent�Organisation:� � WYG�Planning�&�Design�
Representation�ID:� � PSP364�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � �
Sound:�� � � Yes�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � �
Comments:�
The�definition�of�"Social�and�Community�Infrastructure"�is�supported�in�relation�to�its�refernce�to�"..police,�fire�and�rescue,�and�ambulance�services".��As�detailed�on�other�representations,�this�phrase�should�replace�the�references�to�"emergency�services"�elsewhere�in�the�document.�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 967 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 402329�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Chris�Coppock�
Consultee�Organisation:� Milton�Keynes�Council�
Agent�ID:� � � �
Agent�Name:� � � �
Agent�Organisation:� � �
Representation�ID:� � PSP390�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � Yes�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Effective�
Comments:�
Glossary�needs�augmenting�with�references�to�wildlife�sites,�biodiversity�action�plans,�etc,�(as�emended�if�my�earler�comments�are�taken�up).�
Proposed�Change:�
Appear�at�Examination:� No,�I�do�not�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 968 of 969
Milton�Keynes�Core�Strategy:�Pre�Submission�Publication�responses,�February�March�2010�
Consultee�ID:� � � 415580�
Consultee�Name:� � Mr�Sansome�
Consultee�Organisation:� �
Agent�ID:� � � 413761�
Agent�Name:� � � Mr�F�Caldwell�
Agent�Organisation:� � Aragon�Land�and�Planning�
Representation�ID:� � PSP561�
Consultation�Point:� � Appendix�A�Glossary�and�Abbreviations�
Legally�Compliant:� � No�
Sound:�� � � No�
Tests�of�Soundness:� � Justified;�Effective;�Consistent�with�national�policy�
Comments:�
The�definition�of�infill�is�too�generalised�and�other�forms�of�development�other�than�infill�may�be�acceptable�in�the�rural�areas.�The�definition�is�therefore�unsound.�
Proposed�Change:�
The�definition�of�infill�should�be�extended�to�include�other�types�of�development�that�could�be�appropriate�in�rural�areas.�For�example�a�development�may�make�more�efficient�use�of�land�and�achieved�other�national�planning�objectives�without�being�infill�development.�
Appear�at�Examination:� Yes,�I�wish�to�participate�at�the�oral�examination�
Reason�for�appearing:�
Because�the�definition�of�infill�and�its�role�in�CS1�is�important�and�could�present�other�forms�of�acceptable�development�occurring.�
�
�
�
�
Core Strategy: Pre-Submission Publication Responses, February-March 2010
Page 969 of 969