EXAMINATION OF THE LOCAL MINERALS PLAN BY Mrs. KATH ELLISON, OCTOBER 2016

ISSUE 4 WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DAVID AND JENNIFER ADAMS

OF THE COACH HOUSE, PASSENHAM, MILTON KEYNES

This statement is to justify our opinion that the plan is unsound and in particular the site A1 at Calverton/Passenham Extension should be removed from the plan.

1. Referring to the document 308 on the list, namely the 2016 MK MLP. Policy 2 on page 23 makes no mention of the above site A1., on either in the Primary Focus list or the Secondary Focus List. Therefore, the document is misleading by not mentioning site A1 in the council’s principal policy on The spatial strategy for sand and gravel extraction.

2. Policy 3 on page 25. Site-specific allocations. Refers to site A1 as being south of Manor Farm, Wolverton, again totally misleading as Site A1 is west of , some 3 miles away from Wolverton

3. Section 4. Providing for minerals, Item 4.14 on page 23, states that the council’s strategy is to balance areas previously subjected to relatively extensive extraction, with areas not previously worked. The inclusion of site A1, which is an extension to an area that has been extensively worked over many years, does therefore not conform to this strategy.

4. The table 2.1 shown on page 15 refers to Passenham/ Calverton, as inactive. This not correct, RGS have been extracting gravel for the past 2 years and are now in the process of filling and top-soiling.

5. Policy 11 on page 35 refers to Landscape and Townscape Character in Milton Keynes and makes no mention of the adjoining area of South . Cooperation with adjoining authorities is promoted many times in the MLP but is ignored when it comes to policy 11.

6. Policy 12 on page 38 refers to General Amenity and again ignores the adjacent village of Passenham in which lies directly downwind of site A1 and will be badly affected by noise and dust. The residents of Passenham are experiencing these problems at the present time due the working of the existing quarry. We have complained to the environmental health department at South Norhants Council on several occasions, reporting both noise and dust.

7. Policy 15 on page 42. Restoration and After Use. This policy contains valuable objectives in general and especially at 5.38 but does not follow this through to individual locations and gives no guidance to applicants on the specific requirements required in a particular location. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment prepared in accordance with the NPPF states, that sites that come forward through the development application process, should require site-specific assessments. We believe that this is too important to be left till the application stage and should be addressed in the MLP.

8. We feel that because Passenham is in the adjacent county on Northamtonshire, the consultation process has not been as robust as it should have been. An illustration of the lack cross county understanding can be seen in the Appendix 1 Site Profiles on pages 56 and 57. The Conservation Area of Passenham has been totally ignored. The Calverton Conservation Area is mentioned as 300m away but Passenham is much closer, the listed Dovecote referred to, is in fact in Passenham. The effect of these proposed gravel workings in close proximity to the two grade I and several other grade II listed buildings in Passenham, has not been properly considered. Nor has the landscape setting, of this small hamlet in the Great Ouse valley been taken into account.

9. In view of all of the above we consider that the MLP is not sound and site A1 should be removed from the plan.