POLICY EA5: WESTERN EXPANSION AREA Summary of objections from local residents, parish councils and other representative groups in Whaddon, Nash and Calverton

INTRODUCTION

The Western Expansion Area (Policy EA5) is the largest new housing allocation in the Plan, capable of accommodating an estimated 4,400 to 5,300 dwellings.

A large number of objections have been received from three villages in the countryside to the west of the proposed development – Whaddon, Nash and Calverton. All but a few of the objections received have been made by individual residents of these villages. Their comments have been summarised in the following report and their details are listed in the accompanying tables. Objections have also been received from the local Member of Parliament (John Bercow MP), parish councils for Whaddon and Nash, Calverton Residents Association and local farmers whose land is included within the development area. The comments from these organisations and businesses have been summarised individually below.

A total of 127 individual objections have been received from Whaddon; 178 from Nash and 32 from Calverton. The majority of the residents of Whaddon and Nash are objecting primarily to the part of policy EA5 that proposes development over the natural ridgeline, bringing the city of into the open countryside. Calverton residents in general are more widely concerned with Policy EA5 as a whole and would prefer to see a higher density development in the other two expansion areas to the north and east of the city.

WHADDON AND NASH – ISSUES RAISED

General comments on process

· Didn't object to earlier LP documents or consultants’ reports because they didn't propose expansion in the Whaddon direction on the scale now proposed. The proposal is undemocratic. · The Council have not yet produced an explanation of why this development should go ahead in contradiction with its consultants’ recommendations. · MKC’s consultants ruled out development in this area. They recommended adequate and less sensitive locations elsewhere, where the adverse impact of development on surrounding rural area would be better contained. · The proposals are damaging and irreversible and pre-empt sub-regional study into how MK should grow over next 25/30 years. A comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach is needed. · There would need to be boundary changes – Aylesbury Vale land becoming part of Milton Keynes.

Principle of development west of ridgeline

· Bad planning for development to spill over ridgeline, not based on adequate research and study · Llewelyn Davies (1998) commented that the ridge formed a natural barrier between the City and the rolling countryside to the west

1 · Development beyond the ridgeline would not be constrained by any substantial, defensible features – it would lead to the threat of further development into other unprotected areas of countryside · Development should not extend past North Bucks Way – with Oakhill Wood, an attractive and important recreation route, retaining rural views · The proposed development not physically or visually related to present City boundary. · The development would increase demand for places at Whaddon First School, which could not be met. · The proposal would be detrimental to village life and the rural community itself. · The proposal represents a waste of good food producing land to the detriment of local agricultural jobs.

Environmental impact

· Unacceptable impact on: - Attractive countryside, the rural setting of Whaddon village and historic landscape of Whaddon Chase. The Whaddon / Nash valley is within a Local Landscape Area in the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan - Whaddon Chase is the only chase remaining in - Local flora and fauna, including badgers and deer - Local ecology, including Oakhill Wood - Snelshall Priory (Scheduled Ancient Monument) - Whaddon Hall (Grade 2 Listed Building

· Development would result in the loss of footpaths and bridleways including the North Bucks Way. · Development would result in light pollution in the Whaddon Chase valley · The proposal to build around Oakhill Wood leaving much of it intact does not mitigate the ecological damage that the overall proposal will cause.

Traffic

· Will encourage more traffic to rat-run between the A421 / Buckingham / Winslow / Aylesbury and Watling Street / / MK City via Whaddon and Nash. Traffic levels and speeds are already unacceptable, plus noise and pollution. · The lack of footpaths in some parts of the village combined with increased traffic will endanger pedestrians, especially children. · Increased traffic levels through Whaddon and Nash will affect the foundations and structure of many of the old buildings there. · No thought given to how rat-running could be avoided. · The road between Whaddon and Nash is “C” classification and there is no speed limit. · The proposed spine road through the WEA is not clearly defined

Visual Impact

Loss of views out to the west · Houses would be a visual eyesore – they should be built in a more suitable location away from unspoilt countryside

Drainage · Drainage implications are unclear – particularly of 3,000 houses west of the ridgeline. The valley already suffers from drainage and flooding problems. · A balancing lake of considerable size would be needed for the new development. It would have to be sited within the Aylesbury Vale area.

2 Alternative sites

· Elsewhere in the as recommended by Llewelyn Davies there are sites that are better related to the existing urban area and their adverse impact on the rural surrounds could be better contained. · MK/Bedford/Northampton triangle on the other side of the M1. · Use land to the east in the MK1 Eastern Expansion Area before using this part of the countryside. · Consider developing the following areas before pursuing development to the west: i. Eastern area of Kiln Farm bordering the new A5 ii. Northern area of Two Mile Ash bordering H3 iii. Area within the loop of the Grand Union Canal to the north of iv. Southern area of Newlands bounded by the Grand Union Canal, H6 and V10. v. Area to the east of the proposed MK1 industrial area up to the M1 (the Strategic Reserve area) vi. Northern area of on the Green bounded by the Grand Union Canal, H7 and the flood plain of the River Ouzel. vii. Area to the east of Tinkers Bridge bounded by H8, Newport road, H9 and the flood plain of the River Ouzel. viii. Area to the south of bounded by the freight only rail line, the brick fields to the south and west and the Blue Lagoon Park to the east.

CALVERTON – ISSUES RAISED

Principle of development

· The plans showing the buffer zones and tree belts are contradictory in terms of the land area allowed for such uses (Area 10 Extract location and Plan 1: Western Expansion Area – Illustrative Land Use Pattern). · Additional local centres would not be needed as the facilities in Stony Stratford are under-used and would benefit from an increase in population. · It is inappropriate to site such a large area of parkland next to a main road – it would be better to relocate it to provide a buffer for Upper Weald. · Plan shows large development on a greenfield site. Unclear information on availability of brownfield sites · There should be a larger area of landscaping/open space to act as a buffer east of Upper Weald and to protect the village. · Proposal represents poor use of land. · Siting a school next to a Travellers site is not good planning. · The travellers site would have to close, not be extended if this development were to go ahead. · No provision for medical services in this development. None of the existing practices in the surrounding area wish to take on further patients from here. The district hospital has been on red alert for most of the last 10 months. · A health centre must be included in the local centre · The burial ground should only need a fraction of the parkland shown adjacent to Watling Street and H4

Environmental impact

· Calverton circular walk will be overused, as will bridleways. There are no parking facilities for walkers etc.

3 · The visual impact on Upper Weald, Whaddon and countryside would be detrimental to amenity. · Some of the wildlife in the area is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. · The proposal means the loss of 5 Calverton farms

Traffic

· If traffic from the new development were to be allowed to exit onto either Calverton Lane or Whaddon Road, these roads would be unable to cope and would become dangerous. The surrounding villages would need expensive by-passes. Traffic must only be allowed to exit from Milton Keynes ie from V4 or H4. · Concern at the increase in traffic through Calverton, including “rat-running” through the Wealds. · The low density of development envisaged would not allow full use of public transport routes. · Siting of a large school on a corner, next to Watling Street and Calverton Lane will expose all who use it to unacceptable traffic noise and pollution. As it is on the edge of the city it is unlikely to ensure the efficient use of public transport. · It is a retrograde step to abandon the very successful grid system here.

Visual Impact

· Development here would break through the A5 natural barrier. · High density housing ( needed to make public transport economical) is not a suitable edge for where the city meets the countryside. · Tree planting needs to be done first as it will take many years for the tree screen to become effective.

Drainage

· Run off of surface water to Whaddon brook would produce huge drainage problems · Improving flood relief in the area only shifts the problem onto someone else downstream of the

Alternative sites

· There should be higher densities at the other two expansion areas closer to Milton Keynes and rail links.

· Alternatives include: i. Rebuild older parts of new town ii. Bletchley brickfields iii. Use parkland and wide open spaces in the city iv. Reconsider use of warehouses v. Higher density of dwellings in the city centre vi. Major development should go the south-east flank where all the main transport links are. Use the strategic reserve site there. vii. Use land on the Bedford side of the M1

· Restrict development to a one field ribbon development to the west of Watling Street, buffered by a 2 field wide woodland belt/landscaping through Weald Leys Farm to Common Farm then curving north to Watling Street as far as H1 at Tudor Gardens.

4 · A better location for development on the western side of the city would be land west of Watling Street between Calverton Lane and Calverton End. The land already adjoins a major road and is adjacent to the under developed industrial area of Kiln Farm. · As an alternative use a higher density in the other expansion areas – especially the eastern area and within the existing city. Use the 120 hectare reserve site in the Eastern Expansion Area.

REPRESENTATIONS FROM KEY PARTIES

Respondent No 883 John Bercow MP Objection follows meetings with local residents in Nash and Whaddon and tour of area. Concerns raised by residents summarised as follows: · WEA would be major incursion into rural landscape around Nash, Whaddon and Beachampton. Little thought has been given to impact on what is defined as a “Local Landscape Area” in the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan · Development west of ridgeline had been discounted by the Council’s advisors, Llewelyn Davies; no public mention was made of development beyond the ridgeline until November 1999 · Drainage implications of WEA have not been adequately addressed · Traffic and pollution problems will result from rat-running through villages to WEA from towns to the west and south west (Buckingham, Winslow, Aylesbury) · No proper assessment has been carried out of the capacity of the existing urban area to absorb additional development

Respondent No 584 Nash Parish Council The Parish Council is totally opposed to the proposals for the Western Expansion Area and in particular to the development over the strong natural ridgeline comprising Oakhill Wood and the North Bucks Way. The proposals are considered not to have been properly thought through.

Neither the studies carried out by Llewelyn Davies and others, nor any of the Issues Papers included proposals for development over the ridge. The Llewelyn Davies report specifically excluded any development over the ridge.

Little thought appears to have been given to the dramatic damage the proposals would have on the high quality landscape area of the Whaddon/Nash valley, designated a “Local Landscape Area” by Aylesbury Vale District Council.

Concerns summarised as follows · Damaging effect on high quality landscape of Whaddon / Nash valley · Potential drainage problems arising form up to 3,630 houses on or west of the ridge · Potential for traffic rat-running through Nash · Proposed development not physically or visually related to the City · Unacceptable threat to woodland and ecology of Whaddon Chase · Insufficient thought given to implications of proposed development; a master plan for the area should have been prepared before the Local Plan was placed on deposit

Respondent No 312 Whaddon Parish Council The Parish Council objects to Policy EA5 and requests its removal from the plan because:

· It does not take into account the impact when viewed from the west.

5 · It does not take account of the transport problems which the development would affect adjoining areas. · Density projections for the development are nowhere near current government guidelines. Also, densities of 50 per hectare should be used within the city. · Above all, the development would breach the natural boundary of the ridgeline. · An urban capacity study should be carried out (PPG3 refers) to establish the scale of development needed. · There are other better sites for development as recommended by Llewelyn Davies.

Respondent No 468 Calverton Residents Association The Residents Association makes the following objections:

· Use of greenfield land – 300 hectares of attractive landscape and wildlife habitat would be used. This will have a major impact on the open countryside and cannot be justified when the council states its intention elsewhere to minimise Greenfield development. · Lack of density – a density of 27 dwellings/ha has been applied whereas higher densities are needed to sustain public transport. · Provision of open space alongside V4 is an extravagant use of land. Could not a site be found for the burial ground and remembrance garden in or adjoining one of the linear parks or abutting open countryside on the edge of the city? · New school provision – if alternative sites could be found for the proposed housing a new school would not be necessary. It makes little sense to site a large secondary school, on the edge of the city. · Transport link to Westcroft District Centre – do not see the need for this. Instead it creates a tenuous and uneconomic length of road beside Oakhill Wood serving no development on either side. · Employment site – as with the school it is likely that this would not be needed if the housing were to be developed elsewhere. · Additional traffic generation – rat-running is already a problem in the three Wealds. This could considerably worsen with the introduction of a school and employment area here. · Flooding concerns – residents are concerned that the major proportion of the new development would be draining towards Whaddon Brook and then down to Lower Weald. This would strain the capacity of the watercourse in times of heavy rainfall and might negate the effects of flood relief measures now in hand.

· As an alternative to developing this site the Council should consider:

i. Reviewing sites within the city boundaries ii. Maximising the use of brownfield sites iii. Reviewing the size and uses for the Eastern Expansion Area.

Respondent Nos 982 & 983 Mr & Mrs Harrison If the proposals go ahead the respondents face losing their home and business as they farm much of the land included in the plan.

Respondent No 984 Mr P R Harrison As above, the proposals for the Western Expansion Area would destroy the farming business that has been built up over 15 years. Development would ruin an area of land that has remained virtually unchanged for centuries.

6 RESPONSES Respondent Rep No Respondent Rep No SUMMARISED IN THIS No No REPORT 376 EXP/376/1 582 EXP/582/1 383 EXP/383/1 587 EXP/587/1 Respondent Rep No 388 EXP/388/1 589 EXP/589/1 No 401 EXP/401/1 591 EXP/591/1 89 EXP/89/1 404 EXP/404/1 592 EXP/592/1 94 EXP/94/1 406 EXP/406/1 593 EXP/593/1 101 EXP/101/1 408 EXP/408/1 594 EXP/594/1 123 EXP/123/1 414 EXP/414/1 595 EXP/595/1 133 EXP/133/1 415 EXP/415/1 596 EXP/596/1 136 EXP/136/1 426 EXP/426/1 597 EXP/597/1 139 EXP/139/1 428 EXP/428/1 598 EXP/598/1 143 EXP/143/1 448 EXP/448/1 599 EXP/599/1 155 EXP/155/1 454 EXP/454/1 600 EXP/600/1 158 EXP/158/1 455 EXP/455/1 601 EXP/601/1 161 EXP/161/1 456 EXP/456/1 602 EXP/602/1 164 EXP/164/1 457 EXP/457/1 603 EXP/603/1 167 EXP/167/1 458 EXP/458/1 604 EXP/604/1 171 EXP/171/1 459 EXP/459/1 605 EXP/605/1 172 EXP/172/1 460 EXP/460/1 606 EXP/606/1 178 EXP/178/1 461 EXP/461/1 607 EXP/607/1 190 EXP/190/1 462 EXP/462/1 608 EXP/608/1 195 EXP/195/1 463 EXP/463/1 609 EXP/609/1 200 EXP/200/1 464 EXP/464/1 610 EXP/610/1 201 EXP/201/1 465 EXP/465/1 611 EXP/611/1 202 EXP/202/1 466 EXP/466/2 612 EXP/612/1 207 EXP/207/1 467 EXP/467/1 613 EXP/613/1 214 EXP/214/1 486 EXP/486/1 614 EXP/614/1 215 EXP/215/1 489 EXP/489/1 615 EXP/615/1 217 EXP/217/1 493 EXP/493/1 616 EXP/616/1 220 EXP/220/5 494 EXP/494/1 617 EXP/617/1 242 EXP/242/1 519 EXP/519/1 618 EXP/618/1 248 EXP/248/1 521 EXP/521/1 619 EXP/619/1 249 EXP/249/1 522 EXP/522/1 620 EXP/620/1 251 EXP/251/1 523 EXP/523/1 621 EXP/621/1 258 EXP/258/1 524 EXP/524/1 622 EXP/622/1 264 EXP/264/1 525 EXP/525/1 623 EXP/623/1 268 EXP/268/1 553 EXP/553/1 624 EXP/624/1 269 EXP/269/1 554 EXP/554/1 625 EXP/625/1 271 EXP/271/1 555 EXP/555/1 626 EXP/626/1 292 EXP/292/1 556 EXP/556/1 627 EXP/627/1 293 EXP/293/1 560 EXP/560/1 628 EXP/628/1 294 EXP/294/1 563 EXP/563/1 629 EXP/629/1 295 EXP/295/1 565 EXP/565/1 630 EXP/630/1 296 EXP/296/1 568 EXP/568/1 631 EXP/631/1 297 EXP/297/1 572 EXP/572/1 632 EXP/632/1 298 EXP/298/1 573 EXP/573/1 633 EXP/633/1 332 EXP/332/1 576 EXP/576/1 634 EXP/634/1 337 EXP/337/1 577 EXP/577/1 635 EXP/635/1 339 EXP/339/1 578 EXP/578/1 637 EXP/637/1 374 EXP/374/1 579 EXP/579/1 639 EXP/639/1

7 Respondent Rep No Respondent Rep No Respondent Rep No No No No 642 EXP/642/1 711 EXP/711/1 799 EXP/799/1 643 EXP/643/1 712 EXP/712/1 800 EXP/800/1 644 EXP/644/1 713 EXP/713/1 801 EXP/801/1 646 EXP/646/1 714 EXP/714/1 802 EXP/802/1 648 EXP/648/1 715 EXP/715/1 803 EXP/803/1 651 EXP/651/1 716 EXP/716/1 804 EXP/804/1 654 EXP/654/1 717 EXP/717/1 809 EXP/809/1 658 EXP/658/1 718 EXP/718/1 825 EXP/825/1 660 EXP/660/1 721 EXP/721/1 826 EXP/826/1 661 EXP/661/1 722 EXP/722/1 827 EXP/827/1 663 EXP/663/1 723 EXP/723/1 829 EXP/829/1 664 EXP/664/1 724 EXP/724/ 1 831 EXP/831/1 665 EXP/665/1 725 EXP/725/1 832 EXP/832/1 666 EXP/666/1 726 EXP/726/1 841 EXP/841/1 668 EXP/668/1 727 EXP/727/1 842 EXP/842/1 669 EXP/669/1 728 EXP/728/1 847 EXP/847/1 670 EXP/670/1 729 EXP/729/1 861 EXP/861/1 671 EXP/671/1 730 EXP/730/1 868 EXP/868/1 673 EXP/673/1 731 EXP/731/1 870 EXP/870/1 674 EXP/674/1 732 EXP/732/1 871 EXP/871/1 675 EXP/675/1 733 EXP/733/1 883 EXP/883/1 676 EXP/676/1 734 EXP/734/1 936 EXP/936/1 678 EXP/678/1 735 EXP/735/1 937 EXP/937/1 680 EXP/680/1 736 EXP/736/1 938 EXP/938/1 681 EXP/681/1 737 EXP/737/1 939 EXP/939/1 682 EXP/682/1 738 EXP/738/1 940 EXP/940/1 684 EXP/684/1 740 EXP/740/1 941 EXP/941/1 685 EXP/685/1 765 EXP/765/1 943 EXP/943/1 688 EXP/688/1 770 EXP/770/1 944 EXP/944/1 689 EXP/689/1 771 EXP/771/1 945 EXP/945/1 690 EXP/690/1 772 EXP/772/1 948 EXP/948/1 691 EXP/691/1 773 EXP/773/1 949 EXP/949/1 692 EXP/692/1 774 EXP/774/1 950 EXP/950/1 693 EXP/693/1 775 EXP/775/1 951 EXP/951/1 694 EXP/694/1 777 EXP/777/1 952 EXP/952/1 696 EXP/696/1 779 EXP/779/1 953 EXP/953/1 697 EXP/697/1 782 EXP/782//1 954 EXP/954/1 698 EXP/698/1 784 EXP/784/1 955 EXP/955/1 699 EXP/699/1 785 EXP/785/1 956 EXP/956/1 700 EXP/700/1 786 EXP/786/1 957 EXP/957/1 701 EXP/701/1 787 EXP/787/1 958 EXP/958/1 702 EXP/702/1 788 EXP/788/1 959 EXP/959/1 703 EXP/703/1 789 EXP/789/1 960 EXP/960/1 704 EXP/704/1 790 EXP/790/1 961 EXP/961/1 705 EXP/705/1 791 EXP/791/1 962 EXP/962/1 706 EXP/706/1 792 EXP/792/1 963 EXP/963/1 707 EXP/707/1 795 EXP/795/1 964 EXP/964/1 708 EXP/708/1 796 EXP/796/1 965 EXP/965/1 709 EXP/709/1 797 EXP/797/1 966 EXP/966/1 710 EXP/710/1 798 EXP/798/1 967 EXP/967/1

8 Respondent Rep No No 968 EXP/968/1 969 EXP/969/1 998 EXP/998/1 1003 EXP/1003/1 1004 EXP/1004/1 1005 EXP/1005/1 1008 EXP/1008/1 1010 EXP/1010/1 1011 EXP/1011/1 1012 EXP/1012/1 1013 EXP/1013/1 1015 EXP/1015/1 1017 EXP/1017/1 1018 EXP/1018/1 1020 EXP/1020/1 1044 EXP/1044/1 1048 EXP/1048/1 1060 EXP/1060/1 1086 EXP/1086/1 1087 EXP/1087/1 1088 EXP/1088/1 1091 EXP/1091/1 1099 EXP/1099/1 1101 EXP/1101/1 1103 EXP/1103/1 1127 EXP/1127/1 1128 EXP/1128/1 1135 EXP/1135/1 1136 EXP/1136/1 1139 EXP/1139/1 1141 EXP/1141/1 1142 EXP/1142/1 1156 EXP/1156/1 1163 EXP/1163/1 1186 EXP/1186/1 1188 EXP/1188/1 1205 EXP/1205/30 1565 EXP/1565/1 1572 EXP/1572/1

9 POLICY H8: HOUSING DENSITY Summary of all objections relating to this issue

Definitions · The policy should be amended to provide a clearer definition of what is included in the net density calculation and how this relates to the gross figures in Tables H1, H2 and H3. · All densities in Chapter 10 New Housing Sites are gross densities and therefore not easily comparable with PPG3 guidance - they should be replaced by net densities · It is unclear whether the net density definition is compatible with PPG3, Annex C. · A greater emphasis on reduced parking standards and innovative design as ways of increasing densities should also be mentioned in the policy. · The definition should exclude other areas of incidental open space and not be limited to just small areas of incidental open space · No rationale is provided for the imposition of the 1.5km distance · No definition is given of where the 1.5km distance should be measured from with regard to CMK and Olney

Densities should be higher · The 20 dws per ha minimum housing density quoted in the policy should be changed in favour of the 30 dws per ha standard set out in PPG3 · The policy should encourage a range of densities between 30-50 dwellings per ha, depending on locational factors · The policy should encourage a range of densities between 30-50 dwellings per ha, regardless of location, in line with PPG3 and draft RPG9 · Housing densities on undeveloped land within the Designated Area should be increased · The minimum density should be 40 dws per ha, not 20 · The minimum density in/near CMK and town centres should be 50 instead of 40 dws per ha · The policy should provide for 3 tiers of density: a minimum of 30 dws per ha throughout the district, a minimum of 40 dws per ha within 1.5km of CMK, town or district centres and a minimum of 50 dws per ha within CMK, town or district centres · Higher density development (in excess of 30 dws per ha) should be promoted within new Expansion Areas - less greenfield land would then need to be allocated · The requirement for higher density housing in areas well served by public transport should be included in the policy · If as a result of amendments to H8, housing densities are increased, sites allocated for development in the least sustainable locations should be deleted (e.g. in )

Densities should be lower · Policy is too restrictive - specific site or village circumstances may warrant lower densities than 20 dws per ha · PPG3 justifies relatively high density development at Local Centres but does not support it within 1.5km of CMK, town or district centres · The policy should adopt the minimum density requirements set out in PPG3, but also allow for special circumstances where no less than 20 dws per ha will be permitted · The requirement to seek minimum densities of no less than 40 dws per ha within 1.5km of CMK and other town and district centres is too restrictive and should be deleted · The policy should have a stated maximum density to prevent those high densities which could undermine the nature and character of the Western Expansion Area and the Borough in general

Respondent reference numbers (all HOU/ …/…) 59/7, 63/3, 220/9, 220/10, 220/11, 231/4, 341/6, 357/4, 396/3, 396/6, 396/7, 397/3, 397/6, 397/7 400//20, 400/21, 402/28, 403/4, 407/20, 407/30, 433/7, 469/1, 473/34, 475/9, 476/14, 478/2, 520/15, 531/33, 719/32, 769/1, 860/5, 889/24, 896/6, 1016/5, 1022/8, 1058/2, 1118/21, 1138/10, 1154/28, 1155/20, 1179/31, 1187/25, 1205/18, 1205/19, 1214/23, 1216/10, 1224/47, 1226/73, 1569/21

10 SITE NP3: TICKFORD FIELDS FARM AND LAND ADJOINING ROAD, . Summary of all objections relating to this site

INTRODUCTION

Proposals for this site include 7.5ha of housing, 2ha of employment and 2.58ha of open space. The planned capacity for the site is 200 dwellings, reflecting the site’s locations adjacent to an Area of Attractive Landscape and its distance from the town centre.

A total of 89 representations have been received from individuals. Key issues include the loss of open countryside and wildlife habitat; the remoteness of the site from Newport Pagnell town centre and existing facilities and the added burden that the proposed development will place on already over stretched services including schools and medical facilities in the town

A large number of comments have also been received from interested parties, including local councillors. Several representations have been received from development interests, many of whom support the principle of development on the site but wish to see the site area extended and amendments made to the key development principles.

KEY ISSUES

Traffic Concerns

· Congestion at the junction of North Crawley Road and London Road. · North Crawley traffic will be further increased especially as 700 new parking spaces are being provided at Traffic Master’s new HQ in Cranfield. · Restrict all access on North Crawley Road to access from the by-pass into the industrial estate. · There should be more speed calming for North Crawley Road and the village. · At present time there are considerable traffic queues at peak times and further development would result in gridlock. · Increased risk of road traffic accidents as residential traffic mixes with commercial vehicles. · North Crawley Road is too narrow for increased levels of traffic.

Alternatives

· Milton Keynes should complete the existing plans for development before ruining more countryside as this proposal does. · Smaller brownfield developments are preferable to this site. · Infill within Milton Keynes itself before building on green field sites. · More money should be spent providing better facilities for Newport Pagnell. · Retain this site as green belt and open space. · Use the old asbestos building land on Wolverton Road. · The Renny Lodge site could be developed as it is derelict land. · Use the old Co-op warehouse site in Newport Pagnell. · High density affordable homes close to the city centre would reduce the need for car use. · An area south of the A422, west of the A509 and east of the M1 could support a large residential and employment area, including a new motorway junction. · Land south of the River Ouzel and north of the A422 just south of the caravan site and Riverside Lovat School up to the sports area.

11 Environmental Impact

· Development would damage the wildlife interest of the area. · This is good agricultural farmland. · Increased light and noise pollution · Loss of informal recreation area. · This is an archaeological notification site with remnants of mediaeval buildings. · This is currently an Area of Attractive Landscape. · Loss of well used public footpaths.

Refuse Site

· There is no indication of the relocated refuse site. Longer journeys to the new site would be necessary or the site would be closer to dwellings.

General principles of development

· Site NP3 does not conform to paragraph 10.31 requirements. The sustainability assessment is clearly negative. Paragraph 10.39 states that a local centre would be needed so contradicting the “culture” aspect of the sustainability assessment. · Newport Pagnell has already expanded enough. · Newport Pagnell is losing its identity as a small town. · The site is outside the present town envelope and is remote from the town centre services, shops, schools etc. · Detrimental effect on quality of life of nearby residents.

Facilities and Infrastructure

· Newport Pagnell’s infrastructure and services need development to meet existing needs. · Ousedale School is already full – where will further children go? · The local health centre is already at capacity and has closed its books to new patients. · Newport Pagnell does not have the range of shops, employment and services to support this level of development. · Policing in the town is already at full stretch. · New facilities should be provided before any additional houses are built. · Justification for the allocation appears to be the need for a local centre. No survey evidence has been submitted in support of this argument.

Drainage

· Increased risk of flooding with the additional rain water run-off from the development. Areas of Newport Pagnell already suffer from flooding.

Support for the proposal

· One representation with no objection to the proposal per se, given the value of recommending reasonable developments as a means of ensuring that development in and around Milton Keynes takes place at the least unsatisfactory locations. · Strongly support the proposal that development should not take place until the link road from the Newport Pagnell by-pass to the North Crawley Road is complete. · Traffic levels on London Road should be addressed through these proposals by a weight and width restriction to exclude lorries and speed bumps to slow the speed of traffic. · One significant opportunity for planning gain has been overlooked – the development should be linked to a contribution to funding the Ouzel Valley linear park between the by- pass and the centre of Newport Pagnell.

12 REPRESENTATIONS FROM KEY PARTIES

Respondent No 81 Mr R Sharpe

· The site as currently proposed is not adequate and should be substantially increased to a capacity of 400 dwelling or more. The site should provide a package of planning benefits.

Respondent No 111 Newport Pagnell Town Council

· The Town Council has lodged a formal objection to Policy NP3.

Respondent No 168 Newport Pagnell Liberal Democrats: Cllrs Hardwick, E and I Henderson and McCall

· The four councillors object to the proposal to build on Tickford Fields for the following reasons: 1. It is outside the current town envelope and is encouraging development in the open countryside. Development here is likely to make way for further building between this site and the bypass. 2. It is good quality farmland and an outstanding wildlife habitat. 3. It is in an Area of Attractive Landscape in the Adopted Local Plan. 4. It is remote from the town centre, schools and other facilities. Public transport is poor. 5. The local secondary school is already full and is turning away children from within its catchment. 6. North Crawley Road is already very busy with traffic for Interchange Park and congestion at rush hour. Traffic congestion would hinder egress from the ambulance station. 7. Large scale development would place impossible pressure on other Newport services including health services, leisure and drainage.

Respondent No 219 Hampshire Development Ltd

· Tickford Fields Farm should be developed along with the Bridge Farm to the immediate north. Much of this land is screened from the north by hills and The Wode, a former gravel extraction pit, is unsightly and well suited to redevelopment for leisure given its position alongside the Rive Ouse. Urge consideration of a linear park in the region of The Wode, the River Ouse and Sherington Bridge with Tickford Fields Farm being redeveloped for commercial, residential and a school.

Respondent No 315 Cllr Euan Henderson

· Formally object to the policy. The area is physically divorced from the community of Newport Pagnell and is therefore an inappropriate place to build a large number of houses. To do so would be to the detriment of both the new and existing residents due to increased pressure on schools and services.

Respondent No 317 Cllr Irene Henderson

13 · The site is outside the town envelope and any development would be physically remote from the town and its facilities. New residents would not feel part of the community but would still place a strain on already overstretched services. · This is good agricultural land with outstanding wildlife habitat. It acts as a “green belt” between Newport and adjacent developments. To lose it would alter the character and appearance of the town and would increase the likelihood of further development.

Respondent No 473 Government Office for the South East

· Alternative wording suggested because the policy is contrary to advice in Circular 1/97 (Planning Obligations). Policy should state that obligations will be sought, rather than setting out a list of requirements.

Respondent No 769 The Milton Keynes Forum

· Development should not take place on Areas of Attractive Landscape – therefore Tickford Fields Farm should not lose its designation.

Respondent No 869 Mr N Pine

· The proposed development site is too small and should be significantly increased to a capacity of 450-500 dwellings in order to provide a larger critical mass. This will enable adequate infrastructure improvements and planning benefits to be supported by the development of the site.

Respondent No 893 Bedford Group of Drainage Boards

· It is essential that surface water discharge from this development should be balanced to match the predicted discharge by existing predominantly green field sites.

Respondent No 894 Eagle Homes Ltd.

· The boundaries of the site should be extended to incorporate additional land to the north (as far as the River Great Ouse) and east (to the bypass). Newport Pagnell is the most sustainable location for new development outside MKC and could accommodate an enlarged allocation here. The site could be developed for mixed use development including housing, employment and recreation.

Respondent No NDM6 Environment Agency

· No mention is made of surface water drainage constraints. We should be seeking betterment to Greenfield run-off rate for this size of development, draining towards a flood risk area, using sustainable drainage systems similar to those that have been outlined in paragraph 4.18 on page 35 of the Local Plan.

Respondent No 911 Mrs K Sylvester-Kilroy on behalf of Old Road Securities plc

14 · The principle of development in this part of Newport Pagnell is supported however objections area made to the sites’ proposed boundaries. They should be extended to the north and east of NP3. · The existing employment area that forms part of NP3 should be specifically allocated as an employment site. This part of the site is in active employment use and is adjacent to an employment site. · The allocation of AAL should be deleted from land to the north and east of NP3. · The area liable to flood should be redrawn. The landowners have stated that the land to the north of NP3 does not flood. · The size and capacity should be revised to take into account the enlarged site. · Criterion ii should be deleted. The site deliverability should not be beholden on the link road from Newport Pagnell by-pass to the North Crawley Road coming forward and being implemented. This criterion is related to site NP4. · Object to criterion vi which should be amended so that it does not preclude access from the by-pass. · Criterion viii should be deleted as land to the north of the site is proposed for development by this objection. · Criterion xi should refer to a proposal for a community meeting place off-site, separate from Site NP5 as it is not considered suitable for housing. · The proposals map should be amended to should Site NP3 as a residential and associated development proposal.

Respondent No 927 Newport Pagnell and District Branch of the Liberal Democrats.

· Objection to the proposals for this site for the following reasons: 1. It is encouraging further development in the open countryside. 2. It is good quality farmland and an outstanding wildlife habitat. 3. It is in an Area of Attractive Landscape in the Adopted Local Plan. 4. It is remote from the town centre, schools and other facilities. Public transport is poor. 5. Ousedale School is already full. 6. North Crawley Road is already very busy. Traffic queuing would hinder egress from the ambulance station. 7. Large scale development would place great strain on already over stretched facilities and services in Newport Pagnell.

Respondent No 942 Connolly Homes plc

· Objection to the proposal for the following reasons: 1. The housing development is dependent on a new road and relocating existing uses. This must cast doubt on the number of units able to be delivered for the site in the Plan period. 2. The site is currently within an Area of Attractive Landscape. 3. Newport Pagnell has a history of flooding. Further development would exacerbate the problems. 4. The need for surface water attenuation, possibly peripheral landscaping, the safeguarding of the area of archaeological importance and the avoidance of contaminated land tend to reduce the developable area of the site so that the expected yield is not achievable. 5. Existing uses should be retained on the site. The household waste and lorry park uses are notoriously difficult to find sites for and should remain here where their impact is limited.

15 Respondent No 1021 Lucas Land and Planning (for English Courtyard Association)

· Delete Site NP3. This is a substantial breach into open attractive countryside on land without any logical boundary, on land designated an Area of Attractive Landscape in the adopted Local Plan.

Respondent No 1061 Cllr P Seymour

· Objects on grounds that the AAL should be sacrosanct and preserved for future generations and Newport Pagnell needs the household waste site, especially now that bulk skips have been withdrawn.

Respondent No 1092 Newport Pagnell Business Association

· Object as no consideration has been given to improving the town centre infrastructure such as car parks. A development of this scale will bring further pressure to these facilities. We would wish to increase car parking spaces in the town centre if this development goes ahead. · Amend paragraph 10.39 to include reference to town centre car parking.

Respondent Nos 1172, 1173, 1174, 1178, 1180, 1182, 1183, 1185, 1189, 1192, 1193, 1196, 1197 Mr C Wilson, Mr G Randall, Mr R Paybody, Mr G Nicholls, W Needham & Sons, Mr R Ivens, Mr I Hamilton, Mr M Franklin, Mr J Adams, Mr J Morgan, Mr AE Baylis, Mr TA Williams, Mr C Savage

[All of the above are represented by the same agent and make the same comments]

· Object to the allocation of the site. The site is badly related to Newport Pagnell, can only be serviced by vehicles by a contrived route involving the use of the by-pass and is high quality agricultural land involving the fragmentation of a working farm. · The allocation should be distributed among the villages. · Alternative sites at Willen Road and London Road should be identified instead. (W Needham & Sons only) · Alternative site at Tongwell Lane, the site relates well to Newport Pagnell and has good links to the town centre. (Mr J Morgan only).

Respondent Nos 1187, 1214, 1569 Gallaghers Estates Ltd; Wilcon Homes Ltd; Gallaghers Estates Ltd & Wilcon Homes Ltd

· A holding objection is made to the new housing sites identified in Chapter10 pending the review of the housing land supply figures in Policy H1 and associated tables and also with regard to advice on site suitability in PPG3.

Respondent No 1223 Old Road Securities plc

· The principle of development on this site is supported, as is the need for a development brief, however the policy requires a number of modifications: 1. The site’s boundary should be extended

16 2. The existing lorry park, refuse site and employment area should be excluded from the site. A separate new allocation policy would recognise that the household waste site and lorry park have potential for redevelopment for employment use. 3. The AAL should be excluded from the extended site. 4. The stated site area and the proposed sub-division of uses should be revised. 5. The key principles of development should also be revised. Development should not commence until satisfactory access arrangements on and off site have been secured. Buffer arrangements should be secured. Criterion iv should be deleted as a key principle. 6. Criterion ii should be removed, as development of site NP3 is not reliant on the completion of any link road from the Newport Pagnell by-pass to the North Crawley Road. 7. Criterion vi should be amended so that it does not preclude access from the A509 by- pass. 8. Criterion viii should refer to “any remaining agricultural fields to the north of the site”. 9. Criterion xi should refer to a proposal for a community meeting place off-site, separate from Site NP5 as it is not considered suitable for housing. 10. The Proposals Map should clearly show NP3 as being proposed for residential and associated development rather than just as “other uses.”

Respondent No 1226 Genesis Group

· Objection to allocation. Delete paragraph 10.40 and reference in Table H2(D), the new housing sites in the rest of the Borough. Site NP3 should be deleted. · The site is considered to be unsustainable and inappropriate. It is of landscape importance designated an AAL in the adopted local plan. Development would be contrary to paragraph 10.31 of the Deposit Plan. · It is relatively poorly served by local facilities. · Parts of the site lie within two archaeological notification sites. · There are preferable development alternatives to this site elsewhere in Milton Keynes.

17 RESPONSES FROM INDIVIDUALS Respondent Representation SUMMARISED IN REPORT No No 127 NEW/127/2 Respondent Representation 128 NEW/128/2 No No 144 NEW/144/1 3 NEW/3/1 145 NEW/145/1 13 NEW/13/1 186 NEW/186/1 14 NEW/14/1 188 NEW/188/1 18 NEW/18/1 262 NEW/262/1 19 NEW/19/1 263 NEW/263/1 20 NEW/20/1 265 NEW/265/2 30 NEW/30/1 278 NEW/278/1 33 NEW/33/1 330 NEW/330/1 36 NEW/36/1 NEW/330/2 37 NEW/37/1 345 NEW/345/1 38 NEW/38/1 347 NEW/347/2 39 NEW/39/1 365 NEW/365/1 40 NEW/40/1 366 NEW/366/1 41 NEW/41/1 367 NEW/367/2 42 NEW/42/1 368 NEW/368/1 43 NEW/43/1 369 NEW/369/2 44 NEW/44/1 378 NEW/378/1 45 NEW/45/1 379 NEW/379/1 46 NEW/46/1 390 NEW/390/4 47 NEW/47/1 429 NEW/429/1 49 NEW/49/1 430 NEW/430/1 53 NEW/53/1 472 NEW/472/1 57 NEW/57/1 488 NEW/488/5 62 NEW/62/2 505 NEW/505/1 64 NEW/64/2 513 NEW/513/1 66 NEW/66/1 517 NEW/517/1 68 NEW/68/1 636 NEW/636/1 69 NEW/69/1 638 NEW/638/1 70 NEW/70/1 854 NEW/854/1 71 NEW/71/1 925 NEW/925/1 72 NEW/72/1 975 NEW/975/1 73 NEW/73/1 976 NEW/976/1 75 NEW/75/1 977 NEW/977/1 86 NEW/86/1 1130 NEW/1130/1 87 NEW/87/1 1132 NEW/1132/1 90 NEW/90/1 1143 NEW/1143/1 92 NEW/92/1 1567 NEW/1567/1 93 NEW/93/1 1570 NEW/1570/1 97 NEW/97/1 1571 NEW/1571/1 102 NEW/102/2 104 NEW/104/1 105 NEW/105/1 106 NEW/106/1 107 NEW/107/1 113 NEW/113/1 116 NEW/116/1 117 NEW/117/1

18 LAND AT : DEVELOPMENT SITE PROPOSED BY OBJECTORS (Obj Ref No: 1222) Summary of comments in response to the objector’s proposal

· Total number of letters received = 61

General principle · The Council’s proposals (in the Deposit Plan) are better · Breaches “natural boundary” of the city · No account taken of proposed canal link · Would lead to further development · Lack of consultation by developers

Impact on Bow Brickhill · Would spoil the character of Bow Brickhill · Threat to existing village school and shops · Demolition of at least one house · Loss of local community identity · Loss of recreation facilities · Increased crime and disorder

Traffic and transport · Impact of extra traffic · Unfeasibility of proposed railway station

Environmental impact · Poor sustainability assessment · Loss of good farmland · Landscape impact · Impact on wildlife · Noise and pollution · Affect on horse riders · Local flooding

19