Democratic Services

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

WEDNESDAY 20 JULY 2011

6.00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES

http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic

Councillors Burke, Dransfield, P Geary, Gerrella, Long, Marland and Zealley

If you have any enquires about this agenda please contact Caroline Godfrey, Democratic Services, Tel: (01908) 252230 or E-mail: caroline.godfrey@milton- keynes.gov.uk

Milton Keynes Council Chief Executives Directorate , Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ Tel: Milton Keynes (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252456 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes 1 WORKING GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE

To monitor the conduct of the Review.

To receive reports and offer guidance to officers and parishes in relation to the Review.

To report back to the Council in due course on the outcomes of the Review.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 1 AGENDA

1. Election of Chair

To elect the Chair of the Working Group for the Council year 2011/12 2. Apologies

3. Receive Representations from Interested Parties

4. Consideration of the Responses to the Consultation Campbell Park parished area (Annex A) Woughton parished area (Annex B)

5. Consideration of the Responses to the 5 Area Surveys (Annex C)

6. Options for Public Consultation (Annex D)

7. Calendar for the remainder of the Review

The Working Group should note the following timetable: July 2011 Working Group agrees Proposals for Consultation

August 2011 Consultation commences on Working Group proposals

September 2011 Consultation ends

October 2011 Working Group meets to consider the responses to the Consultation and finalise its recommendations to Council

8 November 2011 Council considers recommendations of Working Group

January 2012 Local Government Boundary Commission for England commences electoral review for Milton Keynes Council

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 2

Annex A

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW CONSULTATION 3 FEBRUARY – 31 MAY 2011

RESPONSES RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF CAMPBELL PARK PARISHED AREA

Submissions Received From: Page A. Campbell Park Parish Council (27/5/11) 1

Campbell Park Grid Square to CMK Town Council Bi. CMK Town Council (31/5/11) 9 Bii. A resident (5/5/11) 9 Biii. Eaton Mews (17/5/11) 9 Biv. Councillor John Bint (22/5/11) 9 Bv. A resident (24/5/11) 10 Bvi. A resident (27/5/11) 10 Bvii. A former CMK resident (31/5/11) 10 Bviii. A resident (315/31) 11 Bix. A resident (31/5/11) 11 Bx. 49 Individual letters from residents of Campbell Park 11

Willen Grid Square Bxi. Gt Linford Parish Council 12

A. Campbell Park Parish Council’s Response – 27 May 2011

Campbell Park Parish Council formally resolved that there should be no change to the boundary of Campbell Park Parish as a consequence of the 2011 Community Governance Review which would result in the loss of existing areas of the Parish.

The resolution reinforces the stance of the Parish Council as conveyed to members of the Community Governance Review Working Group at the public meeting held in Campbell Park on March 29th 2011.

When resolving that the Parish boundary should remain unchanged as a result of the 2011 Community Governance Review, the Parish considered the following factor as identified by Milton Keynes Council:- • Whether existing arrangements are reflective of the interests and identities of the community in that area and are effective and convenient to local community governance

Additionally the Parish consider the following factors crucial in the determination of the Community Governance Report:- • the ability of a Parish Council to provide local services within its area. • the impact of community governance arrangements on community cohesion • a strong, inclusive community • the belief that residents are at the heart of a Parish, and are more important than grand design statements, master plans or convenient boundaries on a map.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 3

Case for the retention of the existing boundary/areas

Having taken the above factors into consideration, Campbell Park Parish Council’s case for retaining the existing Parish boundary in its present form, specifically the retention of Campbell Park and Willen grid squares, is as follows:-

Campbell Park – A premature decision

Campbell Park is a relatively new estate, where only a small percentage (approximately four hundred housing units) of the planned residential development has been built in the last ten years.

Currently there is no residential construction work in progress within Campbell Park. Given this fact, and that approximately two and a half thousand housing units are eventually planned for the estate, it is reasonable to expect that the development programme in Campbell Park will not be completed until some point in the next ten to twenty years.

The housing units that have been built in Campbell Park are located on the western edge of the estate, adjacent to Central Milton Keynes, and for this reason it is understandable that a few of the current residents have an affinity with the Central Milton Keynes area.

Housing development within Campbell Park will eventually extend to as far as the Grand Union Canal on the eastern edge of the estate. This will mean that some Campbell Park residents will live up to a kilometre away from Central Milton Keynes. With the development of local facilities within Campbell Park and the fact that some residents are living up to a kilometre away from Central Milton Keynes, it is reasonable to expect that not all residents will share the affinity that current residents have with Central Milton Keynes and that they will develop their own sense of identity, with a greater interest in issues to the east of Campbell Park and beyond.

At some point in the future, when the development of Campbell Park is complete and the whole community is established, it could then be the correct time to ask questions on the relevance of the Parish boundary. At the moment however, it is simply not the right time. Too few people would be influencing a debate that deserves a considered view from all of those who would eventually be affected.

Willen – strong support for Campbell Park Parish

Willen is clearly a different proposition - an estate established for a generation, with a clear sense of identity and good community networks. At the heart of Willen are the Primary School, local centre and surgery, all of which form a focal point for the local population.

Twice in recent years the residents of Willen have been asked how they feel about continuing to be part of Campbell Park Parish, and on each occasion there has been a strong vote of support for the work of the Parish and for Willen to remain as part of our area – Please find resident responses in Appendix 1.

Any change to the boundary of Campbell Park Parish that resulted in Willen becoming part of another Parish, would leave a great many residents unhappy that their views had been disregarded and would not be representative of what the population wants.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 4 Public Meetings – Public Participation

Milton Keynes Council staged two public meetings in March and April, which were attended by Members of the Milton Keynes Council Working Group. Despite the Parish widely promoting the events in Willen and writing to each household in Campbell Park to inform them of the events, the meetings were poorly attended by the public, with those that did attend being affiliated in one way or another to either Campbell Park Parish Council or Central Milton Keynes Town Council.

This non-attendance by the public illustrates that there is not a groundswell of support for radical change in either Campbell Park or Willen. Any change to the boundary, particularly in Campbell Park, would be a knee jerk response to the ‘mobilised minority’ and not representative of the general consensus. The lack of popular support from members of the public to change the boundary of Campbell Park Parish is an indication that the public interest would not be served by any such changes; with some residents now suggesting that the continuation of the Community Governance Review would be a drain on the resources of an administration with other far more pressing issues.

A commitment to all areas of the Parish

As well as its previously stated commitment to Campbell Park and Willen, the Parish Council is also committed to the non-residential parts of its area. The Parish Council views Newlands and Willen Lake as valuable community assets, and not just inconveniences that need to be annexed to one residential estate or another in order to maintain the uniformity of the Parish map.

Campbell Park – at the heart of the Parish

Any changes to the Parish that included the loss of Campbell Park would inevitably lead to the Parish having to change its name at some point. It would be inconceivable for the Parish to retain its identity in the name of an estate that had become part of another Parish. As well as the obvious financial cost of any name change, the greater cost would be the loss of identity for those remaining residents who have grown to value Campbell Park Parish Council over the last twenty plus years, with many potentially feeling disenfranchised from the Parish at a stroke. This damage would take years to repair.

Campbell Park Parish Council – Equipped to serve the public

CPPC is in a strong position to serve its residents both now and in the future, equipped to make a real difference to the quality of life of all residents. CPPC features include:- • A Quality Council, served by a team of 20 dedicated Members • Parish ‘One Stop Shop’ accessible to residents 5 days a week • Committed staff team working within the community • Precept base to deliver services • Financial grant support to community groups and charities • Community Centre provision • Allotment Provision • Parish magazine and website • Partnership working with MKC • Strong Planning voice • Strong links to County and National Association

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 5 Localism – An ability to deliver

The emerging opportunities offered by localism, combined with the shrinking resources of Milton Keynes Council, will mean that there are many more prospects for the Parish to deliver services within the local community.

In addition to the many and increasing ways that the Parish already works with Milton Keynes Council on a daily basis, it is currently in negotiation with Milton Keynes Council for the transfer of the Springfield Meeting Place, the Fishermead Sports and Social Club and Woolstone Cricket Ground. Other opportunities will undoubted follow, and these will be best met by a Parish with the experience, track record and resources to deliver, and not by a ‘virtual Council’ that is closer to a lobbying group than a local service provider.

As well as taking on the delivery of new services, Campbell Park Parish Council would also be open to further discussions with Milton Keynes Council regarding any recommendations the Community Governance Review might make relating to the Parish taking responsibility for additional geographic areas or estates adjacent to its existing area at some point in the future.

Appendix 1 - Responses from residents of Willen

The APPENDIX to the Parish Council’s submission set out 114 individual responses to the public consultation on the 2011 Community Governance Review received from Willen residents all but 4 supporting the continuation of the estate being part of Campbell Park Parish Council.

B. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

Campbell Park Grid Square to CMK Town Council i. CMK Town Council - 31 May 2011

Executive Summary Government guidelines for defining the boundaries of any parish rely heavily on identifying communities of similar interest and identity, and their natural borders. On both counts, Campbell Park grid square is already part of Central Milton Keynes (CMK). Therefore its existing position, as part of Campbell Park Parish Council, is an anomaly that needs to be corrected.

We urge the working party to recommend that Milton Keynes Council adds the Campbell Park grid square to the CMK Town Council district.

We believe this represents the best interests of residents of both Campbell Park grid square and CMK, for the following reasons:

Same urban identity

• Residents of both areas are mainly single people, young couples without children, and ‘empty-nesters’ with a mix of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. • Housing is almost entirely flats and townhouses, and of a higher density than the surrounding areas. • Residents in both areas use the city centre as the focus of their daily lives – shopping, leisure, community activity and church.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 6 Same Interests and issues

• Residents of both areas share their local amenities and local streets with 25,000 commuters and 30 million visitors a year to the city-centre. • The huge influx of workers and visitors create the same problems for both communities – litter, late-night noise, traffic and parking congestion, to name just a few. • Both areas will be subject to numerous developments in future, including significant expansions of commercial, retail and leisure space.

Same local area

• CMK and the Campbell Park grid square share the same boundaries on the north (Portway) and on the south (Child’s Way). They also have the same local thoroughfares – Avebury and Silbury Boulevards. The western boundary is the railway, whilst the eastern boundary can be considered either as the canal, Brickhill street or River Ouzel. • Milton Keynes Council and many other organisations already incorporate Campbell Park in their definition of CMK.

Introduction

According to the 1997 Local Government and Rating Act:

Parish councils have two main roles: community representation and local administration. For both purposes it is desirable that a parish should reflect a small, distinctive and recognisable community of interest, with its own sense of identity.

…The boundaries between parishes need to reflect the "no-man's land" between communities represented by areas of low population or barriers such as rivers, roads or railways. They need to be, and be likely to remain, easily identifiable.

According to these criteria, the CMK Town Council believe that Campbell Park grid square belongs within its parish. Whether considering geography, history, demographics, local interests and issues, or sense of identity, CMK and Campbell Park form one clearly defined parish.

Geography & History

Central Milton Keynes is identified as three and a half grid squares in the green books - the original planning documents. They placed the centre of the town on the highest point in the landscape with the central park on the sloping ground to the east.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 7

Campbell Park has a unique position as the city’s central park. It is more closely associated with urban development and is designed for more intensive use that the other major parks [in MK]… extract from “The Planning of MK”. Avebury & Silbury connect the city to the park.

Manmade features form the boundaries of the original city centre; the railway lines in the west, the canal in the east and grid roads to the north and south.

This area has been planned as one entity with two Boulevards that run the entire length of the district, connecting the most built-up area with the city’s central park, surrounded by a mix of residential and office development.

Since the original plans were drawn up, Milton Keynes Council and many other organisations continue to incorporate Campbell Park into their definition of what constitutes CMK.

• The CMK Framework document, adopted as the 30-year development plan by MK Council in 2002 considers the Campbell Park grid square as part of CMK. • The CMK Development Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, includes Campbell Park grid square in its definition of CMK. • The CMK Neighbourhood Action Group (NAG) includes Campbell Park grid square; and this May issued a survey to Campbell Park residents regarding maintenance, safety, and community involvement in CMK. • Recently the Department for Communities and Local Government selected CMK including Campbell Park grid square as one of only eight pilot schemes in the country for the new Business Neighbourhood plan. • The police use Campbell Park grid square to define their CMK Community Policing area. • The NHS refers CMK and Campbell Park residents to register with GPs at the CMK Medical Centre (located in Bradwell Common).

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 8 Demographics

The 2001 Census reveals the distinctive nature of CMK-Campbell Park residents.

Compared to other neighbourhoods in Campbell Park Parish, such as Springfield, Fishermead, and Willen, CMK-Campbell Park residents comprise more singles, couples without children, and ‘downsizers’.

This is a typical metropolitan community, with a mix of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.

Since the 2001 census, more townhouses and apartments have been built in Campbell Park appealing, again, to singles, young employed couples, and more affluent ‘empty-nesters’ or retirees.

CMK Hub (left) and Campbell Heights (right) apartments and townhouses reflect the metropolitan housing of both areas

Housing in both CMK and Campbell Park grid square is predominantly flats and townhouses. Further high density residential development is planned for both areas, making them even more metropolitan and distinct from the surrounding areas.

A distinctive metropolitan community

CMK is totally different from all other borough parishes. It is the focus for a whole range of vital urban functions; leisure, retailing, commerce, residential, governmental and other civic functions, library, magistrates and county courts, police stations, and, of course, a central park.

Most Campbell Park residents have chosen to live there precisely because of its metropolitan character.

In addition, future development on the north side of the park is proposed to be commercial and office buildings, which mean that Campbell Park grid square will become even more like the city-centre in its character and identity.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 9

2010 successful International Festival in Campbell Park

Last year’s International Festival, was a successful example of local residents and visitors coming together to enjoy this metropolitan district.

Metropolitan problems

No other district of Milton Keynes shares its amenities with 30 million or so visitors a year or 25,000 daily commuters. These create unique issues for a parish. We believe these urban issues require a different approach and way of operating from that of a traditional rural or suburban parish.

This means residents of CMK-Campbell Park share common problems, including: • Litter • Incursions on residential parking • Late night noise/disturbances from pubs, clubs • Fear of crime • Speeding on residential boulevards & pedestrian safety issues • Wear and tear of existing infrastructure • Impact of significant new developments

Everyday problems such as anti-social behaviour spill straight into Campbell Park. Yet CMK Town Council cannot speak for its natural constituents, living just minutes away from its other CMK constituents, because of the inappropriate boundary lines.

Growth & Localism

Events of recent years show that Campbell Park residents are clearly interested in what happens in CMK.

As Localism comes into effect, it is increasingly important to engage local residents in the planning process. And for this, they need to identify with their parish or town council.

Excerpts from emails sent to CMK Town Council, March 2011:

“I completely agree with the change of parish boundaries. I live in Albion Place, Campbell park … CMK has a big influence on the lives of the increasing number of residents.” - Albion Place resident

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 10 “the potential change of Campbell Park area from Campbell Park Parish Council to CMK Town Council, I wholeheartedly support this proposition. I feel that the Campbell Park residential area has a more natural affinity to the central Milton Keynes area and would make more sense to be within this parish.” - Highbury Lane resident

Future developments on the doorstep of Campbell Park include: • expansion of Xscape • expansion of the Theatre District • development of John Lewis’ car park • re-development of the Food Centre.

These are just steps away from Campbell Park homes.

View of Xscape complex with proposed new hotel/casino as seen from Albion Place, Campbell Park.

However, the current un-natural parish boundary is an obstacle. In order to encourage greater community engagement, the Campbell Park grid square should be included in the CMK Town Council area.

A natural community of the future

Milton Keynes is the largest town in the South East region. As a dynamic place, it needs to provide focussed, cohesive local governance for its metropolitan residents.

For the benefit of MK as a whole, we need to support the growth of a harmonious, balanced community in CMK-Campbell Park. Otherwise our centre may degenerate, lose its variety and investment appeal, and become a problem city centre.

This has happened in many towns across the UK, and we must take all steps to prevent it happening here.

A logical and democratic solution: One Clearly Defined Parish

A united metropolitan community needs a single town council to look after it. This is logical and democratic.

We have already demonstrated the close connections between CMK and Campbell Park, which shows that it more than fulfils government guidelines on forming a suitable parish district.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 11 We urge the working party to recommend that Milton Keynes Council adds the Campbell Park grid square to the CMK Town Council district with an appropriate choice of eastern boundary – the canal, Brickhill Street or River Ouzel. ii. A resident (contact details supplied) - 5 May 2011

I have been following the recent campaign by both sides to move the Campbell Park borough from that parish to the CMK parish. Having carefully considered both options, I think the best option is to include us in the CMK parish. iii. Eaton Mews, 6 North Fourteenth Street - 17 May 2011

This Company represents the interests of the 60 leaseholders and residents of the Eaton Mews building. We followed the twists and turns of the previous Community Governance Review with increasing disbelief as the interests of the residents of CMK and Campbell Park were so openly disregarded. This letter is to record with you that our members have expressed a view that they wholeheartedly support both the retention of CMK Town Council and with its area being increased to include Campbell Park grid square. We hope that you will bring this review to a speedy conclusion and that you will uphold the democratic and legal rights of the residents involved. iv. Councillor John Bint - 22 May 2011

It is great to see that DCLG take the view that is this important respect, Campbell Park (grid square) is part of CMK, a view shared by many residents and the CMK Town Council.

Please can you make arrangements for the DCLG information below to be fed into the MK Parish Boundary Review process, as an additional piece of evidence that the Working Group should take into account?

‘the Council has been approached by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) to consider identifying Central Milton Keynes (including Campbell Park) as a pilot for a business neighbourhood plan. The business neighbourhood initiative is intended to generate growth and boost local economies while taking local communities along with them.

The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister for Decentralisation announced a number of business neighbourhood ‘frontrunners’, including CMK, at a meeting yesterday in London attended by myself and Cllr Galloway. I was able to give a presentation about MK to a very wide ranging audience who are very interested in this.

You will be aware that the Localism Bill proposes the introduction of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders to give local communities the opportunity to consider how they can plan for growth in their local area. The business neighbourhood idea was announced in the budget earlier this year: “the Government will enable businesses to bring forward neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders. This will mean that businesses are able to develop and implement planning frameworks, or to set up neighbourhood development orders, reducing the need for additional planning consents, for example on a single or shared use industrial site or town centre. Businesses will need to work with and gain the agreement of the local community and pass independent examination before neighbourhood plans or orders are formalised “.

CLG are particularly interested in using CMK as a pilot due to the mix of residential, commercial and other uses and the fact that it is a parished area, unlike other pilots

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 12 such as Trafford Park which are primarily commercial in nature. The challenge will therefore be to bring together the parish councils and members alongside residents, businesses, landowners and interest groups to develop a collective understanding of the future development of CMK, how a business neighbourhood plan and development orders could provide an impetus to growth and to ensure that any neighbourhood plan that emerges from this work balances the needs and aspirations of all groups. A further challenge will be to ensure that any business neighbourhood work supports and complements the ongoing work on the refresh of the CMK Development Framework.

The next stage is for CLG to provide us with further information as to what they are seeking to achieve from the pilot scheme and to clarify what funding and support might be available for the project. I will provide further briefings for all members as more information becomes available to us.’ v. A resident (address supplied) - 24 May 2011

I am the property owner at number xx, Enterprise Lane, Campbell Park. Campbell Park and CMK forms a single community with distinct characteristics and identity. However the current parish boundaries do not recognise this or give us suitable representation. I am of the opinion that a far better situation would be achieved by Campbell Park residents joining the district of Central Milton Keynes, Town Council. vi. A resident (contact details supplied) - 27 May 2011

I wholeheartedly support both the retention of Central Milton Keynes Town Council as well as increasing it's area to include the Campbell Park grid square. Since the original plans were drawn up, Milton Keynes Council and many other organisations continue to incorporate Campbell Park into their definition of what constitutes CMK. This makes sense for the following reasons: • The CMK Framework document, adopted as the 30-year development plan by MK Council in 2002 considers the Campbell Park grid square as part of CMK. • The CMK Development Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, includes Campbell Park grid square in its definition of CMK. • The CMK Neighbourhood Action Group (NAG) includes Campbell Park grid square; and this May issued a survey to Campbell Park residents regarding maintenance, safety, and community involvement in CMK. • The Police use Campbell Park grid square to define their CMK Community Policing area. • The NHS refers Campbell Park residents to register with the GP at the CMK Medical Centre • Recently the Department for Communities and Local Government selected CMK including Campbell Park grid square as one of only eight pilot schemes in the country for the new Business Neighbourhood plan. I hope that you will bring this review to a speedy conclusion and that you will uphold the democratic and legal rights of the residents involved. vii. A former CMK resident (contact details supplied) - 31 May 2011

I must point out that I am no longer a resident of CMK (although I still work in CMK) but lived in CMK between 1992 and 2010. I petitioned for the creation of a Parish Council and was Chair of the CMK Neighbourhood Council from its inception and Chair of CMK Parish Council until the elections held in 2008 when I was defeated in the polls. I feel the arguments regarding the governance of CMK at Town Council level are -

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 13 • The boundary of CMK should include the area around Campbell Park as they have so much in common. • CMK Town Council with its present boundary constraints cannot perform as efficiently as it should be able to. This is because it is generally difficult to secure sufficient Councillors, particularly those living in CMK, without co-option. That cannot be good for the democratic process. It also results in a small Council which can make the workload on individual Councillors higher than desirable - particularly in CMK where the Town Council should be represented on several other bodies. • If the development of the flanks of Campbell Park and the further development of CMK can secure, within the next (say) five years, a sufficiently large electorate to justify a Town Council for that area alone (whose boundaries would stretch from the canal to the A5), then we should move ahead now with this position.

I attach a copy of the letter I sent in 2009 in connection with the boundary review (available on request). viii. A resident (contact details supplied) - 31 May 2011

I am a property owner at Enterprise Lane, Campbell Park. Campbell Park and CMK forms a single community with a distinctive character and identity. However the current parish boundaries do not recognise this, or give us suitable representation. I believe it would be much more sensible and convenient for Campbell Park residents to join the district of CMK Town Council. ix. A resident (contact details supplied) - 31 May 2011

I am writing as a resident of Campbell Park to support the transfer of the Campbell Park Grid Square to the parish of Central Milton Keynes (CMK Town Council). From many perspectives - historical, cultural, every day activities - I consider my community to be the city centre of Milton Keynes, not the surrounding areas of Willen, Springfield, Fishermead or Oldbrook.

Also, given the future development plans - both residential and commercial - of the Campbell Park Grid Square, I am particularly keen that my community and I are represented by the CMK Town Council, which currently speaks out for the city centre's residents, who also face similar development issues. For example, most of my neighbours objected to the proposed large casino at the Xscape (right next to our community), but our existing parish (Campbell Park Parish) did not submit an objection to the licensing authority, whilst the CMK Town Council did.

Campbell Park Parish is not in touch with the views and feelings of the Campbell Park grid square community. x. 49 Individual Letters from Residents of Campbell Park

The following have submitted the letter set out below:

‘I am a registered voter, property owner and/or council taxpayer at the address below. As a resident of Campbell Park I have always considered myself a resident of CMK. We share the same boulevards, postcode, medical centre, library, church and local shops as anyone living in North 9th Street or Witan Gate. We also share a similar urban outlook and sense of identity. Unfortunately the current parish boundary does not recognise these close connections. I urge MK Council to update the boundaries and bring Campbell Park grid square into the local governance of CMK Town Council. Our neighbourhood is still growing and slated for further development, and we need this chance to build a stronger community

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 14 as part of CMK. For these reasons, I believe it is in my best interests to join the CMK Town Council district. Please take my wishes into account and keep me informed of key stages in the local governance review.’

Hard copy of the letters are held on file.

Willen Grid Square xi. Gt Linford Parish Council

Proposal This submission concerns the options for Willen ward (grid square) should Campbell Park ward (grid square) be transferred to Central Milton Keynes Town Council and proposes that Willen be incorporated into Great Linford Parish Council. Our arguments, with reference to The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and community governance reviews,1 are as follows:

Community Governance

Incorporation of Willen (grid square) into GLPC will reflect the identities and interests of the Willen community and offer a coherent and integrated community: • GLPC is primarily concerned with issues of Community Maintenance and Community Enhancement. These same issues primarily affect the residents of Willen rather than issues of Community Regeneration. • The Pattern of Daily Life and a Sense of Community is shared by Willen residents and GLPC Parishioners, especially those who live in Willen Park & Bolbeck Park, via shared amenities: ¾ Willen Local Centre Shops and ‘The Ship Ashore’ public house ¾ Willen Primary School ¾ Willen Medical Centre ¾ Veterinary Practice ¾ Willen Church ¾ The Grand Union Canal and boardwalk ¾ Camphill Cafe ¾ Chrysalis Theatre And also ¾ Willen Residents use Sports Facilities provided by GLPC; take part in our 5 week Summer of Fun Programme; enjoy the Great Linford Waterside Festival. ¾ There are strong Redway links across the parish and Willen. (In order to reach CPP residents have to cross GLP) ¾ There are good public transport links, that also serve to bind the proposed community together.

And, be effective and convenient • GLPC Office and centre of our administration is located in Neath Hill at the heart of the current parish – and would remain at the heart of an extended parish. The Office is approximately 2 kilometres (1.24 miles) from Willen and would offer easy access to Willen parishioners. Willen residents are approximately 4.87 kilometres (3 miles) from the CPPC Office.

1 Section 3. Making and implementing recommendations made in community governance reviews. Numbers: 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 83, 84, 85.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 15 • Further, the route to CPPC is via some very lonely unsupervised paths along Willen Lake, Newlands and the edge of Springfield whereas to GLPC it is mainly between housing and is well overlooked. (See attached Map. Green dots indicate local centres) • Willen residents would need one bus journey to reach GLPC Office. Currently they require two bus journeys to reach the CPPC Office. • GLPC effectively and efficiently manages a significant number and range of properties and assets. (See appendices) It would be well able to take over the management of Willen.

Community Cohesion, Size, Population & Boundaries

The incorporation of Willen (grid square) will lead to improved community cohesion and a strong sense of identity for the reasons given above. However, there are additional considerations, as follows: • There are other important factors relating to geographical boundaries. ¾ Willen grid square residents would effectively be detached from the rest of CPP by the physical barriers of Willen Lake and surrounding parkland, a no- man’s land, if Campbell Park ward is transferred. This ‘isolation’ would be removed by incorporating it into GLP. ¾ H5 Portway is a main East - West portal into the city. This dual carriageway is a strong physical barrier that separates Willen from CPP. Incorporation into GLPC would remove the barrier and instead create a strong boundary marker.

• Great Linford Parish has a population of some 20,000 residents and the incorporation of approximately an extra 1,100 residents from Willen would not significantly affect its size or put a strain on its operations. ( See appendices )

• Along with existing residents the ‘new’ residents would benefit from a thrice yearly newsletter, an up to date and informative web site, an accessible and local parish office open to the public five days a week, a team of active counsellors and a programme of community events reflecting a three year Strategic Plan. Several significant and important community based initiatives are also in progress, e.g. Student Advisers scheme, Public Art project, Canalside Improvements.

• It should be noted that currently the residents of Willen Park and Bolbeck Park who closely share a local centre and other local amenities as referred to earlier do not have a voice in how they are managed, effectively disenfranchising them in this respect. The incorporation of Willen would remove this undemocratic anomaly.

Finally: It is our view that the incorporation of Willen (grid square) into Great Linford Parish would mean that Willen residents would continue to receive a high level of community service and good community governance but with added benefits in terms of community cohesion, and strong and logical boundaries, reflecting the identity and interests of a common community.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 16 GREAT LINFORD PARISH COUNCIL [GLPC] FACTS AND FIGURES

THE PLACE The GLPC boundary incorporates 11 housing grids squares and two employment areas.

With 7,882 dwellings [MKi April 2010] a population of 20,950 [MKi June2010] and 14,250 electors [approx, MKC May 2010]

FACILITIES The parish area includes. ƒ Three local centres. ƒ Four places of religion. ƒ Three medical facilities. ƒ Three Post Offices ƒ One dental practice. ƒ One chemist ƒ Eight schools. ƒ Six pre/nursery schools ƒ Ten sheltered housing schemes or nursing homes. ƒ Five public houses.

THE PARISH COUNCIL From May 2011 GLPC will have 20councillors, who do not receive payment for the time they give to Council affairs.

GLPC employs 1.9 full time equivalent staff in the parish office at Neath Hill local centre. It is open weekdays from 09:00 to 16:00.

For 2011/12 the parish precept is £24.61 for a band “D” property, the annual precept charge is £158,320.

News & Views, the GLPC newsletter, is published three times a year.

In the parish there are 4 sports grounds these have: - ƒ Three pavilions, plus one being rebuilt following a fire. ƒ 13 football pitches, ƒ Two cricket pitches and one all weather cricket pitch, ƒ Three tennis courts.

Also four hard surfaced Multi Use Games Areas.

GLPC has six allotment sites with 145 plots, and a Community Orchard. GLPC has installed 19 dog bins and provides free dog poo bags

GLPC arranges a six week Summer of Fun programme with activities each week day. GLPC supports the Great Linford Waterside Festival GLPC sponsors and supports a Youth Club at Downs Barn.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 17 GREAT LINFORD STATISTICS

Settlement Dwellings Residents Blakelands 387 950 Bolbeck Park 390 900 Conniburrow 1,321 3800 Downhead Park 641 1650 Downs Barn 963 2700 Giffard Park 814 1950 Great Linford 1,541 4100 Neath Hill 766 2250 Pennyland 407 1200 Redhouse Park 84 200 Willen Park 568 1250 Totals 7882 20950

Willen [village] 608 1450

Dwellings estimated as at end April 2010

Residents estimated as at end June 2010

Source MK Council Population Bulletin 2010/11 http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/Download/Public/1026/DOCUMENT/9641/PopulationBulle tin2010-11.pdf

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 18 ANNEX B

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW CONSULTATION 3 FEBRUARY – 31 MAY 2011

RESPONSES RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF WOUGHTON PARISHED AREA

Submissions Received From: Page A. Woughton Community Council (31/5/11) 1 B. Small is Beautiful Campaign (19/5/11) 4 C. The Simpson Option (23/5/11) 22 D. Simpson & Ashland Parish Council (23/5/11) 23 E. A resident (26/5/11) 23 F. A resident (30/5/11) 24 G. Petition signed by 13 residents of Woughton-on-the Green (31/5/11) 24 H. A resident (4/6/11) 24

A. Woughton Community Council – 31 May 2011

The Parish of Woughton has been in existence since 1896, with as far as we can ascertain just two changes in boundaries, the first some years ago to reflect the existence of the grid roads (prior to that most of the estates were split) and last year when it was agreed to change the western boundary to the railway line (though no residents were affected by this change)

The population has of course risen dramatically since 1896, and especially with the new City estates, but also the growth of Woughton Park, Passmore and Woughton Village itself. It is now about 13,000, which is about average for Parishes in the Urban part of Milton Keynes.

It comprises of at least 9 distinct areas, estates and village, each having a somewhat separate identity, but each relying on each other for a whole variety of services and facilities.

The whole Parish is served by a single secondary school (MK Academy). The other secondary school in the area is a Catholic school serving the whole Borough. The logo and strap line of the community council encompasses the idea of creating and linking communities, but we would be the first to acknowledge that there is a lot of work to do before residents see the Parish in single terms, but this is true from each estate to another just as much as from Woughton Village to the areas west of the Canal. The whole Parish is dissected by grid roads running east west and north south and by the Canal, but has firm and secure boundaries encompassing the H9, River Ouzel, H7 and the Railway Line.

We have absolutely no doubt and much evidence that the vast majority of the Parish wishes to stay together as a single Parish, and we believe this should be reflected in the decision of Milton Keynes Parish.

The 3 areas in which a number of residents seek a separate Parish do not form a viable sustainable community. There is not a single shop in the area. There are no NHS services. There is no school or Post Office. The only community facilities are an old Village Hall, which is not suitable for many activities of a modern meeting place for a whole variety of reasons (size, location, structure of the building, lack of any car parking facilities etc.), the Church at Woughton on the Green, but this Church is pivotal to the Woughton Ecumenical Parish which serves the whole Parish and indeed beyond, extensive sports facilities (largest in

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 19 Milton Keynes) which serve a much wider area than even the Parish and the Allotments (again the largest in the Borough) which serve the whole Parish and to some extent beyond.

The three areas depend extensively on services and facilities in the rest of the Parish. The Netherfield Shopping Centre is their local ‘sub regional’ centre. Their GP and other NHS facilities are in the other part of the Parish and the same applies to virtually all other services.

The Community Council are to say the least displeased that Milton Keynes Council has chosen to consult only with the three areas concerned. This is flawed because the impact of any decision affects the whole Parish in a variety of ways.

It is our view that if the Parish were split neither Parish would be sustainable for different reasons: the area largely to the East of the Canal, because it lacks the range of facilities and services to be sustainable and the area largely to the west of the Canal because of the impact on financial resources, social capital and the homogeneity of the resulting Parish.

First, financial; Woughton already suffers from having the lowest Council Tax Yield in Milton Keynes at 67p per property (the Borough average is 83p and it rises to higher than £1.20 in some parts) This is the yield from levying a standard £1 Band D Tax. If the Parish were to be split the Tax yield in that part largely to the West of the Canal falls to 61p per property. This is not sustainable. It would be certainly the lowest per property yield in Milton Keynes and probably the South East of England of any Parish, and this in an area of extensive needs, resulting in high levels of Council Tax to deliver even standard services levied on the poorest people. It is neither sustainable nor fair.

Secondly Social Capital; the population of the three areas being considered does differ quite markedly from many of the areas to the west, but that creates an influx and mix of social capital and expertise which is essential to create a dynamic thriving cohesive community.

Thirdly homogeneity; for whatever reasons the Development Corporation created vast swathes of largely social housing in the 1970’s to the part of the Parish largely to the west of the Canal. Whilst the housing from estate to estate may look visually different it is in reality much of the same. An homogeneous area does not create the conditions for a mixed community economy or culture. There is a very real risk of division. You are under an obligation to consider community cohesion. The impact of any split would be to create a fractured community.

We are concerned that no guidance has been given to a number of aspects such as the issue of continuing Parish and new Parish, the transfer of assets, TUPE and contract arrangements and much else. In such circumstances it is not possible for anyone to be able to measure the full impact, and therefore views expressed are being predicated on potentially false premises. It is our view that such issues could create unknown problems to either or both sides of any line that may be drawn.

The original submission made by the then Parish Council was to merge Woughton with Simpson or at least the Ashland part of that Parish, but this was decided against. It would have created a more mixed, more viable and more sustainable community and Parish than is currently the case, but any proposals to reduce the size of the Parish or to split will have the opposite effect.

We do concede however that there is some merit in Woughton Park being linked to Simpson (as our original proposals would have allowed), although on balance we believe this would be negative in its impact and too much is made of the historical connection between

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 20 Woughton Park and Simpson. 50 per cent of the houses in Woughton Park have always been in Woughton

On the opposite extreme there is no merit whatsoever in Passmore being linked to any ‘breakaway’. It is a part of Tinkers Bridge (indeed was originally known and called Tinkers Bridge North). It is to the west of the Canal and has no road connection to either Woughton Park or Woughton on the Green.

We believe that the proposals being submitted to you by the ‘Small is beautiful’ campaign are neither fair nor sustainable nor reasonable, though we applaud the campaigning techniques they have been using. If though we look even further into the future, and proposals being made by Government and Milton Keynes Council to devolve services and facilities the problems only multiply. They multiply in terms of the differential financial impact. Facilities such as the sports grounds and even the allotments are far too big to be financed or matched or run by a very small Parish Council, but it would create added problems to both sides.

But our biggest arguments of all are about the nature of Milton Keynes. It is already a very divided city between areas of wealth and poverty, between deprivation and lack of deprivation on any number of measures. The difference in life expectancy between Woughton Ward and Middleton Ward for example is ten years, despite being next to each other. The City is dissected in a significant way by grid roads. This is already a problem. To add to it with yet another artificial division is to deliberately create a twin track city. This is dangerous and divisive and is the last thing that Milton Keynes needs or wants as we seek to build a cohesive dynamic and socially and economically mixed city. This is not localism but balkanisation.

On a point of detail much has been made of the so called MD Polling District as proof that a single community of the Polling District already exists. In fact the reason for the Polling District Split enforced since Ward changes in 2002 is simply that the area where Passmore was built was in a different Parish and Ward to Tinkers Bridge long before any houses were built and it was necessary for legal purposes for Passmore to be in a different Polling District to Tinkers Bridge. It makes no sense for any other reason.

The grid roads are often aspects which divide communities, despite or perhaps because of the network of bridges and subways. The Canal however has the opposite effect drawing people towards it as a leisure facility. It is a strong feature that helps to bind our community.

We have stated above that the effect of splitting the Parish would result in unsustainable Parishes for different reasons. Specifically the area to the west of the Canal - what could it be called even? The former boundary commission in its wisdom when it agreed to proposals made by Milton Keynes Council in 2002 to divide the Parish into two separate Wards could not find a name to replace Woughton. Arguably this is because it is Woughton. Woughton refers not just to the old village of Woughton on the Green but to the whole Parish area. Woughton Campus and Woughton Leisure Centre is on the other side of the Parish to Woughton on the Green. We are all Woughton and we should remain as a single Parish. We are only divided now by Borough Ward boundaries, but these are drawn less to reflect communities and primarily to provide equality of representation. This is a statutory point. Ward boundaries have changed frequently in Milton Keynes. They will change again many times. A review of Ward boundaries has already been requested by Milton Keynes Council. Current Ward boundaries cannot be used to justify Parish boundaries, though there is strength in the reverse argument superseded only by the need for electoral equality.

Finally the area largely to the west of the Canal would be largely unsustainable in our view for social, economic, financial and cultural reasons. Not only will it suffer from having an

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 21 extremely low Council Tax base as mentioned above, but its smaller size will also considerably reduce economies of scale. In such circumstances the notion of merging Woughton and Campbell Park maybe the only viable, though not preferred option, especially if Campbell Park were to be deprived of the Community of Willen, another aspect you are considering. We are aware however that this is not an option currently favoured by Campbell Park, and we do not put it forward as a suggestion in itself, but it would have the advantage of size and economies of scale if not of community or social and demographic mixture.

But we would plead with Milton Keynes Council not to create an isolated pocket of deprivation and pretend that it is doing anything to promote cohesion, integration or providing for sustainable local communities and governance. It would have the opposite effect. That is why this debate matters just as much to the people on Coffee Hall or Beanhill as it does to those in Woughton on the Green.

B. Small is Beautiful Campaign – 19 May 2011

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 22

The voice of the residents • “We agree it is time for a new Parish Council and your suggestion of aligning with the Polling District is very logical and sensible. We fully support the campaign.” • “I support strongly the proposal that Passmore should separate from the existing parish and we, together with Woughton on The Green and Woughton Park, should form a new parish.” • “Exactly as stated so well in the letter received with this form.” • “Fantastic Idea.” • “In favour of a smaller parish.” • “Great idea! When can it start! Home rule for Woughton Park homes– at last!” • Over 90% respondents voted for change • “We/I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in the letter and find the argument about aligning to various tiers of government very compelling.” • “Small is beautiful.” • “I fully support item 1 above, and strongly believe in a small separate parish council that will improve the control, costs and decision making in the parish.” • “I fully support the campaign for a new small Parish Council that brings together Passmore, Woughton on The Green and Woughton Park.” • “A smaller Parish Council which can really represent residents will give us a community identity and encourage participation in local issues.” • More than three quarters of the occupied homes responded • “All the rationale already outlined” • “A smaller, more “local” parish council would be better placed to represent the interests of people in this area, and to target resources in a more relevant way.” • “Our three areas are already recognised by MK Council as Polling District MD, so it would seem natural that we should be an independent parish in our own right.” • “I want a strong Parish Council that reflects a sense of pride and purpose, relevant to my aspirations for the area I live in.” “Our services could be provided quickly and efficiently – people would then become more interested in what’s happening in their Parish Council.”

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 23 1. Summary

This proposal is presented by a small working group drawn from the three areas of Woughton On The Green, Woughton Park and Passmore on behalf of the residents.

It seeks the Council’s approval for this area to form an independent Parish. This new parish would be of similar size and demographics to several other Milton Keynes parishes, such as Loughton, North Crawley and Simpson & Ashland.

There is written support from 58% of the homes in the campaign area: rising to 83% when ‘non respondents’ (inc. unoccupied properties) and ‘uninterested parties’ are excluded. Those in favour of the ‘status quo’, remaining as part of Woughton Community Council (WCC), represent only 7.25% of homes expressing an opinion.

The research endorses the headline numbers that emerged from the consultation that Milton Keynes Council’s (MKC) Democratic Services reported to the Parish Boundary Review Group on 17th March 2010.

This proposal describes the collective views of the many residents who readily responded to the group’s initial campaign letter and questionnaire, which was sent to all households in the area in 2010. The campaign team continues to engage with residents in the area on a regular basis and, if anything, support has steadily grown.

The creation of a new parish will deliver the following: • Clear accountability to both residents and MKC; • A focus on developing the immediate local environment in a sustainable way; • Preservation and support of the balanced diversity of the area; • Concentration of increased support on older and more vulnerable residents; • A controlled financial management approach in line with the clearly expressed • wishes of its residents; • Strengthening of democracy in the areas concerned and increasing local participation; • A clear-minded, self-reliant parish that would be an asset to Milton Keynes.

Over the last year the campaign has already developed and grown the strong sense of community and alignment in the campaign area. The conclusions that can be drawn from the campaign’s extensive consultation exercises are that residents want change and support for that change comes from a diversity of households.

The overwhelming majority of the residents of the Small is Beautiful campaign area, request that the Council approves this proposal for independent parish status.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 24

2. The proposal for a new parish

This campaign exists to create a new small Parish Council that brings together Woughton On The Green, Woughton Park and Passmore. Collectively, the boundaries are already recognised by MKC as 'Polling District MD' and by WCC as the Woughton Park ward. The boundaries of the proposed parish are thus currently treated consistently, for all four tiers of democratic representation to elect: • The Member of Parliament in the House of Commons; • The MEP in Brussels; • The two borough councillors who serve on MKC; • The two parish councillors who serve on WCC.

“Many residents want to work together to create a future that benefits us all.”

This consistent treatment clearly demonstrates the validity of the boundaries, which are accepted at European, national and local levels.

This is a community with a distinct culture and growing sense of togetherness. The area centres on an historic church, a village green and pub. Its character is predominantly rural, village, pasture and water parkland.

Figure 1: A map showing the proposed new parish

It has been asked why this campaign is only focusing on Woughton On The Green, Woughton Park and Passmore.

It is essential to keep in mind that a Parish is not only defined by obvious boundaries but by the synergies between the residents. The words ’Small is Beautiful’ has been adopted by the local residents because it exemplifies their feelings, desires and strong belief that they are a community. The area encompasses a cohesive group of like-minded people, brought together by their views and needs, irrespective of geographical boundaries.

The proposed new, small Parish Council would give residents greater influence over decisions affecting their locality.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 25

3. The campaign

The campaign started rather late because of a lack of public awareness of the workings of the MK Boundary Review Committee. After the Committee’s decision in March 2010; to recommend no change to the WCC boundary; a group of local residents from Woughton On The Green, Woughton Park and Passmore was formed to pursue this campaign. Membership represents residents associations, long standing residents, as well as those who have recently moved to the area. It is a group of people with a very broad and mixed range of backgrounds, ages and occupations.

“We feel a new small Parish Council will be more representative of our common interests and needs.”

The campaign has concentrated on three main tasks: • discovering the views of residents; • understanding the implications of creating a new Parish and • communicating with residents and other stakeholders.

Stakeholders included all MK Councillors, neighbouring Parish Clerks, CEO MKC, The Parks Trust, Thames Valley Police, Broughton Fire Service, MK Dons, British Waterways and local businesses. Copies of the newsletters are at Appendix 6. The campaign website is www.sibc.org.uk.

Whilst increasing its knowledge of the area and its administration, the campaign team is grateful for the very professional assistance it received from MK Council Officers, CEO of Woughton Community Council, Simpson & Ashland Parish Clerk and others including the

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 26 Chairman of the Patch Allotments, the Vicar and church wardens of St Mary’s Church and local businesses.

Since beginning the campaign the following has been accomplished: • Two full surveys of residents in the proposed new parish (Summer/Autumn 2010, postal survey and Spring 2011, door to door survey); • Delivered several informative newsletters to residents and other stakeholders; • Submitted an earlier version of this document to the boundary review committee; • Made representation to the Parish review working group, the full council meeting on 19th October 2010 and all public meetings of the 2011 governance review panel; • Consulted with residents on communication and local issues; • Established a campaign website to further inform residents and stakeholders; • Met with Peartree Bridge residents group, following an invitation to help them further understand our campaign; • Met with Tinkers Bridge residents association; • Called a residents meeting in April 2011 with over 100 residents in attendance.

“We were disappointed to hear of the outcome of the meeting of the Parish Review working Group on 17th March (2010). We originally expressed the view that we had no desire to remain as part of the existing Woughton Parish Council arrangements and remain of this view. We believe that the current arrangements do not adequately represent our interests and that we derive very little benefit from the existing Parish Council. We are of the view that a new smaller Parish Council which directly represents the views and aspirations of like minded communities who have the greatest local affinity would be in our best interests. The new Parish Council would provide us with an opportunity to directly influence the decisions which affect our community and to derive the best possible tangible benefits in an efficient and cost effective way. Accordingly, we fully support the proposal to form a new Parish Council comprising the communities of Passmore, Woughton Park and Woughton On The Green.”

4. Postal survey of residents – completed September 2010

A rigorous research programme was carried out to obtain the views of residents within the campaign area. The methodology is described in Appendix 2. The comments provided by residents are tabulated in Appendix 6.

4.1 Statistical Results. 191 surveys were returned out of a base of 378 occupied households, a response rate of 50.5%.

The below chart shows the responses received: • 92.0% were in favour of the SiB campaign; • 3.7% wanted no change; • 4.3% (8 households) were in favour of moving to Simpson and Ashland parish.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 27 Figure 2: Graphical analysis of survey returns – 50.5% of occupied households

The surveys were completed by residents from a representative spread of Council Tax Bandings indicating our earlier assertion about the diversity within the proposed Parish.

Figure 3: Graphical analysis of survey returns by council tax banding and area

4.2 Descriptive Results. From the 191 completed survey responses received, 120 contained written comments. These comments indicated a strong dissatisfaction with the current arrangements under WCC and clear ideas about what residents would like instead.

The response topics are defined as follows and the number of responses in which they are contained is shown below.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 28 Figure 4: Survey comments by topic

The following is a representative sample of residents’ views (full list of survey comments in Appendix 6):

4.2.1 “Small is Beautiful” (44): There was immediate and strong resonance with the group’s leading assertion; a small Parish would be more responsive to its residents’ needs and in-tune with its culture.

“A small parish and council would be more suited to administer and support the lower level of community functions and events desirable.” “Small is efficient and beneficial to residents.” “A smaller, more cohesive group of residents in an area with common or similar philosophies of self help and social need.” “I am sure that people would be much more willing to support and help with projects and ideas if the Parish Council was more localised and focussed on the areas that are local to us.” “The existing larger Parish does not appear to adequately deal with our local issues and ideas, probably due to its size and many differing views across this much larger and unwieldy area.” “As mature parents of a young child we would welcome a small community of likeminded families in which we can become involved, as we share similar needs, ages and backgrounds, which we do not share with the larger parish as a whole.” “Our aspirations are more easily attainable in the smaller proposed parish – returning more to the “village” principle.”

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 29 4.2.2 “Democracy” (37): The proposed new Parish would provide much greater democratic accountability to its residents.

“A new parish Council would return democracy to “grass roots” where people can feel that they can make a difference.” “We feel a new small Parish Council will be more representative of our common interests and needs.” “A smaller parish council will be more manageable and the views of local residents can be heard and taken into account.” “Fair representation is a phrase that has been extensively used by ministers of late and that’s all we are seeking, no more no less.”

4.2.3 “Community” (37): Views on community spirit and how it could be improved.

“It is easier for residents to engage more fully within a smaller Parish Council and create a real community.” “The proposed new parish would have a good mix of residential housing including, council house tenants, shared ownership, buy to let, private rental tenants, and owner/occupiers. This would be ideal in building a close-knit community.” “We need a parish council that will promote the self help ethos engendered in our areas.” “The existing civil parish is an impossible community with such diverse social and practical needs that will never come together in the way that a smaller and more compatible grouping could achieve.” “We want a Parish that gives positive encouragement to residents to create a vibrant, unified community so that the dependency on employed staff is minimised.”

4.2.4 “Services” (27): Comments mainly about the lack of value for money of service provision in the 3 areas.

“As a matter of principle, I think it is wrong that we should have to contribute more financially to deprived areas than other MK residents.” “Requests for small items to benefit our residents are being ignored/promises broken.” “Our services could be provided quickly and efficiently – people would then become more interested in what’s happening in their Parish Council.” “I would like to see a Parish that focuses on core essential services at reasonable value for money cost, with non essential services (such as the Carnival and other social events) funded separately on a voluntary basis by those who want and can pay for them, especially during this recessionary period.”

4.2.5 “Opposed” (1): It would be wrong to change the current parish boundary arrangement.

“This idea of cutting ourselves off from those areas of Woughton Parish where the residents have greater needs for support is unpleasantly selfish and “nimbyish” and leaves you and your group of supporters open to the criticism of intending to create a “middle-class ghetto”.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 30 4.2.6 “Development” (15): Ideas on how the new Parish could be developed and strengthened.

“A smaller parish council will enable funding to be more specifically allocated to our needs, eg better maintenance of trees and vegetation, more regular emptying of dog bins, a mobile library coming to the area for older residents, a review of rents/rates to enable a village shop to re-open in Woughton On The Green.” “Many residents want to work together to create a future that benefits us all.” “We want to reserve the area’s green character and eradicate noise pollution by high speed traffic.” “I would like to see our area being prioritised for improvements and residential input. 2 play areas have been installed/renewed and no local opinion has been requested.”

4.2.7 “Join Simpson & Ashland” (8): If there is to be a change in parish boundaries, Woughton Park should join with Simpson & Ashland or another parish.

“It would make more sense to me to join another area, e.g. Simpson or Kents Hill.” “I believe that it’s more cost effective for Woughton Park to join with a nearby similar Parish like Simpson in order to avoid the overhead cost associated with creating a new Parish and the requisite infrastructure.”

4.2.8 “No Need for Change” (7): The existing parish boundary structure is either okay or there should be no parish tier of local government within Milton Keynes.

“We question the need for Parish Councils. The MK Unitary Authority is small enough to deliver services at the parish level without the need for a fourth tier of representation. If Parish Councils did not exist in MK it would not be necessary to invent them. So our preferred solution is no Parish Council with resources at the city level thereby increased.” “Not broke. Don’t fix it.”

4.2.9 “Heritage” (5): Preserving and valuing the heritage of the new Parish.

“The 3 areas have much in common and already share close social ties with the historic Ye Olde Swan and St Mary’s Church providing natural meeting points.” “A small parish where all use this most beautiful amenity is more likely to cherish it and assist the local council and waterways associations to keep it as a beautiful amenity to be enjoyed by all.”

5. Doorstep survey of residents – April/May 2011

In order to validate and extend the initial survey results, a door to door survey was carried out during April and May 2011. Residents were asked to sign either ‘in support of the SiB campaign’, ‘in support of remaining with WCC’, or to state ‘other’ and confirm their view in a comments box. The responses are grouped as shown in Figure 5.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 31 Figure 5: Summary of the door to door survey in Spring 2011

The results show an increase in support since Autumn 2010, with over 50% of homes signing in favour of the proposal.

In order to give a full picture, the results of the two surveys have been combined. Of the households that did not respond in April 2011, 29 had returned a survey in 2010. For these households their summer 2010 view was used. The combination of survey results thus increased the response rate to greater than 80%. The combined results are shown in Figure 6.

“The proposed new parish would have a good mix of residential housing including, council house tenants, shared ownership, buy to let, private rental tenants, and owner/occupiers. This would be ideal in building a close-knit community.”

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 32 Figure 6: Summary of the combined survey results

One of the questions asked of the campaign has been “Are you trying to create a middle class ghetto?” Figure 7 shows the households who support the campaign analysed by council tax banding. The results are shown as a percentage of the total properties in each council tax band and have not been adjusted to take account of unoccupied properties. This demonstrates widespread support across all bandings.

Figure 7: Support by council tax band

The conclusions that can be drawn from the campaign’s extensive consultation exercises are that residents want change and support for that change comes from a diversity of households.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 33 6. Residents meeting 12th April 2011

On Tuesday 12th April the campaign team held a meeting for all residents from the three areas, hosted by St Mary’s Church Woughton On The Green. Invitation was restricted to residents with the exception of John Moffoot, Assistant Director, Democratic Services, MKC. Over 100 residents, including both ward Parish Councillors, attended the meeting. Signing in sheets were used to record those attending and to allow people to request a copy of the slide presentation.

Analysis of the sign in sheets against the survey data shows the following: • there was at least one resident present from nearly every street in the three areas (18 out of 23 streets); • there was a representative spread of council tax bands present (at least one from each band); • there was a representative spread of views present.

The meeting comprised: • a short presentation on the campaign so far; • the opportunity to ask questions; • information about what a parish council does and how it works; • an opportunity to share views.

“Why don’t they just make a decision?”

Many challenging questions were asked of the campaign team and honest responses given. During the lively debate it became clear that many had very strong ideas of improvements that could be made to the local area. Some of the suggestions are: • Children’s play park – Lucas Place; • A ‘no entry’ sign by the tree at Newport Road leading to the Green; • Resolve problem of access from rear of houses in Lucas Place to the recreation ground; • Traffic calming measures in Lucas Place; • Resolve problem of camping on Sports field & associated car parking during festivals; • Salt & grit bins for Passmore; • Coffee mornings in the village hall; • Activities for children in the area; • Pruning for the community orchard.

Since the meeting further suggestions have been made and they are: • Use of the oxbow lake at north end of Woughton On The Green for fishing; • Salt and grit bins at the junction of Baskerfield Grove and Newport Road; • Encouragement of use of existing dog bins; • Provision of locally based activities for children.

The meeting clearly demonstrated growing and enthusiastic community spirit and many people commented afterwards that the meeting brought together residents from all backgrounds and gave them the opportunity to meet and get to know one another.

7. What might the new parish look like?

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 34

The proposed parish will be small because that encourages local residents to engage more easily; it will be beautiful by maintaining the locality and it will be well managed by being accountable to the residents who will elect their representatives. The proposal seeks to encourage a spirit of cooperation both within the parish, with neighbouring parishes and MKC.

As part of the campaign team’s work a thorough review of the area has been undertaken in order to put together a picture of the proposed parish and what would be needed to manage it.

7.1 Assets.

A survey of the assets of the proposed ‘Small is Beautiful’ parish indicates that it is a semi- rural area with a long history and good infrastructure. A full list of these assets is included in Appendix 1.

7.2 Demographics.

A selection of the current demographics of the proposed parish is shown in Appendix 3. This has been compiled with the help of MKC officers. The proposed parish has a spread of property bandings within a ‘normal’ distribution i.e. about 75% of properties are in the mid range (C,D,E,F) balanced by almost equal proportions of higher (G,H) and lower banding properties (A,B).

“A smaller parish council will be more manageable and the views of local residents can be heard and taken into account.”

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 35 7.3 Potential responsibilities.

A number of responsibilities would be inherited by the new Parish. These are as follows:

The sports pavilion and associated facilities. These facilities will be operated under contract to MKC although the parish will have a role on the steering committee to ensure residents’ views are represented. This facility offers the potential for wider community use. The village hall. This is currently leased by WCC from the Diocese of Oxford. It is used as a polling station and, very occasionally, is rented out for private functions. Although the rent is very low it requires significant annual expenditure for maintenance. It is small and lacking in facilities. It will be important to have a parish meeting place for which other options are available such as; St Mary’s Church, where the vicar is keen to encourage its use as a meetings and functions venue, and the recently renovated sports pavilion. ‘The Patch’ allotments. The allotments are currently run by a committee with administrative support from WCC. The allotments are a valuable community resource. It is proposed that tenancies will continue to be open to residents from surrounding parishes. ‘The Patch’ allotments committee would be given autonomy and, where required, receive administrative support from the parish.

Parish clerk. The new parish would seek to work with another parish to share an experienced clerk and thus keep costs to a minimum. Dog bins. The new parish would review the provision of this facility and, where supported by the residents, continue to offer it. Notice boards. There are currently two parish notice boards and their use would be reviewed by the new parish.

7.4 Would the new parish be financially viable? The new parish would wish to adopt an approach based on volunteering, thrift and co- operative service sharing with surrounding Parishes with the aim of minimising costs. The parish would not require office space or functional staff.

All significant spending would only be undertaken if endorsed by parish residents and be based on specific value for money performance targets.

It is estimated that the cost of supporting the allotments, servicing the dog bins and providing parish administration is somewhere between £10,000 and £15,000 representing a Band D precept of between £21 and £31 per year. A full breakdown of proposed precepts is shown in Figure 8 below, and Appendix 4 shows a table of the comparative Parish Precepts in Milton Keynes.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 36 Figure 8: Provisional precept scoping estimates

Council Tax Bands A B C D E F G H Ninths Yields 6 7 8 9 11 13 15 18 Set Band 484.46 0.67 0.78 0.89 1.00 1.22 1.44 1.67 2.00 D at £1 Precept 5,000 0.76 0.89 1.02 10.32 1.40 1.66 1.91 2.29 for 7,500 1.31 1.53 1.75 15.48 2.41 2.85 3.29 3.94 proposed 10,000 3.02 3.52 4.02 20.64 5.53 6.53 7.54 9.05 parish 15,000 10.37 12.10 13.83 30.96 19.02 22.47 25.93 31.12 20,000 47.58 55.51 63.44 41.28 87.22 103.08 118.94 142.73

“I would like to see a Parish that focuses on core essential services at reasonable value for money cost, with non essential services (such as the Carnival and other social events) funded separately on a voluntary basis by those who want and can pay for them, especially during this recessionary period.”

8. Latest developments

As this proposal was being finalised the following matters have been identified.

8.1 The ‘Join with Simpson and Ashland’ Campaign

There are a number of residents of Woughton Park who would like to be a part of Simpson and Ashland Parish. They feel they have a historical alignment with Simpson village. Many of these residents consider the Small is Beautiful campaign to be their second choice, as their primary objective is to be part of a small, representative parish.

The Small is Beautiful campaign team acknowledges the views of these residents and will work with them and the governance review panel to arrive at the most appropriate solution.

8.2 The Tinkers Bridge Campaign

As this proposal was being finalised contact was made by community representatives from Tinkers Bridge. It is understood that there may be support from residents of that estate to either form their own independent parish or join with a nearby small parish. The timing of this submission is such that a full canvass has yet to be completed.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 37 8.3 Peartree Bridge

Two members of the campaign team met with a group of residents from Peartree Bridge as part of their April monthly meeting. Residents attended from Waterside, Woodley Headland and Jeeves. Residents asked a number of questions to help them better understand the campaign and welcomed the opportunity to discuss the matter. An agreement was also made to work closely in the future with our immediate neighbours.

“The proposal for a new small PC should allow the locality to focus on the needs of its community rather than have these submerged within the oversized WPC. The 3 areas have much in common and already share close social ties with the historic Ye Olde Swan and St Mary’s Church providing natural meeting points. The fact that Simpson, with only 315 households, flourishes as a PC suggests a new one based on 398 can also be viable and successful. If there is an overwhelming majority in favour of the proposal, MKC should bow to the democratic views of the residents.”

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 38 Appendix 1: Buildings, assets and services within the area

The campaign surveyed the area and identified the following assets:

General Assets

The village hall The village green near the village hall is a large open space dating back to the Iron Age Mercure Parkside Hotel. St. Mary's Church Small business properties. ‘The Patch’ allotments Ye Olde Swan Public House. Sports club and pitches. Grass pitches for football, baseball and cricket. Astro-turf pitches for tennis and hockey plus two hard court pitches for tennis. An enclosed floodlit pitch for 5 a side football etc. The orchard. The "winery" (not in use). Four pedestrianised hump back canal bridges linking to neighbouring western areas. 1 canal footbridge. 4 footbridges over River Ouzel linking to neighbouring eastern areas. Canal towpaths Fishing is also possible in both the canal and the nearby River Ouzel. Bridleways Foot and bridlepath network in linear park and riverside. Substantial Redway network linking the three areas. Several pedestrian under-passes to: H7 Chaffron Way and H8 Standing Way. The linear park, managed by the Parks Trust, is also used for the grazing of sheep and cattle, the meat of which can be purchased locally.

Passmore.

The Millennium Rose Garden provided by the Residents’ Association Two bus shelters opposite each other on V8 Marlborough Street.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 39 Royal Mail collection box.

Woughton Park.

Two dog waste bins, one on the footpath leading to the canal side and one adjacent to the hard play area near the H9 bridge over the canal. Royal Mail collection box. Parish Notice Board

Woughton On The Green.

Four dog waste bins, one on the green, one near the telephone box adjacent to 'The Close', one close to the Water Gardens and one by the canal bridge to Peartree Bridge. Two bus shelters, one near Lucas Place and another at Baskerfield Grove. Two Royal Mail collection boxes, one near Ye Olde Swan and one at the Baskerfield Grove bus stop. Two childrens play areas near Adams Court and Bellis Grove. Ancient fish ponds and information boards. Parish Notice Board

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 40 Local bus routes.

Buses through the area include the number 5 that skirts along the V8. The number 17 runs between the Rail Station/CMK and Cranfield, and the number 18 runs between Bletchley and CMK – both running through Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 41

Appendix 2: The research approach

The campaign used primary and secondary research methods, as practised in business, academic and public services environments.

Primary research

The initial phase took the form of a single-sided survey questionnaire to all of the 393 households in the area. An explanatory letter was included with a separate one-page short questionnaire. It launched in June 2010 and was completed by September 2010.

A further phase took the form of door to door canvassing across all households. Canvassing was carried out by the campaign team members during April and May 2011.

Secondary research

This was conducted with the support and co-operation of officers in several departments of MKC. There were various sources of data provision including: • Published local area statistics; • Local area extracts from the MK council tax database.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 42

Appendix 3: Demographics for Polling District MD

Data derived from official statistics.

Table 1: Population Population estimates are from doctors’ surgery registration data for April 2010

Total Passmore Woughton Park Woughton on The Green Total 933 193 170 570 Male 470 99 85 286 Female 463 94 85 284 Up to 15 118 14 16 88 16 to 74 755 165 143 447 75 Upwards 60 14 11 35

Table 2 – Dwellings Totals are spring 2011 council tax band data.

Total Passmore Woughton Park Woughton on The Green Total 395 75 75 245 Owner 311 72 74 165 Occupied(E) Privately 62 3 0 59 Rented (E) MK Council 10 0 0 10 Stock (E) Shared 12 0 1 11 Ownership (E)

Table 3 - Council Tax Council Tax snapshot.

Total Passmore Woughton Park Woughton on The Green Total 395 75 75 245 Band A 20 0 0 20 Band B 42 0 0 42 Band C 37 1 0 36 Band D 57 41 0 16 Band E 45 33 2 10 Band F 122 0 64 58 Band G 70 0 9 61 Band H 2 0 0 2

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 43 Table 4 – Electoral Roll Analysis

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 44 Appendix 4: Precept Data

Table 5 – Borough Wide Precept Data 2011-12

Parish Charge per average 2011-12 total precept £ band D property £ WOUGHTON 134.98 495,435 BLETCHLEY & FENNY 115.06 519,586 STRATFORD WEST BLETCHLEY 114.49 842,375 CAMPBELL PARK 107.22 511,610 WOLVERTON 90.00 329,195 WOBURN SANDS 84.71 94,815 WESTON UNDERWOOD 81.26 10,000 STONY STRATFORD 67.26 180,165 NEWPORT PAGNELL 61.56 325,073 OLNEY 56.70 147,610 STANTONBURY 56.13 169,616 EMBERTON 55.29 16,000 CASTLETHORPE 54.13 24,236 NEW BRADWELL 53.56 51,500 SHERINGTON 51.86 22,058 SHENLEY BROOK END 51.61 455,300 BOW BRICKHILL 51.20 13,000 LITTLE BRICKHILL 47.43 8,245 HANSLOPE 46.94 44,651 LAVENDON 44.48 24,000 BRADWELL 44.46 134,820 RAVENSTONE 42.61 5,100 HAVERSHAM cum LITTLE 42.41 13,500 LINFORD STOKE GOLDINGTON 41.41 11,172 NORTH CRAWLEY 40.91 14,170 SHENLEY CHURCH END 38.00 162,564 WAVENDON 36.05 13,000 ASTWOOD and HARDMEAD 33.98 4,000 LATHBURY 33.78 2,000 KENTS HILL, MONKSTON & 26.56 69,795 BRINKLOW GREAT LINFORD 24.61 158,322 BROUGHTON and MILTON 20.99 56,000 KEYNES CLIFTON REYNES and NEWTON 20.82 4,250 BLOSSOMVILLE GAYHURST 19.03 1,400 COLD BRAYFIELD 17.12 750 CHICHELEY 16.60 750 MOULSOE 15.25 2,250 SIMPSON & ASHLAND 11.56 5,000 ABBEY HILL [formerly Bradwell 10.00 15,270 Abbey] TYRINGHAM & FILGRAVE 7.98 900 LOUGHTON 7.50 17,598

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 45 WALTON 4.61 20,000 CALVERTON 0 0 CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES 0 0 FAIRFIELDS 0 0 WARRINGTON 0 0 WHITEHOUSE 0 0

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 46 Appendix 5: Campaign Newsletters

Available on request.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 47

Appendix 6: Full Database of Survey Respondents’ Comments

Available on request.

C. The Simpson Option – 23 May 2011

“It is clear that how people perceive where they live – their neighbourhoods – is significant in considering the identities and interests of local communities and depends on a range of circumstances, often best defined by local residents.” The Electoral Commission’s Guidance (2008)

Children from Simpson Combined visit the site of their old school in Newport Road, Woughton Park for the re-instatement of the school bell

Proposal to transfer the Woughton Park grid square to Simpson & Ashland P.C.

Historically, much of the now Woughton Park grid square lay within the Simpson parish boundary. During the 80s, the boundary was re-aligned along the H9 Groveway and since consultation processes were not as advanced as now, no residents’ opinions were sought.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 48 Since the 2006 review, and again under the present exercise, a clear majority of the 74 households of Woughton Park have voted for a return to Simpson parish – by nearly 60% in Milton Keynes Council’s January 2010 consultation and in the April 2011 petition signed by 41 residents available on request.

Why do local people want change?

There are push and pull factors.

Woughton Park is currently administered by Woughton Community Council (W.C.C), but it is so large at over 5200 properties that we feel dwarfed and with only 1 councillor amongst 21, it is very difficult to be heard. On the other hand, representing only 1% of its households currently, means that W.C.C itself recognises the loss of Woughton Park in its entirety will have a minimal effect on its business.

Neither does the local geography reinforce this relationship since 94% of WCC homes lie on the other side of the Grand Union and although that doesn’t seem an insurmountable barrier it has the effect of dividing the parish completely.

The final push factor is social. There are no facilities provided by WCC into Woughton Park except a small number of bins and a notice board. This is not problematic for local residents, but it does mean that social engagement is not readily facilitated outside of people’s homes, which serves only to enhance the clear sense of identity that our grid square values so highly.

The case for the Simpson option

The overwhelming case is that people feel that they belong to Simpson village and do not understand why they were ever separated. Their local history is shared (see photo above, for example), and they are physically tied together through geography with shared routes along the Newport Road and the Grand Union towpath, as well as activities both at the village hall and The Plough.

It is unsurprising; therefore, that Simpson & Ashland P.C. has formally supported Woughton Park’s desire to rejoin the parish each time its opinion has been sought and without any effort on its part.

Conclusion

This proposal is effectively a technical amendment of a previous change, which has had the very unfortunate effect of actually diluting our community’s sense of identity and leading to an unhealthy sense of isolation. There are 8 councillors on SAPC and we would gladly have our parish councillor become the 9th and where we can be seen to make an effective contribution especially given the likely opportunities arising under the Localism Bill.

We are all counting on your support.

Thank you very much.

The Simpson option team (contact details supplied)

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 49 D. Simpson & Ashland Parish Council – 23 May 2011

Simpson and Ashland Parish Council confirm its view that it would strongly welcome the return of Woughton Park to its original parish if this is recommended by the Working Party.

Previously we had replied the following:

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the new review of the Woughton parish boundary

I am pleased to advise that at its meeting on 4th April 2011, Simpson & Ashland P.C. endorsed its view as previously advised to your council, that whilst we have not sought actively to expand our own boundaries, should the Working Group recommend a return of Woughton Park to its original parish of Simpson then that decision would be most welcome.

E. A resident (address supplied) – 26 May 2011

I am writing on behalf of a small number of people whose views are being overlooked in the boundary change for Woughton-on-the-Green. We are people living within a small social housing area of Woughton-on-the-Green and we are not being represented at all! We do not want the change to ‘Small is Beautiful’ but feel we are being bombarded by representatives of this campaign who do want it, and no-one is representing us! I did approach one of our newly elected Parish Councillors and I asked him if he would support us residents who want to stay as we are, but he firmly advised me that he has to go with the majority, when asked how does he know who is the majority, he advised, by referendum. This is totally unfair, because both of the new Parish Councillors for Woughton-on-the-Green and Woughton Park, are both in favour of the ‘Small is Beautiful’ campaign! Hence I believe the whole thing to be biased to one side. My question is who is supporting the minority here and why have we not got a voice? I have lived in this Village for seventeen years and always been very happy, I see no reason whatsoever to change anything. I have recently been told by local residents that people from the ‘Small is Beautiful’ campaign are knocking on people’s doors and advising them what to vote, surely that is not right!

I think the only fair way to conduct this process is to open the vote up to the whole of the Parish, because undoubtedly the outcome is going to have consequences for the whole Parish and not just the areas of Woughton-on-the-Green, Woughton Park and Passmore!

F. A resident (address supplied) – 30 May 2011

This email is to be treated as a proposal submission under the current Community Governance Review with respect to the boundaries of Woughton Community Council (WCC).

The proposal is for the area currently known as Tinkers Bridge Ward, within WCC to form its own independent parish.

This proposal has only been discussed with a limited number of residents the majority of whom were in favour. Because we only found out about this review in April 2011, we have not been able to conduct a full survey and will be doing this in the coming weeks.

I am aware that there is a proposal for Woughton Park and/or Passmore to merge with Simpson. I have not discussed this with any of my neighbours, but our residents association has been building relationships with Simpson Parish in recent months.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 50 G. Petition signed by 13 residents of Woughton on The Green – 31 May 2011

Petition signed by residents of Bowles Place, Lucas Place and The Close stating: ‘We the undersigned feel we are being unrepresented with regard to the Boundary change for Woughton on the Green. We feel that we are a minority who nobody is listening to and we want to have a voice and be heard.

H. A resident (address supplied) – 4 June 2011

I would like to put on record my objection to the possibility of a boundary change regarding Tinkers Bridge. My objections are on two points. The first is on principal, one of the concepts and ethos of Milton Keynes development was to provide dwellings that were based on diversity both cultural and economic. It would seem that if the proposed boundary change is accepted this would be against this principal, and would in fact be elitist. The second is on cost, in the era of financial constraints, the cost of this change would be unacceptable. These costs would include the whole business of re printing and the more obvious costs. This matter has been raised more times than I can remember, and the consultations alone are expenditure which could have been used in a more beneficial way.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 51 Annex C Responses to Survey of Estates Campbell Park Grid Square

Name of Community Option Residents Household Campbell Park Grid Square Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council 6 4 Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish Council 214 120 Establish a new Parish for the Campbell Park area only 2 1

250

200

150 Residents Household 100

50

0 Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish Establish a new Parish for the Campbell Park Council area only

Campbell Park Grid Square

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 52 Responses to Survey of Estates Campbell Park Grid Square Comments

How many times this issue was raised Option Selected Comments made by the public Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council No Comment. 1 Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council Would have liked more information including the 1 good and bad points of remaining at the parish already with and good and bad points of joining the other communities in question. Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council The size of a parish council needs to be viable 1 which would seem to rule out options 2 & 3. MKC has always sought to establish mixed economies. Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council See Campbell Park as a rural setting, being more 1 advantageous to us than part of the urbanisation of CMK, albeit only a few hundred yards up the road. Opponents look to reduce property tax by the abolition of the parish council, but we believe they are doing a good job for this community and it is a false hope that the same facilities can be provided by CMK with little or no cost. Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish No comment. 100 Council Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish Would have liked more information on the focus 1 Council of Campbell Park. Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish We are a natural community. 3 Council Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish Campbell Park is defended by its location to 9 Council Central Milton Keynes and its surrounding i.e.; shopping centre, xscape building. Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish When Campbell Park has more residents it may 1 Council warrant its own parish but until then it would be more beneficial to the CMK.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 53 Option Selected Comments made How many times this issue was raised by the public

Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish On a financial basis and assuming all services 1 Council stay the same or improve and council tax stays at the reduced rate. Join with Central Milton Keynes Parish Campbell Park Parish Council always seems to 2 Council focus on just residents in Fishermead, Springfield and Oldbrook. Establish a new Parish for the Campbell We should leave the current Campbell Park 1 Park area only Parish Council and establish a new parish for just Campbell Park.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 54 Responses to Survey of Estates

Passmore

Name of community Option Residents Household Passmore Remain with Woughton Community Council 4 2 Join with Simpson and Ashland Parish Council 1 1 Establish a new Parish for Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only 115 56

140

120

100

80 Residents Household 60

40

20

0 Remain with Woughton Community Council Join with Simpson and Ashland Parish Council Establish a new Parish for Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only

Passmore

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 55 Passmore Comments

How many times this issue Option Selected Comments made was raised by the public Remain with Woughton Community I believe that a parish should council should comprise as great a 1 Council cross section of society as possible. Remain with Woughton Community Options 2 & 3 would not be in the interest of the community. They 1 Council would create ghettoes of 'owner-occupied' houses which is against good community relations. Join with Simpson and Ashland Parish No Comment. 1 Council Establish a new Parish for the No Comment. 47 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Does not feel part of the Woughton Community Council. 3 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Feel that establishing a new Parish will give opportunity to build 5 Passmore, Woughton On The Green community sprit/new sense of identity and representation for us and Woughton Park areas only and all the residents of the proposed parish.

Establish a new Parish for the Could save money. 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Feels that Parish Councils are an old fashioned concept for the 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green modern city and should be scrapped. and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Does not feel that staying part of WCC is logical as the likelihood 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green of any improvement by remaining in WCC is very little. and Woughton Park areas only

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 56 Responses to Survey of Estates Willen

Name of Community Option Residents Household Willen Remain with Campbell Park Parish Council 47 33 Join with Great Linford Parish Council 43 23 Establish a new Parish for Willen area only 34 19

50

45

40

35

30 Residents 25 Household 20

15

10

5

0 Remain with Campbell Park Parish Join with Great Linford Parish Council Establish a new Parish for Willen area Council only

Willen

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 57 Willen Comments

Option Selected Comments made How many times this issue was raised by the public Remain with Campbell Parish Council No Comment. 25 Remain with Campbell Parish Council Doesn’t think changing to any of the other two Parishes 2 will be workable. Remain with Campbell Parish Council We are satisfied with the work done and within the 6 current Council. Join with Great Linford Parish Council No Comment. 11 Join with Great Linford Parish Council Based simply on the much lower parish precept in Great 1 Linford Parish. Join with Great Linford Parish Council Have more in common with Great Linford/more aligned. 3 Join with Great Linford Parish Council Should exclude Conniburrow from this area. 3 Join with Great Linford Parish Council East/West - Natural boundaries North/South - Too 1 extensive Willen/Great Linford - Have their own facilities not too extensive… Fishermead, Springfield, Newlands etc have their own identity, facilities but nothing in common with areas to their north. Join with Great Linford Parish Council The southern boundary should be the H5/has no 3 common characteristics. Join with Great Linford Parish Council The southern boundary should be A509. 3 Establish a new Parish for the Willen No Comment left. 7 area only Establish a new Parish for the Willen Doesn’t want any part of Campbell Park Parish - It has 1 area only nothing to do with Willen and its over expensive compared with option 2. Establish a new Parish for the Willen The southern Boundary should be A509. 2 area only Establish a new Parish for the Willen The Southern boundary could include Woolstone. 2 area only

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 58

Option Selected Comments made How many times this issue was raised by the public Establish a new Parish for the Willen Looking at the map it would appear to be sensible to re- 1 area only locate Fishermead and Oldbrook to a neighbouring parish as for Willen and Campbell Park to form a parish with perhaps inclusion of Oakgrove, Middleton and MK Village. Establish a new Parish for the Willen Boundary to be up to the H3/H5. 2 area only Establish a new Parish for the Willen But include Willen Park. 1 area only Establish a new Parish for the Willen Preference would be to abolish parish councils 1 area only altogether as they are unnecessary - a new parish means more expense. Establish a new Parish for the Willen At present there is no community identity in such a large 1 area only 'Strip' of communities. Establish a new Parish for the Willen A smaller parish could implement a greater voluntary 1 area only commitment. Establish a new Parish for the Willen The southern boundary should be H6. 1 area only Establish a new Parish for the Willen If feasible, The Grand Union Canal as the Western 2 area only boundary - this would them encompass both the north and south Willen lakes, Willen Park and Newlands (location of David Lloyd Sports Centre, Gulliver’s World, Eco Park, Camphill Trust and the Lovat Fields retirement home) - This would establish possibly the greenest and most environmentally friendly parish in MK. Establish a new Parish for the Willen Boundary the new Willen parish council should follow 1 area only Brickhill Street, both North and South so Tongwell and whole of Willen Lake are in the Willen parish.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 59

Option Selected Comments made How many times this issue was raised by the public Establish a new Parish for the Willen Willen has a very different makeup compared to the 2 area only other parish areas - Willen Lake, Willen Hospice etc and by having a separate parish a focus can be set on the needs to develop a stronger community. Being part of the Great Linford parish will be a drain on allocated funds as Conniburrow already does. Establish a new Parish for the Willen Want to change due to feeling like their community is 1 area only being over looked. Establish a new Parish for the Willen Feel that the North and South lake should not be split 1 area only up.

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 60 Responses to Survey of Estates

Woughton On The Green

Name of Community Option Residents Household Woughton On The Green Remain with Woughton Community Council 13 8 Establish a new Parish for Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only 207 102

250

200

150 Residents Household 100

50

0 Remain with Woughton Community Council Establish a new Parish for Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only

Woughton On The Green

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 61 Woughton On The Green Comments

How many times this issue was raised by Option Selected Comments made the public Remain with Woughton Community No comment. 2 Council Remain with Woughton Community Do not wish to take part in a tiny socially exclusive community. 1 Council Remain with Woughton Community Strongly oppose the 'Small is Beautiful Campaign’. 3 Council Remain with Woughton Community Thinks that this should go to a referendum vote so all the people this will affect 2 Council gets a vote as to whether or not any changes are made, does not think it is fair only balloting the people within the proposed smaller parish as we are only a minority of the existing Community Council. Remain with Woughton Community Feels more available time should be given for responses to be made. 1 Council Remain with Woughton Community Feels more information about the good and bad points should have been given 1 Council for remaining at the one already in and the new one.

Establish a new Parish for the No comments. 48 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Believe that a new Parish will be closer which would mean more people within 3 Passmore, Woughton On The Green the estate could participate. and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the WCC leaving some of the other communities out. 7 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Feel happy that a vote has been sent out to give the occupants a choice of 7 Passmore, Woughton On The Green whether to stay in the remaining council or create a new one which in turn and Woughton Park areas only being more beneficial as a smaller parish. Establish a new Parish for the WCC is too large and can not handle the work that needs to be done which 12 Passmore, Woughton On The Green mean other parts are being left unattended. and Woughton Park areas only

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 62 Option Selected Comments made How many times this issue was raised by the public Establish a new Parish for the The new Parish could include Woolstone. 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the The new Parish could include Pear Tree Bridge. 2 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Letters have been sent to WCC and they have not been acknowledged. 2 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Newsletters seem to have ceased making it to some of the communities within 2 Passmore, Woughton On The Green WCC. and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the The new Parish could include Tinkers Bridge. 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Doesn’t feel there is any link between more than half of the communities in 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green WCC. and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Small is Beautiful - Strongly supported. 2 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Feels that a play park for the young people should be established within this 1 Passmore, Woughton On The Green area. and Woughton Park areas only

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 63 Responses to Survey of Estates

Woughton Park

Name of community Option Residents Household Woughton Park Remain with Woughton Community Council 2 1 Join with Simpson and Ashland Parish Council 56 30 Establish a new Parish for Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only 54 28 Establish a new Parish for the Woughton Park area Only 0 0

60

50

40

Residents 30 Household

20

10

0 Remain with Woughton Join with Simpson and Ashland Establish a new Parish for Establish a new Parish for the Community Council Parish Council Passmore, Woughton On The Woughton Park area Only Green and Woughton Park areas only

Woughton Park

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 64 Woughton Park Comments

How many times this issue was Option Selected Comments made raised by the public Remain with Woughton No comment. 1 Community Coucil Join with Simpson and Ashland No comment. 21 Parish Council Join with Simpson and Ashland Have more in common with Simpson 7 Parish Council parish/very strong links with Simpson/want to change. Join with Simpson and Ashland Feels WCC is too large and because of this 2 Parish Council Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park tend to be overlooked. Establish a new Parish for the No comment. 19 Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park areas only Establish a new Parish for the Feels WCC is too large and has too many 8 Passmore, Woughton On The problems to deal with and intern feel left Green and Woughton Park out/feels like the WCC does not listen to the areas only problems that occur in the other areas. Establish a new Parish for the Due to a recent survey that went out within the 2 Passmore, Woughton On The community over 80% want a new Parish to be Green and Woughton Park set up. This would support us by being areas only responsible for our own area and to manage it using volunteers and economy. Establish a new Parish for N/A N/A Woughton Park area only

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 65 Annex D

Options for Consultation August/September 2011

The following options are Officer recommendations, and are drawn from the level of support these options received during both consultation exercises. Working Group Members may wish to consider other options as a result of representations and discussions at the meeting.

Campbell Park Parished Area

Campbell Park Grid Square

Transfer of Campbell Park Grid Square from Campbell Parish Area Council to Central Milton Keynes Parish Area

Willen Area

The area of Willen to remain within Campbell Park Parish Area.

Woughton Parished Area

Establish a new Parish for the areas of Passmore, Woughton On The Green and Woughton Park. or, in relation to the Woughton Park only

Transfer Woughton Park Grid Square from Woughton Parish Area to Simpson and Ashland Parish Area

N:\Community Governance Review 2011\Working Group\AGENDA 20 July 2011.doc 66