Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options

Technical Background Paper

June 2007

Contents

Purpose and Structure of this Paper...... 3 1. Parameters for the Core Strategy Rural Area Spatial Strategy ...... 4 National Policy...... 4 The Milton Keynes Core Strategy...... 4 2. Background to Rural Area Development Strategy in Milton Keynes...... 5 The Adopted Local Plan ...... 5 Evidence to the Draft South East Plan Examination in Public ...... 5 3. Considerations for Future Rural Area Spatial Strategy...... 7 Demographic Trends ...... 7 Health 7 Availability of Rural Services and Facilities ...... 8 Healthchecks and Village Plans and Appraisals...... 10 The Role of Newport Pagnell...... 10 Employment Land Study ...... 10 Council Owned Garage Sites ...... 11 Windfall 11 Plans of Other Key Stakeholder and Service Providers ...... 11 4. Options for the Core Strategy...... 13 Housing Numbers...... 13 Spatial Strategy Options...... 13

Annex A Rural Services Audit: Changes Between 1998 and 2007...... 15 Annex B Public Transport Provision: Changes Between 1998 and 200717 Annex C Education Provision: Changes Between 1998 and 2007...... 18 Annex D Correlation Between Rural Settlement Population and Key Services...... 19 Annex E Housing Completions and School Rolls...... 20 Annex F Windfall Development 2001/02-2006/07...... 24

2 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Purpose and Structure of this Paper

The purpose of this Paper is to identify the main issues in relation to the potential of the rural area to accommodate residential development over the period of the Core Strategy. It draws together information and evidence as at April 2007.

It moves on to a summary of potential Spatial Options on the back of this current evidence.

The Paper is structured into the following sections: 1. Parameters for the Core Strategy Rural Area Spatial Strategy – what the Core Strategy needs to provide to meet national policy and the relationship with the adopted Local Plan. 2. Background to Rural Area Development Strategy in Milton Keynes – the adopted Local Plan and the council’s position on the long-term Growth Strategy for Milton Keynes in respect of the rural area. 3. Other Relevant Considerations – a review of newly completed or emerging work that has a bearing on the rural spatial strategy. 4. Options for the Core Strategy – discussion of the various Preferred Options in light of the current Local Plan, evidence base.

3 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

1. Parameters for the Core Strategy Rural Area Spatial Strategy

National Policy Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) sets out national guidance for identifying suitable locations for housing development. The overarching policy is to develop housing in conjunction with good access to community facilities, jobs, key services and infrastructure.

It advises local authorities to take into account the need to provide housing in rural areas in order to enhance or maintain sustainability.

Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) states that in rural areas local authorities should focus most new development in or near to local service centres where employment, housing, services and other facilities can be provided close together. It also states that authorities should allow some limited development in, or next to, rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres, in order to meet local business and community needs and to maintain the vitality of these communities.

The Milton Keynes Core Strategy In terms of overall housing numbers the approved Sub Regional Spatial Strategy and the draft new Regional Spatial Strategy (the South East Plan) do not set a housing target for development in the rural part of the Borough. They do say, however, that development in the rural area will ‘continue to be related to local needs at the same rate’.

The adopted Local Plan provides new sites for development up to the period 2011 at Newport Pagnell, Woburn Sands, Olney, Hanslope, and Bow Brickhill. A Strategic Reserve Area is also identified at Newport Pagnell The Core Strategy needs to set out what further development is required in the rural area in the period 2011-2026, and a spatial strategy.

4 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

2. Background to Rural Area Development Strategy in Milton Keynes

The Adopted Local Plan The current Local Plan was adopted in December 2005.

The Development Strategy in the Local Plan (under Policy S1) is to concentrate new development at Milton Keynes City, and in or around existing centres. In the rural area those centres include Newport Pagnell, Woburn Sands and Olney, which are classified as ‘Key Settlements’.

In addition to this Hanslope and Bow Brickhill are classified as ‘Selected Villages’. In these villages there is provision for small-scale development to help support and improve local facilities, in line with parish council support.

In ‘Other Villages’ and ‘Open Countryside’ there is a restrictive approach to new development.

The strategy of Key Settlements, Selected Villages, and Other Villages was based on the principle of concentrated, rather than dispersed, growth. The Key Settlements were identified by assessing facilities and accessibility by public transport. Newport Pagnell, Woburn Sands and Olney are the 3 largest settlements and have the widest range of services.

The Selected Villages are considered an exception to the overall strategy. However they were identified on the basis of sustained parish council support for some limited new development.

During the production of the Local Plan the council, in conjunction with parish councils, investigated the level of local support for new development. This was particularly investigated in villages where there are schools. Where there was no such support these settlements have been identified as ‘Other Villages’ where development is confined to within the limits of development.

Some settlements in the borough are so small, or are so physically disparate that a limit of development is not considered appropriate. In this case the village is shown as being within Open Countryside where development is restricted to only essential agricultural, forestry or recreational uses.

Development in the rural part of the Borough averages at about 120 dwellings per year.

The rural development strategy was supported by the Inspector at the Local Plan Inquiry.

Evidence to the Draft South East Plan Examination in Public In the council’s evidence to the draft South East Plan Examination in Public (looking at development in the period 2006-2026) the council stated that it

5 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

considers it unrealistic to make no provision for additional housing in the rest of the Borough.

The adopted Local Plan provides for development sites up to 2011 but after that the council suggested that the South East Plan should allow for current rates to continue - i.e. 120 dwellings per year, from 2011 to 2026. This would provide about 1,800 dwellings in total.

6 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

3. Considerations for Future Rural Area Spatial Strategy

Demographic Trends The population of the rural area in the 2001 census was 35,024. This is almost 17% of the Milton Keynes total. In 2001 the mean age in the rural area was 39 years compared to around 33 years in the urban area. Only 9% of the urban population was aged over 65 in 2001 compared to almost 14% of the rural population. By 2006 this had risen to almost 15% in the rural area compared to less than 10% in the urban area. Population aging, a national phenomenon, is affecting both areas but is most marked in the rural area. In 2006 the median age in the urban area was 35 but in the rural area it was over 40.

At ward level by 2026 the retired population aged 65 plus will have risen to 16% in urban wards but the rise will be more substantial in the rural wards with 23% of the population aged 65 or older.

Most population growth will occur in the urban area as this is where the majority of new houses are planned to be built, which forms a key driver for inward migration. This has the effect of counteracting the level of population aging in the urban area as migrants have a predominantly younger age profile.

A development strategy for the rural area purely based on trying to ‘balance up’ settlements with more of an ageing population than others would require population forecasting at settlement level. However it is not possible to forecast trends below ward level in the rural area as the population is so small.

Health Despite the older age profile of the rural area, from the 2001 Census the proportion of people who reported suffering from a limiting long-term illness was 12.9% in the rural area, compared to 14.3% in the urban area of Milton Keynes. Similarly, only 5.7% of the population in the rural area reported that their general health was ‘not good’. This can be compared to 7.4% in the urban area and 9.0% in England.

Life expectancy in the rural areas is higher than in the urban areas, as the table below illustrates:

Life expectancy (years) at birth 2002-2006 Area Life Expectancy Difference from total Urban Female 80.36 -0.03 Rural Female 80.98 0.59 Total Female 80.39 Urban Male 76.23 -0.47 Rural Male 78.96 2.27

7 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Total Male 76.69 Urban Persons 78.35 -0.25 Rural Persons 80.03 1.43 Total Persons 78.60

This data indicates that the health of the rural population is on average better than that of the urban population.

Availability of Rural Services and Facilities Annex A sets out the current position in terms of services in rural settlements in the Borough. Annex B sets out how well served by public transport our rural settlements are. Annex C looks specifically at education provision. All of this data is presented against data that was published in 1998 in the Rural Issues Discussion Paper, which was produced as part of the Local Plan review.

Services Annex A shows that there has been a loss of services in some settlements, but also a gain in others. The most significant losses can be summarised thus: • Foodstores: Bow Brickhill, Wavendon. • Post Offices: Castlethorpe, Wavendon. • Banks/ Building societies: Sherington, Stoke Goldington, Wavendon, Hanslope. • Petrol filling stations: Stoke Goldington, Wavendon. • Mobile library service: Chicheley, Moulsoe, Weston Underwood. • Places of worship: Little Brickhill.

Some villages also show a loss of ‘other shops’, however the 1998 survey included mobile shops. The 2007 survey does not. This may account for the difference here.

In terms of some of the gains in significant services these are: • Foodstores: North Crawley, Warrington, Castlethorpe. • Newsagents: Stoke Goldington. • Meeting places: Lathbury, Moulsoe. • Playing fields: Castlethorpe, Stoke Goldington.

Public Transport Annex B shows that four villages now have a worse level of public transport than in 1998. Three of these villages, Astwood, Chicheley and Gayhurst are some of the smallest in the Borough. Wavendon’s service has also reduced.

Five villages now have a better service (all now ranked as ‘good’).

Schools All settlements over 500 population have a school, the exception to this being Newton Blossomville, which has a First School with a population of 210.

8 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Annex C shows a drop in nursery provision in 7 out of 10 settlements that had it in 1998. However there does not appear to be any net loss in places. Rather the change can be explained by the fact that schools have now moved to a single point of entry in September, meaning that all four-year-olds (up to 31 August in any one year) are now eligible for a school place in the September and don't have to wait until the start of the term after their 5th birthdays.

The other main changes are the provision of new schools in Newport Pagnell and Olney. Principally these relate to the change in age of transfer (resulting in the restructuring of first, middle and combined schools into infant and junior or combined schools followed by 11-18 secondary schools), and the opening of a second secondary campus for Ousedale School in Olney.

Correlation Between Settlement Size, Housing Development, and Services Annex D shows the correlation between settlement size and four key local services (a foodstore, a post office, a pub, and a school). The Annex shows that only settlements above 400 population have a shop and larger settlements over 900 population tend to have a post office (although there are some exceptions to this). However even very small settlements can contain a pub – 6 settlements under 300 population have one, with Chicheley at 120 population being the smallest.

Newport Pagnell, Woburn Sands and Olney continue to be the largest of the rural settlements. They clearly benefit from the highest overall level of service provision and the best public transport links, as evidenced in Annex A and Annex B. The information also suggests that settlements of about 1,000 population have a better level of services. The settlements in this bracket also have ‘good’ public transport accessibility.

Some of the villages that have lost services are some of the closest to the city area (particularly Wavendon, but also Bow Brickhill and Calverton). This might reflect the effect of city services in such close proximity. However, even one of the largest rural settlements, and the furthest from neighbouring towns, Olney, has lost a petrol filling station. Most of the villages that have gained services are not places where new development has been focussed.

Most settlements have experienced some housing development since 1998. The number of housing completions tend to be small in the smaller settlements. Some services and facilities in these villages still appear to be viable though, despite such low levels of development. However the only affordable housing completions in this period have been in the Key Settlement Wards.

During the course of the Local Plan review the issue of village schools and future development was considered in detail. The research concluded that there was little correlation between the numbers on the school roll of small village schools and the number of housing completions in these settlements. This research has been updated to cover the period 2002-2006 and can be seen in Annex E. The later figures still do not point to a clear correlation;

9 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

some school rolls have increased, some have decreased but these changes do not appear to be proportional to the level of new development.

The Schools Organisation Plan policy is still to protect small schools, with educational standards being more important than size. In some cases alternative measures have been used to manage small schools in more remote locations, for instance collaborative arrangements have been developed between schools.

All community uses, as defined in the Local Plan, are subject to restrictive policies that prevent the loss of facilities unless there is sufficient justification. This restricts the change of use of leisure and recreation open space, meeting places, places of worship, schools, and village shops and pubs.

Healthchecks and Village Plans and Appraisals Newport Pagnell completed a Countryside Agency Healthcheck in 2004, and Olney are currently working on one.

The Newport Pagnell Healthcheck highlighted the need to increase the retail offer in the town and tackle issues around town centre parking.

Sherington carried out a Village Appraisal that was published in 2004. The Appraisal highlighted potential interest in providing new housing in the village, provided that it was controlled by the village. This also highlighted the potential need to provide affordable housing, expand the village hall, protect the local environment, and provide new play areas.

Wavendon, Bow Brickhill and Moulsoe have also previously undertaken either a village appraisal/parish plan/parish map.

Hanslope and Haversham are currently undertaking parish plans.

The Role of Newport Pagnell The role of Newport Pagnell in the future – i.e. should it be considered as part of the city or the rural area – is discussed in the Housing Land Supply and Delivery Technical Background Paper.

Employment Land Study In 2006/07 Milton Keynes Partnership and Milton Keynes Council commissioned an Employment Land Study. The final report was published in May 2007. The study provides advice on the development of a spatial strategy to support a scenario of economic growth in line with the aspirations of the Economic Vision1.

The key elements of the Employment Land Study cover; • Identifying the context and drivers of the local economy, property market and policy.

1 The Economic Vision to 2034 has been adopted by the Milton Keynes Economy and Learning Partnership.

10 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

• Development of economic scenarios to reflect the future growth potential of Milton Keynes. • The analysis of the current and future supply of employment land and property. • Comparison of scenarios of future demand and available supply and the implications for future planning and disposal strategy. • How future employment land and property requirements can be delivered.

Newport Pagnell and Olney were specifically considered in the Study, alongside other older town centres in the city. The Study considered that it would be reasonable to expect these centres to continue to grow, and points to evidence of some strong growth in Olney particularly. Continued growth would however be dependent on sufficient capacity on existing or new sites.

Council Owned Garage Sites Following from the council’s Asset Management Strategy report, 2004, a study is about to be launched to look at a sample of 14 garage sites that are in most urgent need of action. The 14 sites identified have all been recommended for removal in the Asset Management Strategy Report, and have the largest number of garages.

The initial work on these 14 sites, plus more detailed work and potential action on 3 of the sample, will help the council to categorise other sites in the future and determine their future use.

Redevelopment for housing is potentially an option. Only two sites of the sample 14 are in the rural area. Although small sites, they may be significant enough to warrant an allocation in the context of rural development sites.

Windfall PPS3 states that windfall development cannot be counted towards the first 10 years of housing supply. It could however be counted towards the final 5 years supply (of a 15 year period).

Windfall in the rural area over the last 6 years (2001/02 – 2006/07) has averaged about 50 dwellings a year (see Annex F). Using this trend a five year supply from windfall (for the 2021-2026 period of the Core Strategy) would yield 250 dwellings.

Plans of Other Key Stakeholder and Service Providers A range of plans and strategies have been reviewed in order to develop the Core Strategy. Most of the key strategic actions in these documents relate to activities across the whole Borough. Some relate to certain parts of the community but there is very little reference to actions in specific locations.

More generally the underlying principles contained within the relevant plans and strategies that are relevant to the spatial development strategy of the urban area are:

11 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

• Proximity: choosing sustainable locations for development in terms of accessibility in order to provide services effectively. • Co-location: providing services and facilities through existing and accessible facilities. • Partnerships: delivering services and facilities through partnership working. • Green Infrastructure: protection, creation and enhancement of open spaces and leisure facilities. • Promotion: promoting Milton Keynes as a sub-regional city, and a location for certain types of facilities and industries.

The main implications of this for the spatial strategy are: • Focussing new development in locations that are the most accessible for people. • Ensuring that community facilities are either available or can be put in place to deliver a range of services, in a single location where appropriate. • Protecting leisure and recreation open space and ensuring standards meet the needs of a growing city population. • Supporting the aspirations of partners in terms of the economic and cultural development of the city.

In terms of planning for new housing in the rural area, this means developing a strategy that is based on maximising transport choices, making sure there is scope to support those areas with good facilities, and not significantly reducing the amount or quality of leisure and recreation open space.

12 4. Options for the Core Strategy

Housing Numbers • The adopted Local Plan allocates sufficient land to provide housing in the 2001-2011 period. • The council’s position at the South East Plan Examination in public is that development in the rural area should continue at the same pace as recent trends. This would result in the allocation of 1,800 dwellings in the period 2011-2026. • As this figure is based on the continuation of a trend, this development could be phased equally over the three 5 year periods:

2011-2016 2016-2021 2021-2026 Total 600 600 600 1,800

• A windfall allowance of 250 dwellings could be included in the 2021- 2026 period. • This would result in 1,550 dwellings needing to be allocated 2011-2026.

Spatial Strategy Options

Option A: Continuation of Key Settlement Policy and Selected Village and Other Villages Policy Spatial Concentrate most new rural development in Key Settlements, Strategy: and some limited development in Selected Villages. The Key Settlements would continue to be the largest rural settlements. Pros: 1. Concentrates development in the most sustainable locations in the rural area. 2. Strengthens the role of the Key Settlements as rural service centres. 3. Provides an opportunity for some development in other villages, which might help to secure some improvements to facilities, and some affordable housing. 4. Protects the character of most rural settlements. Cons: 1. Limits the opportunity of providing improvements to facilities in other villages. 2. Pressure on the capacity of Key Settlements to provide necessary services and facilities. Delivery • Providing sufficient service improvements to keep pace with Issues: new housing development. • Selected Village status on the basis of local support requires consistent support parish councils over a period of time.

Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Option B: Key Settlements Only Spatial Concentrate all new rural development in Key Settlements; the Strategy: largest rural settlements. Pros: 1. Concentrates development in the most sustainable locations in the rural area. 2. Strengthens the role of the Key Settlements as rural service centres. 3. Protects the character of all other rural settlements. Cons: 1. Provides no opportunity for improving facilities in other settlements. 2. Increases the pressure on Key Settlements to provide necessary services and facilities. Delivery • Providing sufficient service improvements to keep pace with Issues: new housing development.

Option C: Distribution Around All Settlements Spatial A proportion of housing development for all rural settlements, Strategy: relative to the current size of the settlement. Pros: 1. Provides an opportunity for some development in all settlements, which might help to secure some improvements to facilities, and some affordable housing. Cons: 2. Not a sustainable pattern of development in terms of transport choice. 3. Some settlements do not have any facilities to serve new residents in the first place. Delivery • The level of development in proportion to the current size of Issues: settlements may not provide significant benefits in terms of securing new or improved services and facilities.

Option D: Small Village Focus Spatial Concentrate new development on some villages to raise their Strategy: size to over 1,000 population. Pros: 1. Could help to broaden services and facilities in villages that already have some services. 2. Protects the character of most other rural settlements. Cons: 1. The amount of development required would in each case impact on the character of the focus villages. 2. Not a sustainable pattern of development in terms of transport choice. Delivery • Sufficient and sustainable provision of public transport, Issues: services and facilities that can be easily accessed locally.

14 Annex A Rural Services Audit: Changes Between 1998 and 2007 Bank/ Other Food Petrol Other Meeting Playing Newsagents Post Office Pharmacy Building Doctor Dentist Library Church Pub places to Play areas store station shops Place fields soc eat 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 Astwood/ Hardmead Bow Brickhill Calverton Castlethorpe Chicheley Clifton Reynes Cold Brayfield Emberton Gayhurst Hanslope/ Long Street Haversham Lathbury Lavendon Little Brickhill Moulsoe Newport Pagnell Newton Blossomville North Crawley Olney Ravenstone Sherington Stoke Goldington Tyringham/ Filgrave Warrington Wavendon Weston Underwood Woburn Sands Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Notes: • The assessment for Woburn Sands includes facilities available in the Mid Beds side of the settlement. • Libraries: Newport Pagnell, Olney and Woburn Sands have permanent library facilities. The others are visited by the council’s mobile library service.

16 Annex B Public Transport Provision: Changes Between 1998 and 2007 Public transport Existing or possible rail link 98 07 98 07 Astwood/Hardmead Good Poor Bow Brickhill Medium Medium Calverton Poor Poor Castlethorpe Good Good Chicheley Good Poor Clifton Reynes Poor Poor Cold Brayfield Good Good Emberton Medium Good Gayhurst Medium Poor Hanslope/Long Street Good Good Haversham Good Good Lathbury Poor Poor Lavendon Good Good Little Brickhill Medium Good Moulsoe Medium Medium Newport Pagnell Good Good Newton Blossomville Poor Poor North Crawley Good Good Olney Good Good Ravenstone Poor Poor Sherington Medium Good Stoke Goldington Medium Good Tyringham/Filgrave Poor Poor Warrington Poor Poor Wavendon Medium Poor Weston Underwood Poor Good Woburn Sands Good Good

Notes: • Good = more than 10 buses per day, Monday to Saturday, to a nearby large town • Medium = up to 4 buses per day, Monday to Saturday, to a nearby large town • Poor = no service, or service only on certain days, or limited service up to 3 buses per day. Annex C Education Provision: Changes Between 1998 and 2007 Infant Nursery school Junior Comb Secondary

school (previously school school school 1st School) 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 98 07 Astwood/ Hardmead Bow Brickhill Calverton Castlethorpe Chicheley Clifton Reynes Cold Brayfield Emberton Gayhurst Hanslope/ Long Street Haversham Lathbury Lavendon Little Brickhill Moulsoe Newport Pagnell Newton Blossomville North Crawley Olney Ravenstone Sherington Stoke Goldington Tyringham/ Filgrave Warrington Wavendon Weston Underwood Woburn Sands

Notes: • The School in Woburn Sands is within Mid Bedfordshire District, under the local education authority of Bedfordshire County Council. Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Annex D Correlation Between Rural Settlement Population and Key Services Population Foodstore Post Office Pub School Housing completions 1998-2006 50-300 Population Warrington 50 0 Cold Brayfield 70 6 Hardmead 80 1 Chicheley 120 0 Gayhurst 130 6 Lathbury 140 Astwood 160 19 Clifton Reynes 160 9 Newton Blossomville 210 9 Ravenstone 210 3 Tyringham and Filgrave 210 24 Weston Underwood 220 1 Calverton 280 0 Moulsoe 300 5 301-900 Population Little Brickhill 420 10 Stoke Goldington 570 18 Bow Brickhill 600 4 Emberton 630 8 Wavendon 630 5 North Crawley 730 9 Haversham/Little 860 19 Linford 901+ Population Sherington 960 9 Castlethorpe 1,000 89 Lavendon 1,210 34 Hanslope 2,170 67 Woburn Sands 2,440 57 Olney 6,390 252 Newport Pagnell 15,060 524

19 Core Strategy Preferred Options: Rural Area Spatial Options Technical Paper

Annex E Housing Completions and School Rolls

Lavendon Combined School Lavendon Combined School 93 94 87 80 100 91 79 83 82 78 83 78 80 100 70 71 75 63 68 80 80 57 55 80 60 60

40 23 28 40 16 17 20 8 6 9 20 2 4 1 2 5 3 0 0 1986 1987 *1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006