NEWPORT PAGNELL MODIFIED NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN THE CONSULTATION STATEMENT This document provides details of all the various forms of consultation that have fed into the modification of the Newport Pagnell Neighbourhood Plan. 1. THE STEERING GROUP The Steering Group, otherwise known as the Neighbourhood Plan Implementation Group (NPIG), consists of voting members, these being seven Town Councillors (Cllrs Phil Winsor - Chairman, Ian Carman, Euan Henderson, Diane Kitchen, Richard Pearson, Joan Sidebottom and Steve Urwin), a non-voting member (Alan Mills - retired senior planning officer), the Town Clerk (Shar Roselman) and the Deputy Clerk (Patrick Donovan). 2. SIX WEEKS CONSULTATION WITH STATUTORY AND OTHER CONSULTEES The six-week pre-submission consultation period ran from 1st September 2020 to 12th October 2020. At the time of the pre-submission consultation, Newport Pagnell Town Council and the steering group wrote letters and/or emailed the following consultees, formally opening the consultation and advising them of the Town Council’s website address where the consultation documents could be read, and inviting comments: 2.1 Landowners, interested developers and agents 2.2 Milton Keynes Council Planning 2.3 Milton Keynes Council Highways 2.4 Milton Keynes Council Schools Liaison Team 2.5 Milton Keynes Council Infrastructure Coordination & Delivery Team 2.6 Milton Keynes Council Planning Obligations & Tariffs 2.7 NHS Milton Keynes Clinical Commissioning Group 2.8 Hertfordshire & South Midlands Area Team of NHS England 2.9 Ward Councillors of Unitary Authority representing the area 2.10 The Newport Pagnell Business Association 2.11 The Newport Pagnell Partnership 2.12 Milton Keynes Chamber of Commerce 2.13 Neighbouring Parish Councils 2.14 Central Beds Council 2.15 Housing Associations in the area 2.16 Affected Utility Companies and water and sewerage organisations. 2.17 The Environment Agency 2.18 Canals & Rivers Trust 2.19 Bedford Group of Drainage Boards 2.20 Thames Valley Police 2.21 Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service 2.22 Natural England 2.23 English Heritage 2.24 Homes England 2.25 Historic England 2.26 The Coal Authority 2.27 The Homes and Communities Agency 2.28 Businesses in the town 2.29 Telecomms Operators and Mobile Operators Association 2.30 British Telecom 2.31 The National Grid 2.32 Religious bodies in the community 2.33 The Carnival Committee 2.34 The Christmas Lights Committee 2.35 The Re-enactment Committee 2.36 The Assisted Swimming Club 2.37 Places Leisure – partner in leisure of the Town Council 2.38 Sport England 2.39 Marine Management Organisation 2.40 Public transport providers operating within the area 2.41 Local schools 2.42 Medical centres/GP surgeries 2.43 Network Rail 2.44 Highways England 2.45 MK Community Foundation 2.46 Community Action MK 2.47 Rotary Club of Newport Pagnell 2.48 Newport Pagnell & Olney Lions Club 2.49 The Brooklands Centre 2.50 MK Equality Council 2.51 MK Council of Faiths 2.52 Disability Action Group 2.53 Member of Parliament for Milton Keynes North 3. METHODS OF CONSULTATION Residents received the Town Council’s quarterly publication (Town Talk) delivered to every home in Newport Pagnell advising them of where they could find the consultation documents and how to make comments on the proposals. Because of the coronavirus restrictions, the Town Council was unable to offer the facility for residents to visit an open public session en masse or to visit the Public Library to view a hard copy of the consultation documents, but everyone was given the opportunity to either request a hard copy by post or visit the Town Council offices personally to view the document. An online survey was set up (Survey Monkey) giving residents the opportunity to comment on the proposals. The survey was advertised on the Town Council’s website, on its Facebook Account, and on the Facebook Local Chit Chat Group in Newport Pagnell that has 30,000 members, many living in Newport Pagnell. Messaging was sent out on the Town Council’s Instagram account. Targeted Facebook and Instagram messaging was also applied to Facebook and Instagram account holders with Newport Pagnell postcodes. Letters were hand delivered to all local businesses in the town centre. A large banner advertising the consultation was erected in the High Street on the railings outside the Rectory, opposite the Town Council offices. 4. LIST OF CONSULTEES WHO RESPONSED Action taken by Consultee Letter sent Email sent Response Amendments to NPNP NPTC in response Milton Keynes Council The Design Study will need to be submitted at Design Study and submission stage as it is specifically referred Conservation Area to in policy NP4. I would recommend that you Review was added to Milton Keynes Council include the Design Study and Conservation documents on website Area Review (or link to MKC website) on your and included in pre- 14/08/2020 19/08/2020 None website as part of the current submission consultation. consultation. Otherwise, anyone wishing to Milton Keynes Council comment on policy NP4 could rightly say that Planning Department Planning Department they don’t have all the information to judge and David Blandamer Civic Offices the policy. I’d be grateful if you could email a were sent copies of the 1 Saxon Gate East Central Milton Keynes copy of the Design Study or alternatively a link Design Study and given MK9 3EJ to it once it’s on your website. the link. [email protected] New Figure 4 Tickford Fields – it might be clearer to combine site B and site C as one site called “Tickford Fields” as it is Fig 4 agreed to amend Milton Keynes Council, Planning Dept, David Blandamer (Senior 14/08/2020 19/08/2020 now coming forward as a single lettering. No need to New Fig 4 to be provided. Urban Designer) site. Site A could be renamed North amend policy wording. Crawley Road. This would also require some minor amendment to policy NP2. Policy NP2 refers to the three sites Noted. The policy does making up the Tickford Fields not but the Policies Map Amend Policies Map and Inset development, but the 930 dwellings does incorrectly show 3. relates only to sites B and C. Site A. New Figure 7 – the school is now being New Fig 7 to be provided and proposed alongside North Crawley Road, Fig 7 agreed. amend supporting text. rather than within the centre of the site. Disagree. They are all Policy NP4 – it seems to me that Policy sufficiently related to the NP4 is actually a number of different design policy which None policies: NP4A – windfall development; expands the old windfall NP4B-C – design and NP4D-E – heritage. policy with separate clauses. Policy NP4 (a)– Revised policy includes the text “Proposals to subdivide residential plots to develop new homes on rear or side garden land will not be Agree. The policy is supported.” NPPF para 70 states “Plans consistent with §70 but should consider the case for setting out the supporting text Amend supporting text only. policies to resist inappropriate should explain why this is development of residential gardens, for appropriate in the town. example where development would cause harm to the local area.” This policy should be qualified or justified in the supporting text. Disagree. The Study is a large document and has been prepared to be Policy NP4 (b) – the 2020 Newport published as a Pagnell Design Study should be included standalone document. None as an appendix to the Plan. Examiners routinely discourage the use of extensive appendices to the main NP document. Policy NP4 (e) – Shane Downer (Heritage and International Partnerships Officer, MKC) has suggested that the wording is amended to ‘Accredited Museum, Amend policy wording to read Heritage/Education Centre’. The word Not fully agreed. An “Accredited Museum, i.e. a ‘museum’ is subject to a nationally Accredited Museum will museum meeting or working applied set of standards, currently naturally be both a towards the national within the remit of the Arts Council. The Heritage and an standards set by the Arts Arts Council expect Local Authorities and Education Centre. Council.” any funds (e.g. S106) derived from us, to meet those standards to being an Accredited Museum or Working Towards Accreditation. Policy NP7 – the policy should accord with strategic policies in Plan:MK. I have asked colleagues in the Development Plans team to take a look at this policy. I will provide further comment on this policy, once they have got back to me. The Development Plans team responded with the following late comments: Comments on draft policy NP7 Part A: Rather than A as proposed we propose the following wording: A. Major housing developments shall contribute to the range of planning The policy wording has obligations set out within the policies of Changes have been made to been amended to reflect the Milton Keynes Council’s adopted reflect the wording required the MKC Development Local Plan (Plan:MK) and accompanying by the Development Plans Plan team’s late Supplementary Planning Documents team. representation. Comments on draft policy NP7 part B Rather than the current wording of Policy NP7 part B we propose the following: B. Smaller housing developments will also be required to contribute to the range of planning obligations if it is demonstrably clear that the net developable area of the site could otherwise accommodate a suitable major housing scheme. On phased schemes, a planning application for a phase with fewer than 11 homes as part of a larger site, will also be required to contribute to the range of planning obligations New Figure 10 - Designated linear park/recreation. This plan was based on Fig 10 now accords with the previous Local Plan.