AGM 2017 – Hon Chairman’s Report

Hon. Chairman’s Report – 2017 AGM

The last 12 months:

COBRA (Consortium of Bletchley Resident Associations not the government committee to deal with emergencies)

COBRA consists of 7 local resident associations, including BPARA which is the only RA in West Bletchley.  The activities within COBRA and BPARA have been closely linked, and have kept me busy on average 2 nights per week for many weeks in the past 12 months. During this time, I have worked closely with Liz Rawlinson who became the COBRA Chair last year, and she is superb in this role.

Like BPARA, COBRA is non-political and the main aims and objectives of COBRA have changed slightly since last year – these include:

• Working with town and parish councils in Bletchley and the surrounding villages and with Milton Keynes Council, to help improve community engagement and act where necessary on residents’ behalf – COBRA is now working with the parish councils of the Brickhills, Newton Longville, Stoke Hammond, West Bletchley (WBC), plus those on the western flank of MK such as Tattenhoe and, at last, Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council (B&FSTC,  where Delia Shepherd is now Town Clerk). Liz & I met with both WBC & B&FSTC last year and obtained an undertaking from them to work together on issues that impact all those who live in Bletchley & Newton Leys;
• Keeping well informed of wider issues affecting Bletchley and Milton Keynes at regional and national level – for instance, the East/West Rail Link, the proposed Oxford/Cambridge/ Milton Keynes Expressway, both of which will have an impact on Bletchley – Liz & I also met with Iain Stewart, MP for MK South last September;

The focus of both COBRA & BPARA has been to review and comment on planning applications covering 3 proposed main developments:

• Eaton Leys – 1800 properties, 2/3 of which will be on land in the Vale of Aylesbury
• SWMKC (Salden Chase) – 1855 properties
• Albert Street – 184 properties

These applications are entirely developer-driven and being pushed forward with undue haste, presumably to predetermine the outcome of both Plan MK and the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP).  These local plans are strategic in their context, scope and timescale, and it makes no sense to approve in the meantime any application that attempts to validate development adjacent to Milton Keynes “by the back door”.

When the draft Aylesbury Vale Local Plan was published last year, there was reference to other proposed developments to the south and west of Bletchley, including:

• Newton Leys to grow to 2,000 homes, 350 on Aylesbury Vale land
• Whaddon – 2,000 homes

• Further growth in villages close to Bletchley, in Stoke Hammond, Great Horwood, Newton Longville, Stewkley, plus 6,000 in Winslow

Over past 10 years, massive new builds in the Bletchley/surrounding area, including MK Dons Stadium/ MK1 Retail & Leisure Parks, have brought in people and business, but on the existing congested roads!

We all accept and are not opposed to new housing/commercial developments, but we must have I before E, Infrastructure before Expansion.

Milton Keynes Area development studies going back 20 years’ state that there must be highway improvements to support future development;

• Milton Keynes was established on the basis that there was I before E, the Infrastructure was in place before Expansion via the MK Development Corporation many years ago, but services are already under serious pressure for the increasing number of those that live in MK.
• Over the years, Milton Keynes and Bucks County Councils have failed to lobby the Government and relevant bodies such as the National Infrastructure Council to plan/fund the necessary infrastructure to support much needed housing.

• The need for a southern Bletchley Bypass – bypass or just a myth!

• Throughout the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study (July 2016), the following statement occurs:

“The local, regional and national authorities have identified that congestion; unreliable journey times and poor east-west connectivity are barriers to delivering future housing development and economic growth. If strategic east-west transport improvements are not delivered, traffic growth on the existing primary road route is predicted to result in additional sections of the network operating over-capacity during the peak travel periods, further increasing journey time variability and delays.”

Iain Stewart, MP for Milton Keynes South, stated in his submission to the National Infrastructure Commission on 1 August 2016:

“Infrastructure before expansion”—I before E—has been key to our success.  We are now expanding beyond the originally designed size of Milton Keynes, both in the physical footprint and in the number of people.  We are now growing beyond these planned boundaries and this is putting pressure on infrastructure and services, which has been crucial in placing Milton Keynes as the most successful and fastest growing new city in the country.” He called on MKC to set up a commission to consider this and they set up MK Futures 2050 Commission which we will hear more about from Fiona Robinson from MKC after the refreshment break.

Turning back to the 3 applications I mentioned earlier:

SWMK Consortium (Salden Chase) – on 5 September 2016, the developers presented to WBC and members of the Salden Chase Sub-Committee their application to make improvements to Buckingham Road between the Bottle Dump & Tattenhoe roundabouts and improved access to the proposed development site.

SWMKC also submitted details of the proposed development for 1855 dwellings to MKC, not for decision as the site is in Aylesbury Vale, but to obtain support. The Sub-Committee includes parties impacted by the development, including Newton Longville Parish Council and BPARA, and we attended a meeting together with Ward Councillors who also oppose the development and agreed to submit questions for the leaders of the 3 political parties to answer at the next full MKC meeting on 14 September 2016.

I asked Councillor Marland – “I am particularly concerned that if this development went ahead the increase in the traffic around this area would create a massive problem for existing residents, particularly with the proposed access routes to the development and the inability for the A421 to cope with more vehicles, as it is already heavily congested at certain times of the day. I therefore ask if you will stand by this Council’s decision of 26th March 2015 to oppose this development.” Also, “Can residents be assured that no such future development will be allowed in this area without a full public consultation?”  His answers were affirmative, and MKC unanimously agreed to oppose the development. At the Development Control Committee (DCC) meeting on 17 November, the Committee not only agreed to oppose the development but to do so in a robust manner to defend their position should Aylesbury Vale Council turn down the application and the developer appeals against the decision. The Chair and 2 Vice Chairs representing all political parties also agreed to attend the meeting to oppose the application when considered by Aylesbury Vale Council.

A decision on the application for improvements to Buckingham Road was deferred pending further reports from Council Officers – the DCC also stated that a decision to approve the application might be interpreted as their support for the actual proposed development. This application was due to be discussed at the DCC meeting on 2 February 2017, but was deferred as the MKC Officers had not produced the required reports, nor had minutes been done for the 17 November 2016 meeting. At the 9 March 2017 meeting of the DCC an independent traffic report commissioned by WBC/Newton Longville Councils demonstrated that the Traffic Assessments by the developers were significantly flawed. A decision on the road improvement application was again deferred.

Eaton Leys – 1,800 homes on land east of Water Eaton and Fenny Stratford, part of which is a flood plain. (2/3 land is in the Aylesbury Vale area, only 1/3 in MK area). The application was considered at MK Council’s DCC meeting on 14 November 2016. Despite many submissions, from various bodies including parish & town councils, COBRA & BPARA, against this development, and requests to defer a decision, the DCC Chair reminded the committee of the shortfall in MK’s target 5-year land supply, the need to reduce this shortfall and to avoid the considerable costs of a possible appeal should the application be turned down. The application was approved by the DCC.

COBRA subsequently submitted a complaint to MKC about the way that this decision was made, but to no avail. On behalf of COBRA and the councils that had opposed this development, Little Brickhill submitted a request that the Eaton Leys Development Application be called in to by the Secretary of State for determination because it conflicts with national policy in important ways. The request referred to other concerns about this development and an inconsistency in the decisions made by Milton Keynes DCC to grant planning permission for Eaton Leys on 14 November 016 whilst objecting strongly to the South West Milton Keynes Planning Application on 17 November 2016.  There are significant similarities between the two proposed developments, especially regarding impact on infrastructure and environment, except that the SWMK proposed development falls outside the Milton Keynes boundary.  We also stated that this unexplained difference in outcome to be a material consideration relevant to the determination of the Eaton Leys application. Sadly, after 3 months we heard that the Secretary of State had turned down the call in.

In the meantime, Gallagher, the developers, have withdrawn the application in respect of the development in Aylesbury Vale and sold the land to a London development company. Aylesbury Vale is also revising its Local policy as it has overestimated the number of houses required.

Albert Street – Planning permission was given at the DCC on 30 March 2017 after a lengthy debate despite the concerns we raised about the scale, height (10 storeys), density (186 properties) of the buildings, the inadequate parking, lack of on-site play facility, inadequate contribution to healthcare, removal of 100 trees (18 under Tree Protection Order) and a mere 8% affordable housing (MK agreed minimum is 30%).

These concerns were in general taken on board and argued forcefully by Cllrs. Legg, Bint and especially Williams; the final decision was influenced by 3 main factors:

1. Members were asked first to vote on the principle of development of the site. This was agreed by all except Cllr Williams because development of the site would be beneficial to Bletchley.  Since no other applications have been submitted, the consensus was that this development was better than none.  The choice then was which of 2 options was preferable:  100% private housing with a £1.4 million S106 contribution towards affordable housing off site (nobody seemed to know where or how this would work), or whether to agree to 8% affordable housing and much reduced S106 contributions.  Apparently 30% was not a viable option.  Being caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea, councillors had little option other than to go for the 8%.
2. MK Officers and DCC councillors (except Cllr Williams) seem unable to grasp that the proximity of the site to the bus and railway stations might encourage people to travel to work using public transport but it won’t stop them owning a car and needing somewhere to park it.  Ironically if the entire site were to be affordable housing, it would be more likely that there would be fewer car owners. They were also swayed into thinking that a density more than 7 times the average for the rest of Bletchley was appropriate because of its “Town Centre” location. When built, it will be the highest density housing anywhere in Milton Keynes, and no other high rise properties built in MK for over 20 years – existing parking spaces will be lost and there will be insufficient spaces for residents of these properties.
3. As usual, the fear of appeal won the day. I found it extremely difficult to understand how an application that contravened so many adopted local planning policies could lose an appeal given that MK has met its housing targets.

As part of her Secretary’s Report, Kathy will update you on other planning matters.

WB Draft Neighbourhood Plan

At our AGM 2 years ago, Helen Hupton, Clerk to WBC, spoke about the Neighbourhood Plan and her slides showed some of the sites/buildings including the Fire Station that would form part of this Plan.  As reported in the Spring Newsletter, this draft Plan is now open for public consultation until 21 April 2017.