Page 16 - Phonebox Magazine March 2016

Plan MK
Your chance to air your views
Jeremy Rawlings
is going to increase signi cantly above this level, regardless of whether or not the additional population is located within the existing urban boundary, as residents will inevitably use facilities within the urban area. In particular, the existing grid road infrastructure has been reported (by MKC Highways) as only having capacity for about 15% more traf c. Another obvious candidate would be expansion of the hospital and perhaps the railway station since a large number of residents commute out and another large number commutes in.
● From a purely nancial perspective, the Head of Finance at MKC has said that for every 1,750 houses built (the current annual housing target), MKC faces a net increase in cost of £1million. While there will be offsetting economic bene ts, this will be outside the MKC budget i.e. in the private sector or in public services not administered by MKC such as the NHS. This begs the question of how the increase in population can be nanced.
● Development to the south and west also has a number of bene ts mainly because Aylesbury Vale Council also wishes to develop there on adjacent land. The benefits of scale from the two authorities working together in terms of road infrastructure (e.g. link dualling the A421) would be signi cant though, again, protection must be offered to existing villages such as Whaddon, Nash, and Beachampton by a green belt. Another bene t of developing on this route will be proximity to the new East-West railway between Oxford and Cambridge.
● In the case of potential rural satellite settlements, the plan does not offer a green belt around the existing villages, leading to a complete loss of identity. The parishes would be transformed from rural villages into urban estates. The size of the proposed settlements is disproportionate – together with existing villages, it would make the new settlements twice as big as the largest existing parish in MK. It would compromise the unique character of MK with its mix of city, market town and rural village.
● The A509 would certainly have to be dualled which would impact Emberton, Clifton Reynes, Weston Underwood and more. In addition, the Olney bypass would have to be built as the town could not accommodate the traf c from an additional 10,000 houses. While some may welcome a bypass it would have a major impact on the open country whichever side of Olney it was built on. The M1 is a serious barrier to the ow of traf c to and from MK so additional bridges would have to be built. The cost of roads to service the proposed new town is very high.
● It is also worth considering the construction phase. It would be essential that the new roads were built before housing development starts. This is because a satellite settlement is unlikely to build at more than a rate of 1,000 houses a year and even that is probably ambitious. The impact for existing villages of construction traf c using the existing inadequate roads for an extended period of 10- 20 years is totally unreasonable and unacceptable.
If you need any more information please look up the Olney Town Council page on Facebook or contact me directly on 07941 499698 or Jeremy@careyway.co.uk I have a template letter which you just have to complete and send in to MK Council. This will be available on the Olney Town Council Facebook page and I am happy to email it to you. I’m happy to engage with parishioners from other councils.
Milton Keynes Council has issued a public consultation on Strategic Development Options which will run from 13th January to 6th April. There are four options: increase housing density within the urban areas of Milton Keynes;
expand to the south and west; expand to the east; and nally to create “satellite settlements” of between 5,000 and 10,000 houses in the rural part of MK, which means predominantly the north of the borough. To put the size in perspective, 10,000 houses is the size of a new town with a population of around 25,000 people, or almost twice that of Bletchley.
Olney Town Council, along with more than 20 rural parish councils, challenged MK Council by “calling in” the decision to issue the consultation. We asked MKC to withdraw the consultation because we believe there were serious aws in the process. After a series of meetings over two months, MK Council rejected our demands and went ahead and issued the consultation document in January. This resulted in Olney TC, with support from other local parishes, issuing a formal legal challenge to the consultation. We are still waiting for MKC to respond to this.
The consultation can be seen at www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/PlanMK or at the Civic Of ces and at all MK libraries. Responses can be made online through Milton Keynes Council’s consultation portal at http://milton keynes-consult.objective.co.uk or you can send them by email to planmk@ milton-keynes.gov.uk or by post to: Development Plans Team, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Of ces, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ.
It is very important that you respond to this consultation by 5pm on 6th April.
Please don’t be complacent because this will affect YOU. If you are worried about the plan, but don’t bother to object, we could end up losing our rural identity and the facilities we have worked so hard to create and maintain if we are swallowed up in a huge new urban area and become just another estate on the fringes of Milton Keynes. Although I have concentrated on Olney Town Council because that’s my council, the consultation impacts all of MK so the comments here are applicable to all parish councils.
Here are some points to bear in mind when you respond to the consultation.
● This whole consultation is meaningless without a projection of how
the population will grow. Whether and where houses are built in practice depends on how many of them are actually necessary to meet population demand. No evidence-based housing demand exists beyond 2031 and there has not been any MKC debate or decision. Half of new UK housing demand originates from immigration but whatever government is in of ce or whether or not the UK remains in the EU, it is highly likely that levels of immigration will be reduced, with a consequent reduction in housing demand.
● A doubling of the size of Milton Keynes is totally contrary to current central Government plans to re-balance population and economy between the North and the South. The South-East of England is already the most densely populated territory in Europe, with the exception of Malta, and our infrastructure is struggling to cope even with the current population levels.
● The urban part of MK was designed for a population of 250,000. The urban infrastructure will need to be expanded if the population
16 Phonebox Magazine | March 2016