Consultation Statement - Microsoftbtckstorage.blob.core.windows.net/site9039/BFSC01 Lakes...04 Big...

1THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Proposed Submission DraftTHE Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Develop-

Consultation Statement

Prepared by

David Lock Associates Limitedin conjunction with

Integrated Transport Planning Limited

on behalf of

Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council

February 2014

Proposed Submission Draft

2 CONSULTATION STATEMENT FEBRUARY 2014

3THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN Proposed Submission Draft

Contents

Contents01 Introduction 5

02 Placecheck 2007 9

03 Your Future Your Choice - Summer 2012 14

04 Big Ideas – Winter 2012-Spring 2013 20

05 Exhibition of Preferred Options - October 2013 26

06 Statutory Consultation Stage (Reg 14) Nov 2013-Jan 2014 32

Appendices

Section 2 - Placecheck Appendix 2.1 Summary of Responses 37

Section 3 - Your Future Your Choice 39 Appendix 3.1 Advert and Workshop 39 Appendix 3.2 Planning for Real Summary Report 45 Appendix 3.3 Questionnaire Responses 43 Appendix 3.4 Change One Thing Responses 45 Appendix 3.5 List of Flag Locations 47

Section 4 - Big Ideas 49 Appendix 4.1 Wider Stakeholder Invite List 49 Appendix 4.2 Comments from Design Workshops 49 Appendix 4.3 Comments from Drop-in Sessions 53 Appendix 4.4 Neighbourhood Plan Key Themes 55

Section 5 - Exhibition of Preferred Options 57 Appendix 5.1 Advertisements of Consultation Events 57 Appendix 5.2 Exhibition Materials 59 Appendix 5.3 Analysis of Feedback Forms 61

Section 6 - Statutory Consultation 63 Appendix 6.1 Consultation Draft Neighbourhood Development Plan 63 Appendix 6.2 Wider Stakeholder Invite List 65 Appendix 6.3 Advertisements of Consultation Events 67 Appendix 6.4 Analysis of Response Forms 67 Appendix 6.5 Milton Keynes Council Response 71

Section 4endix

4.2

hibAppen .1

ndix

tiAppendix 6.1

AAppendix 6 4A


Section1

Introduction


1.1 This Consultation Statement provides an overview of the consultation strategy that has underpinned the preparation of the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Section 15 (2), Part 5 of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 lists a number of criteria to be included within a Consultation Statement:

(a) contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan;

(b) explains how they were consulted;(c) summarises the main issues and concerns raised by

the persons consulted; and(d) describes how these issues and concerns have been

considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

1.2 Consultation was undertaken by Bletchley and Fenny Town Council, in partnership with its consultants David Lock Associates and in with input from Locality, during a number of stages within the neighbourhood planning process:

• Placecheck, 2007• Your Future Your Choice , Summer 2012• Residents Design Workshops, October 2012• Big Ideas, Jan-April 2013• Preferred Development Options, October

2013• Statutory Consultation Stage (Regulation

14), 25 November 2013 - January 2014.

1.3 This statement provides a summary of each key consultation stage identified above and reports who was consulted and how; presents the key findings of each event; and demonstrates how any issues and concerns were addressed within the plan.

1.4 The Consultation Statement has been prepared in accordance with Section 15 (2), Part 5 of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 set out in paragraph 1.1.

01 Introduction


Section2

Placecheck 2007


Who was consulted

2.1 In 2007, Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council ran a Placecheck, a method of community analysis, as the first stage in seeking feedback from the community about living and working on the Lakes Estate.

2.2 There are 2200 residential properties on the Lakes Estate and the residents of each property were invited to participate in the Placecheck.

Method of consultation

2.3 Each household received a simple questionnaire which asked their opinion of the Estate by posing three questions:

• What do you like?• What do you dislike?• What do you want to see improved?

2.2 A total of 427 questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 19.40%. A summary of the responses are provided at Appendix 2.1

Summary of the main issues and concerns 2.4 Following analysis of the questionnaires, the ten most popular responses, in order of preference, are set out below.

What do you like?

1. Good neighbours, friendliness 2. Green areas, trees and parks3. Not much/nothing4. Friends and/ or family live close by5. Good schools/ teachers6. Nice houses/ bungalows7. Mix of people8. Shops (close by)9. Quiet/ peaceful 10. Close to the Countryside

What do you dislike?

1. Fly tipping/ Rubbish2. Lack of shops/ facilities3. Fighting and abuse4. Anti-social behaviour5. Run down flats (Serpentine Court)6. Not enough for the kids to do7. Bushes/ Trees overgrown8. Improve Shops9. Don’t feel safe in Serpentine Court10. Graffiti

What do you want to see improved?

1. More activities for the children & young2. Serpentine Court improve/ replace3. Update/ improve play areas4. Youth Club (buildings/ more times available)5. Supermarket better cheaper/ Tesco etc.6. Demolish Serpentine Court and rebuild7. More visible police/ increase communication8. Better/ increased maintenance of Estate9. Increased rubbish collection10. Better maintenance of houses and garages

How issues and concerns have been dealt with in the plan.

2.5 This preliminary stage of community engagement began to explore the residents’ perceptions of their Estate. A number of key themes emerged from analysis of the questionnaires and these can be grouped by the following headings:

• Strengths - close to countryside, open space, parks and trees, close community

• Weaknesses – Lack of shops and community facilities, lack of maintenance of the Estate, lack of opportunities for children and poor provision of play areas

• Opportunities - Redevelop Serpentine Court, improve play areas, improve shops, new shops/supermarket, encourage activities for children to include a provision of a new youth club, improve and enhance connections to the countryside

• Threats - Fear of crime, lack of surveillance of public realm, poor management and maintenance of the Estate.

02 Placecheck 2007


2.6 The response have informed the nature of the redevelopment proposed within the Plan and the opportunities for public realm improvements, specifically to:

• redevelop Serpentine Court;• improve connections between Estate and

surrounding areas and countryside;• identify areas to improve childrens play;• identify an opportunity for a new community youth

facility;• support local retail/ commercial opportunities;• protect areas of important open space; and• require the design of new development to enhance

public realm, encourage active frontages and good surveillance

2.7 A number of comments received, refer to issues that are not spatial in their nature and as such cannot be addressed within the Neighbourhood Development Plan. These comments are reported in Section 3 of the Plan and a proposed course of action to resolve issues identified is set out in Appendix 2 of the Plan.


Section3

Your Future Your Choice - Summer 2012


Who was consulted

3.1 An intensive period of Neighbourhood Development Plan consultation took place on the Lakes Estate between May 2012- September 2012. Events, workshops and other opportunities for residents to engage to shape the future of their community were arranged and advertised under the slogan “Your Future Your Choice”. Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council were awarded direct support from Locality, to undertake Planning For Real workshops on the Lakes Estate.


3.2 The “Localism Lorry” toured the Lakes Estate on the weekend of the 19th and 20th May to engage with residents and seek their views on the content of the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan and advertise opportunities to engage in plan preparation and to input into the evidence base.

3.3 All Estate residents and businesses were invited to participate in Planning for Real events that took place in July 2012, of which over 120 participated. The advert for the Planning For Real workshops, and the workshops material is provided at Appendix 3.1. Residents placed flags identifying development areas, areas of improvement, community spaces, recreation spaces and open spaces onto plans of the Estate to build a picture of what should be included in the Plan and how the future development of the Estate should be shaped. Residents were also asked to suggest just one thing that they felt would improve the Estate. Pin boards asked questions about specific issues such as Serpentine Court, Open Space and Street Improvement.

3.4 Questionnaire surveys were conducted throughout the Estate from June-August 2012 and were issued to all residents on the Estate. Furthermore, the Planning for Real displays from the July events were taken to summer play schemes throughout August 2012 so responses would be fed back to the community.

03 Your Future Your Choice - Summer 2012

Summary of the main issues and concerns

3.5 An analysis of each consultation is set out below, identifying the key outcomes. A summary report of the Planning for Real consultation responses and outcomes is provided at Appendix 3.2.

Questionnaires

3.6 Questionnaires that were issued to all residents of the Estate, the objective of which was to revisit the information gathered through the Placecheck exercise (see section 2) to explore if issues identified were still relevant 5 years later. Each household received a questionnaire posing the same three questions as provided in 2007.

• What do you like?• What do you dislike?• What do you want to see improved?

3.7 A total of 519 questionnaires were returned, giving a 23.90% response rate, 4% increase to that achieved in the Placecheck questionnaire. The results are provided at Appendix 3.3. The most popular response for what people liked about the Estate remained its good community atmosphere/ spirit; indeed the top 10 responses remained the same as identified through Placecheck, albeit with some changes to the ranking. Serpentine Court (as a whole) was the most popular response for what people least liked about the Estate, increased from 5th most popular response in 2007. The shops in Serpentine Court were also identified separately within the top 10 of least popular features of the Estate. A further two issues that were identified in the later survey, that were not mentioned previously were the unused/ boarded up garages and the Estate’s poor reputation. Estate improvements identified were similar to those identified in 2007; redevelop Serpentine Court, improve overall appearance of Estate, provide things for kids to do.


Change just one thing

3.8 As part of the Planning for Real events, residents were asked to suggest just one thing that they felt would improve the Estate. There were 101 responses in total, which are provided as Appendix 3.4. 3.9 Play and green space were the most important issued identified by the ‘One thing’ wall. With 22 (34%) of suggestions mentioning improved parks or play facilities. 7 of the ‘One Thing’ wall respondents said that more or improved shops would make the most difference to the estate and 5 (8%) of the respondents said safer streets would make the most difference within the estate.

3.10 10 suggestions were for additional railings within the estate the majority of these at different points along Drayton Road, further responses referred to traffic calming and improved crossings. Improvements to housing were also frequently mentioned, with introduction of pitched roofs being a common suggestion.

Place shaping flags

3.11 A total of 855 flags were placed on the plan of the Estate, a list of each flag location and issues that are being identified is provided at Appendix 3.5.

New Development

3.12 25% of the flags placed were identifying sites for new development. Feedback from residents was positive in relation to opportunities that could be provided by additional community facilities and new jobs on the Estate and the change to the image of the Estate that may be brought about by sensitive improvements.

3.13 92 (11%) of the flags identified sites for shops. 41 of these were identifying a site for a supermarket, and the remainder were sites for shops in general or for branches of specific chains. 33 of the flags identified the central Estate area, currently occupied by Serpentine Court and Bramley Grange as being the best location for new shops. A further 11 flags identified the eastern edge of The Warren opens space adjacent to Stoke Road as potential locations for new shops.

3.14 46 (5%) of the flags identified sites for housing, dispersed around the Estate, to include the following areas:

• Serpentine Court• Bramley Grange• Windermere/Cullen Place corner• Park between Ruthven and Burnmoor Close• Strangford Drive/ Drayton Road (railway side)• Drayton Road/ rear of Garry Close• Drayton Road/ Doon Way• Sheelin Grove• Stoke Road/ Buttermere Close• Stoke Road • Land at Water Hall

3.15 29 (3%) of the flags identified sites for a family pub/restaurant. 7 flags suggested this should be off Stoke Road, either by the Warren green space or by the canal foot bridge, 6 suggested the Serpentine Court site. 28 (3%) were sites for a petrol station, 7 of these suggested the site near the roundabout where Stoke Road meets Lomond Drive. 15 (2%) were sites for a hotel, Stoke Road/Lomond Drive or Stoke Road/the Warren seemed to be the most favoured sites

3.16 15 (2%) were sites for employment or training facilities

Environmental Improvements

3.17 The greatest proportion of flags placed on the Estate map were identifying areas for environmental improvement. 69 (8%) were improvements to the street scene and 56 (7%) identified improvements to parking. 19 flags suggested that parking bays should be designated, 27 identified improved parking bays. Responses demonstrated that parking problems were spread throughout the estate but Phase 1 and in particular the area round Tummel Close/Way and Garry Close seem to report a higher number of parking issues than elsewhere on the Estate. Pavement parking was identified as an issue by a number of respondents.

3.18 9 flags suggested improvements relating to introduction of a home zone or play street, however no one area was identified for this treatment.


3.19 7 flags suggested new road links, some suggesting a link between Fern Grove and Windermere Drive and some suggesting a new road linking Doon Way and Tummel Way.

3.20 54 flags (6%) referred to new or improved play facilities, 35 (5%) for improved sports and fitness facilities. 21 flags called for new or improved play equipment. 7 specifically called for a skate park.

3.21 With regard to age-range of play provision, there were equal numbers identifying improved play for younger and older children. 16 of the flags identified improvements to the play space at the Warren open space. Other flags were more dispersed around the estate.

3.22 15 flags identified a requirement for space to play football and 14 for a fitness trail.

3.23 26 flags (3%) requested improvements to green space within the Estate including improved parks, community gardens, village greens and ‘re-landscaping’.

Community and Youth Facilities

3.24 42 flags (5%) called for new or improved facilities for young people in addition to the those referring to improved sport and play facilities as identified above. 17 of these chose the flag “activity club for children and teenagers” and 13 called for a “children and young people centre”. The centre of the estate, either on the Serpentine Court site or the Warren open space was the preferred location for these indicated by 22 flags.

3.25 24 (3%) called for more general community facilities. 14 of these wanted a Healthy eating café. The Serpentine Court site was the most favoured location.

Other issues

3.26 32 flags (4%) referred to improvements to footpaths, and these were dispersed around the estate.

3.27 33 flags (4%) identified that parts of the estate felt unsafe at night and 17 flags (2%) that parts were unsafe during the day. 29 of the flags reporting lack of safety were in the Serpentine Court area; the remained were distributed around the estate. 24 (3%) identified a need for improved lighting within the Estate.

3.28 20 flags (2%) identified accessibility issues, with 13 respondents requesting more dropped kerbs and a number requesting all facilities to be made fully accessible

3.29 The remaining spatial issues identified by flags were improvements relating to way-finding (13), cycling facilities (11), existing housing (5), bins (4) and public transport (2).

Non spatial issues

3.30 60 flags (7%) called for improved maintenance of housing and public space within the estate and 62 (7%) dealt with other non-spatial issues, of which 25 were requiring more police/PCSOs.

Pin Board Responses

3.31 Pin boards asked questions to residents about specific issues which included Serpentine Court, Open Space and Street Improvement, the responses are provided at Appendix 3E.

3.32 85 answers to the specific question on the pin board said that Serpentine Court should be demolished and rebuilt, with only 3 stating its retention. Post-it note comments cited the run-down appearance and feelings of a lack of safety.

3.33 In response to questions regarding the built form and character for a redeveloped centre, 43 respondents preferred a ‘town square’, 39 a ‘high street’ and 22 a ‘precinct’.

3.34 58 out of 73 pin-board respondents identified that parking was an issue on their street and many identified a resultant need to improve play facilities and green space, due to the parking pressures on street.

3.35 4 respondents suggested that garages should be refurbished and 7 suggesting they be removed. There were various requests to improve garden boundaries and to re-surface roads. Many comments made referred to the street layout as impractical and dated resulting in people having to walk a long way to their cars and deliveries being awkward.


3.36 58 out of 93 respondents said they felt more outdoor play space for young children was needed, 76 respondents wanted more recreation space for older children, a large proportion of these respondents identified a need for better/more play equipment and facilities. 56 of 72 respondents felt that there were safety issues regarding open space.

3.37 Only 17 of 72 respondents felt they had a sense of ownership over the open spaces near their homes. Some post-it notes drew attention to the hilly nature of much of the green space which obscures sight-lines and makes them difficult to use.


Approach to new development

3.38 The consultation events propose general support for the idea that by allowing some new development on the Estate, funds could be generated for improvements to other parts of the Estate, as identified by the community. New development proposals identified by the community include a new neighbourhood centre to replace Serpentine Court to include shops (perhaps including a small supermarket), community facilities, office/employment uses and perhaps some flats. Strategic commercial development such as a pub/restaurant, a hotel or a filling station and new housing likely to be developed through a number of infill sites.

3.39 The Neighbourhood Development Plan allocates land for a new mixed use centre for the Estate, through policy SSP7, that supports the redevelopment of Serpentine Court to include provision of residential, retail, commercial (to include start-up units) and community uses to deliver a new public realm in the form of a public square.

3.40 The Plan supports provision of a pub/restaurant adjacent to the Canal, through policy SSP8. Consideration has been given to allocation of a site for a hotel use, however the location is not considered to offer viable market conditions. The presence of a major high pressure gas pipeline adjacent to Stoke Road/Lomand Road junction is a significant constraint for the location of a petrol station.

3.41 The Plan also allocates a number of housing sites as identified by the consultation events and referred to in paragraph 2.15. These include land at Serpentine Court, Bramley Grange and Windermere/Cullen Place corner (SSP7), park between Ruthven and Burnmoor Close (SSP6), Drayton Road/rear of Garry Close and Drayton Road/ Doon Way (SSP2), Stoke Road (SSP2 and SSP8) and Land at Water Hall (SSP1).

3.42 Some of the sites identified for housing have been not been allocated for housing following careful consideration of their appropriateness and potential for development. Strangford Drive/ Drayton Road (railway side) site provides a pleasant rural backdrop to the Estate that is heavily treed and provides an attractive buffer between the Estate and the railway. Land at Stoke Road/ Buttermere Close is also well treed and provides an important distinction between the interwar housing linear development along Stoke Road and the post-war housing on the Estate. Land at Sheelin Grove is difficult to access

Street Layout and Parking

3.43 Issues have been identified with pedestrian safety along the Drayton Road, Stoke Road and Lomand Road. The Plan has responded to these concerns by identifying crossing points to serve the Nature Reserve (Blue Lagoon), the allotments at the southern end of Stoke Road, the Warren and canal and the new development at Phelps Road. New housing development along Drayton Road and Stoke Road addresses the street, which provides further traffic calming by helping to create a more residential street character.

3.44 The consultation responses revealed a general dissatisfaction with the layout of existing streets expressed through a number of different issues, parking being a central concern. The Plan supports policies that promote well designed parking in new housing areas that link with existing parts of the Estate to encourage a more attractive, safe, efficient and legible street scene throughout the estate and provide adequate parking close to homes (GP2, GP4).


3.45 There are opportunities to engage with residents at a more detailed level than can be secured by this Plan, to develop specific proposals for remodelling of parking areas to include demolition of garages and creation of formalised and accessible parking lay-bys in place of grass verges. The Plan seeks to identify options to rationalise and improve existing parking areas where appropriate (GP7).

Open Space and Recreation

3.46 Many residents have identified a need for more recreational space, notwithstanding the generous quantity of green space within the Estate. What is apparent is a need for usable, quality well maintained green space. The Plan identifies the central open space at the Warren as a central park for the Estate, that links to the canal and linear park beyond and is protected from development (GP6). Opportunities are also identified for improvements to the quality of play areas and variety of play equipment in a number of areas, including the Warren, Four Walls, Bala play area, Skene and at Gorman and Grasmere (GP7).

Community Facilities

3.47 It is understood that there is a real concerted campaign within the Estate to create a children and young people’s centre, which responds to an Estate-wide concern that there is currently insufficient provision for young people. The Plan itself cannot deliver such a building, but it supports this aim through allocation of a site at The Warren. The redeveloped centre requires consideration of a community building as part of the central public square, where opportunities for co-location of community/ social uses should be considered (GP7).

3.48 Further work should be continued, identified through the Neighbourhood Action Plan, to produce an audit of youth and community provision to understand the capacity of existing community buildings within the Estate. If, following this exercise, a new community building is required, consideration should be given to the extent to which uses/groups could be co-located within the same building to share management and running costs. Furthermore, arrangement of a community trust to develop retail or other employment spaces may provide an income to support the community spaces.

Footpaths

3.49 A main concern for residents is the poor physical state and segregation of the footpaths within the Estate. A central part of this is the lack of maintenance, and the network of segregated routes that lack surveillance and create problems with safety of users. The Plan supports improvement and enhancement of footpath connections to include improvements to street lighting, resurfacing and surveillance (GP4).

3.50 Furthermore, the Plan requires new development to demonstrate safe, well connected, legible design and layout that maximises opportunities to improve the public realm and supports provision of sustainable transport modes (walking, cycling and public transport). Simple, high-quality design of the public realm will help to reduce the cost of maintenance in the future.

3.51 There are a number of issues identified as non-spatial in their nature, should be considered by the Lakes Estate Steering Group to be resolved through the Neighbourhood Action Plan. However, such issues are inherently exacerbated by design defects, particularly arising from a Radburn layout upon which the Lakes Estate is modelled. Key examples of this are concerns regarding policing which illustrates the lack of overlooking on many routes through the estate and concerns regarding maintenance that illustrates the difficulties experienced in maintaining the current form of the estate.


Section4

Big Ideas - Winter 2012-Spring 2013


Who was consulted

4.1 Following the Summer “Your Future Your Choice” campaign, a number of design workshops and drop in sessions were arranged to progress the issues raised at the Planning for Real events. The whole estate population was invited to participate in the workshops, one of the workshops was arranged to include wider stakeholders, listed in appendix 4.1. Following the workshops, a number of drop in sessions were arranged over a four month period to provide further discussion on some of the issues raised at the workshops. The output of this work was the creation of a set of “Big Ideas” that were consulted on throughout May-July 2013.


4.2 Two design workshops for residents and town Councillors took place on the 27th October 2012 and 25th January 2013, with a wider stakeholder workshop taking place on 22nd November 2012. The structure of the workshops was to present the key findings from the “Your Future Your Choice” events and feedback the results of the questionnaires and Planning for Real events. Participants were able to engage in discussions regarding prioritisation of the issues raised and begin to explore potential design of Serpentine Court replacement, streets, new developments, overall masterplan/connections and linkages and connections.

4.3 In addition to the workshops, a number of drop in sessions were arranged between January and April 2013 to provide further opportunities to feedback earlier consultation responses and facilitate discussion around the emerging key issues.

4.4 This exercise culminated in the production of the “Big Ideas”, which were exhibited at a number of events in April-June to include Easter Extravaganza (2-4th April), Love Bletchley Day (11th May 2013) and Midsummer Madness (23rd June). There was also a permanent display at Crosslinks.


Design Workshops

4.5 The design workshops helped to confirm and prioritise key issues for the Estate. The output of the workshops was creation of a set “Big Ideas”. The “Big Ideas” are set out below and a summary of the comments related to these is provided at appendix 4.2.

• Big Idea A - new centre Support proposals to replace Serpentine Court with

a new development including shops, community facilities, office/studios and homes.

• Big Idea B – commercial development Support proposals fro a pub, a restaurant, a hotel

and a petrol station with shop in agreed places.

• Big Idea C – new housing On some small areas around the Lakes, new houses

could be built; the new homes should link with the existing streets.

• Big Idea D – Green Space Big ideas B and C involve building on green space,

the remaining green space should be protected and improved, in particular the Warren and the green space alongside the four main diagonal paths through the Estate

• Big Idea E – Better Streets Streets and courtyards throughout the Lakes should

be redesigned and refurbished to make them more attractive, safe, efficient and easy to find your way around. In many cases this will mean removing garages.

• Big Idea F – Improved parking Existing parking areas should be improved and

some new ones be created that are attractive, flat, surfaced with quality materials and planted with trees

• Big Idea G – Rear parking Where it is possible, connections should be made to

allow secure individual parking spaces within longer gardens

04 Big Ideas – Winter 2012-Spring 2013


• Big Idea H – get rid of the “ring road” Currently Drayton Road, Lomand Road and Stoke

Road act like a “ring road” around the Lakes where cars travel at speed. The neighbourhood development plan will support ideas that change this, such as houses facing these streets, new roads connecting directly to them, and wide, safe surface pedestrian crossings.

Drop in sessions

4.6 The key questions posed to facilitate discussion at the drop in sessions are set out below and a summary of the discussions on each topic is reported below. The feedback reports are provided at Appendix 4.3

Knock down Serpentine Court?

4.7 Of the residents that participated in the drop in sessions, there was a general consensus that Serpentine Court should be demolished, for a number of reasons that included poor structural quality and layout, lack of maintenance, fear of crime and intimidation. Some residents considered that maintenance be adequate, and other were concerned how a demolition process would work and that replacement would result in smaller units. There were also real concerns regarding displacement of residents, shops and community facilities.

A road through Serpentine Court?

4.8 This continues to be a polarising issue on the Estate and is central to decisions on the redesign of a new centre for the Lakes. The majority of residents do not wish to see a road through Serpentine Court for a number of reasons, most of which relate to concerns regarding safety of pedestrians, especially given the proximity of the two primary schools at either end of Serpentine Court. The central of the Estate is pedestrian dominate and should remain as such. Arguments for a road connection to link the two halves of the Estate, tend to relate to improving journey times of public transport and cars, but also, to give more direct access to emergency vehicles.

What would a new centre look like?

4.9 The responses identified a central concern which was to ensure retention of a number of commercial premises within the Estate, these include Spotlight, Crosslinks, Pharmacy, Post Office, Bakery. Additional shops welcomed were a grocers and butchers. The majority of people were happy with a centre of the same size currently provided by Serpentine Court, considered sufficient to do “top-up” shopping, looking to Bletchley to for their main shopping needs. Some responses preferred a larger centre, with more shops and a supermarket to attract outside business and ensure competitive pricing.

What development?

4.10 The responses demonstrate a general acceptance of new development, on the proviso that it will generate improvements for the local community. A family friendly pub was put forward by a number of people, not only to attract people to the Estate, but also to act as a community focus for the residents; feedback on location of a pub/restaurant was for a site on the edge of the Estate and not within the centre.

4.11 There were a number of concerns raised that new houses would be small and create bad living conditions and that a more housing would put pressure on schools and doctors and would reduce green space and change appearance of the Estate. There were also concerns raised regarding the idea of a new petrol station, particularly the late opening hours which were considered to have potential to attract anti-social behaviour

New car parking areas?

4.12 The majority of discussions relating to parking were for improvements to parking to include new provision. It was thought that allocated parking would work in many areas, particularly those areas that are unmaintained, unlit and dangerous. There were concerns that additional parking could remove valued green areas. Many people felt that the garages served no purpose and should be removed to create additional parking space, this would improve the street scene and light to residents front windows. A number of comments referred to the importance of garages as additional storage space that was heavily valued.


Improvements to play areas and facilities for young people?

4.13 A number of responses considered that the parks of the Estate are not age appropriate, play areas are damaged and equipment is broken. It was also considered that better provision was needed for older children, a new building to help to focus provision of training/ skills for younger people was considered necessary. Others considered that the Estate provided adequate space for play and there were current facilities that could be better used i.e. Warren Children’s Centre and Community Centre and Warren Park.

Can we build on community spirit?

4.14 The majority of people responded that it was possible to improve a sense of community spirit. Central to this was retention of the existing community hubs, Spotlight and Crosslinks, building on residents’ skills and interests, making places safer with development that provides good sized homes that are well maintained so that people are likely to stay on the Estate for longer, which will build community spirit. Other commented that simply, people are happy if promises are kept and action is seen.


4.15 The Big Ideas consultation has confirmed the importance of number of key issues, areas of improvement and areas for protection that the Plan should seek to address Following the Planning for Real events, design workshops and Big Ideas, a number of key themes were identified and fed back to the local community through the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford and Lakes Estate Website and were included in Regeneration MK: June 2013 (Appendix 4.4) a publication, related to the regeneration of the Lakes Estate, delivered to every household on the Estate. The themes are listed below.

• No new development over 4 storeys high• To retain the parks, green space and improve play

facilities• To look at opportunities to improve parking• New housing must integrate with the housing

already on the Lakes.

• Community facilities, shops and businesses to be retained

• Possibility of a petrol station • Possibility of a family pub/restaurant along the

canal• Possibility of a new children and young peoples

centre• Possibility of replacing Serpentine Court with a new

heart to the Lakes Estate• The possibility of joining streets with very limited

development• All development and infill sites will be subject to

ongoing community engagement to agree the design details.

4.16 Many of these points have been raised in earlier consultation events particularly as part of the Your Future: Your Choice, therefore an explanation of how these issues and concerns have been addressed in the Plan is provided at section 3.

4.17 With regard to the key themes identified above, the Plan addresses these issues in the following way.

No new development over 4 storeys high

4.18 Site specific policies contained with the Neighbourhood Development Plan restrict development height. Policy SSP7 relates to the redevelopment of Serpentine Court and restricts the built form to 4 storeys. Development at the Canal side is also restricted to 4 storeys by site specific policies SSP2, SSP7 and SSP8. Other site allocations are restricted to two storeys, and where demonstrated to be appropriate with regard to character, location and amenities of neighbouring residents, some three storey.

To retain the parks, green space and improve play facilities

4.19 Policies seek the retention and improvement of the parks to include improvements to play facilities (GP7) and protection of areas of important open space identified by the community as The Warren and the green space alongside the four main diagonal paths through the Estate (GP6)


To look at opportunities to improve parking

4.20 GP4 requires new development to ensure adequate provision of car parking and to demonstrate ways to improve and enhance areas of car parking within the Estate to include improvements to lighting, re-surfacing and surveillance. GP7 requires all new development within the Plan area to contribute towards environmental enhancement of the Estate. One of the enhancements identified is the rationalisation and improvement of existing car parking provision.

New housing must integrate with the housing already on the Lakes.

4.21 The residents appreciate the spatial benefits of the Estate’s layout, Section 2 of the Plan acknowledges the challenges that are presented by a Radburn Layout, but also explains how many of its design features are valued by the local community. GP3 requires new development to demonstrate a contemporary approach to design that positively responds to the established character of the Estate and improve pedestrian and landscape connectivity. The policy explains that standardised house types are less likely to be considered to fit the local environment.

Community facilities, shops and businesses to be retained

4.22 SSP7 defines the key structuring elements and land uses proposed for the redevelopment of Serpentine Court and requires proposals to deliver a mix of community, retail, commercial and residential uses comprising a minimum of 220 units, this will ensure no net loss of units and no displacement of tenants. The policy also requires an implementation and phasing plan to be submitted with development proposals to demonstrate a redevelopment strategy that delivers an appropriate phased approach that retain established tenants and occupiers.

Possibility of a petrol station on the dual carriageway

4.23 The opportunity for a petrol station has been discarded due to utilities constraints.

Possibility of a family pub/restaurant along the canal

4.24 SSP8 identifies an opportunity for a public house/ restaurant facility which could be accommodated within the site, visible to passing trade along Stoke Road and responding to opportunities provided by users of the Canal and Linear Park.

Possibility of a new children and young peoples centre

4.25 GP7 prioritises contributions to a new community facility for the youth of the Plan area as one of the community and recreational improvements to be prioritised. Figure 5.1 locates the building at the Warren.

Possibility of replacing Serpentine Court with a new heart to the Lakes Estate

4.26 GP7 supports the redevelopment of Serpentine Court by allocating a new heart for the Lakes Estate to comprise a mix of land uses to include residents, retail, commercial and community.

The possibility of joining streets with very limited development

4.27 SSP3 promotes small-scale residential development to the front of Drayton Road, creating a new access and residential street that will improve the access to existing properties and parking courts.

All development and infill sites will be subject to ongoing community engagement to agree the design details.

4.28 It is imperative that development proposals that come forward and are later implemented within the Plan area, are planned in such a way that reinforces the characteristics of the Estate that the community treasure. Policy GP8 requires proposals to be supported by Design and Access Statements and Statements of Community Involvement that demonstrate how applicants have positively engaged with local stakeholders and have demonstrated compliance with the Core Objectives of the Plan.


Section5

Exhibition of Preferred Options - October 2013


Who was consulted

5.1 Following identification of key themes, development locations and exploration of key design criteria, the residents were all invited to review the emerging preferred development area options and the key design approaches. The consultation events were advertised on both the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Council and the Lakes Estates websites, posters were places at schools, shops and community halls and an advert was placed in the MK Citizen Newspaper (Appendix 5.1). The events included a bespoke session at Leon Academy, to discuss play provision and a new centre for the Estate and an event for residents and retailers at Serpentine Court. 114 people and 2 businesses attended the events and provided feedback on the development options exhibited. A total of 58 addtional questionnaires were completed.


5.2 Five consultation events during 1st and 2nd October and 7th and 8th October were arranged to engage with local residents regarding the allocation of development sites and overarching approach to development and design in the Neighbourhood Development Plan. The exhibition boards illustrated indicative development proposals for seven areas identified by previous consultation events as potential development areas. The development options consulted on are set out below:

• Option 1A - Residential development along Drayton Way

• Option 1B – Residential development at Northern Windermere Drive

• Option 1C – Residential development at Southern Windermere Drive

• Option 2A - Residential development to the rear of Water Hall School

• Option 2B - Residential development of Skene Open Space

• Option 3A – Residential development adjacent to the Canal

• Option 3B – Pub/restaurant development adjacent to the Canal

• Option 4 – Redevelopment of Serpentine Court• Option 5 – Example of Parking Options

5.3 The exhibition material and feedback form is provided at appendix 5.2. Participants were invited to review the exhibition boards and then give their feedback. Feedback was provided through the use of questionnaires, post-it notes and a traffic light voting system.


Feedback forms

5.4 All development areas identified had majority support. The site that received the most support was Option 2A, the development site to the rear of Water Hall School with 97% of responses recorded in favour of this allocation. Serpentine Court redevelopment, Option 4 received 83% support. The lowest percentage of support recorded was 70% for option 1B the land at northern Windermere Drive, Option 3B the pub/restaurant canal side development. Full analysis of the feedback forms is presented at Appendix 5.3

5.5 Comments received for the development provided an important reference when assessed against the yes/no vote ratio. The most important design feedback for Option 4 - Serpentine Court, was the removal of the vehicular roads to link Fern Grove and Windermere Drive. Some people considered that an access could be provided for emergency vehicles but others felt that this wouldn’t be enforced and it would end up being used constantly by the public. Feedback was very positive for the design of the redeveloped centre. In order to help illustrate the block proposals, a detailed illustrative drawing was produced as an example of how Serpentine Court, and all 220 units within it, could be laid out as blocks of 2 storey housing with parking at the front and gardens to the rear. A hub was shown opposite Leon School, access off Fern Grove, providing shops with flats above, fronting onto a public square and a community building.

5.6 Residents wanted complete retention of the existing tree-lined central Estate footpath between Water Hall School and Drayton Park School. Other comments were that the public square should be in the middle of the Estate so that facilities are accessible.

05 Exhibition of Preferred Options - October 2013


5.7 Residents commented that there is a desire line through the field behind Water Hall School Option 2A, and many people currently used this route to walk to school and the centre of the Estate and they wanted to be able to still use this route.

5.8 Although there was majority support for development on land at the Northern Windermere Drive, adjacent to Gairloch Close, Option 1B, this was at a lower percentage (70%) compared with other development sites, registering 80-90% support. Comments received in relation to this development site expressed concern of the amount of development within the main area of open space at the Warren. It was considered that development may set a precedent for terraces of houses encroaching into the Warren Open Space.

5.9 Comments relating to the Canal Gateway site were generally well received to bring about a new identity for the Estate. Many considered that realigning the Stoke Road may slow down cars which would be of benefit to pedestrians and move away from the idea of the “ring-road”. A number raised concern that increasing access to the Canal may create a drowning hazard for children. The majority of respondents considered that housing was a good idea next to the canal, but there should be an opportunity for a pub/restaurant aswell.

5.10 In respect of design approaches to housing, there was agreement that new houses should:

• Respect the existing character of the Estate• Overlook paths and areas of open space/parking• Provide for more family accommodation• Provide for more bungalows• Maximise sunlight

5.11 In respect of design approaches to parking, there was agreement that:

• New roads could be provided to allow residents to park closer to their homes

• Some open space could be lost to provide more parking, where identified to be acceptable

• Garages could be removed

5.12 In respect of design approaches to footpaths, there was agreement that:

• Where footpaths cross roads, safe and levels crossings should be provided to prioritise pedestrian movement and slow cars/buses down

• Lighting, surveillance and landscaping of the main diagonal footpaths should be provided.

5.13 In respect of design approaches to open space and landscaping, there was agreement that:

• Development should look at ways to improve quality of open space

• Some trees could be removed to improve light into homes.

• Open space at the Warren could be improved by introducing more seating areas, more children’s play, sports pitches, a multi-use games area

• A new building for the children and youth• A new footpath the link the Estate with the Canal.

5.14 In respect of design approaches to a new heart for the Estate, there was agreement that:

• Development should be no higher than 4 storeys• Well-designed flats should be accommodated on the

corner of blocks• A new public square• A new community building and garden• New well designed roads with safe crossing points• Retention of existing central tree lined footpath


5.15 In respect of design approaches to a gateway to the canal, there was agreement that:

• New development should create an improved entrance to the Estate from Stoke Road

• Potential to realign Stoke Road to create development opportunity site adjacent to the Canal and linear park.

• The hedge along the Canal could be removed in part, to open up views of the canal.

Post-it notes- traffic light voting

5.16 Participants also used post-it notes to record more detailed comments. A number of key issues were reported through this. Mobility issues with the current layout and built form of Serpentine Court were highlighted and residents were keen that new proposals should support level access and be accessible and inclusive. Better provision for formal play pitches was identified, at the Warren and at Bala Way. Children’s play equipment was also reported to be deficient across the Estate. Residents felt that street lighting was poor throughout the Estate and footpaths were dangerous and needed resurfacing. The new connection to Blue Lagoon was well received and considered to help improve connections to the surrounding countryside.

5.17 Whilst the indicative design of Serpentine Court was well supported by participants in the exhibition, there was a general consensus that there should be no vehicular roads through the centre.


5.18 The retention of a pedestrian route through the centre of the Estate and absence of vehicular crossings has been accommodated within the Plan. The structuring elements identified for new development at Serpentine Court are articulated through SSP7. This seeks, amongst other elements, implementation of a “green” footpath spine to accommodate direct north-south movement for pedestrians and cyclists through the space, retaining where possible the visually important trees that currently define the centre of Serpentine Court. Figure 6.15, the Illustrative Plan shows that roads serving the development parcels within the centre, are accessed off Fern Grove and Windermere Drive separately, with no vehicular connections through the centre of the Estate.

5.19 Development area at Northern Windermere Drive has been reduced in size to limit encroachment of development onto the open space at the Warren.

5.20 Two development options are identified in the Plan to respond to opportunities for Canal side development that are deliverable in the short-term, where land can be accessed from the existing road network (SSP4). A second development option provides a longer term development option, achieved through the realignment of Stoke Road to create a larger land parcel adjacent to the Canal where development can be maximised (SSP8). Both housing and pub/ restaurant options receipt support at the consultation events, with housing option receiving 10% greater support than the restaurant/pub option. Comments from the residents who attended the exhibitions events suggested that people understood that the canal site is a higher value development site and that a residential use would yield most value. On the larger development site CG1, the opportunity identified for a pub/restaurant is supported within the Plan, however, taking into consideration concerns regarding low market demand for “wet leisure” uses, a fall back position is provided for proposals that come forward for solely residential use, provided that proposals demonstrate there is no market interest for the site being used for public house/ restaurant use.


5.21 The idea for the creation of a pond feature at the Warren has not been carried forward into the Plan. The open space at the Warren is the largest area of open space within the Estate and has most potential to accommodate formal sports pitches, and improvements in play equipment for a range of ages. These are items that have been regularly identified as part of the list of improvements for the Estate and should therefore be given priority over less popular features. Furthermore, the Estate already benefits from proximity to water bodies for leisure uses, with Blue Lagoon Nature Reserve to the west and Grand Union Canal to the east. Improvements to pedestrian connections to both of these valued resources are supported in the Plan (GP4 and Figure 5.1, Green Space and Movement Strategy).

5.22 Residents wished to see retention of the desire line through the land to the rear of Water Hall School. SSP1 requires new development to incorporate a footpath link to provide an east-west connection between Melfort Drive and the footpath to the rear of Sheelin Grove to facilitate safe and convenient access to Water Hall School and Windermere Drive.

5.23 The agreed design approaches to housing, parking, footpaths, open space and landscaping, new heart for the Estate and Canal gateway opportunities have informed the key design criteria for the general and site specific policies within the Plan and will be used to consider the appropriateness of development proposals that come forward for land identified by the Plan and for land within the Lakes Estate Plan area.


Section6

Statutory Consultation Stage (Regulation 14) Nov 2013-Jan 2014


Who was consulted

6.1 The draft Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Development Plan was prepared following seven years of community consultation associated with regeneration of the Lakes Estate and 18 months of focused Neighbourhood Plan consultation through a variety of public events, design workshops, exhibitions, questionnaires, drop-in sessions and wider stakeholder events.

6.2 The whole estate population was consulted on the draft Plan, including residents and owners and tenants of the commercial units, schools and local service providers and wider stakeholders. The 6 week formal consultation period of the draft Plan took place between 25th November 2013 - 6th January 2014. The Consultation Draft Plan provided at appendix 6.1.


6.3 Alongside the publication of the draft Plan for community consultation, drop-in sessions were arranged to provide opportunities for people to discuss particular issues and topics within the Plan. Five events were arranged over two weeks between the 2nd December 2013 and 14th December 2013. A wider stakeholder event was arranged for statutory consultees, local service providers and businesses within the Estate, as list of the wider stakeholder invites is provided at appendix 6.2.

6.4 The publication of the draft Plan was widely advertised through a number of different media, to include Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council website, Lakes Estate website, posters, newspaper advertisements. The consultation events were also advertised in Regneration MK: Winter 2013, a leaflet delivered to every household on the Estate. Copies of the advertisements are provided at appendix 6.3.

6.5 The Plan and response forms was made available online on the Town Council’s and Lakes Estates website and hard copies were provided at the Town Council offices, Crosslinks and Spotlight office in Serpentine Court and at the drop in sessions. Responses were gathered from the feedback forms, online at “survey monkey”, email and written comments to the Town Council. Feedback was also provided verbally at the drop-in sessions through informal discussions with business occupiers, residents and local service providers.


6.6 The feedback on the draft Plan confirmed majority support for the site allocations, general plan polices, and the site specific policies, an analysis is provided at appendix 6.4.

6.7 The development areas within the Plan are those identified through previous community consultation and engagement exercises, and were confirmed as the preferred development options following the October exhibitions. Residents generally used the consultation as an opportunity to provide more detailed feedback on certain areas of the Plan. Comments received welcomed the attempt to consider development at the edge of the Estate, rather than to just focus on the central core. Many people hoped that the proposals would help improve the identity of the Estate and help reflect more positively on the image of the Estate.

6.8 There was a concern identified that the Plan stated too great an importance on development needing to respond, or imitate, the existing Radburn layout and focus should be on development integrating well with the Estate and should support a contemporary approach to design and construction.

6.9 A number of people raised concerns regarding the provision of affordable housing, where it would be located and how much would be provided.

6.10 A central issue was how parking improvements could be better supported in the Plan. The draft Plan, through policy GP4 provided a mechanism to seek adequate provision and appropriate locations for parking to serve new development. However, there was a concern that the Plan did not identify how improvements to existing parking could be achieved.

6.11 Improvements to connections with the surrounding natural features such as the Canal and Blue Lagoon and to neighbouring communities in Water Eaton and Newton Leys were welcomed to help integrate the development within the wider community.

6.12 A number of comments required further understanding of how the Plan could be delivered and whether the development identified in the Plan could fund the redevelopment of Serpentine Court and provide other environmental enhancements and improvements to community and recreation facilities.

06 Statutory Consultation Stage (Reg 14) Nov 2013-Jan 2014


Statutory Consultees

Canal & River Trust6.13 With regard to canalside development The Canal and Riverside Trust endorsed the approach of the Plan’s recognition of the importance of the Canal and the benefits it brings to the regeneration of the Estate and support policy SSP8, development of the Canal gateway. The trust confirmed that they did not wish to see a blanked protection policy for the waterway, as this would prevent sensitive and suitable development that could provide opportunities to fund improvements to the waterside. The Trust approve of the approach to open up views of the Canal and agree that a family friendly pub adjacent to the canal would be a welcome facility providing benefits to the community and encourage more active use of the canal.

Police6.14 Representatives from the Police, who work on the Estate, attended the wider stakeholder event. Discussions related to the nature and scale of anti-social behaviour, vandalism and crime on the Estate and highlighted areas were crime was particularly prevalent, conforming support for the redevelopment of Serpentine Court was and improvements to children’s play and community facilities. General design principles set out the draft Plan that require development to demonstrate a safe, suitable, well-connected legible design and require improvements to street lighting and surveillance of the public realm would help to deter crime and reduce fear of crime.

6.15 In accordance with the consultation feedback received throughout the events identified within this statement, SSP7, redevelopment of Serpentine Court, does not support the creation of vehicular connections through the centre of the Estate. Previous consultation events have explored the possibility of provided emergency access only through the Estate. It was reported at the wider stakeholder event that a lack of direct access through the centre of the Estate was not considered to be problematic for emergency service providers as emergency teams were local to the area and understand the Estate layout, accessing the Estate via the two east west link roads depending of which side of the Estate they are responding to.

Milton Keynes Council 6.16 Milton Keynes Council own the majority of the land allocated for development through the Plan, with the exception of the triangle land south of Phelps Road adjacent to the Canal which is owned by Milton Keynes Development Partnership. (MKDP) A number of comments were received from various departments within the Council; comments were also received from Milton Keynes Development Partnership. A summary of the comments are set out below, with the full response provided at appendix 6.5.

• MKC Archeology – development areas DS1 land at Water Hall School and IN4 Land at Skene Open Space, that will require archaeological field evaluation prior to development. The necessary investigation is likely to be secured via a planning condition.

• MKC Development Plans – Clarification on how Plan has been prepared, confirmation of whether protection of local green Space policy GP6 replaces Local Plan policies L2 and Appendix L2. Clarification as to whether SSP8 replaces Locl Plan Policy D3 (Canalside Development).

• MKC Urban Design – Development sites are constrained by the imposed building height, Radburn layout is flawed and inefficient in many ways and comprises design elements that are not in accordance with design policies of the local plan, nor CS13 of the Core Strategy. The Plan requires more Urban Design analysis, development at IN4 is limited to small blocks, not an efficient use of land, development at IN1 should encourage a street at the development frontage, design of Serpentine Court should provide more enclosure, and should include a vehicular link to connect Fen Grove and Winderemere Drive.

• MKC Regeneration Team – Plan provides a good direction of travel, there are concerns that proposals in their current form could hinder regeneration opportunities i.e. around the height restrictions. We would have preferred to see more development site. There is no cost benefit analysis, or financial modelling. Support for design principles of the new “heart” of the estate. Intention to preserve Radburn layout is noted, but Plan should make clear


that only the best features of Radburn are to be preserved. Policy LENP3 is a little ambiguous and requires further clarification.

• MKC Highways – General support for the Core Objectives. Some redrafting is required in relation to policy wording of LENP4: Access and Parking. There is concern that the realignment of Stoke Road could divert traffic onto other routes, increasing traffic on other routes. A convenient crossing point should be identified adjacent to the Warren/ canal gateway. Access to the development parcel along Stoke Road would be careful placement, individual accesses off Stoke Road would not be supported. Bus stops along Stoke Road would need retention.

• MKDP – Can development be delivered on land that comprises highway land, the aspiration of a public house/restaurant may be difficult to achieve, is this realistic or commercially viable? DS2 is not a large site and therefore it would be difficult to accommodate residential and commercial use. The larger development site offers most potential to accommodate both uses. The more ambitious gateway opportunity (CG1) is welcomed. How would the funding of the realignment be secured, has the impact on viability been considered? It may be preferable for the DS2 and CG1 to be promoted as two phases of the same development.


Design Approach

6.17 Policy GP3 promotes contemporary approach to design of new development that is sensitive to the existing character of the Estate, but doesn’t require new development to conform to a Radburn layout. Policy GP1 supports innovative and contemporary buildings and the provision of a range of energy efficient buildings that offer flexible accommodation.

6.18 The illustrative plan of Serpentine Court (SC1) has been amended to demonstrate a design approach where development fronts the public square on all three sides. The illustrative plan has also been amended for site IN4, to show built form as a block of development to better illustrate the development potential of the site. The illustrative plan has also been amended for site IN1, to show the road along the development frontage.

Urban Design Analysis

6.19 Section 2 of the Plan has been expanded to include analysis of the Urban Form and a discussion of Radburn layout, drawing out the challenging issues presented by a Radburn layout, particularly in relation to management and maintenance of public/ communal spaces. Radburn features that are well-liked by the residents are also identified.

Development Densities

6.20 The issues of development density has been reconsidered. The key message from consultation events was that development should not exceed 4 storeys and this principle remains supported in the Plan. There has been an amendment to the policy wording in relation to height restrictions for development sites DS1, IN1, IN2 and IN3 where it is considered that although built form should generally be two storeys in height, three storeys may be acceptable when defining key corners or edges of development and where it can be demonstrated that such a design response is appropriate to the context of the surrounding area and respects the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, many of the houses on the Estate are three storey and the topography of some sites allows for this approach.


Affordable housing

6.21 Policy GP3 requires new residential development to incorporate affordable housing in accordance with the relevant criteria set out in Milton Keynes development plan policies.

Alleviation of existing parking pressures

6.22 It is clear that there is no estate-wide approach that can be adopted to improve parking at the Lakes Estate and therefore such improvements need to be considered at a detailed scale. There have been discussions regarding the demolition of garage blocks to create parking bays to serve the front of dwellings and to provide improvements in the street scene. As discussed, there can be no blanket policy on the approach to the redevelopment of garages. However, the explanatory text of policy GP4 has been expanded to direct new development to, where possible, replace garage blocks with dedicated parking, and is supported by Figure 5.2 which illustrates how such an improvement could be achieved. Furthermore, policy GP 7 has been reworded to include “Rationalisation and improvement of existing car parking provision” within the list of priorities that developer contributions should contribute towards.

6.23 The wording of policy GP4 relating to access and parking has been amended in response to MKC highways comments.

Ensuring appropriate canal side development

6.24 The Trust provide some helpful policy wording to ensure appropriate canal side development. This has helped inform policies SSP2 and SSP8.

6.25 MKC raised concern regarding lack of demand for wet leisure uses that could stifle other appropriate development opportunities from coming forward. DS2 is a contained site that is easily accessed and deliverable in the short-term and could generate funding from early on the in the development programme. Therefore sole residential schemes are supported at the smaller site DS2 and the public/ restaurant opportunity is identified as part of the wider canal gateway opportunity.

Financial modelling

6.26 The Plan is supported by a Delivery Strategy and High Level Viability Assessment which provides an overview of an approach to delivery, the financial viability of the development proposed and potential funding sources. This has been prepared following meetings between Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, officers and members, the elected Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Regeneration – Councillor Edith Bald, officers and members from Milton Keynes Council’s housing, regeneration and planning teams and David Lock Assocaites.

6.27 The costings take into account works required to realign Stoke Road and to demolish Serpentine Court. Indicative financial appraisals are available to support the figures suggested, however these are commercially sensitive and confidential as they could influence the outcome of the development partner procurement process.


Section 2 - Placecheck

Appendix2.1Summary of Responses

Placecheck top ten comments

The questionnaires were completed during the summer of 2007There are 2200 properties on the estate and 427 questionnaires were returned which gives a response rate of 19.40%.

Top Ten 'likes' Estate

84

55

32 27 22 20 15 14 13 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Good neighbours/friendliness/...

Green areas/trees and parks

not much/nothing

Friends and or family live close by

Good schools/teachers

Nice houses and bugalows

Mix of people

shops (close by)

Quiet / Peaceful

Close to the Countryside

Theme

Numb

er of

Comm

ents

Top Ten 'dislikes' Estate

103

4530 29 28 26 25 24 23 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fly tipping / ru

bbish

Lack of shops/fac

ilities

fighting & abuse

Anti-social be

haviour

Run down flats (S

erpentine Court)

Not enough for

the kids to

do

Bushes / Trees overg

rown

Improve shops

Don't feel safe i

n Serpentine CourtGraffiti

Theme

Numb

er of

Comm

ents

Top Ten Improvements Estate

83 76

5034 34 33 27 24 23 22 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

More activities for children & young ...

Serpentine Court improve/replace s...

Update / improve play areas and eq...

Youth Club (building/more times a ...

Supermarket better/cheaper/Tesco's...

Demolish Serpentine Court & rebuild

More visible police / increase commu...

Better/increased maintance of estate

increased rubbish collection/kangar..

No fresh food

Better maintenance of houses/garages

Theme

Numb

er of

Comm

ents


Section 3 - Your Future Your Choice

Appendix3.1Advert and Workshop

Lakes Neighbourhood Plan Your Future, Your Choice

Design Workshop & Drop In

Thursday 22nd November between 6:30pm- 8:30pm

At the Lakes Community Centre.

Fern Grove, Lakes Estate, Milton Keynes, MK2 3QF

Please pop in for more information Refreshments will be available

For Info: Paula Collinson at Spotlight

Tel: 01908 645021 or Email: [email protected]

THE LAKES ESTATE

YOUR FUTURE YOUR CHOICE

PLANNING FOR REAL

A Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared for the Lakes Estate. For the first time Neighbourhood Plans allow local people to come together to shape the future of their areas and produce planning policy that the Council and developers must follow. A Neighbourhood Plan will give a big boost to improving the Lakes Estate and we would like EVERYONE to get involved. We have been touring the estate with questionnaires getting your views. The next stage is to do some detailed planning of how we want the Estate to develop over the next few years. PLEASE find a few minutes to drop in to the following events and get involved.

Monday 16th July The Warren, Serpentine Court11am – 2pm or 6.30pm – 8.30pm

Thursday 19th July Water Hall School, Fern Grove8.30am – 10am or 2pm-4pm

Wednesday 25th July Lakes Community Centre,10am – 8pm

Monday 30th July Water Eaton Church Centre2pm – 8pm

YOUR FUTURE, YOUR CHOICE

A while ago some residents visited other areas of the country to find out what they have achieved, this is what they said

THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

This is your opportunity to have your say on what is included in the plan that will shape the future of your community

“They’ve worked with residents to increase the size of gardens and improve parking”

“They’ve done work to join up streets and introduce new homes.

They’ve built new houses, flats and shops that fitted in with what wasalready there”.



Appendix3.2Planning for Real Summary Report

Report from Lakes Estate Planning for Real consultations

This report summarises the results of four Planning for Real events undertaken within the Lakes Estate in July and August 2012 to inform the neighbourhood planning process. The Planning for Real displays were also taken to summer play schemes in August 2012. Over 120 people participated in the various events.

In total 855 flags were placed on the Planning for Real plan of the estate and 101 people suggested one thing that they felt would improve the estate. Pin-boards asked questions about specific issues such as Serpentine Court, Open Space and Street Improvement.

The Planning for Real consultations built on a questionnaire survey conducted throughout the Lakes Estate from June – August 2012. The survey mainly gathered comments regarding non-spatial issues but where these related to the results of the Planning for Real consultations these are mentioned below.

The results are summarised below together with suggestions as to policies/objectives to be included in the draft neighbourhood plan (DNP) and where further work is needed. Note that the draft neighbourhood plan would be a draft for further consultation with residents and business owners.

New development

There seemed to be support for the idea that new development has to happen on the Lakes Estate in order to fund improvements as 25% of the flags were identifying sites for new development. Indeed residents could see the benefit of some new development in providing new facilities and jobs, and in helping to change the image of the estate.

85 answers to the specific question on the pin board said that Serpentine Court should be demolished and rebuilt. Only 3 said it should be retained. Post-it note comments cited the run-down appearance and feelings of a lack of safety. Regarding the form that a replacement shopping area should take 43 preferred a ‘town square’, 39 a ‘high street’ and 22 a ‘precinct’.

[add survey results regarding Serpentine Court likes/dislikes and demolition.]

92 (11%) were sites for shops. 41 of these were identifying a site for a supermarket, and the remainder were sites for shops in general or for branches of specific chains. 33 of these identified the central area currently occupied by Serpentine Court or Bramley Grange as being the best location for new shops. 11 identified the point where the central green area meets Stoke Road. 7 of the ‘One Thing’ wall respondents said that more or improved shops would make the most difference to the estate.

46 (5%) were sites for housing. These were quite dispersed around the estate.

29 (3%) were sites for a family pub/restaurant. 7 flags suggested this should be off Stoke Road, either by the Warren green space or by the canal foot bridge, 6 suggested the Serpentine Court site.

28 (3%) were sites for a petrol station, 7 of these suggested the site near the roundabout where Stoke Road meets Lomond Drive.

Lakes Estate Planning for Real report – September 2012 1

15 (2%) were sites for a hotel, Stoke Road/Lomond Drive or Stoke Road/the Warren seemed to be the most favoured sites

15 (2%) were sites for employment or training facilities

Conclusions

Proposals for three types of development have emerged from this consultation. As we develop these proposals there may be some synergy between the three:

A new neighbourhood centre to replace Serpentine Court to include shops (perhaps including a small supermarket), community facilities, office/employment uses and perhaps some flats.

Strategic commercial developments such as a pub/restaurant, a hotel or a filling station.

New housing which is likely to be developed through a number of small infill sites.

In each case work is needed to evaluate suitable sites and assess their feasibility.

Further work required:

an options appraisal to identify the best site for a neighbourhood shopping centre between the Serpentine Court site and Stoke Road by the Warren open space. The centre to include retail, small office/studio space, community facilities and housing.

design work to create an indicative masterplan for the neighbourhood centre.

design work to identify how housing infill sites could contribute to the development of a safer, more legible and connected estate.

a feasibly study/options appraisal for a filling station and/or pub/restaurant and/or hotel on one of three sites: Drayton Road opposite Strangford Drive, junction Lomond Road/Stoke Road, Stoke Road by the Warren open space.

Draft neighbourhood plan should encourage:

proposals for the demolition and redevelopment of Serpentine Court subject to a design brief being produced following an options appraisal on a new neighbourhood centre.

proposals for a filling station, pub restaurant and hotel at one of three sites subject to a feasibility study/options appraisal and the preparation of a design brief.

Street improvements, parking and housing

The biggest number of flags requesting environmental improvements, 69 (8%) were improvements to the street scene although this category overlaps with another popular one, parking with 56 flags (7%). 58 out of 73 pin-board respondents said that parking was an issue on their street. There may also have been some overlap with comments about improving play facilities and green space. 5 (8%) of the ‘One Thing’ respondents said safer streets would make the most difference within the estate.


[add survey results about dislike of garages]

10 suggestions were for additional railings within the estate the majority of these at different points along Drayton Road, in addition there were two calls for traffic calming and three for improved crossings. This indicates that the ‘ring-road’ formed by Drayton Road, Stoke Road and Lomond Drive is seen as a safety problem.

9 flags suggested a home zone or play street. There was no one street where there was a stronger call for this than others.

7 flags suggested new road links – most for a link between Fern Grove and Windermere drive. Others suggested a new road linking Doon Way and Tummell Way.

Other suggestions were more varied including 4 suggesting that garages be ‘done-up’ and 7 suggesting they be removed. There were various calls to improve garden boundaries and to re-surface roads. Post-it notes on the pin-boards suggested that the street layout was impractical and dated with people having a long walk to their cars and deliveries being awkward.

19 flags suggested that parking bays should be designated. 27 called for more or improved parking bays. Parking problems were spread throughout the estate but Phase 1 and in particular the area round Tummell Close/Way and Garry Close seem to report to most. Pavement parking was identified as an issue by a number of respondents. Although this is mainly a behavioural issue, better design would discourage it.

The re-design of housing was mentioned by only 5 flags (1%) but 7 people (11%) mentioned this on the ‘One Thing’ wall with the introduction of pitched roofs being a common suggestion.

Conclusion

The consultation reveals dissatisfaction with the layout of existing streets. This is expressed in a number of different ways, most frequently through frustrations regarding parking. Remedies are not straightforward but those residents who have had the opportunity to go on study visits of other remodelled estates know what can be achieved. Design work is need to show what could be possible.

Further work required

design workshops to develop proposals for street improvements in all four phases including the demolition of garages, which can then be consulted upon with residents

design workshops and feasibility assessments to identify suitable sites for additional housing drawing on suggestions made by residents.

Draft Neighbourhood Plan should encourage:

a programme of street remodelling to provide a more attractive, safe, efficient and legible street scene throughout the estate and provide adequate parking close to homes.


proposals for new housing on agreed sites where this helps to raise the overall quality of housing on the Lakes Estate, and provide a more attractive and legible network of streets. New housing should link with existing streets.

one or more vehicular east-west links through the redeveloped Serpentine Court site.

proposals which give Drayton Road, Lomond Drive and Stoke Road the character of residential streets with housing (and where appropriate other development) addressing the street. Proposals which further calm these streets, including the replacement of pedestrian subways with surface crossings.

Play, sport and fitness and green space

Play and green space were the most important issued identified by the ‘One thing’ wall. With 22 (34%) of suggestions mentioning improved parks or play facilities.

We asked specific questions about this on our pin boards and 58 out of 93 respondents said they felt more outdoor play space for young children was needed. Regarding recreation space for older children 76 of 101 respondents wanted more. 56 of 72 respondents felt that there were safety issues regarding open space. 59 of 69 respondents felt that more equipment and facilities were needed in the estate’s open spaces. Only 17 of 72 respondents felt they had a sense of ownership over the open spaces near their homes. Some post-it notes drew attention to the hilly nature of much of the green space which obscures sight-lines and makes them difficult to use.

54 flags (6%) were calling for new or improved play facilities and 35 (5%) for sports and fitness facilities. It is difficult to distinguish between these two as for example flags asking for space to play football could mean formal pitches or kick-about areas.

21 flags called for new or improved play equipment. 7 specifically called for a skate park. There were equal numbers calling for improved play for younger and older children. 16 of the flags calling for improved play space were on the Warren open space. Other flags were more dispersed around the estate.

15 flags called for space to play football, 14 for a fitness trail. Suggested locations for these were quite dispersed with the bend in Drayton Road by Garry Close, Tummell Way perhaps the most popular.

26 flags (3%) were calling for improvements to green space within the estate including improved parks, community gardens, village greens and ‘re-landscaping’. No one suggestion was predominant. Phase 1 residents seemed to most want green space improvements.

Conclusions

Many residents state they want more recreational space even though there is an abundance of green space within the estate. They seem to be crying out for green space that is useable. Much space within the estate is not well overlooked, fragmented and rendered unsuitable for most recreational uses by hillocks.


Further work needed

development of a green-space strategy for the estate including development of play and sports facilities for younger and older children and adults, informal recreational space and wildlife areas. The objectives should be to make green space safe and usable, to create a variety of types of green-space at different scales. This is likely to involve exchanging quantity for quality by allowing some development on underused space and in places enclosure of space into private gardens where overlooking cannot be achieved. Investigate whether the Warren open space could become a ‘central park for the neighbourhood linking to the canal and the linear park beyond across a calmed Stoke Road.

Draft neighbourhood plan should encourage:

new development within the estate to contribute to the implementation of the green space strategy.

Community and youth facilities

42 flags (5%) called for new or improved facilities for young people in addition to the calls for improved sport and play facilities above. 17 of these chose the flag “activity club for children and teenagers” and 13 called for a “children and young people centre”. The centre of the estate, either on the Serpentine Court site or the Warren open space was the preferred location for these indicated by 22 flags.

24 (3%) called for more general community facilities. 14 of these wanted a Healthy eating café. The Serpentine Court site was the most favoured location.

Conclusion

There is a concerted campaign within the estate for a children and young people’s centre. This should not be dismissed as it indicates a concern that there is insufficient provision for young people. A spatial plan cannot in itself deliver such a centre, it can only facilitate its delivery by allocating land where such a facility could be built or incorporated within a larger development.

Further work to be done (outside the scope of neighbourhood planning)

An audit of youth and community provision within the Lakes Estate (both activity and the buildings it takes place in) to identify what is lacking, whether best use is being made of community buildings and whether gaps could be filled by an additional building. The study should take into account the likely effect of Serpentine Court being demolished.

If the audit indicates that new or replacement youth and community facilities are needed a business plan to be developed to raise funding build and sustainably operate them. This might be based on allowing a community trust to develop retail or other employment space to provide an income to support community spaces.

Draft Neighbourhood Plan to encourage

adequate provision of youth and community facilities in any redevelopment of the neighbourhood centre


Other issues

32 flags (4%) called for improvements to footpaths. Nearly all of these had simply chosen the ‘Improve Footpaths’ flag. These were dispersed around the estate.

33 flags (4%) identified that parts of the estate felt unsafe at night, and 17 flags (2%) that parts were unsafe during the day. 24 (3%) called for improved lighting. 29 of the flags reporting lack of safety were in the Serpentine Court area; the remained were distributed around the estate. The most reports of poor lighting (7) were in phase 1.

20 flags (2%) identified accessibility issues, with 13 calling for more dropped kerbs and 6 calling for all facilities to be fully accessible. No one area was singled out.

The remaining spatial issues identified by flags were way-finding (13), cycling facilities (11), improvements to existing housing (5), bins (4) and public transport (2)

Conclusions

There is dissatisfaction with the state of the segregated footpaths which run through the estate and are the main walking connections. In part this arises from lack of maintenance but the segregation makes maintenance relatively costly as routes are duplicated and creates problems of safety. Comments regarding cycling, lighting and accessibility also reflect the poor state of the public realm within the Lakes Estate.

Further work needed

As the design work identified above progresses the various projects need to be integrated into a masterplan for the Lakes Estate which will include walking and cycling connections. It is best if these are integrated with streets.

Draft Neighbourhood Plan to encourage:

policies around sustainable transport (walking, cycling and public transport), accessibility and street safety which are particular to the needs of the Lakes to ensure that these issues are carefully considered in further policy development and planning decisions. Simple, high quality streetscapes should reduce the cost of maintenance in the future.

Non spatial issues

60 flags (7%) called for improved maintenance of housing and public space within the estate and 62 (7%) dealt with other non-spatial issues. 25 of the latter were calling for more police/PCSOs.

Conclusion

These issues need to be considered by the Neighbourhood Action Group. Although we have identified them as non-spatial some of them are exacerbated by design defects. Concerns about policing illustrate the lack of overlooking on many routes through the estate and concerns about maintenance illustrate how difficult to maintain the current form of the estate is.




Appendix3.3Questionnaire Responses

Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire Results The questionnaires were completed during the summer of 2012 There are 2200 properties on the estate and 519 questionnaires were returned which gives a response rate of 23.90%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of comments

1Top ten likes

What you like about the Lakes Estate

Total no. of commentsCommunity Atmosphere/spiritLike living here (long term resident)Friendly peopleQuietGrass Areas/trees/shrubsIts OKShops very friendly and helpfulEverythings all at hand - close to thingsNothingSchools

What you Don't Like about the Lakes Estate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1

Top Ten Comments

Num

ber o

f Com

men

ts

Serpentine Court (as a whole)

MKC doesn't listen/look after the estate

Rubbish being dumped

Boarded up and unused garages

The look of the estate - its not attractive/appearance

Lakes has a bad name that is not deserved(reputation)Rubbish put out before bin day

Serpentine Court (shops)

Nothing

Older kids destroying the parks

Litter

How we should Improve the Estate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1

Top Ten Comments

Num

ber o

f Com

men

ts

General maintenance

Housing maintenance/repairs

Things for the kids to do

Overall appearance

Shops

SC flatten it and re-build

SC - look after it, its an eyesore

Improve footpaths

Practical workshops - car repairs etcteach the youngsters give them a focusSomething to amuse the youngsters



Appendix3.4Change One Thing Responses

Session Issue ResponseThe Warren - morning Improvements More ramps everywhere so people with mobility issues

can get aboutThe Warren - morning Community Universal "hub" building for services operating in area

including children and youth with sufficient indoor / outdoor areas and parking

The Warren - morning Improvements Gabled roofs.The Warren - afternoon Community Stop gangs - people carry knivesThe Warren - afternoon Open Spaces More green areasThe Warren - afternoon Recreation Skate Park x 2The Warren - afternoon Open Spaces More spaceThe Warren - afternoon Improvements Safer streetsThe Warren - afternoon Community Children to change to become more responsibleThe Warren - afternoon Community More respect between adults and childrenThe Warren - afternoon Improvements Better pathsThe Warren - afternoon Improvements SverThe Warren - afternoon Recreation Rapping StudioWater Hall School - morning Improvements Pitched roofWater Hall School - morning Open Spaces Wheelie bins to stop spilt rubbish (bin men don't sort

this)Water Hall School - morning Improvements Knock houses downWater Hall School - morning Improvements Knock down Serpentine CourtWater Hall School - morning Improvements Pitched roof on all housesWater Hall School - morning Community More police to make for a safer place for allWater Hall School - morning Improvements Streets to be safer and better for kids to play inWater Hall School - afternoon Community Neighbourhood WatchWater Hall School - afternoon Community More shopping facilitiesWater Hall School - afternoon Improvements Improved parking x 2Water Hall School - afternoon Improvements Demolish and start againWater Hall School - afternoon Community Improve shops and facilitiesWater Hall School - afternoon Community New shops and play parksWater Hall School - afternoon Improvements Make children safe. More parks. Demolish and start

again.Water Hall School - afternoon Improvements Better maintenance of houses / repairs.Water Hall School - afternoon Community People looking after the place.Water Hall School - afternoon Community Well behaved responsible neighbours.Water Hall School - afternoon Community Serpentine CourtWater Hall School - afternoon Community Demolish Serpentine Court and start againWater Hall School - afternoon Community Improve the shopsWater Hall School - afternoon Community Better community.Community Centre - 10 - 7 Recreation More play areas for children and reduce crimeCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Community A place for young people to goCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Community Social statusCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Community Attitude to residents. More pride.Community Centre - 10 - 7 Improvements We want The Lakes Estate to look better than now.Community Centre - 10 - 7 Open Spaces We want parks like NetherfieldCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Improvements I don't like the houses in the streets that have cracks.

Community Centre - 10 - 7 Improvements Improve imageCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Community Stop people throwing fag buttsCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Open Spaces Too many big kids hang around the parks and damage

themCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Recreation More for teenagers - get them off the streets where they

cause troubleCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Recreation More things for the youth to do (reduce the crime)Community Centre - 10 - 7 Community Stop young people from smoking / drinkingCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Community Get rid of Unit 35 Golden LoungeCommunity Centre - 10 - 7 Community More communication along the way even if the news is

not what people want to hear

The Lakes Neighbourhood Plan - If you could change just ONE thing what would it be?

Community Centre - 10 - 7 Improvements I don't like cars going too fast on my street.Community Centre - 10 - 7 Open Spaces I don't like the parks because they are boring. Zzzzz!!

Community Centre - 10 - 7 Community A children's and young people's centreCommunity Centre - Youth Community Better places to hang with friendsCommunity Centre - Youth Community More and better shopsCommunity Centre - Youth Community Somewhere better to hang aroundCommunity Centre - Youth Open Spaces More football pitches. Thanks.Community Centre - Youth Open Spaces More fields to play in.Community Centre - Youth Open Spaces More football pitches and local youth teams.Community Centre - Youth Improvements Better housing.Community Centre - Youth Open Spaces Parks!Community Centre - Youth Open Spaces Less houses, more open space.Community Centre - Youth Community The shopsCommunity Centre - Youth Recreation More sports fieldsSummer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Open Spaces Cleaner

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Open Spaces More parks

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Nothing

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community No children

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Safety Cameras to catch vandalism

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Safety Vandalism

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Improve Serpentine Court

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Improvements Pathways even

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Youth Club for every age

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Knock down Serpentine Court

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Improvements Road to connect both sides of the estate together (not in middle)

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Get Serpentine Court sorted out PLEASE

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Safety Less dangerous round the shops (at night)!

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Open Spaces The parks

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Bigger community

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Devt. Option Restaurant around here not takeaway

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Open Spaces More parks for the kids to play

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Open Spaces Make our parks more better by adding more toys and have football pitches

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Recreation Somewhere for the kids to play football please

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Parents more support. No drinking area (no drugs)

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Recreation Get a better skate park like rec

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Improvements The houses! X 2

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community Dance class

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community More shops around the area

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Recreation More things to do in holidays or after school

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Safety Less danger! More police around shops

Summer Playscheme - 24.7.12 Community More chocolate in shops.

Water Eaton Church Centre - 30.7.12

Open Spaces Better care of open areas


Open Spaces Better parks and facilities for children and teenagers


Improvements Put bench seats back on paths for kids etc.


Improvements Better footpaths / paving properly maintained


Open Spaces Much more rubbish control - educate to take litter home, clear up dog mess, don't put bags out on wrong day, phone Council for one-off items.


Open Spaces Better parks


Improvements Knock garages down and make more room for parking.


Community Rename it!



Appendix3.5List of Flag Locations and Issues

1 of 6

Phase Issue Wherebetween 2 & 4 Community Fern Groven/a Community General / estate widen/a Community General / estate wide

5 Community Serpentine Court5 Community Serpentine Court

between 1 and 3 Community Stoke Road / The Warrenbetween 1 and 3 Community The Warren nr. Playground

between 1 and 3 Community The Warren open space - lower area towards Stoke Road

5 Devt. Options Bramley Grange

5 Devt. Options Bramley Grange

between 2 & 4 Devt. Options Drayton Road railway side1 Devt. Options Grasmere Way3 Devt. Options Lomond Drive / Dere Place3 Devt. Options Lomond Drive / Dere Place3 Devt. Options Lomond Drive / Dere Place

3 Devt. Options Lomond Drive / Dere Place - opposite side of roundabout

5 Devt. Options Serpentine Courtbetween 1 and 3 Devt. Options The Warren / Stoke Roadbetween 1 and 3 Devt. Options The Warren / Stoke Road

5 Devt. Options Water Hall School

5 Devt. Options Water Hall School development site

1 Improvements Buttermere Close1 Improvements Buttermere Close

1 Improvements Buttermere Close - alley behind houses no.s 57 - 69

1 Improvements Buttermere Close - green square

1 Improvements Buttermere Close - green square

1 Improvements Buttermere Close - top end nr. 64

1 Improvements Crummock Place1 Improvements Drayton Road1 Improvements Drayton Road

1 Improvements Drayton Road at Buttermere Close

1 Improvements Drayton Road by Thirlmere Avenue and Hunter Drive

1 Improvements Drayton Road by Thirlmere Avenue and Hunter Drive

n/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate wide

n/a Improvements General / estate wide

n/a Improvements General / estate wide1 Improvements Grasmere Way1 Improvements Grasmere Way

PLANNING FOR REAL® The Lakes, Milton K

Venue: Water Eaton Church Centre s

2 of 6

1 Improvements Grasmere Way

1 Improvements Grasmere Way / Rydal Way / Ennerdale Close - playground

4 Improvements Gwyant Court4 Improvements Ruthven Close5 Improvements Serpentine Court3 Improvements Sheelin Grove3 Improvements Sheelin Grove1 Improvements Thirlmere

1 Improvements Thirlmere Avenue - alleyway between 28 and 32

1 Improvements Thirlmere Avenue - garages - by no. 26

4 ImprovementsTorridon Court - land behind houses 30 - 40 and near Fern Grove

4 Improvements Tulla Court - land behind no. 32 and near Fern Grove

1 Open Space Buttermere Close - green space at top end of Close

1 Open Space Buttermere Close - green square

n/a Open Space General / estate wide




n/a Open Space General / estate widen/a Open Space General / estate wide

1 Open Space Grasmere Way1 Open Space Grasmere Way1 Open Space Grasmere Way1 Open Space Grasmere Way playground3 Open Space Laggan Court

4 Open Space Ruthven and Burnmoor - footpath between

3 Open Space Sheelin / Windermere - play area

3 Open Space Sheelin Grove

3 Open Space Sheelin Grove

4 Open Space Torridon

1 Recreation Buttermere Close - green square

between 2 & 4 Recreation Drayton Road / Leon Schooln/a Recreation General / estate wide

1 Recreation Grasmere Way playground1 Recreation Grasmere Way playground1 Recreation Grasmere Way playground3 Recreation Laggan Court5 Recreation Serpentine Court4 Recreation Skene play area4 Recreation Skene play area4 Recreation Skene play area1 Recreation Water East Church Centre

between 1 and 3 RecreationWindermere Drive - open space nr. Cullen Place nos. 37 and 41 (on bend)

1 Safety Drayton Road underpass1 Safety Drayton Road underpass

3 of 6

5 Safety Serpentine Court5 Safety Serpentine Court

4 of 6

Suggestion No.New shops (smaller) 1Greater police / pcso presence 2Smaller shops on outskirts - in more places 1Greater police / pcso presence 1Healthy eating café 1New shops here 1Children and young people's centre 1

Youth building 1

Site for supermarket 1Build a Foyer to provide accommodation for young people 1

New Health Centre 1Site for new housing 1Site for a petrol station 2Site for hotel 1Site for family pub restaurant 1

Site for a family pub restaurant 2

Site for supermarket 1Site for a family pub restaurant 1Site for petrol station 1Site for new housing 1

Warden controlled sheltered housing 1

Improve footpaths 1Improve / create parking bays 1Include unused alleyway into garden boundary please 1

Improve lighting 1

Stop pavement parking 1

Designated parking bays for all reisdents not just disabled or OAPs - I need to carry my baby and shopping to house.

1

Cycle path 1Improve parking - more bays 1Railings wanted here 1

More zebra crossings 1

School children crossing by Thirlmere to Hunter Drive (by tunnel) - traffic calming (too fast)

1

Pelican / zebra crossing 1

Stop pavement parking 1Improve lighting 1Designated parking bays for residents 1Better maintenance / repair of housing 1

Dedicated location for placing rubbish to be collected - fenced in area for each property 1

Traffic calming tables at all junctions 1Remove garage blocks 1Replace fencing with walls 1

RESULTSKeynes

ession Date: 30/7/12

5 of 6

Improve existing parking 1

Better play equipment 1

Trim back trees to improve parking 1Do up garages 1Create a link between these two roads 1Designated parking bays 1Remove garage blocks 1Improve footpaths 1

Block off some alleyways to stop rat runs 1

Do up garages 1

Blocked drain flooding car park 1

Deal with blocked drain flooding car park 1

Keep green area - I like to play in it 1

Seating area wanted here 1

Flowering shrubs to be planted 1Binmen miss collecting rubbish bags because people put them in different places around their house boundary

1

Area needs to be kept clean 1Residents need help disposing of large household items 1

Signposting to local facilities and amenities 1Wheelie bins for household rubbish 1Create a village green here 1Create a community garden 1Seating area wanted here 1Grant needed to improve our open space 1Better maintenance of green space 1

Create a seating area 3

Sign post to local facilities 1

Area needs to be kept clean 1Better education on refuse facilities - bags out all week! 1

Create a seating area 1

Play space for older kids 1

Create an outdoor fitness trail 1Activity club for children and tennagers 1Better play equipment 2Play space for older kids 1Space to play football 1Make existing play area safe 1Activity club for children and tennagers 1Better play equipment 1Youth shelter - space for young people 1Skate Park 1Activity club for children and tennagers 1

Youth shelter - space for young people 1

I don't feel safe here at night 1I don't feel safe during the day 1

6 of 6

I don't feel safe during the day 1I don't feel safe here at night 3

Phase Issue Where2 Improvements Allen Close2 Open Space Allen Close

2 Improvements Bala Way play area2 Recreation Bala Way play area2 Recreation Bala Way play area2 Recreation Bala Way play area2 Recreation Bala Way play area5 Devt. Options Bramley Grange Development Site5 Devt. Options Bramley Grange Development Site1 Recreation Buttermere play area1 Improvements Coniston Waybetween 1&2 Improvements Drayton Park School fieldbetween 1&2 Recreation Drayton Park School field2 Devt. Options Drayton Road - back of Garry Close

and Tummell Way - open space

2 Improvements Ennell Grove4 Community Fern Grove - the Bungalow (once

used as a Youth Club)4 Recreation Fern Grove / Corin Close - open

space on corner by nos. 5 + 32 Improvements Garry Close (no. 11)

n/a Community General / estate widen/a Community General / estate widen/a Community General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate wide

n/a Improvements General / estate wide

n/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Improvements General / estate widen/a Open Space General / estate wide

n/a Open Space General / estate widen/a Recreation General / estate wide3 Community Laiden Close2 Improvements Leon School grounds - Fern Grove /

Community Centre side2 Recreation Leon School grounds - Fern Grove /



Community Centre side2 Devt. Options Drayton Road/Doon Way2 Devt. Options Drayton Road /Doon Way2 Devt. Options Drayton Roa/Doon Way2 Community Maree Close2 Improvements Maree Close2 Improvements Maree Close

PLANNING FOR REAL® RESThe Lakes, Milton Keyne

Venue: Lakes Summer Scheme session

2 Open Space Maree Close

2 Recreation Maree Close2 Recreation Maree Close3 Improvements Meriland Court2 Improvements Menteith Close2 Open Space Menteith Close1 Improvements Rannoch Close1 Improvements Rannoch Close1 Improvements Rannoch Close

4 Community Ruthven Close to Water Hall School - footpath

5 Community Serpentine Court5 Community Serpentine Court5 Community Serpentine Court5 Community Serpentine Court5 Community Serpentine Court

5 Community Serpentine Court

5 Community Serpentine Court

5 Safety Serpentine Court5 Safety Serpentine Court5 Safety Serpentine Court3 Devt. Options Sheelin Grove3 Improvements Sheelin Grove3 Improvements Sheelin Grove3 Improvements Sheelin Grove3 Recreation Sheelin Grove / Windermere1 Devt. Options Stoke Road / Buttermere1 Open Space Stoke Road / Ennerdale Close1 Open Space Stoke Road / Ennerdale Close1 Recreation Stoke Road / Ennerdale Close3 Open Space Stoke Road allotments1 Devt. Options Stoke Road development site4 Community Strangford Drive2 Improvements Tarbert Close2 Open Space Tarbert Close2 Recreation Tarbert Closebetween 1&3 Community The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Open Space The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Open Space The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Recreation The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Recreation The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Recreation The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Recreation The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Recreation The Warren Parkbetween 1&3 Recreation The Warren Park2 Improvements Thirlmere (behind)4 Improvements Tulla Courtbetween 3&4 Community Water Hall development sitebetween 3&4 Devt. Options Water Hall development sitebetween 3&4 Improvements Water Hall development sitebetween 3&4 Recreation Water Hall development sitebetween 3&4 Community Water Hall Schoolbetween 3&4 Open Space Water Hall Schoolbetween 3&4 Open Space Water Hall School

between 3&4 Open Space Water Hall School

Suggestion No.Maintain walls 1Grant needed to improve our open space 1

More lighting - make it safer 1Better play equipment 2Space for children to play football 1Play space for older children / teenagers 1Vandalism problem at this play area 1Site for Petrol Station 1Site for family pub/restaurant 1Better play equipment 2Improve existing parking 1Improve lighting 1Play space for older children / teenagers 1Site for new housing 2

Improve footpaths 1Children and Young People's Centre 1

Safe play space for younger children needed here

1

Our back garden fence has been broken - needs new panels

1

Greater police/pcso presence 2Practical workshops - car repairs / DIY 1More newsletters / positive news 1Improvement of houses 1Remove garage blocks to create parking spaces

1

Improve existing parking spaces - people park everywhere - not enough garages or spaces

1

Improve footpaths 1Improve front garden boundary 1Improve lighting - all lights 1Around houses create planted areas to encourage wildlife

1

Better maintenance of green spaces 1Space for children to play football 2Children and Young People's Centre 1Improve lighting 1

Outdoor fitness trail 1

Activity club for children / teenagers 1

Better play equipment 1

Site for Supermarket 1Site for Petrol Station 1Site for Hotel 1Greater police/pcso presence 1Maintain walls 1Create a play street here 1

ULTSes

Date: 14.08.12

Remove shrubs because Council don't maintain them - thorn bushes

1

Play space for older children / teenagers 1Activity club for children / teenagers 1Better maintenance / repair of housing 1Improve lighting 1Better maintenance of green spaces 1Do up garages 1Improve parking - create more bays 1Tarmac between garages for more spaces 1

Signposting to local facilities and amenities

1

Greater police/pcso presence 3Children and Young People's Centre 1New shops here 2Need better shops 1Demolish and rebuild but look after those residents who live there now

1

Demolish and replace similar to how it is now

1

Ensure existing tenants of private landlords get opportunity to stay in new Serpentine Court

1

Rebuild and make it safer i.e. CCTV 1Bins get set on fire 1I don't feel safe here during the daytime 1Site for new housing 2Improve footpaths 1Improve lighting 1Better maintenance / repair of housing 1Better play equipment 1Site for new housing 1Re-landscape this area 1Shrubs along here need cutting back 1Fence this space in for football 1Create a Village Green here 1Site for family pub/restaurant 2Post box for Phase 4 1New homes (block alleys) 1Better maintenance of green spaces 1Places for ball games 1Greater police/pcso presence 1Create a public square 2Seating area wanted here 1Better play equipment 3Space for children to play football 1Activity club for children / teenagers 1Outdoor fitness trail 1Make existing play areas safe 1Space for children to play football 1Improve footpaths 2Create a play street here 1Children and Young People's Centre 1Site for new housing 2Create a play street here 1Activity club for children / teenagers 1Children and Young People's Centre 1Seating area wanted here 1Grass roofs on buildings 1

We've improved our open space with a small grant

1

Phase Issue Wheren/a Open Space Estate Wide

1 Community Sycamore Hall1 Community Sycamore Hall1 Development option Sycamore Hall1 Recreation Sycamore Hall1 Recreation Sycamore Hall

n/a Open Space Estate Widen/a Development option In wider Bletchley arean/a Improvements Estate Widen/a Improvements Estate Widen/a Community Estate Wide

3 Development option Grand Union Canal/Stoke Rd/DC3 Development option Dere Place/Lomand Drive3 safety Grand Union Canal/Stoke Rd/DC3 Improvements Dere Place 3 Improvements Dere Place

between 1 & 3 Improvements The Warren/Stoke Rd endbetween 1 & 3 Open Space The Warren/Stoke Rd end

1 Improvements Ennerdale Close2 Development option Doom Way/Tumell Way2 Improvements Tarbert Close2 Recreation Gary Close/ Doon Way2 Open Space Bala Close2 Recreation Bala Way play area2 Recreation Bala Way play area2 Open Space Maree Close2 Open Space Community Centre

n/a Open Space Estate Wide2 Improvements Community Centre2 Improvements Corin Close2 Open Space Corin Close5 Improvements Fern Grove/by S Court bus stop5 Improvements Fern Grove-Slope to S Court1 Open Space Leven Close1 Improvements Leven Close5 Development option Serpentine Court5 Development option Serpentine Court5 safety Serpentine Court5 safety Serpentine Court5 Development option Serpentine Court/Bramley Grange5 Development option Serpentine Court5 Community Serpentine Court5 Development option Serpentine Court/Bramley Grange

between 1 & 3 Improvements The Warren play areabetween 1 & 3 Recreation The Warren play areabetween 1 & 3 Open Space The Warren play area

3 Improvements Play area Gorman/Laidon3 Recreation Play area Gorman/Laidon3 Recreation Play area Gorman/Laidon3 Improvements Arrow Place3 Recreation Arrow Place

PLANNING FOR REAThe Lakes, Milto

Venue: Lakes Summer Scheme

1 Development option Windermere/Cullen Place corner4 Improvements Rimsdale Court4 Recreation Langdale Close5 Recreation Waterhall Development site4 Improvements Play area Skene4 Development option Park between Rutheven/Burnmore 4 Development option Park between Rutheven/Burnmore 4 Open Space Skene Close4 Recreation Play area Skene4 Development option Strangford Drive/Drayton Road railway side4 Improvements Fern Grove - Carron Court4 Recreation Fern Grove/Tulla Court car park

Suggestion No.Street flower beds and tubs 1Childrens and young people centre 3Practical workshop car repairs 2Youth music studio 1Activity clubs for teens 2Play space for older kids/teens 2Park -New 1Minor injuries/walk- in centre 1Provide dropped kerbs 2Improve footpaths 2Ensure facilities accessible 1Site for family pub/restaurant 3Site for petrol station 3I don’t feel safe at night 1Extend gardens for parking 1Designated parking bays for residents 1Improve footpaths 1Create a footpath here 1Stop pavement parking 1Site for new housing 1Provide dropped kerbs 2Space for kids to play football 1Area needs to be kept clean 1Safe space for younger children 1Use this space for informal play 1Street flower beds/ tubs wanted 1Skate park 1Improve front garden boundary 1Provide dropped kerbs 1Provide dropped kerbs 1Residents need help with lge van 1Provide dropped kerbs 1Improve footpaths 1Create a community garden 1Remove garage blocks for parking 1Youth Centre 1Site for family pub /restaurant 2I don’t feel safe at night 2I don’t feel safe during the day 1Site for supermarket 2Outside ATM machine 1Greater Police/PCSO presence needed 2Drop-in centre for drug users 1Improve footpaths 1Make existing play areas safe 1Better maintenance needed 1Improve footpaths 1Make existing play areas safe 1Safer space for younger children 1Designate parking spaces for residents 1Space required for children to play football 1

AL® RESULTSon Keynese session Date: 31/7/12

Site for new housing 1do-up/provide garages 1Youth shelter required 1Create an outdoor fitness trail 1Improve footpaths 1Site for new housing 3Site for new housing with local lettings agreement 2Flowering shrubs to be planted 1Safer space for younger children 1Site for family pub /restaurant 1Provide dropped kerbs 1Play space for older kids/teens 1


Section 4 - Big Ideas

Appendix4.1Wider Stakeholder Invite List

Wider Stakeholders Invites

Contact Company/organisationMs Navrita Atwal Milton Keynes Equality CouncilMr Richard Cutts MK MRFMr John Herrick MK Inland Waterways AssociationMr Mick Galey Anglian Water Services LtdDr Kathryn Davies English HeritageMr Simon Peart Milton Keynes CouncilMr Paul Sanders Milton Keynes CouncilMr Paul Gibson Milton Keynes CouncilMr Martin Dalby Aylesbury Vale District CouncilMr M Ellison Milton Keynes CouncilMr Kevin Townsend Central NetworksMr K Monkton Milton Keynes CouncilMr Jeremy Williams Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue ServiceMr Paul Neate West Bletchley CouncilMrs Delphine Wolfe The National Energy FoundationMr Richard Alden British Gas PropertiesMr Paul Maison British WaterwaysMr Phil Bowsher The Parks TrustMs Marie Kirbyshaw Milton Keynes CouncilMr Neil Sainsbury Milton Keynes CouncilMr S Greenish Bletchley Park TrustCllr Reg Edwards Milton Keynes CouncilCllr Alan Webb Milton Keynes CouncilCllr Peter Geary Milton Keynes CouncilDiane Webber Milton Keynes CouncilDebbie Kirk Milton Keynes CouncilAndy Dickinson Milton Keynes CouncilAndy Swannell Milton Keynes CouncilMartin Davies Milton Keynes CouncilJohn Bate Milton Keynes CouncilStewart Andrew Milton Keynes CouncilDerek Beaumont Milton Keynes CouncilDarren Gray Milton Keynes CouncilPhil Sears Milton Keynes CouncilPeter Smettem Milton Keynes CouncilKaren Barker Great Brickhill Parish CouncilAlan Kemp Little Brickhill Parish CouncilMrs J A Pickup Newton Longville Parish CouncilMr Andrew Armes CA:MK TrusteeRoxanne Minter MKC The Warren Childrens centre

Lloyds PharmacyStars News Shops LtdWalkers ChippyD E TurneyHappy ShopperChicken & Pizza PalaceImpress LtdLondon rpide Public HouseCrosslinks



Appendix4.2Comments from Design Workshops

Lakes Neighbourhood PlanYOUR FUTURE YOUR CHOICE

BIG IDEAA New Centre

A

New flats should be no higher than 3 storeys.

They could be a bit higher to show this is the centre of the Lakes

There should be a road through the middle to link the two halves of the estate.

No road. Children can now walk to school without crossing a road, we don’t want to lose that.

But children need to learn to cross roads safely.

Why not refurbish Serpentine Court?

But it would cost so much more to refurbish than replace it will never happen.

A pedestrianised square in the middle

We love Crosslinks, Spotlight and the Bakery. Please make sure there is space for them.


BIG IDEACommercial

Development

B

That might be true, but its up to the petrol station operators to decide if they can make a go of it. The neighbourhood plan only allows it to happen.

Aren’t there enough petrol stations in Fenny Stratford and Bletchley?

A family pub/restaurant in a nice location with a garden would be great for the Lakes.

A petrol station is a good way to get another small shop for those people who do not live near the centre of the Lakes to use.

To make improvements to the streets and houses of the Lakes we need to raise money by selling land. These would all be around the edge of the Lakes.

Why do we need this? What’s in it for Lakes people?

And commercial development could bring jobs and new facilities we could use.


BIG IDEANew housing

C

New homes should be houses or bungalows and be the right size for who is likely to move in.

How would the doctors and schools cope with more people?

We need to plan for any growth in population. But more people can mean that doctors, schools and shops don’t close and can get more staff and facilities.

New houses for sale would bring in a different mix of people and help change the image of the Lakes.

So would all this housing be for outsiders?

Houses for sale could be bought by Lakes people who want to move up in the world without moving away. There would be a proportion of social and affordable houses.

Many lakes green spaces have no purpose and are difficult to use.


BIG IDEAGreen space

D

What about a community garden and orchard?

Why do we have to lose any green space? It’s good for the environment and provides safe places for children to play.

We need some spaces for small children to play and some spaces for bigger children to have kick-abouts.

To make improvements to the streets and houses of the Lakes we need to raise money by selling land.

Green spaces could be designed for different uses. Landscape architects could improve the look of other areas and make them easier to maintain.

Even with some development the Lakes would still be a very green place.

New roads should connect directly to the streets rather than through long access roads.


BIG IDEABetter streets

E

We need to demolish the garages to create more space for paths, parking and plants.

If we get rid of the garages many Lakes streets are quite wide with plenty of room for road, parking, paths and green areas.

But I use my garage. Most of the garages in my street are kept it in good repair.

Houses should face the street.

The decision needs to be made street by street. If a majority of residents want it the garages should go.

The existing parking areas are dangerous in the dark.


BIG IDEAImproved parking

F

Where garages have been demolished in the past it has left parking areas with changes in levels and the remains of walls.

If we improve the streets as in Big Idea E will we still need these parking areas.

These areas should be designed so they look less like car parks, more like public spaces in which you are allowed to park.

Even if everyone can park in front of their house we will still need visitor parking.

Where people value this green space they should not lose it. This should only happen if both streets vote for it.


BIG IDEARear Parking

G

We saw this idea when we went to visit Telford. It seemed to work there giving people secure space to park at the back of their houses.

The back areas make our houses vulnerable to burglaries.

The areas between the backs of the houses are safe places for children to play. We should not take them away

I have never seen children playing in those spaces. There will still be safe green play space very close.

Children have cars outside their front doors. Now they would have them outside the back gate. There would be noise and pollution where they play.


BIG IDEAGet rid of the ‘ring road’

H

Wont these proposals make Drayton, Lomond and Stoke Road less safe if more cars are coming out onto them or people crossing them?

Cars drive fast because they think these streets are safe and that nobody will back out into them or cross them.

Don’t the pedestrian subways keep people safe.

Many people feel vulnerable in subways. They are dirty and subject to graffiti and other vandalism.

Don’t we need some fast roads so that cars and lorries can move quickly around Milton Keynes.

These are local roads not dual-carriageways. If drivers want fast roads round Milton Keynes there are plenty of alternatives.



Appendix4.3Comments from Drop-in Sessions

YES:- It would link up the 2 halves of

the estate and make it easier for drivers to get around.

- It would give access to emergency vehicles.

NO:- It would be dangerous for school

children to cross and create chaos like at Leon school.

- It would increase traffic from outside the estate by people cutting

through.

A Road through Serpentine Court?


YES:- The flats were supposed to be temporary and they are built badly, with single glazed windows

and it is too expensive to maintain.- The alleyways around SC are intimidating and

crime happens there. - The layout doesn’t work; some flats don’t have

balconies and the stairs are dangerous.- As long as the popular facilities and shops on

SC are replaced and still available

NO:- Fears around the process,

people losing property, money and getting smaller homes.

- Maintenance would make the homes on SC better places to

live.

New Development?

YES:- If it means getting more money for the

Lakes, then new development is welcomed.- Suggested ideas to redevelop the whole

estate welcomed as well as creating new spaces for development:

- WHERE? Water Hall field, opposite industrial site, edge of the Warren

playground.

NO:- The developers will build lots of houses in to small spaces and create bad

living conditions.

Neighbourhood Plan Report: Feedback from residents

This report represents a summary of the issues and ideas from approximately 30 residents that attended Neighbourhood Plan drop ins at Crosslinks in January 2013. We used data from the

questionnaire results to focus our conversations.

More facilities for young people?

YES:- Young people not having jobs/training or a

purpose. A building would help this, but will not happen soon so in the meantime there needs to be an increase in activity and projects for young

people using the buildings already there.- The parks on the estate are not age

appropriate. There could be new areas designed for older young people.

NO: - There are facilities already on the estate that could be better used, i.e. the Warren

Children’s Centre, the Community Centre, and the

parks.

Can we build on the Community Spirit?

YES:- By keeping Crosslinks and Spotlight, both

identified as community hubs.- By building on residents skills and interests and

showing that things are happening and changing.- By making/keeping it safe, with home

maintenance and development that does not compromise size of homes, people stay living on

the Lakes for longer, which builds community spirit.

NO:- People are kept happy if

promises are kept and action is seen.

Can maintenance issues be addressed?

YES:- Areas that are badly maintained need

to be highlighted in the NP- If maintenance was done regularly and

properly, there would be no need to redevelop areas, they could just be

improved.

NO:- Maintenance not being carried out

makes it feel like no one cares about the Lakes, especially when looking at

the dangerous paths. - There is no point trying to fix houses,

redevelopment is the answer.

YES: - It would make the bus

route quicker.

NO:- It would only be beneficial for people from outside the

estate to get through.- People love the safe walkways around the estate, and

they are used by everyone, and a road would go against this.

- A road would get rid of the safe, pedestrian centre within Serpentine Court, which people value.

- Noise of traffic would b greater for people living in the flats on Serpentine Court if there was a road.



YES:-If the option is to knock down or make small

improvements, then it is better to knock down, as the standard at the moment is so poor.

- The flats are built badly, with single glazed windows and it is too expensive to maintain.

-

NO:- If the option is knock down or

make small improvements, then some people would rather keep their homes and just have new,

double glazed windows.- Maintenance would make the

homes on SC better places to live.


This report represents a summary of the issues and ideas from approximately 40 residents that attended Neighbourhood Plan drop ins at Crosslinks in February 2013. We used the Big Ideas

produced for the January Workshop to focus our conversations.

What would a new Centre look like?

BIGGER:- The centre should be

expanded, with more shops and a chain supermarket.

- This would attract outside business, and make sure the quality of the food was good

and the price stayed low.

- Please keep Spotlight,

Crosslinks, the Pharmacist, the Post

Office, the Bakery and some kind of

grocery shop.- Pedestrianised.

SAME SIZE:- The new centre should be the

same size, with about 10 shops. Most people do their weekly

shopping at Bletchley and that wouldn’t change. Serpentine Court is used for small bits of

shopping in the week.- A local fruit and veg shop and

butchers would be useful

Do you want to get rid of the garages to improve the look of the streets?

YES:- Garages are rarely used to store cars, so

cars park all over the street. If they were knocked down, then there would be more

space for cars to park safely.- Garages are ugly, and they block light form

the front of the houses and make the street look unattractive.

- No one owns their garages, so they don’t really have a say in what happens to them.

NO: - They are used as storage, which is very useful as not

many of the houses are built with much storage space. Where would people store

their stuff?

A new commercial development?

YES:- A family friendly pub or restaurant

would be good as it would not only bring in new people, but also, act as a

hub for families on the lakes.- A development would only work if it

was on the outskirts of the estate, not in the middle, where Serpentine Court

NO:- If a petrol station on the estate was open

all hours, it would attract bad behaviour at night time and not be safe.

- The lakes has such a bad reputation that no one would want to come here

and use a hotel or restaurant.- There is already a pub on the estate and

it is hardly used, and its not a nice place to go.

YES:- Allocated parking would work in several

areas, as some streets get overly busy and people park dangerously.

- Some of the car parking ground is unmaintained, unattractive and dangerous

so improvements would look good.- As long as it doesn’t go behind our

houses and replaces green space.

NO:- There is enough parking spaces at the moment and we value our green space so we don’t want our green

space turning in to car parks.

New Car Parking areas?

YES:A high number of people expressed a

need for improved street lighting:Current lighting is either non existent,

broken, or not in appropriate places, so there are ‘black spots’. Streets that are not well lit increase peoples fear of crime and make them feel unsafe. Some residents

have issues walking from their car to their home at night due to bad lighting.

NO:People who said they did not think improving street lighting was a priority, said they do not

go out at night, and drive around the estate.

Improve Street Lighting?


YES:There are safety issues, with fear of crime and gangs, perpetuated by alleyways, which are

intimidating and not well lit. Living on SC affects peoples pride; they don’t want their friends/family visiting as they are embarrassed by the state of the buildings.

SC viewed as heart of the estate so if it looks good, people feel good.

NO:Fears around knocking it down

raised questions like: Would it mean loss of community

hubs like Crosslinks and Spotlight?

New Development?

YES:People understand that new

development is necessary to fund improvements called for.

Types of new developments that are popular include shops, petrol

station, and limited number of homes.

NO:Worries around the number of

houses that might be built and the strain that could have on community

facilities. i.e. schools, doctors. New homes being built may reduce

green space and change appearance of streets.


This report represents a summary of the issues and ideas from approximately 200 residents that attended Neighbourhood Plan events and drop ins in March and April 2013. We used data from

the questionnaire results to focus our conversations.

New development: Tescos? Petrol Station?

YES:People see it as a way to bring in money, and

as useful for local drivers.

A Tescos on the estate is seen as needed as current provision is in Bletchley and people are not happy with price or quality of Best

One and Happy Shopper.

NO: Local shops such as

butchers or a greengrocers would be

good.

Improvements to Play Areas?

YES:The parks are not suitable for all

children as the play equipment is age specific. The play areas are damaged,

broken.More parents would like to see

changes.

NO:There are plenty of areas and kids

will play anywhere.As long as I can see them, I’m happy for them to play outside.More children are happy with

current provision


YES:It will mean quicker bus

routes and easier for people who have a car.

NO:It will make it more difficult for pedestrians to

cross from school to school. It won’t make access easier to anything

because most people walk around the estate.It will be dangerous to have shops right by a

road.



Appendix4.4Neighbourhood Plan Key Themes


Section 5 - Exhibition of Preferred Options

Appendix5.1Advertisements of

Consultation Events

THE LAKES NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

YOUR FUTURE YOUR CHOICEREMEMBER NO NEW DEVELOPMENT = NO IMPROVEMENTS

We are pleased to share with you some possible development

n.

For further details please contact Barbara Sullivan on 01908 633781. Email: [email protected]



Appendix5.2Exhibition Materials

3A/B

Blue Lagoon

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road

Design Approach

Lakes EstateNeighbourhood Plan

Existing Housing Areas

Improve Road/ Path Connections

Potential Development Sites

Creating a New Heart

Improving the Appearance

General points to consider

Location Plan

N

1A 1B

1C

5

2A2B

4

STOK

E ROA

D

P

WINDERMERE DRIVE

P

P

P

P

DR

AYTO

N ROAD

STO

KE R

OA

D

BA

LA W

AYP

PP

P

P

P

DO

ON

WAY

NEW CONNECTION TO

BLUE LAGOON

PP

P

PP

P

P

N

N

N

P

P

New housing

New road

Existing road

Footpath

Improved planting

New parking

Existing parking

Shared surface to slow cars

Blue Lagoon

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road

1A 1B

1C

Example of shared surface

1Lakes EstateNeighbourhood Plan

Option 1A

Option 1C

Option 1B


P

P

P

ME

LFO

RT

DR

IVE

LOMOND DRIVE

EMPINGHAM CLOSE

SCHOOL

SH

EE

LIN

GR

OV

E

N

PLAY

PLAY*

*

P

P

P

P

P

P

BURNMOOR CLOSE

LANGDALE CLOSEAT

CYCLE AT

LOMOND DRIVE

N

P

P

New housing

New road

Existing road

Footpath

Improved planting

Existing open space

New parking

Existing parking

Skene play area to be improved

Blue Lagoon

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road

2A2B

Option 2A

Option 2B

ME

LFO

RT

DR

IVE


Option 3A

Option 3B

Windermere Drive

Windermere Drive

Windermere Drive

Windermere Drive

Phe

lps

Phe

lps

STO

KE

RO

AD

STO

KE

RO

AD

Pond

Pub

Path

New canalside path to allotments bridge

Path

P

P

P

P

New Path GR

AN

D U

NIO

N C

ANAL

EX

IST

ING

LINEA

R PARK

EX

IST

ING

LINE

AR

PARK

GR

AN

D U

NIO

N C

AN

AL

N

N

P

Existing utility services under current road

Remove hedge for views of canal

New housing

New Alignment of Stoke Road

Existing road

Footpath

New park

Parking


3A/B

Blue Lagoon

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road


N

ACCESS TO PARK

PLAY AREA

HEALTH CENTRE

WATER HALL CARE

CENTRE

WIN

DE

RM

ER

E DR

IVE

WINDERMERE DRIVE

WINDERMERE DRIVE

New housing

New road between Fern Grove and Windermere Drive

Existing footpath between Water Hall and Drayton Park School

New public square with shops and community building

Existing road


New housing onto public square

Blue Lagoon

WATER HALL CARE

CENTRE

HEALTH CENTRE

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road

4

Example of how Serpentine Court could be redeveloped

Shops with

Community building

Houses with gardens

Flats

Flats over garages

Shared surface

Option 4

5P

LAY

PLAY

PLAY

PLAY

PLAY

P

P

P

P

P

P

PP

P

PP

P

P

P

PP

P

P

P

P

PP

P

PLAY

PLAY

N

Option to remove garages to allow people to park in front of their home

P

P

Existing road

Footpath

Existing open space

New parking away from main play areas and nearer to peoples homes

Existing parking

Blue Lagoon

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road

5


Example of parking options



Appendix5.3Analysis of Feedback Forms

Anal

ysis

of C

onsu

ltatio

n of

Dev

elop

men

t Opt

ions

Que

stio

nnai

re fe

edba

ckYe

s N

oDo

n’t k

now

Tota

l01

-Oct

02-O

ct07

/10

am07

/10

pm08

-Oct

Que

stio

nnai

res c

ompl

eted

5812

1415

611

Que

stio

n 1

Deve

lopm

ent a

rea

optio

nsO

ptio

n 1

a28

45

3710

77

211

Opt

ion

1b24

74

359

67

211

Opt

ion

1c27

23

328

65

211

Opt

ion

2a27

15

338

66

211

Opt

ion

2b24

44

328

65

211

Opt

ion

3a26

54

357

611

29

Opt

ion

3b21

66

338

66

211

Opt

ion

430

44

387

68

611

Opt

ion

517

511

338

66

211

Que

stio

n 2

Hous

ing

Exist

ing

Char

acte

r33

143

5012

913

511

Ove

rlook

foot

path

s and

ope

n sp

ace

426

351

139

135

11O

verlo

ok P

arki

ng38

66

5012

913

511

Mor

e fa

mily

hom

es47

23

5212

1013

611

Mor

e bu

ngal

ows

444

250

129

136

10N

ew h

ousin

g m

axim

ises s

unlig

ht46

13

5013

812

611

Que

stio

n 3

Park

ing

New

Roa

ds41

65

5213

1012

611

lose

som

e op

en sp

ace

to p

arki

ng35

87

5012

813

611

Gara

ges r

emov

ed35

98

5212

914

611

Que

stio

n 4

Foot

path

s

Even

t dat

e to

tal

foot

path

s cro

ssin

g ro

ads

481

251

129

145

11Im

prov

e lig

htin

g on

mai

n di

agon

al p

aths

461

249

1010

126

11

Que

stio

n 5

Ope

n Sp

ace

and

land

scap

ing

Deve

lopm

ents

look

at w

ays o

f im

prov

ing

open

spac

e43

23

4810

811

611

How

cou

ld th

e ar

ea o

f ope

n sp

ace

at T

he W

arre

n be

impr

oved

Mor

e ch

ildre

n's p

lay

435

553

910

156

11Ad

d sp

orts

pitc

hes

436

352

810

156

11ad

d po

nd/la

ke32

193

5411

1113

611

add

mul

ti us

e ga

mes

are

a44

33

5010

914

511

seat

ing

area

s49

21

5210

1311

611

mor

e pl

antin

g33

155

5310

914

511

CAYA

C bu

ildin

g34

143

5111

1314

211

Add

a ne

w fo

otpa

th li

nkin

g th

e es

tate

to th

e ca

nal

361

542

78

115

11

Que

stio

n 6

A ne

w h

eart

for t

he la

kes E

stat

eHo

uses

shou

ld b

e no

hig

her t

han

4 st

orey

s48

53

5612

1315

511

Wel

l des

igne

d fla

ts a

t the

end

of b

lock

s50

41

5512

1314

511

A ne

w p

ublic

squa

re48

25

5512

1512

511

A ne

w c

omm

unity

bui

ldin

g an

d ga

rden

453

654

1213

135

11N

ew w

ell d

esig

ned

road

s with

safe

cr

ossin

g po

ints

3915

357

1214

146

11Th

e ex

istin

g tr

ee li

ned

foot

path

reta

ined

522

256

1213

146

11

Que

stio

n 7

A ne

w g

atew

ay fr

om S

toke

Roa

dIm

prov

ed e

ntra

nce

to th

e es

tate

413

1054

1014

145

11Re

mov

e th

e he

dge

to th

e ca

nal

369

954

1113

154

11M

ove

Stok

e ro

ad42

38

5310

1415

59

Com

men

ts re

ceiv

ed o

n ea

ch q

uest

ion

Even

t Q

uest

ion

1Q

uest

ion

2Q

uest

ion

3Q

uest

ion

4Q

uest

ion

5Q

uest

ion

6Q

uest

ion

701

-Oct

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tPl

ease

d w

ith th

e ne

w d

esig

n of

Se

r pen

tine

Cour

tN

o Co

mm

ent

01-O

ctKe

ep th

e no

road

s thr

ough

the

esta

teN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o ro

ads g

oing

acr

oss a

t the

mom

ent.

The

re is

no

road

so sa

fer f

or c

hild

ren

No

Com

men

t

01-O

ctBl

ue la

goon

goo

d. N

o to

cro

ss o

ver o

n 1a

. N

ew c

ross

ove

r for

car

s but

thou

ght o

n en

terin

g bl

ue la

goon

opt

ion

4. n

o ro

ads a

s to

chi

ldre

n's w

alkw

ays s

houl

d be

a sa

fe

plac

e w

ith n

o ca

rs.

Take

out

som

e of

the

tree

s fro

m

Serp

entin

e Co

urt t

o ad

d lig

ht to

the

new

ho

mes

.

new

road

s cou

ld b

e do

ne if

they

are

not

in fr

ont o

f sch

ools.

Path

way

s nee

d to

be

look

ed a

t as m

any

of th

em a

re in

bad

shap

e. L

ight

ing

coul

d be

m

ade

bett

er.

The

cana

l is a

goo

d pl

ace

for a

ll in

the

sum

mer

, but

no

light

ing.

All f

lats

shou

ld b

e of

bet

ter d

esig

n.

The

new

shop

s cou

ld b

e la

id o

ut in

a w

ay th

at

they

wou

ld b

e ca

lled

the

4 po

ints

4 w

ays i

n an

d ou

t.

Mov

ing

the

road

, Sto

ke ro

ad w

ould

in a

w

ay sl

ow d

own

cars

as i

t is a

fast

road

at t

he

mo.

01-O

ctN

o co

mm

ent

Less

tree

s aro

und

hous

es, s

epar

ate

area

fo

r woo

ds a

nd p

arks

No

repa

irs o

n fo

otpa

ths

keep

tree

s a g

ood

dist

ance

from

fo

otpa

ths

No

com

men

tN

o gr

owin

g pl

ants

invo

lved

(the

y gr

ow fa

st

unde

rmin

ing

and

cove

ring

path

s bui

ldin

gs)

Bew

are

flood

ing

haza

rds,

chi

ldre

n un

atte

nded

tem

ptat

ions

(dro

wni

ng)

01-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

Som

e of

them

are

in a

terr

ible

con

ditio

n (fo

otpa

ths)

No

Com

men

tI r

ealis

e th

ere

coul

d be

way

s of g

ettin

g em

erge

ncy

vehi

cles

thro

ugh.

No

Com

men

t

02-O

ct1d

. No

encr

oach

men

t ont

o ce

ntra

l gre

en

area

iden

tifie

d to

rem

ain

as re

crea

tion.

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

Road

shou

ld n

ot c

ross

foot

path

s.N

o Co

mm

ent

Hous

ing,

rath

er th

an h

ouse

s. T

he p

ublic

sq

uare

shou

ld b

e in

the

cent

re, s

o its

visi

ble

No

Com

men

t

02-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

New

one

s ple

ase.

No

Com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

t

02-O

ct1a

. Roa

dway

and

acc

ess,

new

par

king

al

read

y ex

ists.

1b.

Tak

ing

away

recr

eatio

ns

area

. 1c

. No

reas

on fo

r par

king

. 2a.

Mel

fort

Dr

ive

cann

ot c

ope

with

traf

fic. 2

b. E

ven

mor

e tr

affic

on

Mel

fort

Driv

e.

Wha

t ope

n sp

ace?

Whe

re d

o th

e ne

w h

ouse

s go?

Exist

ing

hous

ing

have

no

loft

s mos

t gar

ages

ar

e us

ed fo

r sto

rage

.

Bett

er m

aint

enan

ceCA

YAC

circ

led,

Whe

re?

(For

the

new

fo

otpa

th),

Deve

lopm

ents

are

on

the

exist

ing

open

spac

e!

(mor

e ca

rs a

t end

of r

oad)

Hous

es h

ighe

r tha

n 4

stor

eys a

re fl

ats

Not

nec

essa

ry

02-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tto

mak

e a

fishi

ng p

lace

.N

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

t

02-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tm

ore

fishi

ng la

kes

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

02-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tTh

e ca

nals

fine

02-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

Don'

t kno

wN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

t N

o co

mm

ent

02-O

ctO

ptio

n 4

? Pa

th/r

oad

thro

ugh.

No

Com

men

tN

ot A

llen

Clos

e or

Enn

el G

rove

All n

eed

repa

ir.N

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

07/1

0am

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tAl

l foo

tpat

hs/r

edw

ays a

re in

a te

rrib

le

cond

ition

at p

rese

nt.

I thi

nk th

ere

is qu

ite a

lot a

lread

y bu

t th

ere

is a

huge

litt

er p

robl

em. (

open

sp

ace/

play

equ

ipm

ent)

Focu

s on

the

hear

t, no

t Sto

ke R

oad

leav

e he

dges

and

tree

s alo

ne a

s muc

h as

po

ssib

le.

07/1

0am

Live

on

nevi

s, li

ke th

e id

ea o

f rem

ovin

g ga

rage

s and

new

par

king

No

Com

men

tN

eed

drop

ped

kerb

s and

flat

surf

aces

for

mob

ility

scoo

ter,

yello

w li

ghts

mak

e it

dark

.N

o co

mm

ent

No

road

thro

ugh

the

mid

dle

Incl

ude

hous

ing

and

fam

ily p

ub/r

esta

uran

t -

No

foot

ball

with

bee

r gar

den.

07/1

0am

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

Tree

s obs

cure

ligh

ting

need

s to

be

addr

esse

dTh

e sh

oppi

ng a

rea/

is a

real

ly g

ood

idea

.N

o co

mm

ent

07/1

0am

1b. U

naw

are

of st

reet

s inv

olve

d.

No

2. P

lay

area

s ess

entia

l. N

o 3

mix

of t

he

two

(see

Q7

com

men

ts).

No

4 =

no ro

ads,

ye

s to

com

mun

ity a

reas

.

Onl

y pl

ace

new

hou

sing

for t

hose

re

loca

ting

from

Ser

pent

ine

Cour

t. N

o ov

ersp

ill.

Less

gar

ages

, but

tena

nts/

owne

rs p

ay

rent

for a

lloca

ted

park

ing

plac

es.

Ligh

ting

issue

s are

cur

rent

. Dra

yton

Roa

d bu

s sto

p to

Gra

smer

e, to

Ryd

al/E

nner

dale

pa

rk/p

lay

area

onl

y on

e lig

ht w

orki

ng.

No

poin

t in

pond

s/la

kes w

hen

live

near

Bl

ue la

goon

and

the

cana

l.Co

mm

unity

is v

ery

impo

rtan

t.

All f

ootp

aths

cou

ld b

e im

prov

ed.

Pub

idea

ver

y go

od i.

e.: l

ike

Pear

tree

Br

idge

. So

me

flats

in a

rea

be g

ood

to o

. No

over

spill

!

07/1

0am

Mor

e ho

uses

Mor

e tw

o be

d bu

ngal

ows

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tM

ore

seat

mor

e to

ilets

No

com

men

t

07/1

0am

No

Com

men

tHo

usin

g sh

ould

n’t l

ook

over

foot

path

s an

d w

e ne

ed 3

bed

bun

galo

ws.

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

A m

ixtu

re o

f hou

ses a

nd fa

mily

pub

/res

taur

ant

07/1

0am

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

Yout

h at

tend

ing

club

s/pa

rk n

ot re

siden

ts o

f La

kes E

stat

e.W

e lik

e th

e id

eas f

or S

erpe

ntin

e Co

urt.

No

Com

men

t

07/1

0am

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tVe

ry p

leas

ed w

ith n

ew p

lan

for

Serp

entin

e Co

urt

No

Com

men

t

07/1

0am

No

Pond

No

Com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

07/1

0am

Dog

wal

kers

/disa

bled

No

Com

men

tEl

ectr

ic w

heel

chai

r acc

ess n

eede

d fo

r fis

herm

en a

t the

can

al.

No

Com

men

tal

loca

tion

of b

unga

low

s to

disa

bled

and

no

n di

sabl

ed.

Disa

bled

par

king

, CCT

V, p

riorit

y pa

rkin

g fo

r di

sabl

ed, a

dd n

umbe

rs.

Lipp

ed c

ross

ings

for d

isabl

ed/p

ram

s.

07/1

0am

3a a

nd 3

b. A

mix

ture

of b

oth.

Char

acte

r - si

mila

r hei

ght,

but n

ot th

e sa

me

desig

n, m

ax su

nlig

ht, n

ot fl

oor t

o ce

iling

win

dow

s to

cost

ly fo

r cur

tain

s and

m

akes

room

s hot

.

Wou

ld b

e O

K w

ith a

lloca

ted

park

ing

but

not a

free

for a

ll co

uld

caus

e ne

ighb

our

disp

utes

.

Ligh

ting

need

s im

prov

ing

all o

ver.

All t

he a

bove

but

som

e w

ould

dep

end

on

how

muc

h of

the

land

is d

evel

oped

.Ca

n se

e ho

w a

com

mun

ity b

uild

ing

will

gel

th

e co

mm

. but

wha

t hap

pens

to th

e ol

d on

e?

Child

ren

and

yout

h bu

ildin

g ne

eded

.

No

com

men

t

07/1

0am

No

com

men

tca

rpor

ts n

eed

to b

e bo

llard

to m

ake

sure

resid

ents

fenc

es a

ren'

t bro

ken

All p

aths

leve

lled

and

wid

ened

for e

asie

r ac

cess

for d

isabl

ed p

eopl

e in

cha

rs a

nd

mob

ility

scoo

ters

.

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

07/1

0pm

No

Com

men

tGe

t rid

of t

he p

igeo

nsN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tFa

mily

pub

, no

foot

ball.

M

ixtu

re o

f hou

sing

pub/

rest

aura

nt07

/10p

mN

eed

to k

eep

pede

stria

n ro

ute

thro

ugh

the

cent

re o

f est

ate.

If n

ew ro

ads c

ross

, th

en su

ffici

ent t

raffi

c ca

lmin

g/ro

ad sa

fety

ne

eds t

o be

con

sider

ed.

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

flats

shou

ld b

e no

hig

her t

han

3 st

orey

sN

o Co

mm

ent

07/1

0pm

Wou

ld li

ke b

ig ro

oms f

or 1

bed

flat

s and

w

alk-

in sh

ower

s. C

onsid

er d

isabl

ed p

eopl

es

need

s. W

ould

n't l

ike

a be

dsit

- pre

fer

sepa

rate

room

s.

Bung

alow

s to

be a

lloca

ted

to p

eopl

e w

ho

need

it.

Fam

ily h

omes

and

sing

le d

wel

ling

to

be p

ropo

rtio

ned

corr

ectly

.

Bett

er li

ghtin

g in

par

king

are

as. B

ad w

eath

er

cond

ition

s nee

d to

be

iden

tifie

d ar

ound

pa

rked

veh

icle

s.

Cons

ider

leve

l cro

ssin

gs/t

raffi

c lig

hts n

ear

to sc

hool

s.N

o co

mm

ent

need

to c

onsid

er a

ll re

siden

tsN

o co

mm

ent

08-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tYe

s to

CAYA

C no

to b

eing

bui

lt on

th

e W

arre

nW

e ne

ed a

Tes

co o

n th

e es

tate

No

Com

men

t

08-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

Som

e pe

ople

hav

e da

ylig

ht a

llerg

ies

Allo

cate

Par

king

Add

drop

ped

kerb

s for

mob

ility

scoo

ters

, w

heel

chai

rs a

nd p

ram

sYe

s to

a ne

w y

outh

clu

b, b

ut n

ot b

uilt

on th

e W

arre

nN

o to

road

, but

yes

to e

mer

genc

y c

ross

ing

poin

ts

Wou

ld li

ke a

mix

ture

of h

ouse

s and

the

pub.

08-O

ctDo

n’t d

o th

e po

nd

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

08-O

ctN

o Co

mm

ent

Mod

erni

sed

hous

ing

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

tN

o Co

mm

ent

No

Com

men

t

Post it Note Comments

1. Pathways un-usable for residents in mobility scooters or with disabilities paths need to be re-filled. Strangford road - more paths needed to connect to all areas and bollards removed to allow access to paths for prams and mobility scooters.

2. Wet rooms for disabled residents

3. Ramps and slopes from car parks and bungalows allocated disabled places numbers for disabled bungalows. Bungalow doors should be wider for disabled people, bungalows need to be suitably adjusted for wheelchair users.

4. Childrens play areas - playing behind disabled housing.

5. Road between Spotlight and Leon school is very difficult to use for those with mobility issues. Path ways need to be levelled for disabled, slabs need to be levelled paths need to be wider for non-road mobility scooters.

6. Roads and paths are dangerous for disabled residents and children. More street lamps for alley ways.

7. Car parks need widening and painting for disabled people. Need disabled parking spaces need to be painted out for better access.

8. I think that the plan is great but you could put built in trampolines at the Warren and a proper football pitch.

9. I think the plan is OK. What will happen to all of the scrap and rubbish of the Serpentine Court?

10. Bala Way park needs monkey bars and more play equipment.

11.Bala Way park needs a baby climbing frame.

12. Built in trampolines at the Warren Park.

13. There needs to be a football field at the Bala Way park.

Comments book responses

1. Newton Leys resident, Serpentine Court, Plans for shopping precinct would be beneficial to you as a NL resident as this is the nearest place to shop (before Bletchley or CMK). Thumbs up for new development.

2.Mr Frost: Paving on pedestrian walkways are broken by vehicles driving over them. Under the paving slabs is a tunnel 9ditch) with all the services running through - water, sewage, electric, gas, telephone and television coaxial cable - for easy repair access. Bollards to stop vehicular access are still in place (at a great expense) nearly 400 bollards, some trees have been removed to allow some vehicles to by pass the bollards, nullifying them. The lamp post lighting the estate many have had trees planted around the lighting shielding the light from the paths and alleyways. either the trees or the lighting are wrongly sited. Many trees were small when planted, now they are massive, as much underground as overhead, the roots are damaging buildings and paths throughout the estate. Serpentine Court needs clarification of address for delivery vehicles, fire engines, police, ambulance and visitors to the estate, emergency vehicles attending find they are needed on the Fern Grove side or Windermere side. Hydrants need yellow identification paint on the lid to deter vehicles parking on them, blocking use in emergencies. Many trees need pollarding to restrict their height, controlling growth developing underground and thickness moving anything in their path.

3. Serpentine Court, Flats, not to high (3/4). Not opposed to flats, (bungalows yes) Blocks 50m x 60m, good to have walkway, but road calming/maybe traffic calming.

4. 1. Park near to Fern Grove. 2. Pub near Lakes Estate with a park. 3. Hunter Drive sort it out at the park near Hunter Drive have monkey bars and big swings.

5. I think it is a really good idea, but for the parks you could put in some baby younger climbing frames and smaller slides.

6. I think there should be more swings and more slides. Also a climbing frame to climb on. However a football pitch and basket ball pitch we hope for. Thank you reading hope you like the ideas.

7. I think that it is a good idea to make the lakes Estate a better place. I think that we should put 'things' and fish in the pond but that I think is a good idea to change the Lakes Estate.

8. I think that the parks can be improved by getting some new things like a big climbing frame and smaller slides and a new zip line that does not break. Its spoiled people don't break it.

9. Bala Way park should have lots of things like a little slide for little children. Big children should have monkey bars, gymnastics stuff and basket swings.

Com

men

ts fr

om P

HSE

less

on a

t Sir

Herb

ert L

eon

Acad

emy.

Sir H

erbe

rt L

eon

Acad

emy

PHSE

less

on

Que

stio

n 1

Wha

t do

you

unde

rsta

nd a

bout

N

eigh

bour

hood

Pla

ns

Que

stio

n 2

Do y

ou k

now

the

Lake

s is i

n th

e m

iddl

es o

f a

Nei

ghbo

urho

od P

lan

Que

stio

n 3

Wer

e yo

u in

volv

ed in

any

of t

he

neig

hbou

rhoo

d Pl

an e

vent

s?Q

uest

ion

4aAr

e th

ese

draw

ings

eas

y to

und

erst

and

Que

stio

n 4b

Wha

t do

you

thin

k of

the

idea

s?

Que

stio

n 4c

Wha

t cha

nges

wou

ld m

ake

the

optio

ns b

ette

r?

Que

stio

n 4d

Wha

t are

the

mos

t im

port

ant

elem

ents

?M

ake

the

Lake

s Bet

ter

yes I

do

Que

stio

nnai

re a

nd S

umm

er S

chem

eYe

sTh

ey a

re g

ood

Mig

ht b

e sa

fer

slabs

No

com

men

tno

com

men

tQ

uest

ionn

aire

N

oth

ey a

re g

ood

idea

s and

I th

ink

it w

ould

be

good

to c

hang

e.N

o co

mm

ent

The

flats

, bui

ld re

hab

bloc

ks

mak

e it

mor

e sa

fe (s

ecur

ity

That

it is

a p

lan

to re

furb

ish th

e La

kes,

to re

deve

lop.

Yes

Que

stio

nnai

re

They

are

not

eas

y to

und

erst

and

whe

n ex

plai

ned

it m

akes

sens

e, b

ut it

s ha

rd to

get

a se

nse

of d

irect

ion.

I din

t thi

nk th

e ca

r par

ks a

re a

go

od id

ea, a

s som

e pe

ople

pre

fer t

o ke

ep th

eir c

ars i

n ga

rage

s bec

ause

th

ey li

ke to

take

car

e of

them

. O

pen

car p

arks

may

be

a go

od id

ea, b

ut it

w

ould

be

bett

er to

hav

e so

me

sort

of

secu

rity.

Bett

er fo

rms o

f sec

urity

, it w

ould

m

ake

the

resid

ents

feel

safe

r.

new

er h

omes

, sho

ps to

be

refu

rbish

ed, p

arts

to b

e up

date

d/re

deve

lope

d.

No

com

men

tno

com

men

tQ

uest

ionn

aire

and

Sum

mer

Sch

eme

Yes

Onl

y lo

oked

at S

erpe

ntin

e Co

urt

but I

thin

k th

e ch

ange

s are

goo

d an

d Pa

rliam

ent s

houl

d go

alo

ng w

ith it

.N

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

t

I lik

e th

e ne

w p

lans

, I th

ink

it w

ill

mak

e a

chan

ge.

Yes

Que

stio

nnai

re a

nd P

lann

ing

for R

eal

No,

I th

ink

they

are

ver

y di

fficu

lt to

und

erst

and.

I lik

e th

e id

eas b

ecau

se it

mak

es a

ch

ange

and

Lak

es E

stat

e ne

eds a

ch

ange

. I a

lso th

ink

behi

nd K

inlo

ck

ther

e is

a pl

ain

field

so I

thin

k th

ey

shou

ld p

ut g

oal p

osts

ther

e.

We

coul

d pu

t goa

l pos

ts to

mak

e it

bett

er fo

r peo

ple

who

like

foot

ball.

Ge

t rid

of s

ome

of th

e tr

ees a

t rec

.W

hat I

und

erst

and

abou

t the

N

eigh

bour

hood

Pla

n is

that

goo

d pl

ans

bein

g m

ade

and

esta

tes a

re b

eing

hel

ped

in a

pos

itive

way

.Ye

sEa

ster

Ext

rava

ganz

aPa

rtly

The

idea

s are

pro

duct

ive

yet

reas

onab

le.

The

idea

s are

also

re

leva

nt.

Bett

er su

gges

tions

No

com

men

t

The

plan

s are

goo

d an

d ar

e im

prov

ing

a lo

t of f

aults

on

the

esta

teYe

sQ

uest

ionn

aire

yes t

hey

are

They

are

pre

tty

good

.M

ore

optio

ns fo

r rec

reat

ion.

The

park

for f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

That

it w

ill m

ake

refo

rms

Yes

Que

stio

nnai

reYe

sN

othi

ngLe

ss p

arki

ng a

nd m

ore

drin

king

foun

tain

s.Ro

ads,

hig

hway

s and

par

ks

I lik

e th

e ch

ange

s but

ther

e ar

e a

few

th

ings

that

don

’t ne

ed to

cha

nge.

no c

omm

ent

Que

stio

nnai

re a

nd P

lann

ing

for R

eal

No

com

men

tN

o co

mm

ent

No

com

men

tM

ove

the

shop

s mor

e in

to th

e m

iddl

e of

the

lake

s.Th

at th

ey a

re p

lann

ing

to k

nock

dow

n th

e bu

ildin

gs a

roun

d Se

rpen

tine

Cour

t and

ch

ange

the

layo

ut to

mak

e it

bett

er p

lace

to

go.

Yes

No

Yes

They

are

goo

dTo

get

rid

of th

e un

derp

ass a

nd

Happ

y sh

oppe

r.Th

e ho

uses

and

the

bit b

y th

e sh

ops.

Attendees at events

Event30th September, Sir Herbert Leon Academy13 young people from Sir Herbert Leon Academy from year 10 (15-16 years).8 girls 5 boys

1st October, Water Hall school, community spaceOpen session5 men and 12 women age range 19-851 business from Serpentine CourtResulted in 12 questionnaires completed.

2nd October, Spotlight3 Women 2 men, 9 young people from youth club.ages of adults 50 -70ages of young people 14-19Resulted in 14 questionnaires

7th October, CrosslinksOpen session for residents ages range 19-8515 men 23 women Resulted in 15 questionnaires.

7th October, Spotlight Serpentine Court Residents age range 19 - 645 men and 7 women and 1 child.1 business from Serpentine CourtResulted in 6 questionnaires

8th October, Lakes Community CentreOpen sessions for residents4 men, 6 women and 9 young peopleage range of adults 19 40Age range of young people 8-12Resulted in 11 questionnaires


Section 6 - Statutory Consultation

Appendix6.1Consultation Draft Neighbourhood

Development Plan

1THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Consultation Draft THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Prepared by

David Lock Associates Limitedin conjunction with

Integrated Transport Planning Limited

on behalf of

Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council

November 2013

Consultation Draft

D

In

Bletchle

2 Consultation Draft NOVEMBER 2013

Acknowledgments

[ to complete In alphabetical order ]

Figures

Figure 1.1 Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Area 8Figure 2.1 Location Plan 13Figure 2.2 Housing Density 15Figure 2.3 Population Density 17Figure 2.4 Economic Activity 19Figure 2.5 Car Ownership 21Figure 4.1 Vision for the Lakes Estate 31Figure 5.1 Key Pedestrian and Landscape Connections 37Figure 5.2 Designated Areas of Local Green Space 41Figure 6.2 DS1 - Land south of Water Hall School - Site Boundary 49Figure 6.3 DS1 - Land south of Water Hall School 49Figure 6.4 DS2 - Triangle Land south of Phelps Street adjacent to the canal - Site Boundary 51Figure 6.5 DS2 - Triangle Land south of Phelps Street adjacent to the canal 51Figure 6.6 IN1 - North-western verge, Drayton Road - Site Boundary 53Figure 6.7 IN1 - North-western verge, Drayton Road 53Figure 6.8 IN2 - Land at Northern Windermere Drive - Site Boundary 55Figure 6.9 IN2 - Land at Northern Windermere Drive 55Figure 6.10 IN3 - Land at Southern Windermere Drive - Site Boundary 57Figure 6.11 IN3 -Land at Southern Windermere Drive 57Figure 6.12 IN4 - Land at Skene Open Space - Site Boundary 59Figure 6.13 IN4 -Land at Skene Open Space 59Figure 6.14 SC1 - Serpentine Court - Site Boundary 61Figure 6.15 SC1 - Serpentine Court 63Figure 6.16 CG1 - Canal Gateway - Site Boundary 64Figure 6.17 CG1 - Canal Gateway 65Figure 7.1 Policy Phasing and Delivery 69

3THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Consultation Draft

Section 1: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan 5

Section 2: The Lakes Estate: Location and Character 11

Section 3: Identification of Issues 23

Section 4: Vision and Objectives 29

Section 5: Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan General Policies 33 Policy LENP1 - The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy LENP2 - Development Opportunity Sites Policy LENP3 - The Physical Integration of New Development Policy LENP4 - Access and Car Parking Policy LENP5 - Local Commercial Opportunities Policy LENP6 - Protecting the Quality of Landscape and Green Space Policy LENP7 - Improving Community and Recreation Facilities Policy LENP8 - Communication and Continued Community Engagement

Section 6: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Site Specific Policies 45 Policy SSP1 DS1 - Land South of Water Hall School Policy SSP2 DS2 - Triangle Land South of Phelps Street adjacent to the Canal Policy SSP3 IN1 - North Western Verge, Drayton Road Policy SSP4 IN2 - Land at Northern Access Windermere Drive Policy SSP5 IN3 - Land at Southern Access Windermere Drive Policy SSP6 IN4 - Land at Skene Open Space Policy SSP7 SC1 - Serpentine Court

Policy SSP8 CG1 - Stoke Road Gateway

Section 7: Delivery and Monitoring 67

Appendices

Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms 73 Appendix 2: Community Action Plan 79

Contents


Foreword

[ to complete ]


Section1

The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan


Section One: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan

1.1 The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan (“the Plan”) is one of the first of a new type of planning document that was introduced by the present Government in the Localism Act, SD1.4 which came into full force in November 2011.

1.2 Its purpose is to enable the people of the Lakes Estate to have a strong influence over the future of their area until 2026 (the “Plan period”), the same as the recently adopted Core Strategy and the saved policies of the Local Plan.

1.3 The Plan is not about preventing change but instead it is about planning positively for development and having some control over where it goes, what it looks like and who it is for. lt also highlights those things in the Estate that the community wish to retain and conserve, whilst identifying other elements that the community wishes to improve.

1.4 Additionally, new opportunities granted to the Town Council and the Estate through the availability of community infrastructure money gained from new development allows Neighbourhood Plans to include, and deliver, more aspirational objectives that up until now have always been the preserve of Local Plans.

1.5 The Plan has been developed through wide consultation with residents, landowners and businesses in the Estate. Details of the consultation, and how it has shaped this plan, are contained in the Consultation Statement that accompanies the Plan.

1.6 Furthermore, the Plan has been prepared in strict accordance with all relevant primary and secondary legislation - principally Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 - to ensure that it comprises a set of policies that are procedurally sound in their preparation and in accordance with the “basic conditions”. These, in summary, require Neighbourhood Plans to:

• have particular regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

• demonstrate that they continue to offer protection to any buildings or landscapes of value;

• contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development;

• be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted development plan;

• demonstrate compliance with all relevant EU obligations.

1.7 The compliance of the Plan with the tests set out above is demonstrated within the Basic Conditions Statement that accompanies the Plan.

1.8 In order to achieve a robust set of policies, the Plan has been prepared in close consultation with the higher authorities relevant to the Estate, particularly Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, as advised by David Lock Associates Limited, and Milton Keynes Council – the unitary authority. A Basic Conditions statement prepared in support of this Plan sets out the relevant existing plans and policies in detail, with which this Plan must be in general conformity. These are taken from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Milton Keynes Core Strategy, 2013 and the Milton Keynes Local Plan, 2005 which together form the extant development plan for the area. lt also ensures that all policies within this Plan have appropriate regard for any emerging relevant strategies and policies. Upon adoption, this Plan will comprise a constituent part of the statutory development plan for the Lakes Estate and will therefore be a primary consideration when determining planning applications within the plan area.


1.9 A frequently asked question by many from the local community is why should we prepare a Neighbourhood Plan? After many years of targeted funding for localised improvements and a series of short term decisions taken by others, it is now accepted that over the Plan period, many communities, including the Lakes Estate, will face further challenges regarding development. During recent years, the rate of house building in the area has been below that required to meet the challenges presented by population growth and demographic change. Consequently, as a community we now face an increased demand for new homes. This Plan has been prepared so that the residents of the Lakes Estate can have a real influence over what type and quantity of development takes place, where it takes place and the rate of growth.

Specifically, the Plan seeks to:

• safeguard what the community treasures in the local area;

• make every effort to meet local needs both now and in the future;

• identify and support any required improvements to local amenities and community facilities;

• ensure that the Lakes Estate remains a vibrant place in which to live, socialise and work.

1.10 Development acceptable to meet these aims will generate income for the Estate to fund localised improvements.

1.11 lt must be stressed that not having a plan does not mean that there will be no development. lt will, however, mean that residents have much less influence over what development takes place within the Plan area.

1.12 Whilst the Lakes Estate was built as a “model” town extension to Bletchley before the growth of Milton Keynes following a series of community engagement events, it became self evident that other people in the areas also had an affinity with the area and wished to be included in this Plan. Figure 1.1 shows the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Area, which includes the entirety of the Lakes Estate and a small area of Water Eaton that directly abuts the Estate. The Estate and this small area to the north of the 1960’s housing will therefore be referred to as the “Plan area” throughout this document. The area covers some 105 hectares.


Figure 1.1: Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Area


1.13 This Plan is a document prepared by and on behalf of the residents and occupiers of the Lakes Estate. lt also comprises a framework of technical and statutory policies that will have a major influence on the form, shape and quantity of new development in the Plan area.

1.14 Section 2 of the Plan summarises the location and character of the Lakes Estate, both the place and the people.

1.15 From Section 3 onwards the Plan provides details on the processes adopted to firstly identify what issues the residents of the Plan area would like the Plan to address.

1.16 Section 3 assesses the evidence derived from the questionnaires and the various workshops and public events held within the Plan area during 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and more recently in 2013. These were used to identify the issues which concern residents whilst at the same time identifying what residents like about the Estate and want to keep and what they don’t like and wish to enhance. Together with other evidence and considerations this locally derived data base provided the starting point when seeking to identify the core vision and objectives of the Plan.

1.17 The Plan also examines particular constraints that need to be taken into account in any proposals for the future of the Lakes Estate.

1.18 In Section 4 the Plan then sets out a Vision for the future of the Lakes Estate and establishes a number of Objectives designed to achieve that Vision. Broadly, the Plan addresses:

• the need for new housing areas;• the need for improved parking;• the need for public transport improvements;• the need for highway improvements;• the need to improve, enhance and protect open

spaces;• the need for new commercial opportunities; • the need for enhanced community facilities.

1.19 In Section 5 the Plan sets out general policies designed to achieve the overarching Estate-wide objectives. The policies are the statutory part of the Plan that will be used to help determine planning applications submitted to Milton Keynes Council.

1.20 Section 6 of the Plan identifies development opportunity sites within the Plan area and establishes site-specific policies. The policies are the statutory part of the Plan that will be used to help determine detailed aspects of planning applications that come forward within these areas.

1.21 lt is important to note that many of the issues which residents and occupiers identified during public consultation, though important, cannot be addressed in the Plan. This is because either they are not spatial in terms of their possible solutions i.e. the need for the Council to maintain the open space to a better standard, and therefore, decisions on priorities and actions lie with other agencies outside this Plan’s control. Proposed courses of action to resolve these issues are contained within a Community Action Plan that accompanies, but will not form part of, the Plan. See appendix 2.

1.22 Lastly, Section 7 sets out the mechanisms that will be used to ensure that the proposed policies can deliver the Plan’s vision and objectives. Initially this section sets out the delivery strategy identified by the community of the Lakes Estate. The delivery strategy can only be delivered by Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council working closely with Milton Keynes Council and other statutory consultees and third parties/stakeholders. Subsequently, Section 7 then sets out the “Monitoring Indicators” that the Plan will be assessed against on a annual basis to ensure the strategy is delivering against the identified core objectives. This will inform both the Estate and the Town Council as to the success of the Plan and any need for a potential early review of policies.


Section2

Location and Character


Section Two: The Lakes Estate - Location and Character

The Lakes Estate: Strategic Location

2.1 The Lakes Estate is in the administrative borough of Milton Keynes and lies at the southern tip of the unitary authority’s area. At a strategic level it is very accessible with there being a direct route via the A4146 to the south to Aylesbury and Luton and to the east to Junction 13 of the M1 motorway. Via the A4146 and then the A5 (D) direct access can be provided to Towcester and Junction 15 of the M1 motorway. Via Newton Longville or Bletchley the Lakes Estate has direct access to the A421 which leads to the M40 and Oxford.

2.2 At a more local level accessibility to Bletchley is via the roads in Water Eaton. Access to Milton Keynes is more problematic due to the presence of the West Coast Mainline to the immediate west of the Estate and as such more circuitous local roads need to be used before access can be provided to the grid road system. Consequently, it can take half an hour to travel by road to reach central Milton Keynes and its facilities.

2.3 Residents generally look outside the local area for employment and retailing opportunities. The majority of the residents are employed in Bletchley or Milton Keynes with very few using the links to Aylesbury or Buckingham. Fewer still utilise the high speed rail links from Central Milton Keynes which reduce the time to reach London to thirty five minutes and also provide faster access to Birmingham and the north west. Bletchley Station is slightly nearer and provides a slower stopping service on the West Coast Main Line. National coachway links can also be accessed via the bus terminal in central Bletchley.

2.4 The Grand Union Canal (connecting London and Birmingham) runs along the eastern side of the Estate with Pope’s Walk providing access to the former wharf and the Waterhall Linear Park.

The Lakes Estate: Historic Landscape Setting and Character

2.5 Historically this part of Buckinghamshire was, until the mid twentieth century, dominated by a thin scattering of small scale, largely self contained villages and farming hamlets. Until the turn of the twentieth century the only settlement in the vicinity of what is now the Lakes Estate was the small farming settlement know as Water Eaton. “Eaton” is an Old English language word referring to a farming settlement, and the whole phrase means “farm by a river”. It is first mentioned in the 1086 Domesday Book (as simply Eaton); when it was held by Geoffrey de Montbray, and was listed as having a Mill. Small remnants of this hamlet still exist in a collection of buildings clustered around the Drayton Road, Stoke Road, Manor Road and Water Eaton Road junction. Many of these buildings are listed buildings and typify the Georgian passion for building farmsteads and workers cottages.

2.6 During the twentieth century the railway town of Bletchley grew. This included ribbon development which was subsequently followed by inter war and then post war housing so much so that by the end of the 1950’s Water Eaton had effectively been absorbed by new housing.

2.7 During the post second World war era politicians sought to home those living in poor conditions in London. To alleviate this problem, “overspill” estates were erected in areas which are now known, amongst others, as Stevenage and Slough.

2.8 During the 1960’s, Bletchley Urban District Council entered into an agreement with the Greater London Council (GLC) to fund and deliver the last London “overspill” estate on land previously owned by two local charities – the Fuel Allotments and the Poor’s Land charities. In October 1966, an exhibition was held at Wilton hall in Bletchley, presenting what was then known as “The Water Eaton Scheme” to local residents. Simultaneously the GLC held an exhibition at County Hall in London. Discussions between the two Councils continued and in January 1967, it was decided that the estate would be built on the innovative “Radburn” layout principles and that the roads on the Water Eaton Scheme would be named after lakes. Henceforth the area became known as the Lakes Estate.


Railw

ay L

ine

Blue Lagoon

Water Eaton

Cana

l

Stok

e Ro

ad

A4146 Stoke Road

Lomand Drive

Water Hall School

Leon Academy

Drayton Park School

The Warren Open Space

Drayton Road

Figure 2.1: Location Plan


2.9 During the summer of 1967 The Ministry of Housing and Local Government held a three day public inquiry in Wilton Hall into the possibility of adding a new town to the area broadly to the north east of Bletchley. The Minister considered the representations made and shortly thereafter the New Town of Milton Keynes was designated. In the space of twelve months the poor quality rural farmland around Bletchley and six other villages had been allocated for a development the size of Leicester.

2.10 Seeking to embrace the new ideas of modern living, the Lakes Estate was to provide homes with higher than normal specifications. Flat roofs would maximise views of the canal and the Aylesbury Vale and the Brickhills. Blow air central heating was to be installed and the room sizes were far larger than was typical for the time. On the Estate, the Ministry approved the delivery of five types of home, which included bungalows, two storey homes and three storey homes. The intention was that eventually some 2,000 dwellings were to be erected with a density of 12 people to the acre and adequate provision for both amenity and public open parkland. Semi mature trees some 3 – 4m high were planted throughout the parkland to ensure it was an attractive place in which to live. Indeed, by the time the Estate had been completed in the mid 1970’s over 6,000 trees and some 20,000 shrubs had been planted.

2.11 Figure 2.2 shows the variation in density of housing across the Plan area. The area with the highest number of properties per hectare is Serpentine Court, the highest density value being 39 dwellings per hectare. The more recent development at Diddington Way is also built to a higher density than the average shown across the Plan area. The map shows areas of low built density along the verges of the Plan area and around the school sites, which by their nature are areas that are not developed. Generally the north eastern and south western quarters of the Estate are built at higher densities than the north western, south eastern quarters.

2.12 Tenants for the new homes of the Estate were nominated by the GLC’s London Dispersal Group. This group was established to keep under constant review the arrangements for the movement of employees and their families to expanded towns such as Bletchley. The Estate was built in a series of phases, with one superblock being delivered at a time. Frequently, long delays occurred between each phase brought about by financial constraints and local disputes.

2.13 In the last twenty years the Lakes Estate has been the subject of many regeneration schemes, the most recent being the CESP (Community Energy Savings Scheme) which refurbished 467 homes suffering from fuel poverty during 2011 and additional phases for planned refurbishment will take place within 2014.


Figure 2.2: Housing Density


Characteristics of the Residents and Occupiers of The Lakes Estate

2.14 The population of the 105 hectare Lakes Estate at the 2011 census was 5,097, living in 1833 households and showing little significant statistical change over the last ten years. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the influx of newcomers from London resulted in a young population with a great many children. Since then the age profile of the population has steadily matured and a comparison between 2001 and 2011 census information shows a further increase in late middle aged and elderly residents and a slight fall in the percentage of children of school age. A significant proportion of the residents have lived in the Plan area for over 25 years, which suggests that many who came as young families in the 1960s and 1970s have stayed on as they grew older. However this is not a trend unique to the Lakes Estate and a study by the Council suggests that an ageing of the population is likely to continue over the Plan Period for Milton Keynes as a whole.

2.15 There is a real sense of community spirit present in the Lakes Estate. It is a close-knit community which provides a number of support groups and resources that offer invaluable advice and support to residents, in many instances on a voluntary basis. These are important social “anchors” for the community.

2.16 Many residents were born and have raised their families on the Lakes Estate, indeed many who choose to move from the Estate, often return, unable to match the strength of community belonging that the Estate provides.”

2.17 Milton Keynes Council and the 2011 Census records for Eaton Manor Ward, of which the Lakes Estate forms a large proportion of the inhabited area, indicate that less than half of the people own their own home and the remainder either rent privately (13.3%) or from the Council (30.7%). This is an unusually high proportion of rented accommodation in one area within Milton Keynes, with other areas frequently not exceeding 25%.

2.18 14.1% of the residents are lone parents. This is almost double the average for Milton Keynes.

2.19 The area has a relatively large average household. In one instance it has been reported that five generations live in one dwelling. The average household size in this area is 2.78 people per household whereas for Milton Keynes the figure is 2.5 people per household.

2.20 Figure 2.3 shows the variation in density of population across the Plan area. The area of highest population density is within Serpentine Court, the highest density value being 95 persons per hectare. Ennerdale Close is also an area of higher population than usually found across the Plan area. The areas of lowest population are shown to be the verges along the edge of the Plan area and around the school sites, which by their nature will have very few dwellings. Other areas of low population are within the north eastern quarter and the properties along Stoke Road in Water Eaton.

2.21 The Ward has a low population growth rate when compared to the rest of Milton Keynes although its age profile is younger with the average age being 32. Indeed, 38.4% of people are under 24.

2.22 8.1% of the population compared with 6.4% for the remainder of Milton Keynes consider that their health impacts on their ability to enjoy normal day to day activities.


Figure 2.3: Population Density


2.23 The employment profile of the Plan area is very similar to that of other early estates that were built in and around Milton Keynes. Around 58% of eligible adults are in work or looking for work. Of those in work, a significant number of people are in low skilled or manufacturing jobs. Some of these jobs are low paid full time or a series of part-time jobs.

2.22 Figure 2.4 shows the proportion of residents who are in employment or seeking employment compared with the total number of working age (16-74) population across the Plan area. The proportion of economically active residents is fairly even throughout the Plan area, generally between the range of 59-68 % of the total number of people aged between 16-74. There is a small pocket of high economic activity (86%) in the north western quarter of the Estate.

2.23 The majority of people in the ward work locally as 38.5% of households have no access to a car or a van. This contrasts with Milton Keynes as a whole whereby some 20% of people commute to London each day.


Figure 2.4: Economic Activity


2.24 Figure 2.5 shows the variation in proportion of households within the Plan area who have access to a car. The areas of highest car ownership are along the northern edge of the Plan area, in particular around Tummel Way and at the southwestern edge at Diddington Close. The areas of lowest car ownership are the southern part of Serpentine Court and a small pocket of low car ownership within the south eastern quarter of the Plan area. The other area of low car ownership is around Drayton Park School and its associated playing fields, which can be expected due to an absence of residential properties here.

2.25 The local level of educational attainment is significantly lower then Milton Keynes as a whole. Indeed, 30.6% of young people have no qualifications at all.

2.26 49% of the children in the Plan area live in poverty.


Figure 2.5: Car Ownership


Section3

Identification of Issues


Section 3: Identification of Issues

3.1 This Plan has been founded upon an extensive programme of evidence-gathering and consultation with the residents, land owners and businesses of the Lakes Estate. This programme of engagement can be summarised as follows:

2007: Place CheckThis sought feedback from the local community on what they liked and disliked about the area in which they live and work.

December 2008: MK Regeneration StrategyUsing the information established from the Census, published indices and the Place Check, Milton Keynes Council formally adopted a new strategy for the regeneration of three of the initial estates. The Lakes Estate was identified as one of the priority areas.

Subsequently, the first Neighbourhood Action Plan was prepared to help with the prioritisation of resources in alleviating deprivation. This work, led by the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Action Plan Group identified a chronic need for longer term regeneration projects for the Estate.

April 2009: Housing OptionsMilton Keynes Council considered housing options for the area. Support was provided for more detailed urban housing renewal work to be undertaken.

March 2010: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Action PlanThe first Neighbourhood Action Plan was prepared, consulted upon, agreed and circulated. As a result the first Lakes Estate Ranger was employed to ensure the public open spaces were kept clean and tidy. Subsequently, the Lakes Estate Children and Youth Action Committee were awarded funds to improve play areas.

August 2010: The Lakes Estate Renewal ProjectThis was initiated with the aim of delivering housing led regeneration across the Estate. Three stages of the project were identified: analyse and check viability; project development and the provision of a Neighbourhood Plan and finally implementation.

November 2010 – January 2011: Analysis and FeasibilityWork commenced and was subsequently agreed for this phase of the Lakes Estate Renewal Project. Additionally, working with a Community Mobiliser, residents used funding from the NAP Steering Group to enhance the appearance of some of the public courtyards.

May 2011: Break the Silence: Break the Cycle InitiativeIn line with the principles established in the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Action Plan and the Water Eaton Domestic Violence Group a number of community based events were organised to raise the profile of this issue.

May 2011: The Lakes Neighbourhood PlanMilton Keynes Council was awarded a government grant to pilot a Neighbourhood Plan for the Estate. Funds were subsequently provided to Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council to undertake the work.

January 2012: Neighbourhood Employment ProgrammeWorking in partnership with local groups such as MK College and local employers, training was provided for those seeking work.

February 2012: Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP)Job and training opportunities were advertised. Positions were subsequently offered to help contractors replace windows, doors, failed roofs and to add insulation to properties to reduce fuel poverty.

Summer 2012: Your Future: Your ChoiceA series of events were held throughout the summer with the aim to maximise the opportunities for local people to be involved in Planning for Real events, which included a number of question and answer sessions. A group was subsequently formed to progress the project and commission consultants to prepare a draft Neighbourhood Plan.

Autumn 2012: Neighbourhood Plan WorkshopsWorkshops were facilitated to enable the residents to turn ideas into physical plans for their environment. In tandem with this work, consultation on the Refresh of the Milton Keynes Council Regeneration Strategy was undertaken.


Winter 2012: Draft PlansDraft proposals prepared at the workshops were shared with other members of the local community.

Easter 2013: ConsultationThe feedback from local residents was collated to identify the key issues for the Estate and consider locations for potential new development.

July 2013: Drafting the Neighbourhood PlanConsultants were appointed to assess and evaluate the considerable evidence base and consider emerging issues and development area options. In October 2013, a series of drop in workshops were undertaken with residents, local businesses and local groups to test the emerging development area options and design approaches upon which to draft the Neighbourhood Plan.

3.2 A detailed record of all evidence gathering and consultation, along with the subsequent assessment, is contained in the Evidence Base, which includes a Consultation Summary and Regulation 14 Statement that provides the supporting documentation for the Plan.

The Neighbourhood Plan Topics

3.3 Following the series of drop in sessions and examination of the relevant evidence base for the Lakes Estate, it was identified by the Task and Finish Group that the key planning issues that the Plan should seek to address could be categorised under the following 8 headings below:

1. Delivering a sustainable form of development;2. Development opportunity sites, to include

redeveloping Serpentine Court;3. The physical integration of new development;4. Access and car parking;5. Local commercial opportunities;6. Protecting the quality of landscape and green

space;7. Improving community and recreational facilities; 8. Communication and continued community

engagement.

3.4 The rest of this section will set out the key issues that the Plan sets out to address on a topic-by-topic basis, as well as any potential constraints that would need to be considered when developing the Plan’s strategy.

3.5 In Section 4, the issues identified by the community and known constraints have been used to generate a “vision” for the Neighbourhood Plan and a subsequent list of targeted core objectives that have aided and informed the development of the final list of statutory policies.

3.6 lt should be noted at this juncture that whilst many of the issues identified during consultations are planning related in nature and targeted solutions to these can be identified within the policies of the Plan, in other instances issues cannot be resolved solely through the planning system and require multi agency commitment over a considerable period of time to resolve. These non-planning issues are, nonetheless, of considerable importance to the local community and therefore appear separately in the Community Action Plan, in appendix 2.

Overview of Additional Issues Raised at the Consultation Events

3.7 These are listed below simply in the order in which they were recorded. No priority is given to a topic or an issue by the authors of this report. However, it must be appreciated that some of these issues have been raised on numerous occasions and represent deep seated concerns held by the local community and therefore are key to improving the lives of those who live and work in the Neighbourhood Plan area.


Topic 1: Environment

Issue 1.1: There is too much fly tipping on the Estate. This reduces civic pride.(source: Place Check 2007, Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 1.2: Bushes and trees are overgrown and poorly maintained by the Council.(source: Place Check 2007, Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 1.3: We need wheelie bins to stop rubbish being strewn over the Estate as bin men do not pick it up.(source: Place Check 2007, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 1.4: The environment around Serpentine Court makes you feel unsafe. This is especially worrying late at night.(source: Place Check 2007 & Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 1.5: Tubs and planters should be provided in the street.(source: Place Check 2007)

Issue 1.6: There should be better quality level access and wider footpaths to help the young and physically disabled safely move around the Estate.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 1.7: Gardens should be extended to provide space for on plot parking.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.8: There should be designated resident’s parking bays to prevent pavement parking.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.9: There should be space for children to play football and other ball games.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 1.10: There should be a skate park.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.11: There should be a community garden.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.12: There should be more planting for wildlife.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.13: There should be better lighting on the Estate.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation, Drop in Sessions Oct 2013)

Issue 1.14: There should be better quality front garden fences.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 1.15: Broken rear garden fences need to be replaced / repaired more quickly.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions Oct 2013)

Issue 1.16: The shrubs should be removed as the Council do not maintain them.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.17: There should be a public square and seating.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 1.18: Cars travel too fast.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.19: A link needs to be provided from Fern Grove to Windermere Drive.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 1.20: A link should not be provided from Fern Grove to Windermere Drive.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 1.21: Serpentine Court should be redeveloped as a traditional “High Street”.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 1.22: Need to keep pedestrian route through centre of the Estate, if new roads cross footpaths then traffic calming/road safety needs to be considered.(source: Drop in sessions Oct 2013)

Issue 1.23: Get rid of the pigeons(source: Drop in sessions Oct 2013)

Issue 1.24: Need public toilets(source: Drop in sessions Oct 2013)

Issue 1.25: Get rid of the underpass at Windermere Drive(source: Drop in sessions, Oct 2013, Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 1.26: Garage blocks should be replaced with parking courts to provide more parking.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)


Topic 2: Facilities

Issue 2.1: There are insufficient shops and local facilities for the community.(source: Place Check 2007, Easter 2013 Consultation, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 2.2: The shops need to be better quality.(source: Place Check 2007)

Issue 2.3: There are not enough things for the kids to do.(source: Place Check 2007, Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 2.4: There should be a children’s and young people centre.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 2.5: There should be a practical workshop to undertake car repairs / DIY.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 2.6: There should be a youth music / rapping studio.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.7: There should be a minor injuries walk-in centre.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.8: There should be better access to facilities.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.9: There should be a petrol filling station.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 2.10: There should be a family public house / restaurant.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 2.11: There should be an outside ATM.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.12: There should be a drop in centre for drug users.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.13: There should be a supermarket.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 2.14 There should be a hotel.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.15: There should be signposting on the Estate to show people where facilities are.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.16: A post box should be provided for Phase 4.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.17: There should be a dance class.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 2.18: There need to be more football pitches and goal posts. (source: Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 2.19: The parks need better play equipment.(source: Drop in sessions, Oct 2013) Issue 2.20: There needs to be more play equipment for babies and toddlers.(source: Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)


Topic 3: Anti-Social Behaviour

Issue 3.1: People carry knives and there is too much fighting on the Estate.(source: Place Check 2007 & Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 3.2: There is too much abuse on the Estate.(source: Place Check 2007)

Issue 3.3: There is too much graffiti and vandalism on the Estate.(source: Place Check 2007, Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 3.4: The Police should have a higher profile and be more visible on the Estate.(source: Place Check 2007 & Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 3.5: There should be more mutual respect.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 3.6: The Estate should be renamed.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Topic 4: Housing

Issue 4.1: More housing needs to be provided.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 4.2: The houses should have pitched roofs.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 4.3: Demolish Serpentine Court and start again.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012 & Easter 2013 Consultation)

Issue 4.4: The houses are too expensive to maintain and run.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 4.5: Refurbish Serpentine Court as luxury apartments.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 4.6: There needs to be better housing maintenance by Milton Keynes Council.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 4.7: There needs to be more 1 bed flats and bungalows.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 4.8: There needs to be more family housing.(source: Planning for Real 2012, Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Issue 4.9: New housing should be modern.(source: Drop in sessions, Oct 2013)

Topic 5: Communication

Issue 5.1: There needs to be more communication of positive news.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 5.2: There is a good community spirit.(source: Planning for Real 2012 Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 5.3: Friendly people live here.(source: Planning for Real 2012)

Issue 5.4: Milton Keynes Council does not listen to or look after the Estate.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)

Issue 5.5: The Estate’s poor reputation is not deserved.(source: Planning for Real 2012 & Neighbourhood Questionnaire 2012)


Section4

Vision and Objectives


Section Four: Vision and Objectives

4.1 The Consultation Statement that accompanies this Plan describes the extensive consultation within the Lakes Estate, which took place over a period in 2010-2013 in accordance with the Consultation Strategy which accompanies the Plan. The consultation resulted in clear preferences expressed for the future of the Estate as a community and in its built form.

4.2 These are summarised in the following Vision Statement that underpins the Neighbourhood Plan:

Vision Statement

“The Lakes Estate - A vibrant community, where the Residents have a commitment to quality design and construction, care about their neighbourhood, treasure the environment and are proud of where they live, work and play.

4.3 Consequently, over the plan period up to 2026, the community and stakeholders of the Lakes Estate will seek to develop and enhance its built and natural environment respecting and enhancing its existing character and identity. It will encourage appropriate housing growth, primarily for local needs and create improved facilities and services for all residents . Achievement of these objectives will enable the Lakes Estate to thrive as a sustainable and unified community.

4.4 The core objectives of the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan are designed to achieve the aims of the Vision Statement. They have emerged through consideration of the issues, constraints and opportunities identified through baseline analysis of the Plan area (section 2) and consultation with the local community and wider stakeholders (section 3) and are based on well established social, economic and environmental principles of sustainability.

Core Objectives

CO1: To ensure that all development responds positively to the unique architectural form and Radburn layout that is integral to the established character of the Lakes Estate.

CO2: To ensure that new development provides a suitable mix of housing types across all tenures, with particular regard to provision of affordable housing, to meet the housing needs of the local community.

CO3: To encourage the provision of small scale commercial uses on appropriate sites to support the creation of job opportunities. CO4: To ensure that that layout of new development is accessible and integrates with existing footpaths and demonstrates opportunities to improve and enhance footpath connections within the Estate.

CO5: To ensure that new roads provide direct and convenient access for residents and are sensitively designed to accommodate pedestrian movement.

CO6: To ensure that new development provides safe, secure and conveniently located parking areas and provides opportunities to improve access and parking for existing residents.

CO7: To identify opportunities for public transport to better serve the needs of its local users.

CO8: To improve the quality and variety of existing open space, play areas community facilities and services within the Estate.

CO9: To create a new high quality pedestrian dominated centre for the Lakes Estate that accommodates a mix of uses to cater for the essential day to day needs of its residents.

CO10: To ensure that all new development is sustainable and improves the economic, social and environmental conditions on the Estate.

CO11: To encourage energy efficient development. CO12: To ensure that a meaningful community consultation exercise is undertaken before the submission of any regeneration proposal on the Estate, to identify relevant and necessary planning obligations that are appropriate to the local area and meet the needs of the local people.


Figure 4.1: Vision for the Lakes Estate

Key footpaths to be improved

New footpath connection

Crossing points created

Opportunity to open up views of canal

Retain ‘green’ footpath spine

Create green link to canal

Play areas and community facilities to be retained and enhanced

Designated areas of local green space

Development Block


Section5

The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan General Policies


Section Five: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan General Policies

5.1 This section sets out the policies that will seek to direct development towards the most appropriate and sustainable locations within the Lakes Estate and deliver change of a form and scale that is appropriate and sensitive to the established character of the Plan area.

5.2 Upon adoption, the policies set out in this section will have full statutory weight and will be used for development control purposes within the Plan area for the duration of the Plan period.

5.3 The policies set out within this section have been prepared to reflect and complement the aspirations of the Plan area that includes the Lakes Estate and its role within the wider area of the Borough of Milton Keynes. The Policies have been developed to ensure that they do not conflict with policies in the National Planning Policy Framework or any other statutory policies within the wider development plan, which includes Milton Keynes Core Strategy and a number of saved local plan policies. LENP policies have also taken into account the responses of the community, consultees, land owners and local stakeholders to ensure that they define and shape development that is viable, deliverable and appropriate for the Lakes Estate.

5.4 Each policy is supported by a full justification of its inclusion within the Plan as well as an explanation as to how it helps achieve the specific core objectives. For ease of use, each specific policy, along with its accompanying text, will be set out as follows:

RationaleAn explanation of why this policy has been included in the Plan and how it helps achieve the vision and objectives set out in Section 4 of this Plan.

Related ObjectivesLinks to the core objectives prepared by the residents and stakeholders of the Estate.

The PolicyThe wording of, and any criteria attached to, the policy itself that will be used for development control purposes in the Plan Area.

Any Additional Explanatory TextThis may also refer to any indicative site plans included to inform the site-specific policies and guide prospective developers on the communities preferred approach.

Policy LENP1: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy LENP2- Development Opportunity Sites

Policy LENP3: The Physical Integration of New Development

Policy LENP4: Access and Car Parking

Policy LENP5: Local Commercial Opportunities

Policy LENP6: Protecting the Quality of Landscape and Open Space

Policy LENP7: Improving Community and Recreation Facilities

Policy LENP8: Communication and Continued Community EngagementGen

eral

Pol

icie

s


General Policies

5.5 The Plan contains 8 General Policies that will be applicable to the Estate and will in turn support the policy requirements of each development opportunity site.


RationaleThis policy will underpin the approach to be adopted in delivering sustainable development in the Plan area and in determining planning applications. Its inclusion is justified from the evidence gathered in support of the Plan. A presumption towards Sustainable Development ensures that local development needs are met whilst the environment is protected and ensures that the Plan is compliant with national guidance.

Related Core Objectives: CO3, CO7, CO8, CO9, CO10, CO11, CO12


When considering development proposals in the Lakes Estate the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council and relevant stakeholders will work proactively with applicants to find solutions which seek to approve proposals wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the Plan area.

Explanatory Text5.6 Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Neighbourhood Plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where (i) there are no policies within this Plan relevant to the application or (ii) relevant policies elsewhere within the development plan are out of date at the time of making the decision, the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise taking into account whether:

• any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, or

• specific policies in the National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

5.7 In the context of the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan sustainable means:

• providing a range of energy efficient homes which respond to people’s needs both now and in the future in order to accommodate changes in the structure of families;

• providing a range of community and commercial facilities designed meet the needs of the whole population ;

• providing local jobs to create opportunities for residents to work close to where they live;

• supporting innovative and contemporary buildings and spaces that create a community focus and foster a sense of belonging and identity.


Policy LENP2- Development Opportunity Sites

Related Core ObjectivesCO1, CO2, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO8, CO12

RationaleThis policy sets out the overarching criteria for proposals within development opportunity areas that are subject to site specific policies as identified in Section 6 of the Plan.

Policy LENP2: Development Opportunity SitesTo ensure a comprehensive approach to development coming forward within these identified areas; proposals should clearly demonstrate:

• a design-led approach to determining the appropriate amount of development proposed, with the exception of the redevelopment of Serpentine Court, for which Policy SC1 prescribes a minimum amount of development;

• how the design and layout positively responds to the architectural form and Radburn layout that is integral to the established character of the Estate;

• how the proposals meet the identified development requirements as set out in the site specific policies and other design policies within the Plan;

• a safe, usable, well connected, legible design and layout that maximises opportunities to improve the public realm.

Policy LENP3: The Physical Integration of New Development

RationaleThe Greater London Council master planned the majority of the Plan area in strict accordance with the Radburn principles of development. Whilst the layout has some disadvantages for modern living it also provides a large number of attributes that are treasured by the local community. Milton Keynes Council’s adopted Neighbourhood Regeneration Strategy, 2010 encourages positive changes which are supported and driven by the views of local people. Milton Keynes Council is not reliant on the delivery of new homes in this area to meet its housing targets. Any new homes that are provided will be considered as windfall sites and reported in the Council’s monitoring reports against the Borough’s housing requirement.

New residential development will incorporate a mix of affordable housing in accordance with requirements set out in Plan:MK, in the interim proposals should be considered against saved adopted Local Plan Policy H4 and Affordable Housing SPD.

New Development should respect the character of the Lakes Estate, in respect of its built form, architecture, scale, massing and layout, to include protecting the amenities of existing residential properties.

Furthermore in areas within the north of the Plan area, particular care should be given to ensure that new development does not detrimentally impact on the setting of the listed buildings that comprise the historic core of Water Eaton.

The orientation of development schemes should be considered to maximise solar gain (i.e. within 300 of due south). However, a balance must be struck between achieving good urban design and place-making and achieving energy-saving layouts.

In accordance with good practice, all aspects of the development should be accessible and provide universal access for all. Public spaces and streets should be accessible and designed to accommodate wheelchair and pushchair users, those with mobility issues and other residents to enable them to read and navigate the area safely.

Related Core ObjectivesCO1, CO2

Policy LENP3: The Physical Integration of New DevelopmentLand for new housing, commercial and community uses will be identified to meet the needs of the local community. The detailed design of these areas should respect the Radburn layout principles of the Estate, the unique architectural character of the built form, and improve pedestrian and landscape connectivity.

Explanatory Text5.8 The local community appreciate the spatial benefits of the Estate’s layout. Standardised house types and layouts are therefore less likely to be considered to acceptably fit into the local environment. Key aspects appreciated by the local community include the domination of the character of the area by single and two storey homes, open space, the pedestrian connectivity of the locality and the limited space given over to standardised highway layouts.


Figure 5.1: Key Pedestrian and Landscape Connections

Key footpaths to be improved

New footpath connection

Crossing points created


Retain ‘green’ footpath spine

Create green link to canal

Play areas and community facilities to be retained and enhanced

National Cycle Network Route



RationaleGood design is a key aspect of sustainable development; a principle enshrined in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Design, however, does not just relate to appearance - it also relates to issues such as layout, scale and the interaction of new development with the existing built and natural form. This includes how it impacts on its surroundings, including the necessity for proposals to include adequate parking and landscaping to allow its sensitive integration into the fabric of the Plan area.

The Estate was built at a time when car ownership was significantly less than it is today, even in the Lakes Estate. As a consequence of this and the adoption of the Radburn layout the original parking provision was either on street or in parking garage courts which were not over looked by housing, nor located at a convenient distance to homes. Over time a number of the garage courts have become under used or vacant. This has resulted in a rise in anti-social behaviour and damage to the private vehicles and garages in the vicinity of the courts. In a large number of instances this has ultimately resulted in the garages being removed and an open area of car parking being created. Whilst these courts are now open to more informal surveillance, they have forced the car into the public realm and to an extent have diluted the quality of the landscaped setting of the Estate.

The layout of the Estate was built with the pedestrian in mind. Indeed the area is highly connected for the pedestrian. However, due to lack of natural surveillance, impromptu areas of parked cars, poor surfacing and lack of street lights, many pedestrian routes have become increasingly less welcoming to use.

Relevant Core ObjectivesCO4, CO5, CO6


New development should ensure on-site provision of parking at a minimum of 2 off street (excluding garages) spaces per dwelling for residential development and at a level justified by employee numbers and / or estimated daily trips for all other traffic generating development. Evidence to demonstrate the amount of parking to be provided by proposals should be submitted in support of any application for non-residential development.

Where it is not possible to accommodate on-site parking to acceptable standards, the provision of a Unilateral Undertaking to provide formalised off-site parking at an appropriate location in the Plan area will be considered upon consultation with Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council and the Highway Authority.

Development should demonstrate ways to improve and enhance both footpath connections as identified in Figure 5.1, and areas of car parking within the Estate to include improvements to street lighting, resurfacing and surveillance.

As part of the detailed design of public areas, provision should also be made for surveilled cycle parking to be designed as part of the streetscape or as part of the open space. Within residential developments, developers will be expected to provide sensitively designed covered cycle storage facilities. This includes the provision of indoor cycle storage for new flats/apartments.

Explanatory Text5.09 The Radburn layout clusters parking provision and frequently places it at the back of the dwelling. Society today increasingly seeks provision for more car parking provision than was originally planned in the 1960’s and 1970’s. In addition, it frequently requires parking provision to be provided in a manner which is easily accessible, close to the entrances of buildings and in areas which are overlooked.

5.10 The provision of designated parking spaces will be a mixture of on plot/within curtilage spaces provided in intimate courtyards within the centre of each block that deliver convenient and well surveilled parking provision and/or formalised on-street parking, which will add to the activity on street, and will allow a proportion of the parking required to be closely associated with the fronts of buildings.



RationaleThe intention of this policy is to enable the residents of the Estate to help themselves achieve a better standard of living. Car ownership is low. Public transport provision is only via two bus services. The recent economic decline has resulted in several commercial and social services being closed on or near the Estate. Consequently, access to jobs, shops and local facilities is more difficult for many residents than elsewhere in Milton Keynes. Serpentine Court, the three local schools, a community centre, a health facility and the employment units on Barton Road provide some opportunities for both full and part-time work but this is not sufficient to meet the needs of the local community. To create choice for residents to live in more sustainable ways, it is considered to be important to encourage new opportunities for small scale employment in the immediate and wider locality.

Relevant Core ObjectivesCO3, CO4, CO7, CO8, CO9, CO10,


Planning permission will be conditionally permitted for small scale commercial opportunities that:

• comply with the criteria in the development plan;• respect both the landscape and the physical characteristics of the Estate;• meet the differing needs of the local community;• do not adversely impact on the amenities of local residents; • offer the opportunity of local full time and part- time employment.

Explanatory Text5.12 In order to assist the local residents secure a better standard of living, access to earning a source of income is considered as a prerequisite for improving the long term character and environment of the Estate. In order to encourage flexible employment opportunities, small scale commercial opportunities will be encouraged in appropriate locations, an opportunity for a family orientated public house and restaurant has also been identified (see development opportunity sites DS2, SC1 and CG1 for appropriate locations for provision of commercial uses.



RationaleThe intention of this policy is to ensure that a range of open spaces identified as having particular significance to the community are protected from development through the designation as “Local Green Space”. These areas are shown in Figure 5.2. lt is not considered that any of the spaces identified within this policy would otherwise be suitable for development under normal circumstances. However, it is the intention of this policy to ensure that this Plan recognises the specific concerns of the community and provides them with additional protection moving forward.

Relevant Core ObjectivesCO1 and CO4


Planning permission will be refused for proposals involving the physical loss of the designated local green spaces listed below and identified in Figure 5.2, which are used for both residential amenity or leisure purposes and are considered to have community, recreational or environmental value:

• Warren Open Space; • “Green” foothpath spine within the centre of the Estate and defining the 4 key diagonal routes within each quarter of the Estate.

Additionally, any public open space to be provided as part of proposals under the site specific policies of this Plan should be afforded protection under this policy upon its formalisation as recreation land.

Explanatory Text5.13 Green space is the land use of almost half of the land in The Estate. The community consider that some of it must be retained. Other areas should, if possible, be enhanced with better quality spaces and recreational areas. Other areas are considered to be less important and the community is willing to see loss of these areas in order to deliver wider gains. This policy seeks to preserve the best areas from development. Any future development proposals on the land designated under this policy should be assessed against the guidance provided in Paragraphs 76-78 of the NPPF.


Figure 5.2 : Designated Areas of Local Green Space



RationaleThe intention of this policy is to ensure that the community can make best use of planning gain to achieve targeted and needs assessed benefits for the Estate and create a source of funding that can be used to achieve community objectives when other sources of funding may be scarce during the life-time of this Plan.

lt is recognised that the type or scale of development from which obligations secured through either a Unilateral Undertaking or a Section 106 Agreement would be applicable, will vary depending on the nature of the proposals and the impact of any sought contribution on the viability of the project. These factors will be assessed by officers at Milton Keynes Council as part of the determination of any application. lt is also recognised that a New Homes Bonus will be payable in relation to certain types of residential development and that Milton Keynes Council may adopt a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule during the lifetime of this Plan. Accordingly, the financial and / or infrastructure contribution sought through Section 106 Agreements will also be required to have regard to the financial contribution secured from development via other means.

Specifically, this policy seeks to demonstrate the infrastructure and community provision that the Lakes Estate, as a qualifying body, will prioritise for the benefit of the community as a result of any contributions towards community infrastructure secured via financial contributions.

Related Core ObjectivesCO3, CO4, CO7, CO8, CO9, CO10, CO12


All planning applications which result in the creation of new commercial premises or new housing units within the Plan area must demonstrate how they can contribute towards the delivery of complementary community development through a combination of either a Section 106 Agreement of Unilateral Undertaking, payment of any future CIL and any percentage payment of New Homes Bonus available

to Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council for investment in the community and recreational facilities of the Lakes Estate.

Explanatory Text5.13 Provision towards community development, either through direct provision of new facilities or through financial contributions, will be expected from all development subject to the guidance set out in Paragraphs 203 and 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Any contribution secured as a result of development within the Plan Area shall be prioritised towards the delivery of the following targeted community objectives wherever possible. If any unilateral undertaking is proposed to directly deliver any of the objectives set out below, the acceptability of any scheme must first be agreed in writing by the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council. Otherwise, it is intended that the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council will prioritise any general financial contribution to contribute towards the following:

• a new community facility for the youth of the Plan area with associated parking and landscaping;

• development and implementation of a community transport scheme designed to supplement existing bus services;

• enhancement / replacement of street lighting throughout the Plan area;

• provision of formalised parking lay-bys in place of grass verges at relevant and acceptable locations, except in areas of Local Green Space designated through policy LENP6;

• improving and strengthening key landscape and footpath connections as identified in Figure 5.1;

• improving the quality of play areas and variety of play equipment listed below;

• The Warren;• Four Walls;• Bala Play Ground;• Skene Woodland;• Play area north of Gorman Place; • Play area south of Grasmere Way

5.14 The extent that new development can help deliver any of the objectives set out in the schedule above will be a key material consideration when determining any proposals in the Plan area.


Policy LENP8: Communication and Continued Community Engagement

RationaleThe intention of this policy is to ensure that when development proposals come forward, and indeed are implemented, they are planned in such a way that reinforces those characteristics of the Lakes Estate which the local community treasures.

Related Core ObjectivesCO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO7, CO8, CO9, CO10, CO11 and CO12

Policy LENP8: Communications and Continued Community Engagement

Development proposals must be supported by Design and Access Statements and Statements of Community Involvement that demonstrate how applicants have positively engaged with Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, local stakeholders and the local residents groups and must adequately demonstrate compliance with the Core Objectives for the Neighbourhood Plan.

Explanatory Text5.15 The Lakes Estate is largely a well established community. It has actively invested a significant amount of time, resources and energy in the delivery of this document so as to inform potential developers of their hopes and aspirations. As and when more details are available of how a site could be developed, developers and their advisors are encouraged to actively engage with the local community, through Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, to ensure that local knowledge is used to its best effect thereby maximising the returns from the development.


Section6

The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Site Specific Policies


Section 6: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Site Specific Policies

6.1 The identification of the sites subject to the policies in this section of the Plan represents the culmination of rigorous schemes of consultation and both density and capacity testing. The findings are reported in the Evidence Base that supports the Plan. lt is considered that the level of development proposed on each site is sustainable, viable and deliverable within the Plan period.

6.2 Whilst the policies within this Plan do not preclude development occurring elsewhere within the Lakes Estate, the delivery of the sites assessed within this section, in accordance with both the site specific and general policies set out in this section, should be given priority.

6.3 In order to achieve the urban environment sought within this Plan, which includes creating a new “heart” and canal gateway for the Lakes Estate, it is imperative that the built form articulated within the site specific policies is carried through to implementation. Proposals will be assessed having particular regard to the 12 core objectives, the overarching policy for development opportunity sites (LENP2), and key site design and place shaping requirements articulated within the site specific policies, as well as the more general development objectives set out elsewhere in the Plan, Milton Keynes Core Strategy and the NPPF.

6.4 A total of 8 development opportunity sites are identified for development within the Plan area, as defined on the Proposals Map (Figure 6.1). Each of these indicate where positive regeneration and new development could be delivered sustainably to provide a positive contribution to the overall character of the Estate and meet both the aspirations of the local community and Milton Keynes Council.

6.5 The Plan is supported by an Implementation Framework. This sets out a broad delivery strategy for each development opportunity area, including broad timescales over the LENP period, key stakeholders and potential funding sources and identification of any infrastructure requirements. Proposals coming forward within development opportunity sites will be expected to demonstrate how they comply with the requirements of the Framework. Additionally, the Framework will also set out how the policies in the Plan will be delivered and monitored.

6.6 The Council will monitor the progress of each of the Development Opportunity sites and the effectiveness of the policies within the Plan. Milton Keynes Council will review the Implementation Framework at least annually to ensure the coordinated timely delivery of development within the Lakes Estate.

6.7 There are eight development opportunity sites listed opposite on page 47.

6.8 Each development opportunity site is accompanied by a site overview, a reasoned justification for identification of the site, the key site design and place shaping requirements that development proposals must have regard to. Key design and place shaping principles for each site are further articulated through supporting illustrations.


Development SitesDS 1 - Land South of Water Hall SchoolDS 2 - Triangle Land South of Phelps Street adjacent to the Canal

Small-scale infill SitesIN1 – North Western Verge, Drayton RoadIN2 – Land at Northern Access Windermere DriveIN3 - Land at Southern Access Windermere DriveIN4 - Land at Skene Open Space

Serpentine Court RedevelopmentSC1 – Serpentine Court

Gateway OpportunityCG1 – Canal Gateway


Land south of Water Hall School

Related Core Objectives CO1, CO2, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO8, CO10, CO11 and CO12

Site Area – 1.4 ha

Site OverviewThe site comprises surplus school playing fields and forms a well defined parcel of land south of Water Hall School and north of Empingham Close, bounded by Melfort Drive to the west and a footpath to the east, beyond which lie the rear gardens of the properties in Sheelin Grove. There are mature beech hedgerows defining the western and northern edges of the site, the northern boundary of the site adjoins the playing fields associated with Water Hall School .

The southern edge of the site is defined by close boarded fences delineating the rear gardens and access drives of the properties in Empingham Close. The later development at Empingham Close is poorly related to the wider Estate, furthermore the layout, built form and architecture are not reflective of the character nor context of the Lakes Estate.

DS1 RationaleThe intention of policy SSP1 is to promote residential development that better responds to the character of the Lakes Estate and provides opportunities to improve footpath connections for residents. The site comprises the largest development site proposed within the Plan, and therefore offers the greatest potential to generate additional housing within the Estate. The site already benefits from an extant outline planning permission for residential development for 61 dwellings, reference 07/00075/MKCOD3. The permission was subsequently granted an extension of time under 10/00550/MKCOD3.

Policy SSP1Development proposals should include the following principles :• maintain and enhance the strong landscape edges

within the site;• incorporate a footpath link to provide an east-

west connection between Melfort Drive and the footpath to the rear of Sheelin Grove to facilitate safe and convenient access to Water Hall School and Windermere Drive;

• ensure the overall approach to built form, layout and dwelling density relates to the context of the surrounding area and respects the amenity of the neighbouring properties;

• built form positively addresses and emphasises the junction with Melfort Drive and Burnmoor Close;

• built form does not exceed 2 storeys in height.


Figure 6.2 : DS1 - Land south of Water Hall School - Site Boundary

Figure 6.3 : DS1 - Land south of Water Hall School

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block

Main vehicular route (indicative)

Landscape enhancement


DS2 Triangle Land south of Phelps Street adjacent to the canalRelated Core Objectives CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO10, CO11 and CO12.

Site Area – 0.52 Ha

Site OverviewThe site is on the eastern edge of the Plan area, defined by Stoke Road to the west, Grand Union Canal to the east and residential development to the north. The site benefits from an existing vehicular access, Phelps Road, which provides direct access onto Stoke Road. There is an existing footlink bridge across the canal which provides access to the linear park beyond. The site has a pleasant rural feel and is well defined by mature landscape.

RationaleThe intention of policy SSP2 is to promote sensitively designed canal side development that preserves and enhances where possible, the site’s landscape context, whilst maximising views of the canal and increasing surveillance along the canal towpath. Development would also complete the development frontage along the eastern edge of Stoke Road and therefore the built forms should provide informal surveillance of the street scene. An opportunity has been identified for a public house/restaurant facility which could be accommodated within the site, visible to passing trade along Stoke Road and responding to opportunities

provided by users both of the Canal and linear park. A commercial use could further animate the street scene and encourage footfall around the Canal. In the event that a public house/restaurant does not come forward, the site can be developed solely for residential use.

Policy SSP2Development proposals should include the following principles :• respect and enhance the rural character and

appearance of the Canal;• if a solely residential scheme is proposed, it must

demonstrate that there is no market interest in the site being wholly or in part, for a public house/restaurant use;

• built form should not exceed 4 storeys in height;• the design of the built form should be double

fronted, providing natural and informal surveillance of the street scene along Stoke Road whilst maximising the advantageous eastern orientation, prominent position and views over the open space;

• safe and convenient parking should be provided on plot;

• proposals should allow for the integration of footpaths to improve access between the Lakes Estate and canal, and opportunities to construct a “shared surface” street should also be considered.


Figure 6.4: DS2 - Triangle Land south of Phelps Street adjacent to the canal - Site Boundary

Figure 6.5 DS2 - Triangle Land south of Phelps Street adjacent to the canal

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block


Crossing point

Opportunity for public house / restaurant


IN1 North-western verge, Drayton RoadRelated Core Objectives CO1, CO2, CO4, CO5, CO6, C10, Co11 and CO12


Site OverviewThe site comprises a wide grass verge on the north western corner of the Estate, defined by the Drayton Road to the east, beyond which is the Blue Lagoon, a nature reserve and popular area for leisure walks. Properties face inward, revealing backs of gardens which offer limited surveillance of the public realm and in turn provide little security for existing properties. Convenient vehicular access to properties is limited especially for properties to the south of Garry Close, and so parking is located at a distance from properties.

RationaleThe intention of policy SSP3 is to promote small-scale infill residential development to create frontage development onto Drayton Road. The creation of a new access off Drayton Road would improve access to existing residential properties and parking courts and create opportunities for convenient on-street parking near to people’s homes. There are opportunities to improve the main diagonal footpath that provide connections to the centre of the Estate and its shops and schools and to provide a safe and convenient crossing point to the Blue Lagoon leisure route. The creation of a formal pedestrian crossing point could slow traffic along the Drayton Road.

Policy SSP3Development proposals should include the following principles :• built form must not exceed 2 storeys in height;• the design of the built form should actively address

the Drayton Road;• create active frontages where new development

faces footpaths; • bungalows should be included in the dwelling mix;• improve vehicular access to existing properties and

parking courts; • proposals should be sensitively designed to cater for

pedestrian movement by including an element of “shared surface” street.


Figure 6.6: IN1 - North-western verge, Drayton Road - Site Boundary

Figure 6.7 IN1 - North-western verge, Drayton Road

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block


Crossing point

Open Space Improvement


IN2 Land at Northern Windermere Drive

Related Core Objectives CO1, CO2, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO10, CO11 and CO12.


Site OverviewThe site comprises a wide grass verge defined by the Stoke Road to the east, Windermere Drive to the north and wrapping around the rear gardens of residential properties on Gairloch Avenue. The “stepped” layout of the properties on the south eastern edge of Gairloch Avenue are successful in maximising views and light to the properties and providing a good degree of surveillance of the public realm and is an architectural response that is liked by residents. A mature hedgerow forms a strong natural boundary defining the southern extent of the site, beyond which is The Warren, a large area of recreational public open space.

RationaleThe intention of policy SSP4 is to promote small-scale infill residential development, to create frontage development onto Drayton Road that better addresses Windermere Drive and provides an active frontage onto Stoke Road and the open space at The Warren.

Policy SSP4Development proposals should include the following principles: • built form should not exceed 2 storeys in height;• create active frontages where new development

fronts onto footpaths; • articulation of key corners to address the junction

onto Windermere Drive;• include convenient vehicular access that offers

opportunities to relieve existing access and parking pressures adjacent to the site;

• establish new pedestrian links between Gairloch Avenue and the Warren;

• new development should consider opportunities reflect the “stepped” architectural rhythm of the existing properties.


Figure 6.8: IN2 - Land at Northern Windermere Drive - Site Boundary

Figure 6.9 IN2 - Land at Northern Windermere Drive

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block


Crossing point


IN3Land at Southern Windermere DriveRelated Core Objectives CO1, CO2, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO10, CO11 and CO12.

Site Area 0.31 Ha

Site OverviewThe site comprises a wide grass verge defined by the Stoke Road to the east and Kinloch Place, a cul-de-sac of housing to the west, with both front and backs of housing adjoining the site. There are tree belts defining the corner of Windermere Drive and Stoke Road and a further tree group at the northern extent of Kinloch Place. There are “stepped” properties on the north eastern edge of Kinloch Place which are successful in maximising views and light to the properties and providing a good degree of surveillance of the public realm.

RationaleThe intention of policy SSP5 is to promote small-scale infill residential development to positively address and emphasise Windermere Drive as a main route into the Estate. The site also provides opportunities for some new housing to provide an active frontage onto Stoke Road.

Policy SSP5Development proposals should include the following principles :

• built form should not exceed 2 storeys in height;• create active frontages where new development

faces footpaths; • articulation of key corners to address the junction

onto Windermere Drive;• include convenient vehicular access that offers

opportunities to relieve existing access and parking pressures adjacent to the site;

• establish new pedestrian links between Stoke Road and the Warren;

• reflect the “stepped” architectural rhythm of existing properties the north of the site.


Figure 6.10: IN3 - Land at Southern Windermere Drive - Site Boundary

Figure 6.11 IN3 -Land at Southern Windermere Drive

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block



IN4 Land at Skene Open SpaceRelated Core ObjectivesCO1, CO2, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO10, CO11 and CO12


OverviewThe site comprises a central parcel of open space defined by front and backs of residential properties at Burnmoor Close to the east and Skene Close to the west. There are a number of bungalows whose habitable rooms front directly onto the open space, creating a lack of privacy and security for the residents of the bungalows. A footpath provides access through the open space linking Lomond Drive with the centre of the Estate. The area of open space north of the site is densely wooded where the community wish to create a woodland play area. Access to the site could be provided from Burnmoor Close.

RationaleThe intention of policy SSP6 is to promote residential infill development to the north and south of the bungalows to improve the relationship between the existing dwellings and the public open space. Small scale development could enhance the amenities of the occupiers of the bungalows by providing an element of separation from the public realm, whilst generating more activity and surveillance of the open space and footpath to the benefit of the users of the open space.

Policy SSP6Development proposals should include the following principles :• built form should not exceed 2 storeys in height;• create active frontages where new development

front onto footpaths ;• built form should be sensitively designed to respect

and enhance the amenity of the occupiers of the bungalows;

• development should contribute towards improving the surface and lighting of the existing footpath through the site.


Figure 6.12: IN4 - Land at Skene Open Space - Site Boundary

Figure 6.13 IN4 -Land at Skene Open Space

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block


Open space improvement


SC1 Serpentine CourtRelated Core Objectives CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO7, CO8, CO9, CO10, CO11 and CO12.

Site area 5.92 Ha

Site OverviewSerpentine Court forms the central “superblock” of the Estate arranged in two halves, separated by a central pedestrian tree lined footpath that provides convenient north-south access between Water Hall School and Drayton Park Schools. There are no vehicular connections through Serpentine Court. Access to the western block is provided off Fern Grove and Windermere Drive provides access to properties and commercial units in the eastern block. Serpentine Court faces inwards, with residents parking provided in courts on the outer edge of blocks and delivery access for the commercial units limited to the parking courts and main estate roads.

This block of mixed use development forms the theoretical, commercial, community and physical heart of the Estate. It has an architectural character which is different from that of the remainder of the Estate. Changes in the national economy, patterns of employment and the recent way in which some of the accommodation has been used by Milton Keynes Council to house people in need of social care has reduced the vibrancy of the area.

Serpentine Court comprises a total of 220 units, 195 of which are residential, in addition there are 13 commercial units (2 of which are vacant) a public house and The Warren (nursery and youth club) and Spotlight (the outreach centre for Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council).

Critically the Estate lacks the necessary “local centre” requirements and fails to meet the needs of the population that it was originally designed to serve. A functioning centre for the Lakes Estate is critical for a number of reasons; to help support a community focus and centre for public activities where people feel welcome and safe, or indeed for less structured activities for example to simply see and be seen; to provide a commercial and business focus of activity, where people both work and shop; also importantly, to

provide convenient access to essential services which may be hard to reach for less mobile members of the local community.

Whilst some investment has been made to Serpentine Court in recent years, there remains a significant maintenance backlog. Furthermore, whilst the residential units remain largely fully occupied, as a result of the severe shortage of affordable housing within Milton Keynes relative to local demand, Serpentine Court is not a popular place to live. The duration of stay of residents is fairly short-term, with an average stay of 12-18 months.

Serpentine Court houses a large number of families with young children. The design of the block is such that the larger units tend to be located on the upper floors, where a lack of lifts and narrow stairwells create difficulties in terms of access, particularly for residents with mobility issues and those with young children. Furthermore, private amenity space is limited to balconies, which are not safe nor suitable for young children to play.

It is widely recognised that Serpentine Court is the priority site for regeneration within the Lakes Estate. Structural investigations into the physical condition of the building and the scope of current and future essential works and, importantly, feedback from residents of Serpentine Court and the wider Estate have concluded that demolition and replacement development is the most satisfactory way forward.

RationaleThe intention of policy SSP7 is to define the key structuring elements and land uses proposed for the development of a new “heart” for the Lakes Estate. New development must be designed to accommodate all displaced residential and commercial units from Serpentine Court, whilst seeking to develop a centre for the Lakes Estate which offers a range of supporting retail and community activities necessary for day to day living, and also providing an attractive focus for the Estate.

The creation of a new “heart” for the Lakes Estate is reliant upon the delivery of a suitable mix of land uses that will serve to animate the built form and generate activity in the public realm. The design of the built form will be critical to the success of the redeveloped centre. Proposals will be required to follow a design-led, master planned approach to ensure development of a high quality centre.


Figure 6.14 SC1 - Serpentine Court - Site Boundary


Policy SSP7

Development proposals should include the following principles :

• proposals should deliver a mix of community, commercial and residential uses comprising a minimum of 220 units;

• proposals should include a minimum of 195 residential units with a significant proportion to be delivered through blocks of 2 storey housing;

• built form should be contemporary in design and should maximise active frontages and on-street activity with buildings addressing and enclosing the street;

• built form should not exceed 4 storeys in height;• built form should be accessible and designed to

accommodate wheelchair and pushchair users, those with mobility problems and other residents to enable them to read and to navigate around the area unhindered;

• a new area of public realm in the form of a new public square fronted by shops will be provided adjacent to Fern Grove, to be designed as a pedestrian dominated space and the focus for public activity. Vehicular service access for commercial units will be provided from Fern Grove;

• opportunities to incorporate a community building should be considered;

• opportunities to incorporate small start-up commercial units should be considered;

• development fronting Windermere Drive should be designed to maximise views towards the east across the open space at The Warren providing a legible and safe pedestrian link to The Warren;

• implementation of a “green” footpath spine to accommodate direct north-south movement for pedestrians and cyclists through the space, retaining where possible the visually important trees that currently define the centre of Serpentine Court. Attention should be given to the way in which buildings address the “green” footpath, and particular attention should be given to ensuring any boundary treatment for the residential and commercial buildings is compatible and complements the landscape character of the green spine;

• proposals should demonstrate how the design and layout of the new centre can be served by existing bus routes;

• proposals should consider opportunities to extend or relocate Water Hall Health Centre;

• opportunities for lighting and other street furniture should be a feature of the public realm design.

In addition, proposals will require an implementation and phasing plan to be submitted setting out how redevelopment of the centre will be delivered in a phased approach that retains established tenants and occupiers.

It should be noted that there are benefits and disbenefits to preventing direct vehicular access through the new “heart” of the Estate. A lack of connectivity could discourage commercial retailers.

Site Boundary

Tree lined green footpaths spine

Town Square

Community Building

Site for extended or new health facility

Development block

Commercial units on ground floor

Active Frontage overlooking street/space


Open space and opportunity for youth and community building


Figure 6.15 SC1 - Serpentine Court


CG1 Canal Gateway

Related Core ObjectivesCO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, CO5, CO6, CO8, CO10, CO11 and CO12.

Site Area – 1.85Ha

Site OverviewThe site comprises a parcel of land on the eastern edge of the Estate, defined to the west by the realigned Stoke Road, beyond which lies The Warren open space. The eastern edge of the site is defined by a strong continuous hedgerow and tall conifer tree belt which obscures the Grand Union Canal from view.

RationaleThe site extends the development opportunity provided through policy SSP2 to create an improved eastern gateway to the Lakes Estate. Realigning the Stoke Road will create a residential development parcel that maximises the canal edge setting, reinforcing the relationship between the Estate and canal by creating landscape connection from the centre of the Estate through the open space and The Warren connecting with the canal edge. A valuable area of landscaped open space will be created for public enjoyment and activity.

Policy SSP8Development proposals should include the following principles :

• respect and enhance the rural character and appearance of the canal;

• built form should not exceed 4 storeys in height;• the design of the built form should be double

fronted, providing natural and informal surveillance of the street scene along Stoke Road whilst maximising the advantageous eastern orientation, prominent position and views over the open space;

• safe and convenient parking should be provided on plot;

• proposals should allow for the integration of footpaths to improve access between the Lakes Estate and canal, and opportunities to construct a “shared surface” street should also be considered;

• ensure high quality design of the streetscape, buildings and spaces fronting or adjacent to the canal;

• landscaping of this area should improve visual links between the site and the canal edge, strengthened by informal paths that link with the canal towpath and The Warren and provide direct access to the centre of the Estate; contributions will be sought to enhance pedestrian links and maintain the public realm;

• opportunities for lighting and other street furniture should be a feature of the open space design.

Figure 6.16: CG1 - Canal Gateway - Site Boundary


Figure 6.17 CG1 - Canal Gateway

Site Boundary

Existing footpaths

Parking

Active frontages

New pedestrian link

Development block


Crossing point

Opportunity for public house / restaurant



Section7

Delivery and Monitoring


Section 7: Delivery and Monitoring

Delivery

7.1 The Neighbourhood Plan is only effective if its policies are deliverable and able to be monitored. The Plan contains two kinds of policy; “general” which supports Policy CS8 of the recently adopted Milton Keynes Core Strategy, 2013 and “site specific” policies which relate to areas identified by the local community for change.

7.2 General policies LENP 1 to 8 once the Plan is formally approved, become part of the Local Development Plan for Milton Keynes. Along with other approved borough wide policies, it will be used by Milton Keynes Council to determine planning applications that come before it. This includes planning applications for development on all sites in the Plan area, not just those identified in the Plan.

7.3 In addition, it is anticipated that when Milton Keynes Council completes its work on Plan:MK, it will take into account the proposed development in the approved the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan and adopt all site specific policy guidance. The Vision Plan (Figure 4.1) illustrates the location of the proposed areas of change, enhancement and preservation unless there is special justification.

7.4 Site specific policies SSP1-8: all of the sites put forward for development have been subject to discussion with the relevant landowners to ensure their availability. Each site has its own individual characteristics and level of complexity, which will determine deliverability. Figure 7.1 below lists all the policy sites and indicates the expected time frame for realisation; (short (S 0-5 years), medium (M 6-10 years) or long term (plus 10 years) within the plan period.

7.5 The short term opportunities will be those whose characteristics are low risk, shorter planning timescales and least complexity in terms of tenure, access, servicing and occupation. These will include the small infill sites, sites already allocated for development, and vacant land with existing access arrangements. It is anticipated that these can be taken through statutory processes and brought forward for development in the immediately foreseeable future.

7.6 The medium term opportunities are by nature more complex, but include larger areas of highest priority for delivery. In particular it is anticipated that the replacement and redevelopment of Serpentine Court should be in this category, as this will have a major beneficial impact on the longer term aspirations and the Estate as a whole. To achieve delivery within the medium term timescale, and hopefully towards the earlier years, work will need to begin now. The nature of the Serpentine Court opportunity is that it is complex and will require considerable investment in up front planning and de-risking. Early action will be required to address site assembly (both commercial and residential units acquired through Right to Buy), with a fallback position being use of CPO powers, decanting and relocation requirements including Housing Act procedures to be agreed with tenants, decant availability – which will rely on the delivery of the short term opportunities and possibly some alternative commercial facilities, as well as the normal planning requirements such as access arrangements, servicing, etc. If the implementation of this significant medium term project is not planned and progressed from the outset then delivery will not be achievable in the desired timeframe. 7.7 The longer term projects are those that require more considerable infrastructure investment for delivery, and those which are not perhaps so crucial in terms of securing improvements for the area as a whole.


Proposed policy/Development Opportunity

Area

Expected Phasing

(SML)Delivery Agents of

Delivery

SPP1 / DS1 S

Pre-application discussionsAssessment and negotiation against policies Consideration of offsite contributionsMonitoring of outcome

Site owner I developerBFSTCMKC

SPP2 / DS2 S


Site owner / developerBFSTCMKC

SPP3 / IN1 S



SPP4 / IN2 S



SPP5 / IN3 S



SPP6 / IN4 S



SPP7 / SC1 M



SPP8 / CG1 M/L



Figure 7.1 Policy Phasing and Delivery


7.5 Infrastructure, facilities and services directly required by new development will be expected to be funded by the developer as part of S106 legal agreements. This will be negotiated by Milton Keynes Council in the course of pre-application discussions and in determining subsequent planning applications.

7.6 One of the key objectives behind this Plan is the broad acceptance by the majority of the local community that for important parts of the Estate to be supported and other areas to be improved development will need to take place. This will bring about change and financial benefits to the Lakes Estate.

7.7 In addition, new development will be expected to contribute either directly or indirectly towards community facilities and benefits. Some of these are spatial planning objectives which are identified in the site specific policies. Some are non-spatial and so have been included in the Community Action Plan accompanying the Plan and in Policy LENP8. Indeed, it is intended that Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, and in consultation with residents and providers, would determine the priorities for funding of these community facilities and benefits.

7.08 In line with national initiatives there is a range of funding measures which can be used to achieve this intention. These include:

• the New Homes Bonus;• Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); and• developer contributions through Legal Agreements

(normally section 106 agreements).

New Homes Bonus

7.09 This is a relatively new form of revenue grant from Central Government to the local authority based on the size and number of properties built in its area. Simplistically, the more homes that are built the higher the grant received by the local council for up to six years per property, from the point of occupation.

7.10 The distribution of the funds is the responsibility of Milton Keynes Council. For homes built on the Lakes Estate this Plan seeks the allocation of at least 60% to Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council to help fund local services, employment generating initiatives and community led projects. This means that even single dwelling developments will generate funds which can be cumulated until a particular project can be prioritised and then afforded.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

7.11 Community Infrastructure Levy is a charge that can be placed on all developers of new housing and commercial schemes. Central Government intends that this is used to help fund a range of infrastructure that may be needed as a result of development, for example highway improvements and community facilities. Milton Keynes Council has yet to decide if it wishes to use the levy or retain the use of both the MK Tariff in certain designated areas and outside of those, Section 106 contributions. Consequently, at the stage of preparing this draft Plan, there is no certainty whether or not the CIL will be adopted locally. The Minister for Planning has announced, however, that estates that have an adopted Neighbourhood Plan should receive at least 25% of this levy if it is generated. (Ref SD1.2)

Section 106 Agreements and Unilateral Obligations

7.12 These agreements place a legal obligation on developers to contribute sums of money where new development will place extra demands and impact on the local area of the community. Wherever possible, contributions will be sought by Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council for community projects or to provide a required amount of “affordable housing”. If Milton Keynes Council ultimately decides not to adopt the Community Infrastructure Levy method, these Section 106 agreements and obligations will continue to be the main arrangement for securing much needed developer contributions for individual projects.

7.13 lt is impossible to precisely predict the level of funding that the Lakes Estate will receive from development as there are so many variables, for instance, how many properties could be developed, the size of the properties, the percentage of developer contributions, the amount of affordable housing and the general viability of the local economy at the time the development is permitted and then delivered. The community fully appreciates that it is essential for developments themselves to remain viable for the developer – as without viability and the adequate generation of profit new development will not occur. Indeed a key phrase that has underpinned all consultation phases and is accepted by the local community is “Remember No New Development = No Improvements”.


Monitoring

7.14 lt is an accepted requirement for the Plan to be regularly monitored, to evaluate the success of the policies contained within and the progression towards meeting the core objectives of the Plan and to monitor the Lakes Estate’s contribution to the wider development plan for the borough of Milton Keynes.

7.15 lt is anticipated that both Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council and Milton Keynes Council will regularly monitor progress relating to the number of dwellings and commercial floorspace that are delivered during the Plan period, to include development opportunity sites as identified in SSP1-8, as part of its wider monitoring responsibilities.

7.16 Other more general policies such as those that relate to design and impact on the character of open space and site specific policies will be monitored through the planning process by Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council as they will ensure that applications are in line with the policies or note where exceptions are permitted.

7.17 In line with the previously established monitoring of community objectives by Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, securing the aspirations of the Community Action Plan will be reviewed and monitored on an annual basis.

7.18 Additionally, the Lakes Estate Steering Group will convene each year to prepare a monitoring report for Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council so as to record the implementation of the aspirations contained in the Community Action Plan.

7.19 The Neighbourhood Plan and the accompanying Community Action Plan will be reviewed and rolled forward after five years from the date of adoption.


Glossary Terms and Definitions

Appendix1


Community Action Plan- Proposed actions to address issues which cannot form part of the Neighbourhood Plan, as set out in Section 3 of the Plan, but which are important to the residents of the Lakes Estate. An Action Plan has been drawn up, indicating who will be responsible for negotiating and instigating action. This Community Action Plan will then prioritise work programmes for the organisations involved.

Affordable Housing - Affordable housing is not available on the open market. lt is available as social rented, affordable rented or as shared ownership housing, and is managed by a Registered Providers of Social Housing, who may be the local authority or a housing association of which there are a number in and around Milton Keynes.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)- The Community Infrastructure Levy is a charge that accompanies planning applications for built development. Many local planning authorities are currently consulting on their scale of charges. The money is pooled to fund infrastructure. If a Council deems it to be appropriate it may vary the levels of CiL payment in different areas so as to encourage development in some areas: for example in areas being promoted for regeneration. [See also MK Tariff and S106 Agreements]

Conservation Area - A Conservation Area is an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.

Consultation Statement - a statement setting out how consultation throughout the plan preparation period has been conducted. lt contains a summary of the main issues raised, and how those issues have been addressed.

Core Objectives - Those objectives that the Neighbourhood Plan and Action Plan seek to meet which have been identified through consultation with residents.

Core Strategy - The Strategic Planning document which is the overall approach for planning development in the area until 2026. All Neighbourhood Plan policies have to be in general conformity with it.

Design Guide - A guide setting out the principles against which the design of new dwellings should comply.

Development Plan - The Development Plan incorporates the Local Development Framework for that area and any “saved policies” carried over from the local planning authorities previous local plan. lt sets out the local authority’s policies and proposals for the development and use of land in their area. The development plan guides and informs day-to-day decisions as to whether or not planning permission should be granted.

Dwelling Mix - The type, size and density of housing in a proposed development scheme.

Evidence Base - A collection of evidence gathered to support and direct the development of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Gross and Net Residential Density - Housing development can be expressed in terms of• gross residential density which includes certain

nearby non-residential development as well as the land used for dwellings, or

• net residential density which refers only to the land covered by the residential development, gardens and other spaces included within it and usually half the width of any adjacent roads.

Habitats Regulations (Assessment) - A Habitats Regulations Assessment is the assessment of the impacts of implementing a plan or policy on international protected sites for nature conservation. These sites are Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds identified under the Birds Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for habitats and species under the Habitats Directive. Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention) are also considered under the assessment, as are candidate SACs and proposed SPAs.

The purpose of Habitats Regulations Assessment is to ensure that plans will not result in significant damage to protected wildlife sites. The assessment considers the impacts of a land use plan against conservation objectives of the site and identifies whether it would adversely affect the integrity of the site. Where significant negative effects are identified, alternative options should be examined to avoid any potential damaging effects.


Housing Demand - The quantity of housing that households are willing and able to buy or rent.

Housing Need - The quantity of housing required for households who are unable to access suitable housing without financial assistance.

Independent Examiner - A person appointed to evaluate the plan to ensure it meets all statutory obligations.

Listed Buildings - A listed building, in England, is a building that has been placed on the Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. This is a widely used status, applied to around half a million buildings of architectural, cultural or historic importance. The statutory body maintaining the list in England is English Heritage. A listed building may not be demolished, extended, or have its internal or external character altered without consent being granted by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.

Local Development Framework - is the spatial planning strategy introduced in England and Wales by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and given detail in Planning Policy Statement 12. Maintaining the framework is the responsibility of English district councils. [And see Local Plan below]

Local Development Document - Local development documents are a set of documents that a local planning authority creates to describe their strategy for development and use of land in their area of authority. Together they comprise the Local Development Framework / Local Plan.

Local Green Space - this designation relates to sites where:• the green area is in reasonably close proximity to

the community it serves;• the green area is demonstrably special to a local

community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife;

• the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

Localism Act - The Localism Act 2011 (c. 20) A major piece of new legislation, which includes wide-ranging changes to local government, housing and planning. Significantly, the Act abolishes regional planning, and introduces the possibility of Neighbourhood Plans as part of the Development Plan for an area.

Local Planning Authority - In England this is generally the district or borough council. In the case of the Lakes Estate, Milton Keynes Council, as a Unitary Authority has responsibility for all planning and service related matters.

Local Plan - A portfolio or folder of documents setting out the planning strategy for a local planning authority area. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 replaced old-style local plans, structure plans and unitary development plans with a new concept of a folder of documents which, until recently, was known as a Local Development Framework. The Government now uses the simpler description “Local Plan”.

Market Housing - Housing which is offered for sale on the open market.

National Planning Policy Framework - The National Planning Policy Framework is a key part of the government’s reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible. Published in March 2012, it vastly simplified the number of government policy pages about planning. The framework acts as guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers, both in drawing up plans and making decisions about planning applications.

New Homes Bonus - The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by Central Government to local councils for increasing the number of homes created. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 6 years and equals the amount of additional Council Tax revenue raised from new - build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an additional payment for providing affordable homes.


Neighbourhood Plan – Parish councils, town councils and neighbourhood forums can prepare a Neighbourhood Plan for their area. The Plan can set out policies and plans for that area, like a Development Plan Document but on a very local scale. Subject to conformity with national policies and Local Plan policies for the area, and gaining support through a referendum of the Neighbourhood Plan Area, this plan will be adopted as a formal part of the Development Plan. This means that all planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan (and other parts of the Development Plan) unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Neighbourhood Plan Area - The area formally designated to be covered by the Neighbourhood Plan, in this case the whole of the Lakes Estate plus a small element of the now absorbed hamlet of Water Eaton.

Plan Period - The period during which a plan is to be in place, is a material consideration in pre-application discussion and lawful determination of planning applications. In this case, to tie in with the Core Strategy, the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan will cover the period 2013 to 2026.

Plan: MK – Milton Keynes Council has undertaken to review the Core Strategy in order to ensure policies are up to date and adequate land is available for both housing and employment purposes. This review has already commenced and is scheduled to be adopted by April 2015.

Proposals Map - A map showing the policies contained in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Radburn Layout - The industrialization of areas after 1919 resulted in migration from the rural areas and a dramatic growth of the cities during the 1920’s. This population shift led to a severe housing shortage. Drastic changes in urban design were necessary to provide more housing and to accommodate ever increasing numbers of private cars. In answer to the needs of “modern society”, Radburn, the “Town for the Motor Age” was created in 1929.

How Radburn was going to meet the problems of “modern society” is best illustrated in architect Henry Wright’s “Six Planks for a Housing Platform”. These ideas formed the basic philosophy that he followed in designing Radburn.

His key elements were:

Plan simply, but comprehensively. Don’t stop at the individual property line. Adjust paving, sidewalks, sewers and the like to the particular needs of the property dealt with - not to a conventional pattern. Arrange buildings and grounds so as to give sunlight, air and a tolerable outlook to even the smallest and cheapest house.

Provide ample sites in the right places for community use: i.e., playgrounds, school gardens, schools, theatres, churches, public buildings and stores. Put factories and other industrial buildings where they can be used without wasteful transportation of goods or people.

Cars must be parked and stored, deliveries made, waste collected - plan for such services with a minimum of danger, noise and confusion. Bring private and public land into relationship and plan buildings and groups of buildings with relation to each other. Develop collectively such services as will add to the comfort of the individual, at lower cost than is possible under individual operation. Arrange for the occupancy of houses on a fair basis of cost and service, including the cost of what needs to be done in organizing, building and maintaining the community.

The primary innovation of Radburn was the separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This was accomplished by doing away with the traditional street pattern and replacing it with an innovation called the superblock. The superblock is a large block of land surrounded by main roads. The houses are grouped around small cul-de-sacs, each of which has an access road coming from the main roads. The remaining land inside the superblock is park area, the backbone of the neighbourhood. The living and sleeping sections of the houses face toward the garden and park areas, while the service rooms face the access road.

The walks that surround the cul-de-sacs on the garden side of the houses divide the cu-de-sacs from each other and from the central park area. These paths cross the park when necessary. Finally, to further maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, a pedestrian underpass and an overpass, linking the superblocks, were provided. The system was devised so that a pedestrian could start at any given point and proceed on foot to school, stores or church without crossing a street used by cars.


A further innovation of the Radburn layout was that the public parks were secured without additional cost to the residents. The savings in expenditures for roads and public utilities, as contrasted with the normal subdivision, paid for the parks. The Radburn type of plan requires less area of street to secure the same amount of frontage. In addition, for direct access to most houses, it used narrower roads of less expensive construction, as well as smaller utility lines. In fact, the area in streets and length of utilities is 25% less than in the typical street. The original savings in build cost not only paid for 12 - 14% of the total area that went into internal parks, but also covered the cost of grading and landscaping the play spaces and green links.

Referendum - A vote, arranged by the local authority, of all qualifying persons on the electoral roll in the Estate of the Lakes Estate. The vote on the 22nd May 2014 will determine whether the community accepts the proposals contained in the Neighbourhood Plan.

S106 Agreement - Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a land developer over a related issue. The obligation is commonly referred to as a “Section 106 Agreement” and normally requires the developer to make a contribution towards costs incurred by the community as a result of the development.

More recently, the Government viewed S106 agreements as providing only a partial and variable response to capturing funding contributions for infrastructure. Therefore The Planning Act 2008 introduced provision for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Councils are empowered (but not legally required) to set a scale of charges for most developments. Current Government thinking – at the time this report was drafted - is that S106 contributions will continue alongside CIL, but for a restricted number of purposes and requirements directly related to the site.

Steering Group - A voluntary committee of Lakes Estate residents appointed by the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council to prepare the Draft Neighbourhood Plan.

Strategic Environmental Analysis (SEA) - A systematic decision support process, aiming to ensure that environmental and possibly other sustainability aspects are considered effectively in policy, plan and rogramme making.

Superblocks – a collection of homes, generally backing on to cul-de-sacs, separated from their surroundings by roads and public open space in a Radburn layout.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) - A Sustainability Appraisal assesses the economic, environmental and social impacts of a proposed policy or plan, to ensure that it will contribute to achieving sustainable development.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) - Increasing urbanisation has caused problems with increased flash flooding after sudden rain. As areas of vegetation are replaced by impermeable concrete, tarmac or roofed areas, the area loses its ability to absorb rainwater. This rain is instead directed into surface water drainage systems, often overloading them and causing floods. Designed to reduce the potential impact of new and existing developments with respect to surface water drainage discharges, SUDS use cost effective solutions with low environmental impact to drain away dirty and surface water run-off through collection, storage, and cleaning before allowing it to be released slowly back into the environment, such as into water courses.Sustainable Development - Sustainable development refers to a mode of human development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while ensuring the sustainability of natural systems and the environment, so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come. The term “sustainable development” was used by the Brundtland Commission, which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Use Class - The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (the “UCO 1987”) is a Statutory Instrument, applying in England and Wales that specifies various “Use Classes” within which planning permission is not required for the change of use of a building or land from one use to another use within that same class. The UCO 1987 was made by the Secretary of State under authority granted by sections 22 and 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which have subsequently been replaced by sections 55 and 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Most recently, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 introduced further changes on 30th May 2013.


Viability - A test to ensure that a proposed scheme of development is economically sound and therefore plausible.

Ward - A subdivision of a local authority area, typically used for electoral purposes.

Wards are usually named after neighbourhoods, thoroughfares, estates, landmarks, geographical features and in some cases historical figures connected to the area.

The Lakes Estate lies in the Milton Keynes Council ward of Eaton Manor.


The Lakes Estate Community Action Plan

Appendix2


The Lakes Estate Community Action Plan

During the course of consultation with the community, a number of issues that were raised could not be included directly in the Neighbourhood Plan, as the regulations governing the approval of neighbourhood plans only allow spatial planning based proposals whose delivery can be directly controlled to be included.

It is recognised that these issues, which are set out in Section 3 of the Plan, are equally important to the day to day lives of the residents of the Lakes Estate. The Lakes Estate Regeneration Steering Group will incorporate these issues into the “Action Plan” that is agreed annually. There are a number of working groups that have been set up to implement the priority actions on behalf of the community.

Below are the Action Plan priorities for 2013 and the organisations who are responsible for negotiating and implementing the actions identified.

The Lakes Regeneration Steering Group will recommend priorities for expenditure through the existing regeneration funding and when funding becomes available via a community chest through the proposed development or from other external sources.

As with the Neighbourhood Plan, the Lakes Regeneration Steering Group will monitor progress and delivery on an annual basis, with a complete review every five years.


Issue Related Core Objective

Possible Solution/ Action Responsible for

Implementation

Monitoring including assessment against NPPF, LEP and Development Plan policy where appropriate

1 tipping CO8, CO10

Introduce wheelie bins and negotiate a new service agreement for the collection of refuse

Town Council

Council

Annual Review

2

landscape maintenance required of the open space and the streets

CO4, CO8

Negotiate a new service agreement for

work undertaken or seek advice from The Parks Trust

Town Council

Annual Review including consultation with The Parks Trust

3

Improve the

public realm (lighting, footpaths, seating, signposting and on street parking provision)

CO4, CO5,CO6,CO8, CO9

Programme streetscape enhancement works Town Council

Annual Review

4

Improve the

resident’s parking provision

CO6

Localised car parking initiatives to create a sense of increased ownership

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

5

Formal children’s multi use games area should be provided for teenagers

CO6

This could include an area for football / basketball / skateboarding

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

6

Formal children’s multi use games area should be provided for

CO6

This should provide a safe area for both formal and

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review


7

Residential boundaries need CO1

CO4

Robust boundaries should be provided and

maintained

Town Council, private households

Council

Annual Review

8

Locations and opportunities should be provided for more commercial uses to be attracted into the area

CO3, CO7, CO9, CO10

Development opportunities need to be

for uses such

shops, a petrol

restaurant and / or hotel.

Town Council,

Council, estate Annual Review

9

Indoor

facilities need to be provided for the children

CO8

Consideration needs to be given to short term use of vacant space or purpose built premises

Town Council,

Council & possible developers

Annual Review

10space should be provided for car repairs and / or DIY

CO3, CO9, CO10, CO12

Consideration needs to be given to short term use of vacant space or purpose built premises

Town Council,

Council & possible developers

Annual Review

11

Consideration needs to be

accessible ATM and post box

CO10Discussions need to be held with service providers.

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

12

The Police should have a higher more CO10

Discussions need to be held with service providers.

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

13

On site healthcare needs to be improved for drug users and those in need to minor A&E services

CO9, CO10, CO12

Discussions need to be held with service providers about the use of new or existing vacant space.

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

14

There should be more mutual respect in the CO12

enablers role could be expanded to reach less active members of the

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review


15

The Estate should be renamed to help improve

but misplaced reputation

CO10, CO12

Consideration could be given to rebranding the area

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

16The houses are too expensive to maintain

CO10,CO11, CO12

Consideration needs to be given

running costs can be reduced

Town Council, private owners, service providers

Council

Annual Review

17

Houses owned

should be maintained to a better standard

CO1, CO2,CO12

needs to be given to repairs on the Estate

Council and their chosen contractors

Annual Review

18 Court should be refurbished / redeveloped

CO1, CO2, CO4, CO9, CO12

Alternative accommodation for existing occupiers needs to be found to enable a phased enhancement of the area

Council Annual Review

19

There needs to be more communication of positive news

CO12

Consideration needs to be given to publishing good news. Perhaps with Best Kept Garden,

hanging basket etc competitions.

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

20 Council does not listen or look after the Estate

CO12

A corporate overview needs to be undertaken so opportunities for positive strategies are enhanced. This should include all services including, such services as housing, housing

repairs, ground maintenance and estates

Local residents,

Town Council &

Council

Annual Review

84 Consultation Draft NOVEMBER 2013THE LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES LIMITED50 NORTH THIRTEENTH STREET, CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, MK9 3BPTEL: 01908 666276 FAX: 01908 605747 EMAIL: [email protected]

all of our documents are printed on 100% recycled paper



Appendix6.2Wider Stakeholder Invite List

Wid

er S

take

hold

ers

cont

act d

etai

ls

Nam

eO

rgan

isat

ion

And

rew

Gea

ryLe

ader

of M

KC

Edi

th B

ald

Cab

inet

Mem

ber R

egen

erat

ion

Reg

Edw

ards

War

d M

embe

r MK

CA

lan

Web

bW

ard

Mem

ber M

KC

Dav

id H

illC

EO

, MK

CJa

ne R

eed

Ass

ista

nt D

irect

or H

ousi

ngK

athr

yn E

ames

Cor

pora

te R

egen

erat

ion

Man

ager

Dav

id G

lees

onP

roje

ct D

irect

or R

egen

erat

ion

Jan

Phi

llips

Reg

ener

atio

n C

oord

inat

or (L

akes

)B

ob W

ilson

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

ns M

anag

erM

icha

el M

oore

Sen

ior P

lann

erN

eil S

ains

bury

Prin

cipl

e U

rban

Des

igne

rR

icha

rd F

errin

gton

Land

scap

e A

rchi

tect

Dav

id L

awso

nTr

ansp

ort P

olic

y &

Pro

gram

me

Man

ager

And

y S

wan

nell

Tran

spor

t Eng

inee

rC

hris

Jar

man

Pas

seng

er T

rans

port

Mar

ie K

irbys

haw

Cul

tura

l Ser

vice

s M

anag

erC

arol

ine

Bar

der

You

th S

ervi

ce M

anag

er -

Sou

th T

eam

Pau

l Sau

nder

sA

ssis

tant

Dire

ctor

Com

mun

ity fa

cilit

ies

Rob

ert W

ard

Inte

rim le

ad n

eigh

bour

hood

Eng

agem

ent

Chr

is C

arve

llN

eigh

bour

hood

Man

ager

Ang

lian

Wat

er S

ervi

ces

Rca

hel M

urra

yTV

PB

ritis

hTe

leco

mP

LCB

ucki

ngha

msh

ire F

ire &

Res

cue

Ser

vice

Chr

is W

esto

nC

entri

ca P

LC (B

ritis

h G

as)

Mar

k H

anaf

inC

entri

ca P

LC (B

ritis

h G

as)

UK

Pow

er N

etw

orks

(Ele

ctric

ity)

Buc

king

ham

shire

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

Ayl

esbu

ry V

ale

Dis

trict

Cou

ncil

New

ton

Long

ville

Par

ish

Cou

ncil

Kar

en B

arke

r, P

aris

h C

lerk

Gre

at B

rickh

ill P

aris

h C

ounc

il

Hel

en H

upto

nW

est B

letc

hley

Cou

ncil

Eng

lish

Her

itage

Mar

c Tu

rner

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Can

al &

Riv

er T

rust

(for

mer

ly

Brit

ish

Wat

erw

ays)

Dav

id F

oste

r, C

EO

The

Par

ks T

rust

CA

:Milt

on K

eyne

sLa

kes

Ste

erin

g G

roup

alan

web

b La

kes

Task

& F

inis

h G

roup

jan

lloyd

Lake

s R

esid

ents

Ass

ocia

tion

Jean

ette

Mar

ling

Lake

s C

AY

AC

Ann

Jes

son

LEC

AH

erts

mer

e Tr

ust (

syca

mor

e H

all)

Wat

er E

aton

Chu

rch

Cen

treS

ir H

erbe

rt Le

on A

cade

my

Dra

yton

par

k S

choo

lW

ater

Hal

l Sch

ool

The

Pre

mie

r Aca

dem

yB

isho

p P

arke

rTh

e W

ind

in th

e w

illow

s N

urse

ryB

utto

ns N

urse

ryW

ater

Eat

on H

ealth

Cen

treTh

e G

rove

Sur

gery

The

Artr

oom

know

les

leon

resd

ient

ass

ocia

tion

wat

er e

aton

resi

dent

ass

ocia

tion

Shi

rley

Rol

fe



Appendix6.3Advertisements of

Consultation Events

The Consultation Draft for the Lakes EstateNeighbourhood Plan is available for comment for 6weeks from Monday 25 November 2013 to Monday 6

January 2014. This is the final time we will ask thelocal community to comment on the proposals beforewe submit the Plan to Milton Keynes Council. Pleasevisit the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Councilwebsite www.bfstc.co.uk or the Lakes Estate web-sitewww.thelakesestate.btck.co.uk electronic responsesto the plan will be collected throughwww.surveymonkey.com/s/LakesEstate.

This Plan was prepared so the residents can have areal influence over what type and quantity ofdevelopment that takes place, where it takes placeand the rate of growth. The Plan has been shaped bynumerous consultation events over the last 6 yearsand its aims are to:

Safeguard what the community treasure in the localarea; make every effort to meet local needs both nowand in the future; identify and support any requiredimprovements to local amenities and communityfacilities; and ensure that The Lakes Estate remains avibrant place in which to work,socialise and live.“

Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council isarranging a series of wider stakeholder events inDecember if you have questions on the draft LakesEstate Neighbourhood Plan please come and talk tous and share your views at:

Monday 2 December at Water Hall School

between 2pm and 3pm

Wednesday 4 December at Spotlight

between 1pm and 2pm

Saturday 7 December at Serpentine Court

between 10.30am and 12noon

Wednesday 11 December at Crosslinks

between 10.30am and 12noon

Wednesday 11 December at Spotlight

between 6pm and 8pm

Copies of the draft Plan will be available to view atBletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council Officesand Spotlight Office, comment forms will also beprovided. Alternatively please feel free to send anycomments to Barbara Sullivan,[email protected], Bletchley and FennyStratford Town Council, 74-76 Queensway, Bletchley,Milton Keynes, MK2 2SA.

You have until 6 January 2014, to provideyour comments; we look forward to hearingfrom you.

1

Winter 2013 Information on the regeneration of the Lakes

REGENERATION MK

Help us to shape the future of the Lakes

2

A Message from your

Ward Councillors

We would like to draw to your attentionthe progress on the Lakes estatesregeneration.

CESP/Lakes Phase 2

The warmer homes refurbishment has been a longtime coming but at last the quality of life for manyresidents has improved.

Work to the remainder of the Council’s properties starts in March/April 2014 and will take two years to complete,but at the moment it has not been decided which streets will be started first.

Lakes Neighbourhood Plan

Thank-you to all the residents who have taken part in the different events, drop-ins, maps and flags, questionnaires,displays, talks, and filled in feedback forms that have taken place over the past 18 months.

We know it seems just more talk but the refurbishment programme on the houses just shows you things arechanging.

The more of you who make comments on the Neighbourhood Plan proposals the better your improvements couldbe.

The proposal will not just affect Serpentine Court but the whole estate could have improvements, includingparking, pavements, play areas and street lights.

Do REMEMBER nothing will happen on the estate until YOU the residents/community decide!

It has taken 12 years plus to get to this exciting stage of improving your estate, with plans for new homes, shops,leisure and improved parking.

Without you none of this can happen so here is a reminder that next May 2014 the LAKES NEIGHBOURHOOD

PLAN REFERENDUM takes place.

It is your time to decide Improve or stay as you are - Your vote for your future lifestyle is very important.

If you have any immediate concerns that you would like to raise with your ward Councillor you can always see us atour monthly surgery at the Lakes Community Centre on the third Tuesday or each month between 6 – 7pm or leavea message in Spotlight or Crosslinks and we will get back to you.

Finally we would like to take this opportunityto wish you all a

Very Merry Christmas and Peaceful and Prosperous New Year

Ward Councillors’ Alan Webb and Reg Edwards

Cllr Reg Edwards Cllr Alan Webb

3

3A/B

Blue Lagoon

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Road

Design Approach


Existing Housing Areas

Improve Road/ Path Connections

Potential Development Sites

Creating a New Heart

Improving the Appearance

General points to consider

Location Plan

N

1A 1B

1C

5

2A2B

4

4


N

ACCESS TO PARK

PLAY AREA

HEALTH CENTRE

WATER HALL CARE

CENTRE

WIND

ERM

ERE D

RIV

E

WINDERMERE DRIVE

WINDERMERE DRIVE

New housing

New road between Fern Grove and Windermere Drive

Existing footpath between Water Hall and Drayton Park School

New public square with shops and community building

Existing road


New housing onto public square

Blue Lagoon

WATER HALL CARE

CENTRE

HEALTH CENTRE

Canal

Railw

ay Line

A4146 Stoke Ro

ad

4

Example of how Serpentine Court could be redeveloped

Shops with

Community building

Houses with gardens

Flats

Flats over garages

Shared surface

Option 4

5

Over the last few months residents on the Lakes Estate have been commenting on plans to revitalise theneighbourhood.

This is what residents said about the proposed new heart for the Estate

These are a few of the comments from residents on the heart of the estate do you agree?

• Pleased with the new design of Serpentine Court

• The public square should be in the centre, so its visible from Fern Grove and Windermere Drive

• No road through the middle

• Can see how a community building will gel the comm. but what happens to the old one?

• Children and youth building needed.

A new heart of the Lakes Estate

Views about plans at the heartof the Lakes Estate

Question 6 Don’t

A new heart for the lakes Estate Yes No Know Total

Houses should be no higher than 4 storeys 48 5 3 56

Well designed flats at the end of blocks 50 4 1 55

A new public square 48 2 5 55

A new community building and garden 45 3 6 54

New well designed roads with safe crossing points 39 15 3 57

The existing tree lined footpath retained 52 2 2 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Houses should be no

higher than 4 storeys

Well designed flats at

the end of blocks

A new public square A new community

building and garden

New well designed

roads with safe

crossing points

The existing tree lined

footpath retained

Resident responses

nu

mb

er

of

co

mm

en

ts

Yes

No

Don't know

The Lakes

Regeneration

Steering Group

– Needs You The Lakes Estate NeighbourhoodAction Plan Steering Group hasmonthly meetings to discuss andplan for the regeneration of theLakes Estate and put together theRegeneration MK newsletter.

We currently have some vacancieson the Steering Group for residents,if you would like to be involved orjust come along to find out whatwe are doing, the next meeting is atWater Hall School at 1.30pm onWednesday 20 November, we arevery friendly and will be reallypleased to see you.

If the idea of a meeting sounds tooscary, you can either give me a callon the number below or pop in fora chat and a cup of coffee/tea withme at Crosslinks on a Wednesdaymorning between 10.30 and 12noon to find out more.

Tracy Pearson, Lakes communitymobiliser 07738 405419

6

The Lakes Regeneration

Steering GroupAre looking for a person who is interested in

administration. The position will be self employed and

probably take five hours a month (and will be supported by

the community mobiliser) – experience not necessary, but

some computer skills would be an advantage.

The duties will include:

• Arranging venues for meetings

• Arrange tea/coffee for meetings.

• Agree agenda with the chair and circulate.

• Take and type up minutes, agree draft with the chair and distribute.

• Update, Action/delivery plan from information agreed by either the

working groups or the steering group.

The Lakes Regeneration Steering Group will pay £7.00 per hour for the

right person.

If you are interested in the first instance please contact:

Tracy Pearson on 07738 405419

Email: [email protected]

Or

Councillor Alan Webb on 07887 497651

Email: [email protected]

Spotlight has a new homein the old housing officeThe launch of the new Spotlight Office took place on Saturday, 28September and a good time was had by all.

Spotlight is now offering more services including sessions with:

Brook (Sexual health of those up to the age of 25)

CAB (Citizens advice bureau – appointments)

Job Centre Plus

The job club continues to support all residents and there are craft mornings, resident association meetings andlakes Neighbourhood Plan meetings taking place regularly.

If you would like to get involved at Spotlight please pop in and speak to Paula.

7

Keep your home safe and soundthis holiday season

Burglars are

opportunistic; they look

for easy ways to get in

to a home that won’t

take long or arouse

suspicion.

Homes that look

unoccupied and

insecure are more likely

to be targeted.

Here is a checklist to help you improve the security in and around your home, many of which will not

cost anything.

1. Make sure doors are solid and can’t be easily kicked-in.

2. Prevent easy access to the back and sides of your home by installing locked gates and high fencing or walls.

3. Security lighting can be used to make offenders feel vulnerable and observed.

4. Fit padlocks and hardware to shed and garage doors.

5. Securely lock all doors and shut all windows before leaving the house.

6. Never leave keys anywhere near the front door, including your letterbox; burglars know where to look.

7. Make sure that passers-by can see the front of your home so that a burglar can’t work without being seen.

8. Remove and secure items that may be used to break in or climb up such as ladders and garden tools.

9. Visibly and permanently marking your belongings helps you and the police identify them if they are stolen.

10. A home that looks empty is far more likely to be targeted by a burglar.

11. Do not close your curtains during the daytime.

12. Use automatic timer-switches to turn on a light when you are out.

13. If you’re away for longer periods of time, cancel any newspaper or milk deliveries.

14. A pile of post on the doormat is a clear sign that you are away.

15. Work with your neighbours to keep an eye on each other’s security,

17. And lock all doors and windows and set your burglar alarm.

LOCK IT DON’T LOSE IT

You can contact your Community Support Officer for further advice by telephoning 101

8

Milton Keynes Council

Housing and Community - Regeneration Team

Civic Offices 1 Saxon Gate EastMilton Keynes MK9 3EJ

T 01908 374312

Available in audio, large print, braille and other languages

01908 374312

From Christmas Day, Wednesday 25 December recycling and refuse

collection dates will change. Residents are advised to make a note

of the date changes and put refuse and recycling out on their

property boundary by 7am on the revised collection days.

Please note that these dates may be subject to change in the event ofextreme weather conditions which could disrupt refuse collections.

For all the latest news on refuse collections please visit www.milton-

keynes.gov.uk/recycling.

Alternatively, download the free appfrom Milton Keynes Council’s website(www.miltonkeynes.gov.uk/recycling)

Our three Community RecyclingCentres are open 8am – 5pm with thefollowing exceptions:-• Christmas Eve 8am – 1pm

• Christmas Day closed all day

• Boxing Day closed all day

• New Year’s Eve 8am – 1pm

• New Year’s Day closed all day

Changes to waste and recyclingcollections this Christmas

Normal collection day Revised collection day

Christmas Week

Monday 23 December No change

Tuesday 24 December No change

Wednesday 25 December Friday 27 DecemberThursday 26 December Saturday 28 December

Friday 27 December Monday 30 December

First week of January

Monday 30 December Tuesday 31 DecemberTuesday 31 December Thursday 2 JanuaryWednesday 1 January Friday 3 January

Thursday 2 January Saturday 4 JanuaryFriday 3 January Monday 6 January

Second week of January

Monday 6 January Tuesday 7 JanuaryTuesday 7 January Wednesday 8 January

Wednesday 8 January Thursday 9 JanuaryThursday 9 January Friday 10 JanuaryFriday 10 January Saturday 11 January

From Monday 13 January – all collections return to normal.

Dates are featured on our website and reminders will be

posted on Twitter – follow us @mkcouncil.



Appendix6.4Analysis of Response Forms

LAKES ESTATE RESPONSE FORM

QUESTION YES NO DON'T KNOW

1. Core Objectives Do You Agree With the Core ObjectivesCO1 12CO2 10 2CO3 12CO4 12CO5 11 1C06 12CO7 12CO8 12CO9 10 2CO10 12CO11 12CO12 12TOTAL 139 5

2. Lakes Estate neighbourhood Plan General Policies Doyou agree with the General PoliciesLENP1 9LENP2 10 2LENP3 10LENP4 6 1 2LENP5 9LENP6 8 3LENP7 8LENP8 8 1TOTAL 68 3 6

3. Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Allocations Do youagree with the Site AllocationsDS1 9 2DS2 6 5IN1 11IN2 7 4IN3 7 4IN4 9 1 1SC1 9 1 1CG1 8 3 1TOTAL 66 20 3

4. Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan Site Specific PoliciesDo you agree with the Site Specific PoliciesSSP1 8 1 1SSP2 6 4SSP3 8 2SSP4 8 2

SSP5 9 1SSP6 7 2 1SSP7 7 3SSP8 6 4TOTAL 59 19 2

CUMULATIVE TOTAL 332 47 11



Appendix6.5Milton Keynes Council Response

Planning, Economy and Development Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes MK9 3EJ

Planning Enquiries Direct Line (01908) 252358 Tel: (01908) 691691 Fax: (01908) 252211 Hays DX 31406 Milton Keynes

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy

David HillChief Executive

Nick FenwickAssistant Director Planning, Economy and Development

Our Ref: MM/501

Your Ref:

Reply To: Michael Moore

Mrs Lisa Courtney,Town Clerk,Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council,74/76 Queensway,Bletchley,Milton Keynes MK2, 2SA

Direct Line: 01908-252352

3 January 2014 e-mail: [email protected]

Dear Mrs Courtney,

RE: MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL RESPONSE TO DRAFT LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN.

I am writing in response to the letter dated 25th November 2013 from Francesca Robinson of David Lock Associates regarding the consultation on the above plan. At a meeting held at the Council’s Civic Offices on Tuesday 17th December 2013, the following delegated decision was made by Councillor David Hopkins, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Enterprise, with responsibilities for Neighbourhood Planning:-

‘That the comments set out in the report be approved as the Milton Keynes Council response to the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council consultation on the draft Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan.’

Please find attached to this letter a copy of the covering Officer report, plans and the Annex, which sets out not only the Milton Keynes Council’s (MKC) response to this consultation but also that of the Milton Keynes Development Partnership (MKDP).

On behalf of the Council may I congratulate the Town Council on achieving this important milestone. When you have had an opportunity to consider and reflect on the Council’s response. If you have any questions on those comments please do not hesitate to contact the Council.

I am sending a copy of this letter and enclosures to Francesca Robinson.

Yours sincerely,

:Michael Moore - Senior Planning Officer, Development Plans

cc. Francesca Robinson, David Lock Associates

ITEM 1

DELEGATED DECISION 17 DECEMBER 2013

DELEGATED DECISION 17 DECEMBER 2013 PAGE 1

0

MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION.

Decision Taker: Councillor Hopkins Cabinet member for Economic Development and Enterprise.

Author: Michael Moore, Senior Planning Officer, Tel: (01908) 252352

Executive Summary:

This report sets out Milton Keynes Council’s response to the consultation draft of the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan. The draft Plan has been prepared for Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council by consultants David Lock Associates. The Plan is out for public consultation from 25 November 2013 to 6 January 2014. Milton Keynes Council is a statutory consultee on Neighbourhood plans.

1. Recommendation(s)

1.1 That the comments set out in Annex A to this report be approved as the Milton Keynes Council’s response to the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council consultation on the draft Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan.

2. Issues

2.1 The draft Lakes Estate Neighbourhood plan is a Neighbourhood plan prepared under the Localism Act 2011 and subsequent regulations. The plan aims to physically regenerate the Lakes Estate, which has been the subject of many regeneration initiatives over the past decade. However, these initiatives have largely focused on economic, social and environmental aspects rather than the development or redevelopment of land and buildings.

2.2 A revised Neighbourhood plan area put forward by Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council (BFSTC) for the Lakes Estate was designated by Milton Keynes Council following a delegated decision on Tuesday 22 January 2013.

2.3 BFSTC has published its draft Neighbourhood plan for a six week period of public consultation up until 6 January 2014. The plan has been prepared following months of consultation with local residents and businesses-including door to door consultation on a questionnaire for all residents on the estate, a Planning for Real exercise held in July and August 2012, and more recently a touring exhibition of proposals around the estate prepared by consultants David Lock Associates.

Wards Affected:

Eaton Manor and Bletchley and Fenny Stratford.


2.4 The Lakes Estate was constructed between 1968 and 1975 by the Greater London Council (GLC) and not by the Milton Keynes Development Corporation. It was the last London 'Overspill' estate to be built in Bletchley. The estate is unusual in that it was built on Radburn plan principles named after a pioneering design concept from New Jersey in the United States. This involved abandoning the traditional design of houses fronting on to streets with pavements either side in favour of houses fronting onto communal green spaces, linked by a footpath network with vehicular access to the rear of the dwellings.

2.5 There are around 2200 dwellings on the estate, predominantly terraced houses and bungalows. However, about 10% of dwellings on the estate are flats in places such as Serpentine Court. Around 48% of dwellings on the estate are Council properties and 40% of properties are owner occupied. The rest are rented privately, with a registered provider or shared ownership.

2.6 This consultation on the draft plan is the first formal stage of consultation on the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan as required by the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, 2012. The Neighbourhood plan process encompasses a number of stages -

Consultation on the draft plan (the current stage) - a minimum of 6 weeks consultation led by the Town Council

Revision of the plan in line with consultation responses and submission of plan to MKC

When the plan is submitted to MKC it must include various other documents. A map or statement of the plan area, a consultation statement and statement of how the plan complies with the basic conditions.

Publication of the submitted plan by MKC for a further 6 weeks

Responses received during the publicity period are forwarded to an Examiner appointed to undertake a ‘light touch’ examination of the plan

Examination takes place and examiner decides if the plan should proceed to a referendum

Referendum - a referendum of residents on the electoral register-. It will be a single issue referendum (yes or no to accept the plan) and a simple majority of those voting in the referendum to approve the plan so if more than 50% of those voting in the referendum vote yes, the plan comes into force..

Once approved at a Referendum, the plan must be adopted by the Local Planning Authority and will be used as a material consideration when dealing with planning applications for the area.

2.7 At this consultation draft stage, the plan is the responsibility of Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council. The Town Council has consulted widely with parishes across the Borough, neighbouring authorities in Buckinghamshire as well as a range of national and local organisations including Milton Keynes


Council, English Heritage, Natural England and the Environment Agency. Businesses and residents around the estate have also been consulted directly by the Town Council.

2.8 In preparing this report, officers have sought the comments of colleagues across the authority whose work areas would be affected by the Plan’s proposals. Additionally, details of the consultation on the draft plan have been included in the Members’ Weekly News and Tuesday Bulletin in order to bring the consultation to the attention of Members and Parishes across the Borough.

3. Options

3.1 Milton Keynes Council is being consulted on the draft Neighbourhood plan it has two options –either firstly, to comment and therefore influence the plan at this stage or secondly not to comment.

(a) Option 1 (Recommended) – make comments on the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood plan

(i) Neighbourhood planning confers rights on communities to plan for their own area but the plan, if approved at referendum, will become part of the development plan and will function as a material consideration when the Council is considering planning applications and development proposals on the Lakes Estate.

(ii) In view of the weight given to a successful Neighbourhood plan it is appropriate for the Council to take the opportunity to consider and comment on the emerging plan so as to ensure that the plan and its policies are deliverable and effective.

(iii) When it comes to the examination into the policies and proposals of the plan, it will be helpful for the examiner to have a clear understanding of this Council’s views on it.

(b) Option 2 (Not recommended) – not to make comments on the draft plan

(i) An alternative view could be taken that as the plan is the community’s plan, then the council should not interfere in its preparation. However, in view of the weight given to a successful plan it is considered that such a laissez-faire approach is not appropriate.

4. Implications

4.1 Policy All Neighbourhood plans need to be in conformity with national planning policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and MKC strategic planning policies – including but not limited to those set out in the Strategic policies chapter of the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan (MKLP) and the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.

Provided delivery of new dwellings occurs, new housing development on the Lakes Estate will, in the future, help contribute towards maintaining the


Council’s five year land supply, reducing pressure for housing development elsewhere. It will also help contribute towards implementation of the Council’s Neighbourhood Regeneration Strategy.

4.2 Resources and Risk

N Capital Y Revenue N Accommodation

N IT Y Medium Term Plan Y Asset Management

Staffing: Neighbourhood planning on the Lakes Estate is being supported by existing staff resources from the Milton Keynes Council’s Development Plans and Regeneration teams together with input and support from other service areas depending on the issues under consideration.

Revenue: The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood plan does not incur costs on Milton Keynes Council (MKC) over that for which a budget already exists. The costs of undertaking the Neighbourhood plan for BFSTC have been significantly reduced as a result of successful multiple funding bids, by MKC officers working with Town Council officers. Financial and other in-kind support for this project has been obtained from Locality, one of the consultancy groups funded by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to assist Neighbourhood Plan frontrunners.

As a frontrunner, the Lakes Estate Neighbourhood plan has benefitted from £20,000 of funding from the DCLG which has been passed over to the Town Council to support their work on this plan. Additional funding to support Neighbourhood planning across the Borough is included in the Planning and Transport Departmental budget for 2013/14. Government funding (currently £25,000) is available to meet the costs of arranging the examination and the referendum provided the plan is adopted.

Assets: The policies in the Neighbourhood plan identify a number of sites for specific land uses. The plan could therefore potentially impact on Council’s aspirations for the use of its land assets and properties.

4.3 Carbon and Energy Management

The draft Neighbourhood plan does not specifically address this policy. However, new dwellings to be constructed on the estate are likely to be more energy efficient than those dating from the 1960s and 1970s.

4.4 Legal

In a fully parished Borough like Milton Keynes, responsibility for preparing a Neighbourhood plan rests with the relevant Town or Parish Council – in this case Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council, which is the designated body. The Localism Act places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to support communities undertaking Neighbourhood planning but it is up to each Town or Parish Council to decide if they want to prepare a Neighbourhood plan. For some Council’s, it may not be appropriate to do so. The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations, 2012 lay down the process that must be


followed by the Town Council and the Local Planning Authority in the preparation of the Neighbourhood plan.

. 4.5 Other Implications

Relevant stakeholders have been made aware of this consultation. The author has consulted with colleagues in other service areas across the Council for whom the draft plan would have implications. An item in the Members’ Weekly News and Tuesday Bulletin has drawn the attention of Members and other Parish and Town Councils to this consultation.

4.6 Sustainability: One of the basic conditions underlying a Neighbourhood plan is that it contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. The examiner will be considering if the plan does contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

N Equalities/Diversity Y Sustainability N Human Rights

N E-Government Y Stakeholders N Crime and Disorder

Annex A: Consultation Reponses Annex B: Milton Keynes Development Partnership Plans Background Papers:

Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations, 2012 (Statutory Instrument 2012 No.637). Available at :-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/introduction/made 4.12.2013

REVISED ANNEX

TO ITEM 1

REVISED MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LAKES ESTATE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION.

Internal Milton Keynes Council comments received on the draft Lakes Estate Neighbourhood plan including late and revised comments received after the original deadline for this Annex are reproduced below. Comments received from the Milton Keynes Development Partnership (MKDP) are also attached.

1. Comments from the Council’s Senior Archaeological Officer

There are 2 areas which will require archaeological field evaluation (trial trenching) prior to development. These are:

DS1 Land south of Water Hall School

IN4 Land at Skene Open Space

Both sites are close to a known archaeological site at Ruthven Close where a 1972 salvage excavation recovered 2nd-4th century Roman pottery from a ditch fill and occupation layer.

The necessary investigation may in both instances be secured via a planning condition, indeed the extant permission for site DS1 already includes such a condition.

2. Comments from the Council’s Development Plans Team

The Plan reads well, is fairly concise, identifies the main issues and logically sets out how these could be dealt with. No major comments to make and the comments below only highlight sections of the plan which would benefit from some clarification.

1. Paragraph 1.8, (page 6)

Comment: In order to achieve a robust set of policies, the Plan has been prepared in close consultation with the higher authorities relevant to the Estate, particularly Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council (BFSTC). The Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Plan (NP) steering group has been appointed by the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford Town Council to prepare the draft Neighbourhood Plan. However, formally BFSTC are responsible for the preparation of the plan so technically speaking they could not have been consulted on the plan. Maybe it would be better to rephrase this paragraph.

2. Paragraph 2.23 (page 18) last sentence.

Comment: Please clarify where the figure of 20% of people commuting to London comes from?

3. Policy LENP6, (page 40)

Comment: To avoid ambiguity policy LENP6 should clarify whether it replaces Local Plan policy L2 (Protection of Public Open Space) and Appendix L2 (Proposals for the Change of Use of Amenity Open Land) of the Local Plan 2001 – 2011.

4. Figure 5.2, (page 41)

Comment: This needs to be clearer e.g. include the legend identifying map’s annotations. Clarify that the deep green annotation shows areas referred to in policy LENP6.

5. Paragraph 6.5, (page 46)

Comment: The Plan is supported by an Implementation Framework. This sets out a broad delivery strategy for each development opportunity area, including broad timescales over the LENP period, key stakeholders and potential funding sources and identification of any infrastructure requirements.

This Framework is not available. Either it should be made available with the draft Plan or the sentence should be changed to read e.g. the final Plan will be supported by an Implementation Framework.

6. DS2 Triangle Land south of Phelps Street adjacent to the canal (pages 50-51)

Comment: This should read Phelps Road not Street.

7. Policy SSP4 (page 54)

Comment: The intention of policy SSP4 is to promote small-scale infill residential development, to create frontage development onto Drayton Road that better addresses Windermere Drive and provides an active frontage onto Stoke Road and the open space at The Warren. The policy refers to Drayton Road but should only refer to Windermere Drive and the Warren.

8. Policy SSP8 (site CG1)

To avoid ambiguity policy SSP8 should clarify whether it replaces Local Plan policy D3 (Canalside Development).

9. Open Space

The draft Plan identifies areas of land that are proposed to be developed for residential development. Some of that land is allocated in the Local Plan as open space and in accordance with policy L2 of the Local Plan and para 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework should not be built on unless

• An assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the

open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

• The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

• The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision,

the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

3. Comments from the Council’s Urban Design Team.

1. Overall the plan, other than the development opportunity sites (which are

constrained in their own way because of the imposed building height) is rather underwhelming (considering its length – 83 pages!) and does very little to address the issues pertaining to a Radburn layout. I do not see the proposals in the NP sufficiently helping regenerate the Lakes Estate or benefitting the Council in terms of reduced ongoing maintenance bills that are generally very high on Radburn layouts.

2. The NP generally proposes to respect the ‘Radburn’ layout. The Radburn layout is however flawed, inefficient and wasteful in many ways. It has been discredited in many quarters and is not in conformity with most of the design policy within the Local Plan as well as CS13 of the Core Strategy. It leads to increase in crime and anti-social behaviour and the way it turns its back on the surrounding area (through tatty rear garden fences) undermines the creation of a good image for the estate. Its protection will compromise potential design solutions. Ironically the NP talks about the problems of the Radburn layout but then doesn’t propose anything to improve it! Paragraph 5.10 (Access and Parking) for example addresses the current problems of the Radburn layout but then makes very few proposals to improve it. I am not suggesting the entire Radburn principle is eradicated but in my view not enough is proposed that will address the inherent problems of the Radburn layout.

3. The photos included are very misleading and mask over all the issues facing the estate because of the Radburn layout.

4. The NP appears to avoid saying much about the existing fabric / quality /energy efficiency of the existing housing stock (other than Serpentine Court) and therefore there is no real policy about what to do about existing homes (other than Serpentine Court) yet this is a significant issue for both residents and MKC.

5. Figs 2.2 – 2.5 are strange plans and don’t really provide much useful information – not sure why they are included particularly as full A4 pages. I am however surprised that an urban design analysis plan of the Lakes Estate is not included.

6. It is not clear what status the block layout plans have for each development opportunity site – if they are just illustrative then this should be included.

7. IN4 – has a quite bizarre layout – 6 little blocks of no more no 2 storey – if you compare the footprints to the existing adjacent footprints it suggest they might be pairs of semi’s, so 12 houses in all? Not a very efficient use of land!

8. The layout for IN1 is poor – the street should be to the front, not where it is currently located along back boundaries of existing properties.

9. Waterhall site and other sites being limited to 2 stories – is this going to provide the viability needed to regenerate the estate. It appears rather short sighted.

10. Water Hall School site – limit of 2 storeys on the most viable site is very short sighted. For a good example of how poor this is look at IN1 – the site drops away and could easily accommodate a range of storey heights and create a very different aspect to this part of the estate.

11. Policy LENP6 talks about the importance of the 4 diagonal routes of open space yet in order to improve them, no proposal are made to any of the housing that in places backs onto these diagonal open space corridors, or the removal of houses to make more continuous open space corridors.

12. Serpentine Court –I would also question whether 195 numbers of residential units is achievable when the majority of houses must only be 2 storeys in height with a maximum of 4 storeys!

13. Serpentine Court - I don’t think the proposed town square will work because no development fronts it on 3 sides. Even if the plan is purely illustrative it should show more enclosure.

14. Serpentine Court – in my view, I think there should be a vehicular link connecting Fern Grove to Windermere Drive (with contradictory views expressed in section 3) but more importantly this should be a direct link – in the location of the town square, rather than follow a ‘kinked’ route as currently shown which reduces legibility.

15. Appendix 2: The Lakes Estate Community Action Plan (no 1, 2, 3) are very difficult to deliver because of the Radburn layout while no 16 (Houses too expensive to maintain suggests that more radical solutions are needed!

4. Comments from the Council’s Regeneration Team. General Comments

• Overall the plan is well written and gives a good direction of travel. We would have preferred to have seen a more ambitious plan (as we have some concerns that in its current format it may hinder regeneration opportunities, i.e. around the height restrictions).

• We would have preferred to have seen some more development sites to deliver the housing needed and to deliver a new retail offer.

• It is hard to ascertain how deliverable the plan will actually be as there is no financial modelling or cost benefit analysis.

• The Plan rightly sets out specific policies for Serpentine Court which recognises the importance of this part of the estate both in terms of its residential opportunities and its retail offer. We welcome the proposal to create a new “heart” for the Lakes Estate that will animate the built form and generate activity in the public realm. We support the Plan’s statement that the design will be critical to the success of the redeveloped centre and the proposals for a design-led, master planned approach to ensure development of a high quality centre.

• We note the desire to preserve the Radburn layout. Our understanding of this type of layout however is that it can lead to an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour and the way it turns its back on the surrounding area. Our colleagues in Urban Design would be better placed to comment on the main problems with this. Perhaps this section could be re-worded along the lines of

preserving the best features of the Radburn layout whilst bringing it up to date with modern design principles?

• The proposed master plan for Serpentine Court will need to ensure that there is a Unique Selling Proposition (USP) for this part of the estate (particularly with regards to the proposed commercial offer). It is not clear from the Plan what the USP is going to be although we accept that this is probably more a matter for the forthcoming master plan.

• We would appreciate some clarity on the area of land in the south west corner of the estate (bounded by the railway line to the west and Drayton Road to the east). Is this to be retained as open space/green space? Comments on the Core Objectives

• CO1 The aspiration of the plan appears to conflict with the Radburn layout, e.g. defensible space, curtilage, and parking as outlined previously.

• CO2 The demographics outlined in the plan deal with the need for housing based on how the estate is currently situated. In the future, once the Plan has been put into place and rolled out there could be demand from people who want to move into the area. However the plan does not seem to make any allowances for this. One possible solution to this would be around being flexible around storey heights to increase densities.

• CO3 We support this although it is not clear how or where this could be delivered/located.

• CO4 Agree with this objective


• CO6 This objective appears conflicts with CO1(see previous comments on Radburn layout)

• CO7 Care is needed to ensure that this objective doesn’t conflict with objectives CO1-CO6 (as the Radburn layout appears to be more car focused)

• CO8 Broadly happy, services and facilities need further definition.

• CO9 We support this objective but think mention needs to be made of making the retail/commercial offer attractive to a wider catchment/wider area



• CO12 Need to add ‘is attractive to the wider population’.

Comments on Lakes Estate Policies

• LENP3: We feel that the plan is a little ambiguous and needs some clarity.

• LENP6: We welcome the clarity that this policy gives and the balance that it aims to achieve between the preservation of much-valued green/open space. In particular, the guidance given in the Explanatory Text, namely that “Other areas are considered to be less important and the community is willing to see loss of these areas in order to deliver wider gains”. In our opinion it would help the deliverability of the Plan if these areas could be identified.

Site Specific Policies

1. DS1: This is a prime development site and its importance is quite rightly

acknowledged in the Plan. We would query whether it needs to be prescriptive on height restriction, particularly across the entire site and would a wording that allows for some flexibility with this (i.e. “3 storey elements in appropriate places may be acceptable”). Care will need to be taken to ensure that any development meets the aims of Objective CO6.

2. DS2: The wording of the current policy in SSP2 almost seems to preclude residential use. A better wording may be “Preference would be for a mixed-use scheme that incorporates a public house/family restaurant. A solely residential scheme would be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that there is no market interest in the site being wholly or in part, for a mixed use”

3. IN1: We would prefer to see the height restriction modified to allow for some three storey elements.

4. IN2: Parking seems at odds with the policy guidance.

5. IN3: Parking seems at odds with the policy guidance.

6. IN4: No comment.

7. SC1: We note that the Plan recognises the issues around Serpentine Court and that it is the priority site for regeneration within the Lakes Estate. We

support the emphasis on bringing forward a design-led master plan as the best way to take this forward.

5. Comments from Development Management Highways) Development Management (Highways) had previously been asked to respond to the proposal to realign part of Stoke Road to enable the development parcel CG1- Canal Gateway to be included in the plan. Those comments appear below. I have also provided comment on other parts of the LENP where appropriate. Core Objectives CO4 – I am fully supportive of this objective and would add that all new connections to the existing pedestrian network are safe and secure. CO5 – I agree that all roads should be accompanied by well-connected pedestrian routes but that the provision of level access streets (shared streets) should be in accordance with the MK Residential Design Guide. CO6 – I agree with this objective but the provision of convenient car parking will be part of the normal Pre-application discussions for development proposals. CO7 – This is best responded to by colleagues in Passenger Transport but the identification of opportunities for public transport to better serve the needs can be discussed. General Policies Policy LENP4 The views given in the ‘Rationale’ on page 38 are understandable and I agree in terms of the level of car parking provision provided within the Radburn development. As stated car ownership has increased form what it was at the time the area was planned. That said there is no justification why car parking provision for any new development for the Lakes Estate should have a different set of criteria to those laid down in the car parking standards document that serves the rest of Milton Keynes. Equally for non-residential development, the parking provision should take reference from the Milton Keynes Car Parking standards document current at the time any new development is submitted for planning approval. At this stage I cannot see why car parking should need to be the subject of a Unilateral Undertaking. I agree that cycle parking should receive sufficient surveillance but normally these facilities are conditioned under planning to be provided within sheltered and secure structures.

Neighbourhood Plan Site Specific Policies I do not intend to comment in detail on each specific proposal as I feel this is not appropriate at this juncture however, I had previously been asked to comment on CG 1 (Canal Gateway) and those comments appear in more detail below. For other specific policies, I would at this point say that some of them will not be acceptable from the highway perspective/need amendment to make them acceptable. CG 1 Canal Gateway It is clear from available traffic count data that Stoke Road provides a significant entry/exit point from the Water Eaton/Fenny Stratford/South Bletchley area with the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) circa 6500 vehicles. This alone provides a concern in terms of any proposal that tries to divert traffic away from this route as any significant shift in traffic would have to be countered by an increase elsewhere and given its present use this would lead to longer and less sustainable journeys on routes that that may be more congested. It is likely therefore that any initial shift of traffic away from Stoke Road will ultimately find its way back there and Stoke Road will continue to act as a southern distributor road for those areas previously mentioned. However, that traffic will then be travelling on a road that is less capable of carrying and dealing with the same volume and the obvious concerns in that scenario are safety and convenience. Another immediate concern of this is the need of those residents living in the CG1 area to make journeys on foot and cycle across the realigned Stoke Road to access the facilities the Lakes Estate area offers such as schools and local shops etc. A dedicated crossing facility would likely be required and whilst the existing crossing to the north of Phelps Road could serve the development it is not ideally placed. Add to this the aspiration within the NP for opening up the Canal as a leisure destination for its residents and the safety concerns for residents and visitors’ alike crossing Stoke Road become exacerbated. The realignment of Stoke Road would need to take into account necessary forward visibility requirements for traffic travelling in both directions but especially for those travelling in a southerly direction and the built development would need to respect this requirement. Access to the development of this parcel would need careful placement. I would not be in favour of access to individual dwellings being taken directly off Stoke Road.

The length of Stoke Road currently accommodates two bus stops that would need retention. The proposal to divert this length of Stoke Road would present some interesting engineering challenges as there are significant level differences between Stoke Road and the rest of the built development to the west. Any diversion would also need to take heed of the need to divert existing public utility services which won’t be without significant cost. As currently shown the proposed realignment of Stoke Road appears too abrupt and any proposal would need detailed prior discussion with MK Highways.

6. Comments from Milton Keynes Development Partnership (MKDP).

MKDP only has one site (comprising two adjoining assets, see attached asset plans) within the LENP area, which adjoins Stoke Road & Phelps Road on the eastern fringe alongside the Grand Union Canal. The draft LENP contains two alternative site-specific polices (SSP2 & SSP8) proposing the development of the MKDP land for predominantly residential purposes, which are broadly welcomed.

The smaller or shorter-term proposal (Policy SSP2) is generally welcomed as it would help to facilitate the early and straightforward development of the site, with the basic design parameters proposed being able to feed into a development briefing process – MKDP will need to prepare a brief as part of any disposal process. Several points however should be noted:

1. The illustrative plan shows built development within part of the adopted highway, in between the western edge of the MKDP land and the Stoke Road carriageway (see appended, in pink on plan) – has the deliverability of this element been ascertained?

2. The aspiration to include a public house/restaurant within the development is queried as this could be difficult to achieve in planning/development and commercial terms; MKDP is aware that many ‘wet leisure’ uses are struggling in the current climate, and would query whether it is realistic or commercially viable to propose such uses in this location; also

3. This may well give rise to conflicts with existing and proposed residents – thus being contrary to Policy LENP5. This is not a large site and it is difficult to see how a contemporary pub/restaurant business (together with the necessary parking etc.) could be accommodated here, especially if sharing the site with

residential uses. It is suggested that either this element is deleted, or that more thought is given to demonstrating how these two potentially disparate elements could be accommodated in close proximity to each other.

4. The more ambitious proposal for the wider development area (Policy SSP8) extending from the MKDP land southwards alongside the canal offers potential for a more exciting development, but it is not clear how the re-alignment of Stoke Road would be achieved or funded, i.e. would this be partially or wholly funded from any increase in the development value of the ‘released’ development sites? If so, has the impact upon development viability been fully considered? Also:

5. In its current form the draft plan seems to propose two alternative developments with mutually-exclusive building footprints being indicated; it may be preferable for them to be promoted as two phases of the same development, so that if the smaller site is developed in the short term then it could form the initial phase of a larger development, if the re-alignment of the Stoke Road can subsequently be achieved.

6. This larger potential development site may then offer greater opportunity to successfully accommodate both residential and pub/restaurant developments (subject to commercial viability), as sufficient space could be provided to incorporate separate parking, access and separation/amenity space.

16.12.2013 Amended

ANNEX B(i)

Category B - MKB-87j-1Stoke Road, south of Phelps RoadBLETCHLEY

1:125011-12-2012

488000

488100

232300

232400

232500

488000

488100

232300

232400

31

33 to 3931

2725

2123

ST

OK

E R

OA

D

SO

UT

HLA

ND

DR

IVE

5

79

PH

ELP

S R

OA

D17

Foot Bridge

Horse Ride

STOK

ERO

AD

Grand U

nion Canal

Towing Path

13

3525

Path

CR

Sub StaEl

2

14

24

Site Boundary

Site Boundary

Cat

egor

y B

- M

KB

-87j

-2S

toke

Roa

d, s

outh

of

Phe

lps

Roa

dB

LET

CH

LEY

1:12

5011

-12-

2012

487900

488000

488100

488200

232400

232500

487900

488000

488100

488200

232400

4

232500

31

33 to 39312725

2123

Ps

2418

16

21

23

19

20

17

STOKE ROAD

SOUTHLAND DRIVE

5

79

PHELPS ROAD17

Foot

Bri

dge

Def

2

10 20

GAIRLOCH AVENUE

13

25

1

2

Sub

Sta

El

2

1

14

11

24

21

28

23

PHELS

ite B

ound

ary

Site

Bou

ndar

y

74 CONSULTATION STATEMENT FEBRUARY 2014THE Lakes Estate Neighbourhood Develop-

DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES LIMITED

50 NORTH THIRTEENTH STREET,

CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES, MK9 3BP

TEL: 01908 666276 FAX: 01908 605747

EMAIL: [email protected]

www.davidlock.com

Consultation Statement - Microsoftbtckstorage.blob.core.windows.net/site9039/BFSC01 Lakes...04 Big...

Documents

Transcript of Consultation Statement - Microsoftbtckstorage.blob.core.windows.net/site9039/BFSC01 Lakes...04 Big...