Tuesday, April 03, 2007
A further word on expansion
In one of their leaflets the Lib Dems accuse the Conservatives of "lying about MKC's own plans". They cite a long url reference (below) to a document from the South East Regional Plan Examination in Public website. To save you the bother of looking it up, here is the reference in full:
The MK Local Plan Inspector supported the Council’s strategy for concentrating the majority of new development on the city but with a limited amount of new housing and other development in the other towns and villages in the Borough (including Newport Pagnell, Olney and Woburn Sands).
MKC consider it unrealistic to make no provision for additional housing in the rest of the Borough. It is suggested that the SEP should allow for current rates to continue - i.e. 120 dwellings per year, from 2011 to 2026 (nb existing Local Plan commitments cover the period to 2011). The distribution of this housing is a matter for future Local Development Documents.
The position is that the Lib dems are content to see 120 houses a year built over a 14 year period. That is 1680 houses in total. The salient point to take from that is the final sentence. It is saying that it is up to the council to decide where to build them.
Now I wanmt to turn to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 27th June 2006. in the minutes, item C21 resolves:
C21 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY 9 - THE SOUTH EAST PLAN: RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE SUBMISSION PLAN
The Cabinet considered a report which sought agreement to the Council’s submission on the draft South East Plan. The Cabinet noted that in the period covered by the South East Plan there would be a small amount of new housing in the rural area of the Borough (i.e. In the Borough away from the city and the proposed growth areas to the SE and SW, including Newport Pagnell, Olney and the villages). This had been the Council’s position on the MK Sub Regional Strategy and a ‘reserve site’ had been identified at Tickford Fields Farm, Newport Pagnell in response to a recommendation from the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector.
The amount of new housing in the rest of the Borough might be about 2,000 homes. This figure could be considered as part of the 48,800 homes identified for the Milton Keynes area in the draft South East Plan, effectively being offset against the number of new homes that might be located adjoining the city in Bedfordshire (3,200 homes) which is outside the South East region.
In the February full Council meeting to discuss Expansion I asked the following question (which is minuted)
(d) Question from K Fraser to Councillor I McCall (Leader of the Council): "How many new houses your Party believes should be built to the East of the M1?"
Answer from Councillor I McCall:
"In terms of rural areas, zero. However, I do have to add a rider to that, in that our submissions to the Examination in Public on the South East Plan, is actually saying that there should be 120 dwellings per year in the whole of the rest of the Borough outside the existing urban area, and I think that includes Newport Pagnell, from 2011-2026."
Mr Fraser asked a supplementary question which was answered by Councillor I McCall
The minutes, are actually slightly incorrect because the "rider" quoted above actually came in the supplimental question. Her exact answer to the question was "As I previously stated, absolutely none".
I then went on to ask whether she considered it hypocrytical to announce that she would not allow any houses to be built east of the M1 when the Cabinet approved the SE Regional Plan that would see up to 1600 (of the proposed 2000) built in and around the villages?
Her answer was that the total they were proposing was only 120 houses.
I then challenged her that 120 multiplied by 14 years of the plans existence was still 1680 no matter how many ways you did the arithmatic.
Her resopnse was a tirade list of previous Tory housing policies.
So, my point is that on the one hand the Lib Dems are saying that they will not allow any houses to be built east of the M1, yet they approved the SE Regional Plan in Cabinet to build up to 2000 houses around the rural periphery of the city. By their own admission this will take in "growth areas" ... "including Newport Pagnell, Olney and the villages". With the SE and SW expansion areas pretty full already, the only viable space for them to go is around the NE flank of the city that takes in the villages.
I will leave it for you to decide who is lying and who isn't!
---------------------------------------------------------------
On a related point, the petition that the Lib Dems handed in at that meeting was worded:
(a) Moulsoe Parish Council: To request the Council to reject ‘both plans published by the Buckinghamshire County Council and the Milton Keynes Forum for the building on land in this Parish for housing and for business purposes’.
(b) Residents of North Crawley: To ‘call on the Council to reject the MK Forum and the Buchanan proposals as they totally ignore the wishes of local people and will destroy the villages as we know them’.
It is worth noting that MK Forum, as I have said in an earlier blog, have absolutely no official standing whatever. They are simply a pressure group funded by town planners who are seeking to benefit out of any excpansion that they would like to see happen in the NE of the City. We Conservatives have long since rejected both MK Forum and the Buchanan proposals. What the Lib Dems are trying to do is to associate the Conservatives in Milton Keynes with those in Buckinghamshire. The petition was simply a publicity stunt preying on confusion brought about by the Lib Dems, which is why the Mayor refered it to Cabinet.
Many of you will recall the letter from Mark Lancaster setting out his position in relation to this. We do not, will not, and have not, supported the Buchanan report and never will.
References:
SE Plan EIP:
www.eipsoutheast.co.uk/downloads/documents/20070206113136.doc
Page 11, Q8Fii4 paras 4&5
http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=17004
Cabinet Minutes of 27/6/06
http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=19520
Council Minutes 13/2/07
The MK Local Plan Inspector supported the Council’s strategy for concentrating the majority of new development on the city but with a limited amount of new housing and other development in the other towns and villages in the Borough (including Newport Pagnell, Olney and Woburn Sands).
MKC consider it unrealistic to make no provision for additional housing in the rest of the Borough. It is suggested that the SEP should allow for current rates to continue - i.e. 120 dwellings per year, from 2011 to 2026 (nb existing Local Plan commitments cover the period to 2011). The distribution of this housing is a matter for future Local Development Documents.
The position is that the Lib dems are content to see 120 houses a year built over a 14 year period. That is 1680 houses in total. The salient point to take from that is the final sentence. It is saying that it is up to the council to decide where to build them.
Now I wanmt to turn to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 27th June 2006. in the minutes, item C21 resolves:
C21 REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY 9 - THE SOUTH EAST PLAN: RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE SUBMISSION PLAN
The Cabinet considered a report which sought agreement to the Council’s submission on the draft South East Plan. The Cabinet noted that in the period covered by the South East Plan there would be a small amount of new housing in the rural area of the Borough (i.e. In the Borough away from the city and the proposed growth areas to the SE and SW, including Newport Pagnell, Olney and the villages). This had been the Council’s position on the MK Sub Regional Strategy and a ‘reserve site’ had been identified at Tickford Fields Farm, Newport Pagnell in response to a recommendation from the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector.
The amount of new housing in the rest of the Borough might be about 2,000 homes. This figure could be considered as part of the 48,800 homes identified for the Milton Keynes area in the draft South East Plan, effectively being offset against the number of new homes that might be located adjoining the city in Bedfordshire (3,200 homes) which is outside the South East region.
In the February full Council meeting to discuss Expansion I asked the following question (which is minuted)
(d) Question from K Fraser to Councillor I McCall (Leader of the Council): "How many new houses your Party believes should be built to the East of the M1?"
Answer from Councillor I McCall:
"In terms of rural areas, zero. However, I do have to add a rider to that, in that our submissions to the Examination in Public on the South East Plan, is actually saying that there should be 120 dwellings per year in the whole of the rest of the Borough outside the existing urban area, and I think that includes Newport Pagnell, from 2011-2026."
Mr Fraser asked a supplementary question which was answered by Councillor I McCall
The minutes, are actually slightly incorrect because the "rider" quoted above actually came in the supplimental question. Her exact answer to the question was "As I previously stated, absolutely none".
I then went on to ask whether she considered it hypocrytical to announce that she would not allow any houses to be built east of the M1 when the Cabinet approved the SE Regional Plan that would see up to 1600 (of the proposed 2000) built in and around the villages?
Her answer was that the total they were proposing was only 120 houses.
I then challenged her that 120 multiplied by 14 years of the plans existence was still 1680 no matter how many ways you did the arithmatic.
Her resopnse was a tirade list of previous Tory housing policies.
So, my point is that on the one hand the Lib Dems are saying that they will not allow any houses to be built east of the M1, yet they approved the SE Regional Plan in Cabinet to build up to 2000 houses around the rural periphery of the city. By their own admission this will take in "growth areas" ... "including Newport Pagnell, Olney and the villages". With the SE and SW expansion areas pretty full already, the only viable space for them to go is around the NE flank of the city that takes in the villages.
I will leave it for you to decide who is lying and who isn't!
---------------------------------------------------------------
On a related point, the petition that the Lib Dems handed in at that meeting was worded:
(a) Moulsoe Parish Council: To request the Council to reject ‘both plans published by the Buckinghamshire County Council and the Milton Keynes Forum for the building on land in this Parish for housing and for business purposes’.
(b) Residents of North Crawley: To ‘call on the Council to reject the MK Forum and the Buchanan proposals as they totally ignore the wishes of local people and will destroy the villages as we know them’.
It is worth noting that MK Forum, as I have said in an earlier blog, have absolutely no official standing whatever. They are simply a pressure group funded by town planners who are seeking to benefit out of any excpansion that they would like to see happen in the NE of the City. We Conservatives have long since rejected both MK Forum and the Buchanan proposals. What the Lib Dems are trying to do is to associate the Conservatives in Milton Keynes with those in Buckinghamshire. The petition was simply a publicity stunt preying on confusion brought about by the Lib Dems, which is why the Mayor refered it to Cabinet.
Many of you will recall the letter from Mark Lancaster setting out his position in relation to this. We do not, will not, and have not, supported the Buchanan report and never will.
References:
SE Plan EIP:
www.eipsoutheast.co.uk/downloads/documents/20070206113136.doc
Page 11, Q8Fii4 paras 4&5
http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=17004
Cabinet Minutes of 27/6/06
http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/cmiswebpublic/Binary.ashx?Document=19520
Council Minutes 13/2/07
# posted by Sherington Tory @ 12:21 PM 
