Ana səhifə

Cmk alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan Publicity responses, September 2013


Yüklə 327.31 Kb.
səhifə1/5
tarix13.06.2016
ölçüsü327.31 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5

CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan

Publicity responses, September 2013


Publicity Response number

Respondent

PR1

Judi Moore

PR2

Natural England

PR3

Buckinghamshire County Council

PR4

Anglian Water

PR5

Newport Pagnell Town Council

PR6

Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board (IDB).

PR7

Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Trust

PR8

Thames Valley Police

PR9

English Heritage

PR10

Sport England

PR11

Old Woughton Parish Council

PR12

The Theatres Trust

PR13

The Highways Agency

PR14

Indigo Planning for X-Leisure

PR15

Milton Keynes, North Bucks + South Northants CYCLISTS TOURING CLUB

PR16

Jon Muncaster

PR17

Milton Keynes Council

PR18

Milton Keynes Arts & Heritage Alliance

PR19

Xplain

PR20

Danny Harris

PR21

Milton Keynes Council’s Libraries, Arts, Public Art and Heritage Officers

PR22

Turleys for the Centre:MK

PR23

Bidwells for Barratt Homes

PR24

Mike LeRoy

PR25

Deloitte for Intu Properties Plc

PR26

National Market Traders Federation

PR27

MK Gallery

PR28

Alan Francis

PR29

David Lock Associates for Milton Keynes Development Partnership

PR30

Anonymous



PR1
To: Development Plans
Subject: CMK Alliance business Neighbourhood Plan

This looks like an exciting wishlist of additional features and facilities for CMK. I wonder how it is to be funded.

Why is the Council reinventing the wheel with its ‘own’ university when one of the world leaders in provision of tertiary education has its headquarters in the town? Surely the way to develop a half-decent reputation is to allow the Open University to progress the MK University project, take it out of the small business building it currently occupies and offer some worldbeating courses.

I know that, these days, the ability to jargon-speke is worth many thousands a year – but really: the title of this project is just confusing (businesses in neighbourhoods? Not when you read on; no. Alliance between what bodies? No idea.)

With all good wishes

Judi Moore



PR2
To: Development Plans
Subject: CMK Alliance business Neighbourhood Plan Submission and Publicity NE ref:92536
Dear Sir/Madam, I can confirm that Natural England has no comment to make regarding the above consultation. 
Regards,
Charles Routh
Lead Adviser, Winchester Land Use Operations Team, Natural England.  07990 773630

PR3
To: Development Plans
Cc: Strategic Planning
Subject: RE: CMK Alliance business Neighbourhood Plan Submission and Publicity
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the CMK Alliance business Neighbourhood Plan. Buckinghamshire County Council has no comments to make.
Yours sincerely
Samuel Dix

Policy, Strategy & Development Officer

Place Service | Buckinghamshire County Council

Walton Street, Aylesbury, HP20 1UY

sdix@buckscc.gov.uk | (01296) 387484

PR4



PR5

Diane
Our Town planning & Management Committee discussed this last night and this was minuted:


ITEM 13 AUG 2013/TP:     CMK ALLIANCE BUSINESS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
The Committee received the consultation documents on the Central Milton Keynes Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan currently being publicised.  This item had been deferred from the July TPM meeting.  Cllr Carman said that he and Cllr Winsor had attended a consultation session hosted by MKC last year where this Plan was discussed and had reported back to the subsequent TPM meeting in October 2012.  A number of comments had been made by Cllrs Carman and Winsor, and others attending the meeting, but Cllr Carman commented that having looked through the current document little, if anything, had changed as a result.  The Committee had no further comments to make about the Plan or its content.
Regards
Patrick Donovan

Deputy Clerk


Newport Pagnell Town Council

80 High Street          

Newport Pagnell

Buckinghamshire MK16 8AQ

Tel: 01908 618756
PR6
Please find below comments relating to your public consultation relating to Central Milton Keynes from the Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board (IDB).
Milton Keynes has an exemplar policy for strategic and integrated Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), which has delivered distinctive designs that typically include flood risk management within linear parks that are maintained by statutory authorities.
Unfortunately, I was not able to find any reference to flood risk management within the CMK’s documents, despite aspirations for large areas of redevelopment and provision of significant new dwellings and jobs.  The existing drainage infrastructure of Central Milton Keynes is aging and was designed to old standards which were relevant to the time of the original development.
Any proposals and strategies should embrace flood risk management as a key constraint.  It is essential that flood risk assessment and design is accommodated as a primary design constraint, which will need to be designed and delivered to current day standards, including the current day standard for climate change.  Once the requirements for critical infrastructure has been established then, and only then can developable land be defined.
I hope these comments are useful.  If you would like to discuss them further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards

John
John J. Oldfield BEng CEng CWem MICE MCIWEM


Director of Operations

Bedford Group of Drainage Boards


Tel. 01234 354396

www.idbs.org.uk


PR7
To: Development Plans
Cc: 'Graham Mabbutt'; 'John Best'
Subject: CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan
I wish to comment on the CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan on behalf of the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Trust of which I am a Director. The Trust has a strong interest in Central Milton Keynes, especially Campbell Park. The proposed waterway could have a significant impact on leisure and economic activity in the locality and in this context we believe that the relevant section in the Plan and the proposed policy should be strengthened to more clearly support the waterway.
The following should be added to section 8.29:

“Any development in the vicinity of the canal should also take into account the proposed Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway which will link into the Grand Union Canal from the east via Newlands.”

Policy CMKAP G4 , final sentence should be amended to read:

“the design of developments will be required to enhance the appearance of the waterway, provide active elevations facing the waterway and provide for a link to the proposed Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway.”


Jane Hamilton
On behalf of the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway Trust

PR8
From: Dackombe Simon [mailto:Simon.Dackombe@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk]
Sent: 06 September 2013 10:27
To: Development Plans
Subject: CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan
Dear Sirs
I write with regards to the recently published CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan.  The comments  set out below are submitted on behalf  of Thames Valley Police (TVP) with regard to the  strategic implications of the  plan and the impact it may or may not have upon the future operational requirements of TVP.
As a general comment TVP are fully supportive of the work of CMK Alliance and are fully committed to the vision of continued growth and development of CMK as a  modern, vibrant and successful component of MK as it moves forward and grown in the 21st Century.
With regard to matters  relating to the Neighbourhood Plan TVP would comment as follows;


  • Any development/redevelopment  schemes that come forward in the area should have regard to the operational requirements of TVP, and in particular the day to day running on Central MK Police station which lies within the Neighbourhood Plan Area. Careful consideration should be given to any proposals that would restrict or impact upon our ability to respond (i.e.  Highway works, Pedestrianisation proposals, Public Realm works). The Central MK Station is fundamental to providing an appropriate police service for MK and the surrounding area and any proposals that would impinge upon TVP’s operational abilities and requirements must be avoided. TVP would request to be involved in any pre-application discussions/consultations on any  proposals in the vicinity of CMK Police Station.




  • The Neighbourhood Plan identifies a number of opportunities for additional growth and development  within its area. Whilst welcoming this growth TVP are required to  deal with its impacts. Additional dwellings, retail and commercial floorspace, increased night time activity and  an increase in both the  population and the number of visitors (employees, shoppers) all leads to an additional demand upon TVP resources. There is no funding/financial mechanism in place to deal with and mitigate against the impact of such growth, in short the impact has to be borne by existing resources. TVP would request that the Neighbourhood Plan  recognises the impact of development upon policing and explicitly identifies that any additional infrastructure/equipment required to mitigate the impact of development is funded through developer contributions




  • TVP have a previously indicated that given the planned growth within Centre MK and due to the nature and type of development planned for CMK (as reaffirmed in the Neighbourhood Plan) there will be a requirement for a neighbourhood office/facility within CMK. It is envisaged that this would be located in the  one of the main retail hubs in CMK and provide a strong visible presence for businesses and shoppers/employees/users of the facilities. In order to deal with issues surrounding the night time economy it is envisaged that the facility would be a 24/7 operation. The identification of this facility has been a longstanding one and has been included

in a number of iterations of the Council’s Local Investment Plan (LIP), including its most recent version published in June 2013 (it is identified as a facility at Midsummer Place). TVP would request that the Neighbourhood Plan explicitly acknowledge this and indentifies the provision of such a facility as a core requirement of the future growth plans for the area.


I, on TVP’s behalf, would be happy to discuss in detail any issues raised here and welcome any future involvement as the matter progresses



Simon Dackombe

Strategic Planner

 

Thames Valley Police



Property Services Department

Fountain Court, PO Box 227

Kidlington, Oxon OX5 1NZ

 

DDL     01865 293864  Internal 701-3864



Mobile 07800703316    Fax      01865 293780


PR9


SOUTH EAST



Development Plans Team

Milton Keynes Council

Planning and Transport Group
Civic Offices
1 Saxon Gate East
Central Milton Keynes
MK9 3EJ.


Our ref: Your ref:
Telephone

Fax




HD/P6021/01/PC6

01483 252040




12th September 2013
Dear Mrs Webber,
Central Milton Keynes Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan - Submission
Thank you for your e-mail of 23rd July advising English Heritage of the submission of the Central Milton Keynes Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan to the Council.
English Heritage commented on the Pre-Submission version in December last year and our comments are set out in Appendix 3 of the Public Consultation (Regulation 14) Report.
We note the Alliance’s response to our comment on CMKAP S1, to which we sought a change (referenced as E1.2 in Appendix 3), but do not agree with that response. This comment (and the others we made supporting the Plan) therefore remain our position. However, we do not contend that the Plan fails to meet the basic conditions because of the failure to address the concern we raised.
I hope these comments are helpful. Please contact me if you any queries about any of them. I would be pleased to be notified of Milton Keynes Council’s decision under Regulation 19 to make the submitted business neighbourhood plan for Central Milton Keynes.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Small

Historic Environment Planning Adviser

E-mail: martin.small@english-heritage.org.uk


PR10
From: Raymond Cole [mailto:Raymond.Cole@sportengland.org]
Sent: 17 September 2013 10:11
To: Development Plans
Subject: CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan
Thank you for drawing the attention of Sport England to The CMK Alliance Plan 2026, Draft for Examination: May 2013.
Sport England has examined the document and noted particularly that site A1.3 has been allocated as a major leisure centre.  This site has also been identified in a s106 agreement for a full size community football artificial grass pitch, details of which have yet to be finalised.  Sport England supports the allocation of this site for formal sporting facilities.   
Yours faithfully

Raymond Cole
Planning Manager

T: 020 7273 1904
M: 07909 633552
E: Raymond.Cole@sportengland.org



Creating sporting opportunities in every community

Sport England, 3rd Floor Victoria House, Bloomsbury Square, London, WC1B 4SE


PR11
From: oldwoughtonparish@live.co.uk [mailto:oldwoughtonparish@live.co.uk] On Behalf Of Old Woughton Parish
Sent: 17 September 2013 10:57
To: Development Plans
Subject: Old Woughton Parish Council comments on the CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan
At a meeting of the council last night, the following comment was agreed after lengthy and thorough perusal of the available consultation statement paperwork. 
 
 

General Points
1. In our view the CMKAP fulfils its objective of providing a ‘comprehensive basis for managing Central Milton Keynes (CMK) development up to 2026’.
2. We are pleased that it specifies the CMK development principles comprehensively in a clear logical framework that applies to the whole of the CMK area including those sites reserved for future, major developments.  And importantly, it provides good guidance on how these can be applied flexibly. 
3. We believe that adherence to the CMKAP design principles is extremely important.  It ensures that the concepts established by MK’s founding fathers which have stood the test of time, will continue to be applied.  Within these wise boundaries it will allow viable, future plans for growth and adaption to changing times to take place. 
4. We put our hopes in the governance represented by the CMKAP ensure that development is sustainable and to prevent in its area the kind of ill-advised policies implemented in other parts of the borough which allowed the grid road system to be ‘capped’ and which now severely limit the orderly expansion of the city.
5. We realise that the CMKAP should be consistent with the MK Core Strategy but, given the former’s status as a fully researched document that has been produced in an exemplary democratic and collaborative fashion by the residents and business stakeholders in conjunction with Milton Keynes Council (MKC), we suggest that the Core Strategy indicates that the CMKAP is the prime source of planning guidance for CMK.
6. We agree that endorsement of the Plan should be extended to the borough of MK because the residents and businesses within this wider area all look towards CMK as a focus of the city, both economically and culturally.  However, this may present some practical and affordability difficulties.  There would need to be a very extensive and intense public awareness campaign.  Potentially the referendum could be included in the next full council member elections.  Alternatively, Ward Councillors and, or Parish Councils could canvas their residents and provide feedback eg. x number of residents responded in writing, y were in favour, z were against, our judgement is Y or N.  The latter approach would probably generate quicker results and more public interest.
 

Buildings & Design
7. (Challenge 3 – p33) The idea of creating a more vibrant centre by encouraging mixed use (business, retail, entertainment, sporting and cultural facilities is applauded. Younger people especially are attracted living, working and visiting a lively community.
8.  Recognising and promoting outstanding examples of 21st century architecture (3.31-2); Heritage Buildings (CMKAP G2).  Obviously care must be taken to protect buildings that are architecturally unique.  However, it would be a mistake to preserve ‘carbuncles’ that people no longer appreciate, whose usefulness has passed and whose upkeep diverts resources away from more deserving projects.  The Point which is somewhat iconic but was always a cheap building, might fall into this category.
9. In CMKAP G2 perhaps include the need to select designers who recognise the classic nature of CMK architecture and the fact that CMK is not a ‘traditional city centre’ 
 

Transport

10. Transport access to CMK is currently a problem.  We welcome the way the plan addresses head-on the complex issues surrounding the delicate balance of private and public transport, parking, cycling and walking.  We are particularly enthusiastic about the shuttle bus concept which we believe has the potential, if well-implemented, to make a rapid and lasting difference towards increasing public transport usage.  Likewise, more facilities to support cycling will encourage many people in the city to leave their cars at home.


11. The concept of a 2nd transport hub in CMKAP T2 appears to be eminently sensible because it helps to spread the ‘load’ across CMK and in particular provides improved access to the expanding retail core.
12. We acknowledge that in the short term, re-balancing the transport equation and culture changing initiatives will be necessary to keep abreast of access requirements.  The need to make long-term, well-thought out arrangements is vital.  We thus strongly support 7.8 ‘the importance of future-proofing the movement corridors that keep options open for different transit solutions in the future’ and, 7.19/23 ‘the need to plan for the delivery of a rapid transit network’.  Setting enduring, fundamental objectives is a key strength of the CMKAP.

 

 Economic Growth


13. A key objective of the NP must be to encourage economic growth.  The document refers to this in a number of places including in the introduction where it mentions MK as ‘a regional centre to bring economic growth’.  p33 Challenge 2 states there needs to be a ‘long term view of development to support economic growth’.  There is reference to the MKC Economic Development Strategy 2011 in 5.13 - 14 listing important factors and priorities.  Within the section Quality of Place 5.16 – 5.18 there are general points about human capital.  More specifically the plan talks about developments that will encourage businesses and employees including ‘maintaining and enhancing the facilities that make CMK a business-friendly environment’.  However, there is no list of what these business-friendly criteria are and how they will be achieved.  We suggest that such a list would enhance the plan and allow the impact of achieving the measures to be assessed in terms of its contribution to economic growth.

 
Many thanks


Karen Hill


Clerk to Old Woughton Parish Council
c/o Adams Lodge, 8 Baskerfield Grove, Woughton on the Green, MK6 3EN
Telephone: 01908 465811
Mobile: 07706 709310

Serving the areas of Woughton on the Green, Woughton Park and Passmore


for information on the Parish Council www.oldwoughton.org.uk

PR12
From: Rose Freeman [mailto:rose.freeman@theatrestrust.org.uk]
Sent: 17 September 2013 13:02
To: Development Plans
Subject: CMK Alliance Plan
Our Ref.: C/5250

  1   2   3   4   5


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©kagiz.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət