The Panel is concerned that the Part A statement of the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub-regional Strategy will not continue to provide an overarching framework for the Growth Area and recommends that the key messages of the Part A statement, as identified by the Panel, should be incorporated into the sub-regional strategy.
Strategic Framework
The Panel finds the strategy weak in providing guidance on the integration with adjoining sub-regions and regions, and the interrelationship between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury. To help address this, it recommends that the Oxford to Cambridge Arc concept has a higher profile which will have the benefit of linking this sub-region with the adjoining Central Oxfordshire, and with the Bedford growth
area and the Cambridge sub-region within the East of England Plan. The vision for the Arc will depend on improved orbital communications and the reinstatement of the East-West Rail Link should therefore be clearly stated in the strategic framework.
The strategic framework should also set out the challenges facing the sub-region and in the Panel's view these are:
Strengthening the economic role of Aylesbury town and reducing its dependence on out-commuting.
Continuing to assimilate high levels of new growth.
Improving skills levels and educational attainment.
Improving connectivity between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, as well as between Aylesbury and the more buoyant economies in the adjoining sub-regions.
It also suggests that, although Milton Keynes has a clear identity in the strategy, the role of Aylesbury town needs to be expressed more clearly.
Economy
Although the Panel feel that the inclusion of above trend job growth estimates for this sub-region is consistent with the role of Milton Keynes and Aylesbury town as growth areas, it is concerned about the plan's job growth estimate for Aylesbury Vale district (equivalent to 1,060 jobs pa), which is over 60% above that included in the MKSM strategy (635 pa). Because of this, it recommends
that these are called targets for consistency with the regeneration sub-regions, although with the clarification that they are not intended to be a constraint to economic development and will be subject to review.
Jobs and labour supply are broadly in balance in the sub-region. However, the Panel is concerned that the use of the plan's jobs to new homes ratio (1:1) could be used to imply a
way of slowing down the delivery of new housing. Although it accepts that this was not the intention, it suggests changes to clarify this.
It rejects the proposition from Aylesbury Vale and others that this should be increased to 1:1.25 as this would be fine-tuning a monitoring ratio which is influenced by several labour market factors.
The Panel is concerned about the degree of protection afforded to existing employment land and recommends that the need for rigorous assessment, particularly close to the town centre (Aylesbury), is reflected in E8.
Housing
The only aspects for discussion at the EiP were the longer term housing levels for both growth areas and the remainder of their districts, beyond that included in the recently adopted MKSM strategy. The housing provision proposed for Milton Keynes urban area between 2021-26 (2,370 dpa) represents 50% of the indicative longer term rate in the MKSM strategy. The Panel is not persuaded by the argument
put forward by developers that as the MKSM strategy indicative rate was prefaced by the words “at least” higher rates should be sought.
Although acknowledging that it is not normal to carry forward any shortfall between one plan and the next, the Panel recommends that the underperformance against MKSM housing levels 2001-06 should be made up in the Plan period, which reflects the special circumstances of there being a 2001-31 target within the Sustainable Communities Plan.
On the rest of Milton Keynes District, the Panel feels that there is no reason to challenge the proposed level. It disputes consultants RPS's suggestion that the rest of district level should be increased on the basis of national household projections since it is the Milton Keynes urban area that is intended to provide capacity for.
The Panel feels that there are several factors that demand a degree of caution when considering Aylesbury's housing provision levels:
Even if an East-West Rail link is reinstated, Aylesbury town may only benefit in the longer term since the spur to Aylesbury is not in the base business plan currently being progressed.
Policy led employment projections assumed in Policy MKAV2 appear to be ambitious which risks an increase in out commuting particularly to London.
Aylesbury Vale has the third highest district housing level in the region.
It therefore concludes that there is no justification for amending the proposed 2021-26 housing levels.
Housing provision for the whole of Aylesbury Vale District is based on a split of 80% to Aylesbury town and 20% to the rest of the district. Apart from a requirement to provide for rural communities and to meet affordable housing needs, the Panel is persuaded that sustainable opportunities for growth could exist at Buckingham and Winslow.
The Panel rejects the affordable housing target of 40% for the Aylesbury growth area and recommends that reference to affordable housing being sought at the same rate as the regional target (35%) is made in the text.
Longer Term Expansion of Milton Keynes
The MKSM strategy identified four general directions of growth to the west, south-west, south-east and east. The Panel is concerned that, given the significant level of disagreement over where and how future expansion of the city should take place, if the South East Plan merely includes general directions of growth, the current level of uncertainty would continue. It rejects the argument that
it does not have the evidence to make a considered judgment on the size and location of future extensions.
It does not accept the suggestion of Professor Lock that the potential capacity within the existing urban area of Milton Keynes should make no contribution and conclude that the figures in MK 2031, as revised at the EiP by Milton Keynes Council, provides a reasonable estimate of the potential capacity of the existing urban area.
In terms of whether the strategy for the future expansion of the city should be through dispersal or Strategic growth areas, the Panel concludes that there was little support for a more dispersed pattern of growth and that it would be preferable for the city to expand through the provision of planned strategic development areas. It also concludes that there is insufficient justification to revisit
the area to the north of the city. It therefore considered where the proposed extensions would be best located having regard to the criteria identified by the Regional Assembly and the other factors discussed at the EiP.
Taking all these factors into account, the Panel's view is that the development to the south-east is likely to be the most sustainable and that development to the east of the motorway during the plan period would be less sustainable or deliverable than development to the south-west. Consequently, it endorses the directions of growth identified in MK 2031.
As for the phasing of the extensions, the Panel feels that it would be sensible to bring both the SE and SW extensions forward together rather than leaving the commencement of the extension to the south-west to the last five years of the plan period, as proposed in MK 2031.
The Panel rejected the suggestion by a number of participants that the period for the South East Plan should be extended to 2031.
Implementation
The Panel agrees that implementation of the East-West Rail will require the Consortium (or another formally constituted body) to take executive powers in order to be accountable for levying of any tariff for the investment in rail infrastructure. It therefore recommends that the text explains the organisational arrangements intended to levy and hold developer contributions towards reinstating
an East-West Rail link.
It also recommends that a revision will need to be made to the East of England RSS before the planned extensions can go ahead as the Government's proposed changes to the East of England Plan are silent on the possibility of an urban extension into Mid Bedfordshire and this Panel Report will probably be too late to influence the Plan as adopted.
In the longer term the Panel suggests that consideration will need to be given to the joint arrangements for taking development control decisions and to allow the Milton Keynes tariff to be collected, or whether the Urban Development Authority boundary should be extended.
It notes the confidence expressed by the Regional Assembly about the robustness of the assumptions made in relation to infrastructure provision and in general accept that this confidence is justified by the extensive analysis of infrastructure and costs undertaken. It also agree entirely with the Regional Assembly about the strategic importance of East West Rail which supports the economic objectives
of the sub-region as part of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and offers opportunities to make the best use of land through higher density development at rail nodes and interchanges.
