Parish of Haversham with Little Linford.

Single Blog Title

This is a single blog caption

Comments for Planning Application 21/02533/OUTEIS – Linford Lakes

At the last Parish council meeting several parishioners attended stating their objections to the above planning application.

The council had a discussion and decided to oppose this application and a formal comment was sent to Milton Keynes Council as per below.

 

Comments Details
Commenter Type: Parish/Town Council
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Reasons for comment:
Comments: Objection on behalf of Haversham-cum-Little Linford Parish Council
Planning application 21/02533/OUTEIS
Linford Lakes Nature Reserve Wolverton Road Great Linford Milton Keynes MK14 5AH

On Monday 18 October 2021 Haversham-cum-Little Linford the Parish Council agreed to inform Milton Keynes Council Planning Department of their objections and comments with regards to Planning Application 21/02533/OUTEIS

Objection 1. The development does not comply with national or local planning policy.
Planning Statement page 5
“The proposed development sites are located within the open countryside wherein there is a general presumption against new development in terms of both national guidance and local policy. The scheme is, therefore, contrary to the requirements of Policy DS5 of Plan:MK which seeks to limit development in the countryside through a range of exceptions. We feel that a Residential development of the scale proposed would not constitute a Policy DS5 exception and therefore the principle of this element of the scheme would be contrary to policy.”
Further, the applicant bases the proposal on a presumption of there being a need to complete a band of built form development through from Oakridge Park in the west to Redhouse Park in the east. We feel this is a false premise and there is no requirement or call for completion of what the applicant sees, somewhat speculatively, as a ribbon of urbanised development. There is simply no call for completion of the ribbon of development the applicant refers to.
A. Planning Statement Appendix 1 page 17
For the Appeal, Ref: APP/Y0435/W/17/3175391 27th March 2018, the Planning Inspector’s Conclusions included the following: –
“Compliance with the development plan.
95. The appeal proposal would conflict with MKLP Policy S10 by being located in the countryside. It would also conflict with Policy S11 by failing to protect or enhance the Area of Attractive Landscape, and with Policy NE1 by adversely affecting the Wildlife Corridor’s biodiversity.
96. In relation to Policies S12 and KS3, the scheme would to some extent advance the aims of those policies in respect of public access to the Ouse Valley Linear Park and Linford Lakes areas. But it would conflict with S12’s requirements as to landscape and nature conservation matters.
97. Looking at all of these relevant policies together, I find that the appeal proposal is in clear conflict with the development plan as a whole.”

Objection 2. The development seeks to provide 584 units of accommodation, far more than in the previously refused application (16/02270/OUTEIS), of up to 250 units of accommodation.
The 388 units of accommodation for the over 55s is likely to result in over concentration in one area.
Total number of units of accommodation, 584 is more than Redhouse Park phases 1 to 5 which has 544 dwellings. There are another 77 flats and dwellings under construction on the Ramada Hotel site.
The Linford Lakes development site is 13.36 hectares. Making the density 43.71 per hectare. A density of that magnitude in this location is unwarranted.
Proposed accommodation:
– Care Village up to 277 extra care apartments (Class C2);
– Care home up to 70 bedrooms (Use Class C2);
– Up to 41 retirement bungalows (over 55s) (Class C3);
– Up to 196 PRS private rental residential units (Class C3)

Massing: – We are concerned regarding the massing of this development with a proposed high number of 3 storey buildings and these in blocks with large footprints. Development if required at all in this location, should be of low-rise form and of no more than two-storeys in height.

Objection 3. There is no evidence to corroborate that existing local health facilities can support the development.
There is nothing in the documentation to explain what consultations, if any have been carried out, to ensure the local health care providers; doctors’ surgeries, pharmacies, social care/nursing, etcetera, can cope with the additional number of older and health challenged residents, who will occupy the development.

Objection 4. The proposed highway access and egress from the site is unsuitable.
There is a proposal that Wolverton Road should have the speed limit reduced to 40mph.
The speed limits on Wolverton Road are:
– 40 mph westward from Giffard Park Roundabout, through the signal junction at Broadway Avenue and the Marsh Drive junction to lamppost 30GP.
– 50 mph westward from lamppost 30GP to lamppost 48 GP, past the Linford Lakes and Blackhorse pub entrance/exit, up to Black Horse bridge over the Grand Union Canal, and the access road to Stanton Low Country Park.
– 40 mph westward from lamppost 48 GP at Black Horse Bridge to west of lamppost 21GL, past the signal junction at Selkirk Drive, and the entrance/exit to New Bradwell Cemetery.

I. It is agreed that there should be a single speed limit of 40 mph from the Giffard Park roundabout along the entire length of Wolverton Road, up to the existing 30 mph signs after lamppost 21GL, just before the signal junction with V7 Saxon Street south.

II. Paragraph 4.7 of the Transport Assessment states: –
‘The 50mph speed limit “gap” on Wolverton Road between the existing 40mph speed limits to
the East and West is proposed to be reduced. This will then provide a continuous 40mph
section along Wolverton Road, and compliance with the reduced speed limit will be enhanced
by the pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure, being proposed as part of the overall access strategy’.
We are astounded that a professional Transportation Consultant would claim that ‘compliance with the reduced speed limit will be enhanced by the pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure being proposed as part of the overall access strategy’! In effect they are saying that the reduction in posted speed limit doesn’t require any accompanying speed management features but that traffic will need to slow to avoid conflict with pedestrians as they make use of the meagre provision of a pedestrian refuge island crossing of Wolverton Road. This is preposterous. We expect that the reduction in the currently posted speed limit should be accompanied by an appropriate array of traffic calming measures. These were part of the proposal for the previous planning application (16/02270/OUTEIS) and should be part of this planning application. Further, the measures should be agreed with Thames Valley Police.

III. As with planning application reference 16/02270/OUTEIS, the junction serving the proposed development should be designed as a signalised junction. The signalised junction should incorporate a signal phase within the overall signal control, to enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross Wolverton Road with a guaranteed level of safety. This facility would allow access to the existing footway on the south side, leading to The Black Horse pub & restaurant and also to the tow path on the east bank of the Grand Union Canal.

Objection 5. There is no on-site parking for visitors attracted to the new Linear Park.
The public will not be allowed access to most of the proposed 68.65-hectare extension to the Liner Park. The public can only walk along a new path on south bank of the Great Ouse, and around the 7-hectare Redhouse Park Lake. The main area of the Linear Park, some 55 hectares (90% of the total area) is fenced off, with no access from the new housing, or from the path along the south bank of the Great Ouse.
Despite this, there is no visitor on-site car parking provision at all. Visitors will attempt to park in Redhouse Park and on the Linford Lakes site, to the detriment and inconvenience of residents.
I. A car park should be provided off Little Linford Lane, to enable visitors to walk the proposed circular path around Redhouse Park Lake. However, it is also essential that any car park off Little Linford Lane is sited at a location where adequate visibility for vehicles emerging from the car park, can be provided. If for visibility purposes, such a site cannot be provided, other locations off Wolverton Road will need to be considered.
II. Adequate parking provision off the new access road to the Linford Lakes Study centre road, should be constructed off the existing access road, from Blackhorse Bridge Wolverton Road to Haversham Mill, for visitors to Stanton Low Country Park (given the proposal to remove motorised vehicles from this length of public highway).

Objection 6. The development is primarily reliant on the use of private cars, and is non-compliant with the requirements of Paragraph 104 and 112 of the NPPF and Policy CT10 of Plan: MK.
Travel options for residents; offer minimal opportunities to travel by sustainable modes such as walking, cycling and public transport, as an alternative to unrestrained car use.
Given that the largest number of accommodation units are for those over fifty-five, and those with health and mobility issues, it is essential that connectivity, and easy access to every-day facilities is paramount.

A. Walking, Cycling and DVLA class 2/3 Mobility Scooters
I. Design & Access Statement page 76. “New footways will be provided, and to the West of the Site a new foot/cycleway will be installed on the North side of Wolverton Road extending towards the bridge over the canal that lies to the East of the Oakridge Park scheme.”
II. The “new foot/cycleway installed on the North side of Wolverton Road” must be a Redway designed in accordance with the MKC SPD, with a verge of at least 2.0 m from the road kerb.
III. It should extend eastward to connect with the existing Redway at the signal junction at Top Fair Furlong/Broadway Avenue.
IV. There is some confusion on the submitted plans, about the number of access points into the development, from the “new foot/cycleway will be installed on the North side of Wolverton Road”. There must be at least one access to each parcel of land A, and C and two to Parcel B.

No consideration has been given to improving linkages to the cycling network in the vicinity of the site. This oversight would need rectifying and the Toucan crossing of Wolverton Road as previously suggested would provide a safe link to places of interest to the south of the application site. Improvements to existing routes should also feature as part of S106 contributions.

B. Public transport. There is no prospect of sustainable access to public transport from the Linford Lakes development.
I. Transport Assessment page 10.
“The nearest bus stops are currently located on Marsh Road approximately 600m to the East of the Site served by the 21, 24 & 25 routes (see Milton Keynes Bus Route Map, Appendix B). Bus stops are also located approximately 750m to the West on Selkirk Drive using the neighbouring Oakridge Park as a turning loop for the 18 routes.”
II. Plan:MK Policy CT5 requires that all residential developments should be no more than 400 metres from a bus stop.
III. Transport Assessment page 14.
“It is proposed that the local 18 bus route could potentially extend into the Site (as an extension of its penetration into the neighbouring Oakridge Park) to serve residents of the proposed development.” It is our opinion that the viability of such a proposal has not been fully examined. This examination should be carried out collaboratively with MKC Transport.
IV. All these services will now be replaced by a DRT service, MK Connect, a minibus style services that picks you up at a local bus stop and drop you a short walk from your destination.

C. Private Cars.
I. Transport Assessment page 17/18.
“In order to review the highway implications of the proposed development, trip rates for private dwellings have been extracted from the latest version of the TRICS database (version 7.7.4). “House – Privately Owned” trip rates have been used to derive potential trip generation forecasts for the General Needs Housing. This represents a worse-case scenario with respect to traffic demands as, in reality, the development would include some proportion of affordable housing that is typically less traffic-intensive during the AM and PM peak hours.”
II. Tables 5.1-5.3 in the Transport Assessment clearly show that the predominant mode of travel to/from the Site would be by means of a private car.
III. “The peak period levels of traffic generation will likely be significant in terms of additional demand on Wolverton Road.”
IV. In the respect of Travel Options, the scheme, as proposed, fails to achieve a sustainable development and satisfy the importance noted in the NPPF that:
“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.”
V. Or comply with MK Plan :MK Policy CT1 Sustainable Transport Network
“A. The Council will promote a sustainable pattern of development in Milton Keynes, minimising the need to travel and reducing dependence on the private car.”

Objection 7. A draft S106 Heads of Terms Planning Obligations document has NOT been submitted.
Developers’ S106 contributions should be made towards local facilities including:
1. A contribution towards additional traffic calming measures on Wolverton Road, Haversham (including a pedestrian crossing) and High Street, Haversham.
2. The establishment of a Redway between Haversham roundabout (junction of Old Wolverton Road with Wolverton Road) and the southern limit of New Haversham.

Objection 8. Restricting vehicular access to Stanton Low Country Park. .
It is proposed to stop up the existing access road from Blackhorse Bridge, Wolverton Road to Haversham Mill. We believe this isn’t what is meant. A Stopping Up Order would extinguish the Public Highway in its entirety. Rather than Stopping Up the Highway (Section 247 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) the Gated Access Road should have a Prohibition of Driving Traffic Regulation Order applied to it (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). That would allow the gated road to be used for cycling/walking without interference from motorised traffic. Alternatively, the route could be converted to a Public Bridleway.

Objection 9: Increased risk of flooding
The proposed site and nearby Little Linford Lane have suffered from flooding. Flooding in Little Linford Lane occurs with disturbing regularity, disrupting travel through and around the parish of Haversham-cum-Little Linford on numerous occasions each year. This regular flooding can only be exacerbated by the scale of development proposed in this application. We also note that the method of storm water disposal has been described by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) as unacceptable.

Finally, Haversham-cum-Little Linford Parish Council reserves the right to comment further on this application.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply