ANNEX C TO ITEM
4a(i)
Caldecotte Lakeside
1.1
This report relates to the notation on the Proposals Map for two lakeside
promontories at Caldecotte. Representatives of Walton Parish Council drew
this matter to the attention of the Cabinet on 19 October 2004 during
discussion of Part 1 of the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector’s Report. It was also
raised at Full Council on 14 December 2004, when Council considered the
Cabinet’s recommendations in response to the Inspector’s Part 1 Report.
1.2
The decision to review the status of the promontories was made by cabinet on
30 November 2004 (Minute C1010 refers).
1.3
The issue arose as a result of a recent planning application that included
(amongst other things) a hotel on the southern promontory (04/1371/FUL).
The Development Control Committee refused this application on 13 October
2004.
1.4
The notation of the promontories in the Local Plan was not a matter
considered by the Inspector in either his Part 1 or Part 2 Report, as there were
no objections on this matter when the first deposit version of the Plan (DV1)
was published in September 2000. However, it was agreed that the Cabinet
would look at this matter when considering whether there were any reasons
for putting forward changes to the Plan other than in response to the
Inspector’s recommendations.
1.5
A ‘round table’ meeting was held on 20 January 2005 to discuss the lakeside
promontories. The meeting was attended by representatives of the parish
council, local ward members, council officers, EP and the prospective
developers of the southern promontory and adjoining land.
1.6
This report explains the background to the issue, the nature of the changes to
the Proposals Map in 2000, and the process by which those changes were
agreed. It also identifies the concerns that have been raised, the options open
to the Council, and a recommended course of action.
1.7
The report is accompanied by a plan showing the location of the promontories.
2.
Background
2.1
On the Adopted Local Plan Proposals Map, the promontories on the north and
south sides of the circular bay are shown as existing recreation and open
space (light green). A large area between the promontories (7.2 ha), stretching
away from the lake to the east, is shown as proposed commercial (dark blue).
2.2
The Local Plan Sub Committee considered a report on changes to the
Proposals Map in March 2000 (Minute LP43/00 refers). The report (para 4.4)
identified several categories of changes to the Proposals Map that would not
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
be scheduled in the report but regarded as part of the general updating of the
Map, as follows:
‘The schedules do not include the following changes that will be made as part of the
general updating of the Proposals Map. Changes that …
•
•
•
•
•
2.3
2.4
reflect development progress on the ground (e.g. from proposed to existing
housing)
reflect new planning permissions granted and taken up since the Local Plan
was adopted
relate to variations to the pattern of land uses in undeveloped areas that are
within the scope of outstanding 7.1 consents
relate land use / policy area boundaries to physical boundaries now shown on
Ordnance Survey base maps’
relate land use / policy area boundaries to advanced infrastructure now
committed or provided in undeveloped areas (roads, redways etc
The DV1 Proposals Map shows both promontories as proposed commercial,
but a reduction in the total area proposed for commercial development from
7.2 ha to 1.75 ha, reflecting the housing development that had taken place
since 1995 on and to the east of Monellan Crescent, on land shown for
proposed commercial development in the Adopted Local Plan. The areas of
the sites that were changed to proposed commercial development were as
follows:
Southern promontory
0.23 ha
Northern promontory
0.17 ha
The changes at Caldecotte were one of several changes requested by English
Partnerships (EP) when consulted informally by officers on a first draft of the
new Proposals Map in late 1999. This informal consultation with EP followed
the same approach as taken with their predecessors, the MK Development
Corporation (MKDC) and the Commission for the New Towns (CNT) during
the production of the Adopted Local Plan. This was consistent with advice in
regulations and circulars in place at the time the Adopted Local Plan was
prepared which required local authorities to take into account any proposals by
development corporations when preparing their plans.
2.5
The intention was to ensure that the Proposals Map was as up-to-date as
possible in reflecting approved grid square structure plans, development briefs
and 7.2 consents granted since the Adopted Local Plan was prepared in the
mid 1990s, together with EP’s latest proposals for undeveloped areas,
provided that they were consistent with the original 7.1 consents.
2.6
Officers were mindful of the flexibility inherent in the 7.1 consents: this
flexibility is also referred to in the supporting text to Policy DS3 in the Adopted
Local Plan (at para 2.36).
2.7
A schedule of all changes to the Proposals Map requested by EP in late 1999 /
early 2000 is included and discussed further in a separate report.
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
3.
Section 7.1 consent
3.1
In July 1989, the Secretary of State granted a Section 7.1 consent under the
New Towns Act (A.1441) - equivalent to outline planning permission - for this
part of Caldecotte. The 7.1 submission states that (para 3.1) ‘next to the main
bay of the lake, there will be a lakeside centre which it is envisaged could
include dwellings, restaurants, a public house, sports club, workshops shops
and a hotel’. The uses for which permission was granted include shopping
(use class A1); and catering, restaurants and public house / hotel facilities (A3
and C1).
3.2
The drawing accompanying the submission (A1441/01) has the annotation
‘LaC’ (Lakeside Centre) in two places close to the lake, with no boundary
defined between this area and proposed residential areas (‘RES’) to the east
and proposed open space (‘O/S’) to the north. The ‘for information’ land use
plan accompanying the 7.1 submission (A1441/02) includes both promontories
within the Lakeside Centre area.
4.
Development briefs for adjoining housing sites
4.1
In 1995, CNT published development briefs for 4 housing sites that have since
been developed (the Monellan Crescent - Heybridge Crescent - Gatewick
area). The briefs include a ‘structure plan diagram’ for ‘Caldecotte Quayside’
which shows commercial uses on both promontories.
4.2
The accompanying briefs refer to ‘the creation of a lakeside facility that will
contain diverse activities and will draw visitors from across Milton Keynes and
beyond’. The diagram shows the southern promontory (Site A) to be
developed for a pub and restaurant (or restaurant / café), with adjoining Sites
B and C - also part of the recent planning application - proposed for a hotel
and restaurant (or offices or restaurants), and local shop and studio
respectively. The northern promontory (Site E) is proposed for offices (or
restaurant and residential).
4.3
Therefore, the changes requested by EP in late 1999 / early 2000 were
considered by officers to be consistent with the 7.1 consent for this area, the
1995 structure diagram and site development briefs.
4.4
Officers also took into account the substantial reduction in the total area
proposed for commercial development at Caldecotte, from 7.2 ha to 1.75 ha.
5.
Change to parish boundary
5.1
At the time that DV1 was prepared, Caldecotte was part of Bow Brickhill
parish. In August 2000, the parish boundary was changed and the whole of
Caldecotte was transferred to Walton parish. DV1 was published in September
2000.
5.2
It seems that neither parish council identified the changes to the lakeside
promontories. Neither parish council nor the local ward members at the time
commented on the changes at DV1 stage.
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
6.
Publicity for DV1
6.1
It has been argued by some now objecting to the Local Plan that the
consultation on DV1 was flawed because the Council did not draw the specific
changes at Caldecotte to the attention of the parish council and local
residents.
6.2
There was extensive media coverage of the publication of DV1 in September
2000. Summary leaflets focussed on the main changes in the plan - e.g. the
city expansion areas, other new housing sites, new sites for travellers. Given
that the changes at Caldecotte were consistent with an existing 7.1 consent,
they were not considered to represent a ‘major change’ to the Plan and were
not specifically referred to in the summary leaflet.
6.3
Copies of DV1 were sent to all town and parish councils and to all MKC
members. A Statement of Publicity for DV1 was published at the same time.
There is no statutory requirement for the Council to bring specific changes to
an Adopted Local Plan to the attention of any organisation or individual. The
regulations1 require the Council to make the Plan available for public
inspection (‘on deposit’) and for purchase, to advertise the availability of the
plan, and to provide the opportunity for people to make representations on the
plan.
7.
Recent planning application
7.1
The planning application that included the southern promontory relate to all the
undeveloped land west of Monellan Grove and north of the sailing club. The
whole of the application site is shown for commercial development in DV2. All
but the promontory is shown for commercial development in the Adopted Plan.
7.2
The application was for mixed use development comprising housing (86 dws
including 28 affordable units), 2 retail units (380 sq m), a children’s nursery (95
places), a 51-bed apartment hotel with ancillary bar and restaurant, and car
parking.
7.3
The application was refused for the following reasons (in summary):
7.4
1
(a)
Layout, design, materials, height and density of development out of
character with the surrounding area
(b)
Inadequate car parking
The applicants lodged an appeal against this decision on 25 January 2005.
The appeal will be heard at a public inquiry held by the Planning Inspectorate
(date to be announced).
The Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
8.
Issues / questions in relation to the Local Plan process
8.1
Was the decision-making process flawed in 2000? - No, although in the light of
comments on the recent planning application and with the benefit of hindsight,
the specific changes to the Proposals Map could have been brought to the
attention of the Local Plan Sub Committee. It was however, clearly recorded in
the report to the LPSC that the Proposals Map would be updated to include
changes within the scope of existing 7.1 consents and that such changes were
not listed in the report.
8.2
Did the publicity for DV1 meet statutory requirements? - Yes. There is no
requirement to list all the changes to the Adopted Local Plan in publicity
material, nor to bring specific changes to the attention of individual residents.
8.3
Is the Council open to legal challenge on actions taken in 2000? - The
Council’s Legal Department advises that, in their opinion, the Council has
complied with the relevant provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act
1990, the Town & Country Planning (Development Plan) (England)
Regulations 1999, and other government guidance relating to local plan
preparation. Therefore, there is no basis for a successful legal challenge as to
the validity of the plan under Section 287 of the 1990 Act.
8.4
However, the Council should consider fresh objections that have been raised
in respect of the designation of the promontories. It seems clear that
objections were not received earlier in the local plan process because those
now objecting did not realise that the notation on the promontories has
changed on the Proposals Map in the first deposit version of the plan. The
Council now has the opportunity to examine the planning merits of the
designation before adopting the plan.
8.5
Notwithstanding that the 7.1 consent informed the current notation of the
promontories, the legal advice is that the Council’s decision in relation to the
promontories should be based on reasonable planning grounds as to what is
acceptable in planning terms.
9.
Options
9.1
There are 3 main options available to the Council:
9.2
(a)
No change to the Proposals Map
(b)
Change only the southern promontory (site of the recent planning
application) as per the Adopted Local Plan - i.e. as recreation and open
space
(c)
Change the Proposals Map to show both promontories as per the
Adopted Local Plan - i.e. as recreation and open space
Changes to the notation of the promontories would meet the concerns of local
residents and the parish council. However, as such changes would seek to
prevent development that would be consistent with the original 7.1 consent, it
is likely that the landowner (EP) and prospective developer would object at the
Proposed Modifications stage. If objections were received, they would relate to
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
matters not considered at the first inquiry and so would be likely to justify a
second inquiry, resulting in delay to the adoption of the Plan.
9.3
If the Council decided not to change the plan, this would not mean that the
type or scale of development would be unrestricted. The proposed uses would
need to be consistent with the original 7.1 consent, or if not, considered
acceptable to the Council on the basis of all relevant planning policies. The
scale, layout and design of any new development would also have to be
acceptable when assessed against all relevant Local Plan policies.
9.4
For the Council to agree to amend the Local Plan, there would need to be
sound planning reasons, particularly given the likelihood of a second inquiry if
there were objections to such modifications. One way of considering whether
there are sound planning reasons is to set to one side the change in notations
between the Adopted Plan and DV2 and consider afresh whether a change of
notation from open space (Adopted Plan) to commercial development (DV1
and DV2) would be acceptable or not - i.e. what are the planning factors that
should be taken into account in determining the appropriate notation for the
promontories.
9.5
4 factors have been identified:
(a)
Open space requirements
(b)
Visual amenity
(c)
Traffic impact
(d)
Noise and disturbance
Open space requirements
9.6
PPG17 (July 2002) advises that local authorities should assess the need for
open space, sports and recreational facilities, and audit existing provision
(PPG 17 paras 1-5), and that land surplus to requirements for one particular
type of open space may be suitable for another (para 10).
9.7
Assessing open space provision in Caldecotte against the leisure and
recreation standards in the Local Plan suggests that there is no shortfall of
open space in the area. There is a considerable amount of open space around
Caldecotte Lake that is part of the linear park system and accessible to local
residents. In addition, the Scheduled Ancient Monument in the northern part of
the grid square (2.8 ha) is used as open space. There are also 3 play areas in
Caldecotte.
9.8
If assessing a planning application involving the loss of open space, Policy L2
would be relevant. It states that ‘planning permission will be refused for
proposals involving the loss of open space used for leisure and recreation
unless alternative provision of at least equivalent size, quality, suitability and
convenience is made’. This is consistent with advice in PPG17 (para 13).
9.9
No alternative provision has been made for the loss of 0.4 ha of land shown as
open space in the Adopted Plan. However, given the extensive amount of
open space available around the lake, the case for rejecting the loss of two
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
small area of open space on the grounds that they are needed for recreation
are not considered to be strong.
9.10
Although the notation of the sites was changed in DV1, EP did not request any
change to the linear park boundary in relation to either site, so both sites
remain shown within the Linear Park on the DV1 Proposals Map. There are a
number of examples of commercial uses within the linear parks - e.g. the pub
and hotel, on the west side of the northern part of Caldecotte Lake, and similar
facilities at Willen Lake.
9.11
The brief for the application site, prepared by EP, states that ‘development
features or structure that restrict or obstruct lakeside access and/or intrude
onto the lake will be considered unacceptable’. Whatever decision is made on
the notation of the promontories, retaining both sites within the linear park
would reinforce that objective.
Visual amenity
9.12
There were objections to the recent planning application on the ground of the
visual impact of development on the southern promontory. The application
included a 6 storey hotel on the promontory. The form and scale of this part of
the proposal were considered inappropriate to a site within the linear park.
9.13
The nearest housing to the promontories, fronting the lake along Monellan
Crescent, is mainly 3-4 storeys high, with some 2 storey housing close to the
northern promontory (Nos. 60-66).
9.14
The views of the Council’s Design and Development Manager are that some
form of built development on the promontories would be consistent with the
original objective of mixed use development in this area. It would also be
consistent with the ‘strings, beads and settings’ principles that have
underpinned the design of the linear parks (MK Planning Manual - pages 7071). ‘Beads’ act as focal points and can include a variety of uses from car
parks, picnic areas and viewpoints, to cafes, pubs and leisure attractions.
9.15
A well-designed landmark building on the southern promontory would add
visual interest to the lakeshore, and a facility open to the public (e.g. a cafe)
would act as a focal point for visitors to the lake. It could also help to shelter an
area of open space overlooking the bay. A small-scale development on the
northern promontory would help to enclose the bay visually, although
development of more than 2/3 storeys is unlikely to be acceptable given the
existing 2 storey housing on the northern side of Monellan Crescent.
Traffic impact
9.16
This issue was considered in detail in relation to the recent planning
application that includes the southern promontory. Road access to this part of
Caldecotte can be gained without passing through the residential part of the
grid square - i.e. via Caldecotte Lake Drive and Monellan Grove - although
there are 7 houses fronting on to the northern section of Monellan Grove (Nos
2-14). In commenting on the planning application, the Council’s Highways
Engineer considered that the development could be safely and satisfactorily
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
accommodated on the local road network, subject to some local improvements
- e.g. traffic calming in specific places.
9.17
The northern promontory, proposed for offices (or restaurant and residential)
in the EP site brief has good access from H10 Bletcham Way. However, traffic
heading east or north from the site, or accessing the site from the south or
west, might use residential roads within the grid square to access V10 Brickhill
Street because of the turning restrictions at the H10 / Monellan Grove junction.
However, a small scale office development would not be likely to give rise to a
significant amount of additional traffic using residential roads within the grid
square.
9.18
Although there has been more housing built in this part of Caldecotte than
shown in the Adopted Local Plan, the commercial development notation was
clearly shown on the Adopted Plan. In addition, the extent of commercial
development proposed in this area has been significantly reduced from 7.2 ha
to 1.75 ha. The case for rejecting a change of notation the promontories to
commercial development on traffic grounds is not considered to be strong.
Noise and disturbance
9.19
As noted above, commercial development has always been proposed in this
part of Caldecotte, as set out in the development briefs for the ‘lakeside
centre’. Uses planned include a mix of pub, restaurant, café, hotel, offices and
local shop. Commercial development on the promontories is not considered to
be unacceptable in terms of noise and disturbance for local residents.
9.20
The need for restrictions on hours of opening can be considered at the
planning application stage and controlled by condition.
10.
Conclusions
10.1
The officer view is that the allocation of the promontories for commercial
development is acceptable in planning terms. However, further detailed
guidance is required on the nature of development that would be acceptable in terms of scale, building height and massing, layout, highway access,
parking, landscaping and mix of uses.
10.2
EP would prepare such guidance, in consultation with the Council and the
Parish Council. A further round table meeting of interested parties could help
to ensure wider support for the development principles for each site prior to
the submission of further planning applications.
10.3
If, on the other hand, Cabinet is minded to change the Local Plan - i.e. to
delete the proposed commercial notation from one or both promontories and
show them as existing recreation and open space - the resolution should
record the reasons for the decision, to the effect that the Council considers
that one or both areas make a significant contribution to the visual appearance
of the area in their current condition and should therefore remain undeveloped
as open space.
10.4
The Cabinet should also take into account that a change to the plan at this
stage may lead to objections when the Proposed Modifications are published
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc
later this year - e.g. from EP (as landowners) and the prospective developers
of the southern promontory. Such objections would not relate to matters
discussed at the local plan inquiry; therefore, unless it was possible to resolve
the objections, it is likely that they would justify a second inquiry.
L:\Committee\2004-05\COUNCIL\12 APR 05\12-04-05_ITEM04A(I)_LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY - PART 2 RECOMMENDATIONS_ANNEX C.doc