Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed members and advised that the recording of the meeting would be made available on the Council’s You Tube channel and that the presentation would be published to the Council’s Modgov site after the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillor D Hopkins, (substituted by Councillor McLean), Parish Cllr David Pye ( substituted by Parish Cllr Bah-Pokawa) and Hilary Chipping.

Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests), they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered.

There were none.

To approve, and the Chair to sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning CAG held on 25 January 2023.

A Member sought clarification regarding the wording of the affordable housing provision as set out in minute CAG 19 , but was advised that the minute was accurate.

A spelling mistake in minute CAG 19 was pointed out by a Member, and it was noted by the Group that this would be corrected in the final version of the minutes.

RESOLVED -

1.      That following the requested correction, the Minutes of the meeting held on the 25 January 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

To consider a presentation on Growth Options.

This item was introduced by officers with a presentation, who proceeded to outline to members that the purpose of the presentation was to demonstrate the process for defining growth options, in addition to looking at and receiving feedback on the proposed options.

It was highlighted by officers that the work was still ongoing, and that the sites had been promoted by developers.

Background information was provided, with officers detailing how growth options and the long list were defined. Additionally, members were informed that an additional circa 33k homes would need to be allocated in the city Plan 2050.

The presentation set out that there were 14 broad areas for development, further detail of the potential development in these areas was provided, and can be found in the presentation, which is available here.

The preferred options for development were stated to be CMK, Bletchley, Brownfield redevelopment, Eastern Expansion, Southern Expansion, and WEA continuation.

An overview of the next steps being taken, as well as an update on informal engagement was then provided.

At this stage, the Chair thanked officers for their work, and invited members to ask questions of clarification.

A member sought clarification over the proposed capacity of 80,000 homes stated in the presentation and was advised by both officers and the chair that the total of the proposed sites presented tonight was 80,000 homes, and that from this, 33,000 homes were needed.

A further question was then heard, with a member querying the 30,000 homes within current supply, as they believed it was 20,000. In response, officers stated that the 30,000 comprised of everything under construction as of 1^st April 2022, anything with detailed or outlined permission, as well as the existing allocation from Plan MK which had not yet come forward for planning permission.

Clarification was sought from officers over when and how the 27% affordable housing percentage was reached. Officers told the Group that the figure was the target recommended in the Housing and Economic development need assessment, which had previously been brought to the Group. Officers added to this stating that this was not policy yet and would only be a material consideration when the Plan was adopted. The Chair added to this, stating that there could potentially be a trade-off if more affordable housing was required, which was affected by a variety of factors including overall number of homes, as well as the location of the development.

An additional point was raised by a member, who queried whether officers were discussing infrastructure projects such as schools with neighbouring authorities when a site was on the border of the local authority. The Chair commented on this, stating that conversations had happened with Central Bedfordshire Council , Apsley Guise, and the promoters, advising that the Council would not want to bring that site forward without cross boundary cooperation.

It was further stated by the Chair that the cross-boundary work was not currently possible as Central Bedfordshire Council was earlier in their Plan process than Milton Keynes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider any other business not on the Agenda.

There was no additional business discussed.

THE MEETING WAS CLOSED AT 19:48