Milton Keynes draft recommendations

Eastern Milton Keynes

Broughton & Moulsoe

48 Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour proposed a ward crossing the M1, including the parish of Moulsoe with Broughton & Milton Keynes parish. The major justification offered was the large amount of development occurring in the Caldecote area. The Labour submission noted that community links between Moulsoe and Broughton are yet to develop, but they consider that the MK East development will bring the two areas closer together.

49 Cllr J. Hamilton, of Moulsoe Parish Council, suggested that the parish was likely to remain rural for the near future, and that it should be placed in a rural-based ward. With 1,685 electors forecast to be in Moulsoe parish by 2030, placing the entire parish in our proposed Olney ward would increase the variance of this ward to 12%, as well as, in our view, being unlikely to reflect the developing community identity of the MK East development. We have therefore not been persuaded to adopt this proposal as part of our draft recommendations in light of alternatives with better variances which are also likely to better reflect community identities.

50 We visited this area on our tour of Milton Keynes, driving from Broughton to the existing village of Moulsoe. While we consider that the journey is relatively straightforward, we also consider that there is currently limited evidence of a shared community identity between the village of Moulsoe and Broughton, and that the former is more likely to share a community identity with other similar villages to the north, in our proposed Olney ward.

51 We considered proposing a split of Moulsoe parish in our draft recommendations, with the MK East development area placed in a ward with Broughton, and Moulsoe village placed in Olney ward to the north. We are not proposing this, as we have been unable to identify a clear boundary to split Moulsoe parish, but we would welcome further evidence as to whether such a split would be a helpful reflection of Moulsoe’s community identity or not, and if so where the potential boundary could be drawn.

52 While broadly adopting the Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals for this ward, we have modified them to place the Fox Milne industrial area west of the A509 into Broughton & Moulsoe ward. This decision is discussed in more detail below at paragraph 57.

Ouzel Valley and Walnut Tree

53 The existing Campbell Park & Old Woughton ward stretches from Great Linford parish to Simpson & Ashland parish. Campbell Park Community Council argued for the retention of this ward, while the Labour proposal was for a similar, albeit slightly smaller Springfield ward, stretching from the boundary of Great Linford parish to include Old Woughton and the northern section of Walton parish. The Labour proposal noted that the current ward had limited community identity between the northern and southern sections but suggested that the existing councillors had been trying to remedy this. We consider that the Springfield ward proposed by Labour would have similar issues, particularly with respect to electors in the northern part of Campbell Park parish, who would be isolated within their ward by Willen Lake. We have therefore not adopted this proposal.

54 Old Woughton and Simpson & Ashland parish councils provided submissions with details on their community identity. Both parishes indicated that they worked closely together on issues such as road safety and heritage. Both parishes indicated a desire to remain within the same ward.

55 Walton Community Council offered evidence that the existing split of Walton parish led to confusion over which councillors were responsible for particular issues. The parish requested being placed in a single ward. Cllr D. Hopkins also suggested that Walton parish could be a ward in its own right. However, the parish alone would have 15% fewer electors than the average across Milton Keynes, so we have not adopted this proposal. Cllr A. Chapman-Ballard proposed a similar plan to the Liberal Democrats, with separate wards for Walton and Danesborough.

56 We have broadly adopted the Liberal Democrat proposal for these wards. The Liberal Democrat submission provided evidence of shared shops, medical facilities and schools across these wards, as well as facilitating most of what was proposed by the parishes. The Labour and both Conservative proposals all involved retaining the existing split of Walton parish, and the Labour scheme also placed Simpson & Ashland parish in a Danesborough ward, as well as proposing a Springfield ward.

57 We have modified the Liberal Democrat proposal for Ouzel Valley. The Liberal Democrats proposed placing both the Fox Milne industrial estate and the area north of Standing Way into Ouzel Valley ward, which they acknowledged would therefore be geographically large, and appear somewhat sprawling. Neither of these areas has any electors, and we consider that it would be preferable to alter the Liberal Democrat proposal and place these areas in the neighbouring wards of Broughton & Moulsoe and Walnut Tree, respectively. We consider in particular that it is logical to have the industrial and retail facilities on either side of Standing Way in the same ward.

Bletchley & Danesborough

Bletchley North, Bletchley Park, Bletchley South and Danesborough

58 All four full schemes broadly concurred on the principal of having three wards covering the parishes of West Bletchley and Bletchley & Fenny Stratford. The key differences between the fully evidenced schemes were in the area around Knowles Primary School, including Lennox Road, Leon Avenue and Eaton Avenue. The Labour proposal placed this area in a Bletchley South ward, while the Liberal Democrats proposed placing it in Bletchley Park ward, to the north. The two Conservative proposals also disagreed on this area, one following the Labour proposal and one following that of the Liberal Democrats.

59 We visited this area on our tour of Milton Keynes. While the boundaries proposed across the four schemes are plausible, and all offer good electoral equality, we note that the Liberal Democrats’ proposal includes a boundary running along Queensway, immediately to the north of Knowles Primary School. We consider that this road, with shops and community facilities on both sides, does not offer a particularly strong or clear boundary, and we have therefore adopted the Labour proposal for this boundary as part of our draft recommendations.

60 Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats proposed very similar Bletchley West wards, differing only in the areas around Peverel Drive. We have adopted the Liberal Democrat proposal to place this area in Bletchley Park ward, as this allows the use of the railway line as a strong and clear boundary.

61 Submissions were received from Wavendon and Little Brickhill parish councils, and Woburn Sands Town Council, all requesting to remain in the same ward, and citing shared issues around Greensand Ridge and Wavendon Woods. The Liberal Democrat proposal closely followed this suggestion, while the Labour proposal split this area, with Wavendon parish placed in a ward with Kents Hill, Monkston & Brinklow and a Danesborough ward including Simpson & Ashland parish as well as the Southern section of Walton parish. Based on the community evidence provided by the parishes, and the evidence of shared interest in transport issues provided by the Liberal Democrats, we have adopted the Liberal Democrat proposal for this ward, subject to one modification.

62 The Liberal Democrats suggested placing the Eaton Leys area, in Bletchley & Fenny Stratford parish, into Danesborough ward. This would require the creation of a separate, small parish ward for the Eaton Leys area. While it was noted that direct connectivity with the remainder of Bletchley was not straightforward, requiring either use of a footbridge over the River Ouzel or a detour via the A5 roundabout, no specific evidence of a community identity with Little Brickhill, or any other area was provided. We are retaining Eaton Leys as a part of Bletchley South ward as part of our draft recommendations and would particularly welcome further evidence as to the community identity of this newly developed area.

Central & South Western Milton Keynes

Campbell Park & Willen, Central Milton Keynes and Woughton & Fishermead

63 We have adopted the proposal of the Liberal Democrats for these wards. Labour proposed a very similar Woughton ward, differing only in following the parish boundary between Old Woughton and Woughton on the Green parishes, as opposed to the B4034 Marlborough Street. We visited this area on our tour of Milton Keynes, and consider that Marlborough Street is a very strong and clear boundary. We agree with the suggestion of the Liberal Democrats that the areas to the east of this road are somewhat isolated. The Labour submission referred to strong community links in this area, but did not provide specific information as to the nature of these links.

64 Campbell Park Community Council supported the retention of the existing boundaries, noting that they welcomed the opportunity to work with a wide range of City Council members. We considered this carefully but note that the existing Campbell Park & Old Woughton ward covers many separate communities with little evidence of a shared identity, as discussed above (paragraph 53). We have not adopted the proposal for the status quo in this area as part of our draft recommendations.

65 Labour and the Liberal Democrats proposed slightly different Central Milton Keynes wards, with Labour suggesting extending the existing ward eastwards to include all of Central Milton Keynes parish. The Labour proposal placed the area north of Portway into a Conniburrow ward. We considered this carefully, but consider that as well as being incompatible with our draft recommendations for Ouzel Valley ward, very limited evidence of specific community links between this area and the rest of the proposed ward was provided.

66 The Liberal Democrats proposed a Campbell Park & Willen ward, citing community hubs in Campbell Park and the Conniburrow Community Centre. We have adopted this proposal in preference to that of Labour, as it is not only compatible with decisions taken elsewhere across the city (see paragraph 53–57) but also ensures that individual estates, such as Aldrich Drive, are not isolated within their wards.

Furzton, Loughton and Tattenhoe

67 The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives proposed retaining the existing Tattenhoe ward, with a Furzton ward covering either all or most of the remainder of Shenley Brook End parish. Labour proposed an alternative Westbrook ward and placed the Shenley Lodge area of Shenley Brook End parish into a Loughton-based ward, thus splitting Shenley Brook End parish between three rather than two city wards.

68 We have adopted the Liberal Democrat proposals as part of our draft recommendations. These proposals offer strong boundaries and allow Shenley Brook End parish to remain within two rather than three wards. Furzton ward is at the upper end of the range of good electoral equality, but we consider that the strong clear boundaries and evidence of community identity through the facilities provided by the Parish Council compensate for this.

69 The Liberal Democrats proposed a ward named simply ‘Loughton’, arguing that the range of different areas with ‘Shenley’ in their name meant that using this name for a single city ward might lead to confusion. They proposed adding the already developed area of Whitehouse parish into this ward, providing evidence that residents of this area looked to the Grange Farm and Crownhill areas for shops and schools.

70 Labour proposed a smaller ‘Loughton & Shenley’ ward, which included a section of Shenley Brook End parish, as discussed above. They also proposed to split Shenley Church End parish between this ward and their proposed Watling ward, whereas the Liberal Democrat proposal and our draft recommendations retain all of Shenley Church End parish within a single ward. We consider that the Labour proposals split Shenley Church End parish unnecessarily, and are reliant on proposals for Watling and Stony Stratford wards which we have not adopted.