Memorandum by Milton Keynes Council (NT
20)
KEY MESSAGES:
— Milton Keynes is a remarkable success,
but this obscures some significant deficits, many shared with
other new towns;
— Milton Keynes' economic success is
uneven, with pockets of physical and social deprivation often
exacerbated by heritage of experimental public housing, a shortage
of affordable housing and significant need for greater social
inclusion;
— Milton Keynes' economic success is
partial, with a workforce whose skills poorly match the needs
of local business. Moreover the town lacks a centre of higher
education;
— The accessibility of Milton Keynes
is flawed, with a poor public transport system and over-reliance
on the car, exacerbated by a physical layout which makes bus services
uneconomic;
— The governance of Milton Keynes is
flawed, with significant elements still controlled by a Non Departmental
Public Body outside the local democratic process;
— The resourcing of Milton Keynes is
flawed, with inadequate revenue support from SSA to ensure the
range of services and facilities required by the growing community,
and with inadequate capital assets to allow the community to redirect
resources to meet local needs;
— These deficits, notwithstanding the
spectacular successes, are the result of the organisational arrangements
through which the new town was developed the succession of Development
Corporation, Commission for the New Towns and now English Partnerships;
— Milton Keynes, now politically mature,
seeks a mechanism to relate development decisions to the local
political process, to make local governance more transparent;
— As Milton Keynes continues to grow
and develop, this must be accompanied by a mechanism to ensure
that the demands and costs of growth can be met without unacceptable
degradation to local services. The local authority should not
be forced to spend dowries to meet immediate service imperatives;
— Local administrative structures and
boundaries must be relevant to economic, social and cultural realities,
and must be supported by appropriate regional organisations that
can deliver a framework for growth. Current regional boundaries
should not be allowed to dilute the needs of the area.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Milton Keynes Council welcomes the opportunity
to make a submission to the sub-Committee. If requested, the Council
would be pleased to supplement the points made below and in the
appendix with an oral expansion or further response.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Milton Keynes is the newest and largest
of the new towns. It was conceived in the 60s, and implemented
over the subsequent 35 years to the present, when it is now 85
per cent complete. From the outset it was developed through the
Milton Keynes Development Corporation which received extensive
dedicated resources until 1992. It was succeeded by the Commission
for the New Towns in 1992 who, in turn, were succeeded by English
Partnerships in 1997. Some community facilities were transferred
to the local authority, but others, including the majority of
public open space in the designated new town area, have been transferred
to independent not-for-profit organisations with the intention
of preventing local authority control or interference. Other important
elements, such as the main city centre "High Street"
were sold into commercial control.
2.2 Milton Keynes has grown as a community
from a population of 60,000 at designation in 1967 to 212,800
in 2001. At the same time it has grown steadily as an economy,
with 21,350 jobs at designation to 115,800 jobs in 2001. Far from
developing as a dormitory town for economic activity elsewhere,
Milton Keynes provides a similar number of jobs and economically
active residents. It is an economic centre with a sub-regional
catchment extending well into the adjoining Eastern and East Midlands
regions. Its economy has strengths in logistics, distribution
and retail, but also in other sectors including manufacturing,
telecommunications, ITC and business support. The headline figures
show significant economic success though within those lie some
indicators of disadvantage and deterioration.
2.3 The continuing growth and development
of Milton Keynes has taken it to a measure of independence. In
1997 it became a Unitary Authority responsible for the full range
of local authority services. Key public services, particularly
Health and Police, have coterminous operational boundaries. All
parts of Milton Keynes are now parished, with the emergent tier
of 45 parishes developing their own partnerships with Milton Keynes
Council. Crucially, however, the Unitary authority has only limited
influence over the nature and pace of continuing development.
Land allocations, ownership, disposals, funding, phasing and receipts,
relating to an estimated 900 acres of undeveloped land in the
city, are within English Partnerhips' control. English Partnerships
has powers of development authorisation that are independent of
the local planning authority, that serve needs and targets that
are not of Milton Keynes, and which make no contribution to the
locality through planning gain. English Partnerships provides
mechanisms for local consultation, takes part in many of the local
partnerships that engage with local interests, and actively promotes
specific projects that support local aspirations, such as the
remodelling of Central Milton Keynes or the development of the
urban village at Broughton/Atterbury. They are, however, outside
the mechanisms of locally accountable governance.
2.4 The attached appendix addresses the
elements specified in the Sub-Committee's invitation to contributors.
3. CONCLUSIONS
New towns were a remarkable success story and
achieved, through radical mechanisms, some very significant economic
outcomes. Milton Keynes represents the climax of the ambitious
post-war New Towns programme. The concept may have produced some
robust housing numbers and, not least in the case of Milton Keynes,
an entirely new community. There are, however, significant deficits.
These relate primarily to:
— Milton Keynes' constrained role in
self-determination;
— lack of resources fit for the purpose;
— lack of transparency of governance
at a time when local democracy is being promoted nationally;
— the pervasive impact of poor public
transport; and
— continuing unsustainable aspects
of the new town's urban management.
Coming of age of Milton Keynes requires the
city to take responsibility for its future and the development
decisions that will shape it. Quango-led governance is not consistent
with encouraging local democracy.
To tackle the very substantial challenges and
costs associated with recent and future growth Milton Keynes,
even more than the earlier new towns, must evolve a democratic-led
local partnership that can re-cycle the value stream inherent
in a growing city.
|
