Visitors to Emberton Country Park on Saturday 12th June were able to mark the official opening of the new Visitor Centre by the Mayor of Milton Keynes. The Visitor Centre was funded by Natural England through DEFRA’s Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. The ALSF aims to support projects that reduce the effects of aggregate extraction on local communities and the natural environment.

A special open event at the park to mark the opening ceremony also coincided with the official launch of a new ‘Friends of Emberton Country Park’ group. Visitors were also able to enjoy a very colourful demonstration by ‘Woad Works’, a mixed Border Morris side. There was also a fascinating, if somewhat noisy, demonstration of chainsaw sculpture by Ian Freemantle. Many people were also able to enjoy very close contact with Ellie the Barn Owl and Pebbles the Little Owl, brought along by their keeper Brian Walter. In addition there was a magnificent display of photographs taken in and around the park throughout the year by local photographer John Brown. A number of other organisations were also present, including MKC Play Rangers and the Wildlife Trust.   

It has become necessary for the Emergency temporary closure of the whole of Silver End, Olney due to a major gas main collapse.  It is likely that the road will remain closed for a number of days whilst a temporary repair takes place. In the longer term the old iron main will require replacing with a new plastic main.  Pedestrians will be able to have access along Silver End, with care, and must strictly observe the No Smoking signs. There will be no access for Emergency Services vehicles. The collapse is in the narrowest part of the road. If attendance of an emergency service vehicle is required within this length of road, vehicles should approach through the barriers with care. Whilst the road is  closed the alternative route will be via East Street, Midland Road , Dartmouth Road,  High Street, Market Place  and vice versa  

This document sets out agreements reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on a range of issues. These are the issues that needed to be resolved between us in order for us to work together as a strong and stable government. It will be followed in due course by a final Coalition Agreement, covering the full range of policy and including foreign, defence and domestic policy issues not covered in this document.

The parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain. We have therefore agreed that there will need to be:

• a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes;
• arrangements that will protect those on low incomes from the effect of public sector pay constraint and other spending constraints; and
• protection of jobs by stopping Labour’s proposed jobs tax.

The parties agree that a plan for deficit reduction should be set out in an emergency budget within 50 days of the signing of any agreement; the parties note that the credibility of a plan on deficit reduction depends on its long-term deliverability, not just the depth of immediate cuts. New forecasts of growth and borrowing should be made by an independent Office for Budget Responsibility for this emergency budget.The parties agree that modest cuts of £6 billion to non-front line services can be made within the financial year 2010-11, subject to advice from the Treasury and the Bank of England on their feasibility and advisability. Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates. Other policies upon which we are agreed will further support job creation and green investment, such as work programmes for the unemployed and a green deal for energy efficiency investment.

The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners. 
The parties agree that a full Spending Review should be held, reporting this Autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.
The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments. The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place.We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury.

The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.  We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

The parties commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

The parties agree that the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners. We agree to announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes. This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in Employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below. The increase in Employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop Labour’s jobs tax. We also agree to a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective.We agree that this should take priority over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax. We also agree that provision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement.

The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.

The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.

The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.

The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.

We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit. We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years.  This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour. The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.
The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.  The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.

The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.
We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.

The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman Commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance.

The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.We agree to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.

The parties agree to end all existing welfare to work programmes and to create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.

We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work should be referred to the aforementioned newly created welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 should be referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.

The parties agree to realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.

We agree that the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes should be reformed to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings in lower benefit expenditure.

We agree that receipt of benefits for those able to work should be conditional on the willingness to work.

Schools We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:

• that new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand;
• that all schools have greater freedom over curriculum; and,
• that all schools are held properly accountable.

Higher education We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

• increase social mobility;
• take into account the impact on student debt;
• ensure a properly funded university sector;
• improve the quality of teaching;
• advance scholarship; and,
• attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of

Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in

Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting

Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.

Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor. 

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.This will include:

• A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
• The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
• Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
• The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
• The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
• The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• Further regulation of CCTV.
• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy, including:·         The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters.·         The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs.·                   Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.·         The creation of a green investment bank.·         The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.

• Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs.
• Measures to encourage marine energy.
• The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard.
• The establishment of a high-speed rail network.
• The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow.
• The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
• The replacement of the Air Passenger Duty with a per flight duty.
• The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
• Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
• Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.
• Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
• Continuation of the present Government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
• We are agreed that we would seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.

Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they receive no public subsidy. We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.This process will involve:

• the government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;
• pecific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesman will speak against the planning statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and
• clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.

Published and promoted by and on behalf of the Liberal Democrats,

4 Cowley Street, London,

SW1P 3NB

. Tel: (020) 7222 7999Developed and hosted by Being, Channel Wharf, Unit 3,

21 Old Channel Road, Belfast,

BT3 9DE

The A509 runs from the Pytchley roundabout on the A14 just south of Kettering down to its junction with the A5 in Milton Keynes. The construction of a £20m 4.3 km bypass for Isham, anticipated to commence in August 2010, will leave Olney as the only sizeable community on the route not to have been bypassed, although discussions about the issue have gone on for decades. There have been several attempts to promote the case for an Olney bypass over the years, often as a result of incidents or accidents on the A509 at the southern end of the town. One very serious accident involving the part-demolition of a property in Bridge Street led to a public meeting in the Church Hall calling for a resolution to the problems. One consequence of this meeting was the formation of the Olney and District Society, which actively campaigned for a bypass for Olney, amongst other things, during the early 1990s.  Frustrated with the lack of progress on the bypass scheme a deputation of Olney residents petitioned the Environment Committee of Milton Keynes Borough Council on 19^th June 1990. The main aim of the deputation was to ask the Borough Council to do all in its power to encourage the County Council to take up an offer of partial funding from the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, thus enabling the bypass scheme to be brought forward. The Environment Committee was very receptive and voted unanimously in favour of a proposal by former Liberal Democrat councillor Vince Thompson that the committee should support the deputation. The Planning and Transportation Committee of the County Council met two days later and approved the inclusion of the Olney bypass scheme into the five-year highways programme, along with the dualling of the Newport Pagnell bypass. The construction of the Olney bypass was then anticipated to commence in 1995/96.  Four possible routes for the Olney bypass were presented to the County Council’s Highways and Public Transport Committee on 3^rd March 1994. These were as follows: -

• The Inner Eastern (Green) Route, which was broadly along the line of the protected route and the shortest of the four at 2.47 miles.
• The Eastern Riverside (Blue) Route, which would run along the escarpment on the other side of the river and was 3 miles in length.
• The Outer Western (Red) Route, which would sweep behind Emberton and the Park and would have junctions with Weston Road and Yardley Road. This was a much longer option at 4.56 miles.
• The Outer Eastern ( Orange) Route, passing between Clifton Reynes and Newton Blossomville and 3.87 miles in length.

At this time the costings were expected to be about £12-13m for the two outer routes and £8-9m for the other options.  A public exhibition of the routes was held at The Olney Centre over three days in May 1994. The exhibition was well attended, with most visitors completing a questionnaire to indicate their route preference. The County Council had also produced a very informative full-colour brochure showing the routes and giving details of the consultation process. Over two thousand of the brochures were left over at the end of the three days, and the County staff agreed to pass them on to Olney Town Council for widespread distribution. Virtually all of the houses in Olney had a copy of this important document delivered to their door, although probably only ten per cent of recipients actually bothered to send back their questionnaires. Copies of the brochure were also delivered to every house in the neighbouring village of Weston Underwood, an exercise organised by the Chairman of the Parish Council!  The outcome of the public consultation showed a clear majority in favour of the western route and marked opposition to the innermost eastern route, which had for many years been the County Council’s preferred option. This outcome sparked a wave of campaigning against the western route. A number of duplicated letters were handed out for residents to sign and return to the County Council, although the official period of public consultation had ended. Some time later, members of the County Council’s Olney Bypass Panel were rather bemused when each received a bundle of more than one thousand letters opposing the western route of the bypass. It was interesting to note that just 571 out of 1016 letters were from Olney and the surrounding villages. Of these, 52 were from properties which could possibly overlook the proposed western (red) route. The 645 letters not from the immediate area came from places as far afield as Wales, Holland and Australia! A massive 559 of those who signed pre-printed letters showed a very disturbing lack of understanding of navigation by suggesting that the construction of the Bedford Southern Bypass (A421) and the A1 - M1 Link (A14) completion would reduce the traffic level on the A509 through Olney. The delayed protests of these objectors were enough to sway the Chairman of the Bypass Panel to use his casting vote against the red route going forward for detailed planning. However, following further controversy and deep discussions, the panel agreed to put both the red route and the blue route forward for Environmental Assessment and Planning. Olney Town Council stated its opposition to an eastern route for the bypass, as did the residents of Clifton Reynes and Newton Blossomville. Emberton and Weston Underwood lined up firmly against the western route, despite the fact that the elevated eastern route would have much more environmental impact on them. A situation of stalemate had been reached. In an attempt to resolve the deadlock, Emberton Parish Council arranged for an independent highway consultant to address a joint forum with Olney Town Council at the end of May 1995. The consultant had worked on both sides of the highways argument, having represented the Department of Transport on some schemes, and local objectors on others. The consultant believed that to drop the proposed bypass was not an option. He stated that through traffic was likely to double by the year 2016, which would have been the fifteenth year of a bypass on the original time schedule. He predicted that eventually a gridlock situation would develop. Those present felt that the inner green route was a total impossibility, and agreed that it should not be afforded further consideration. The consultant then outlined modifications to the blue route, taking the southern terminus out to the Sherington junction. He went on to dismiss the western route, suggesting that it was not a good idea to have local traffic from Yardley Road and Weston Road gaining direct access on to the bypass. He suggested that these residents should be encouraged to come into Olney so that they would be more likely to shop locally, rather than in Milton Keynes or the other major local towns. As the joint meeting progressed, it became very obvious that the consultant favoured the outer eastern (orange) route. He felt that the original orange route was a nonsense, as it didn’t even meet the basic DTp criteria for overtaking. A modified, straighter version was proposed, allowing overtaking along much of its length. Other modifications were suggested for the northern and southern terminii. The major disadvantage of the route remained that it would literally split the close communities of Clifton Reynes and Newton Blossomville. The enthusiasm of the consultant failed to move the County Council’s Bypass Panel, and they flatly refused to consider the orange route for further investigation. The blue route and the red route were both put forward for further exploratory work. With both routes passing through areas of archaeological significance, this further work would prove to be very expensive and, to date, has not been initiated.  With the Olney bypass scheme in apparent limbo, a number of other factors came into play during the mid nineteen-nineties. Probably the most important of these was the build-up to Unitary Authority status for Milton Keynes. The Government had also began to question the idea of spending more and more money on further road schemes. All of a sudden, it seemed to be unfashionable to be building more roads. The Government adopted a new strategy which involved a drastic cut in expenditure on such projects. Although the new stance was promoted as being environmentally led, it was largely driven by budget constraints. Although Bucks County Council had a number of major road schemes in the pipeline, budget cuts meant that they could only progress one main project per year. The Olney scheme, being in the north of the County, fell drastically down the list of priorities. As Milton Keynes Council was due to assume highway responsibilities from the County Council on April 1st 1997, it was probably understandable that the latter would not be too keen to take forward any schemes in the Milton Keynes area. However, the County Council was responsible for putting forward the budget proposals for Government grants on behalf of the Unitary Authority for its first year. Sadly, with the Government under severe pressure to cut spending, the grants awarded to Milton Keynes Council were miniscule. The Olney bypass scheme was not awarded any finance at all, which meant that not even the environmental work could be completed.   Both former Liberal Democrat Councillors for Olney ward made sure that the bypass was kept alive when Government funding was not available by ensuring that both the proposed eastern and western routes were safeguarded in the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011, which was adopted in December 2005. The by-pass is also included in the Council’s Transport Plan. The Local Plan is due to be replaced by a Core Strategy, which doesn’t directly refer to the bypass scheme. The Olney by pass has the status of a ‘saved policy’ in the Local Plan. It has not been dropped. The review of this and other saved Local Plan policies will be undertaken in the associated Development Plan Documents to be prepared by Milton Keynes Council once the Core Strategy Inspector’s report has been received.

(This article was first published in the “Olney Phonebox” magazine in May 2010.)

The A509 runs from the Pytchley roundabout on the A14 just south of Kettering down to its junction with the A5 in Milton Keynes. Traffic congestion on the part that runs through Olney during the morning and evening peaks has now become a regular feature of life for the residents of the town and for the motorists passing through. The construction of a £20m 4.3 km bypass for Isham, anticipated to commence in August 2010, will leave Olney as the only sizeable community on the route not to have been bypassed. However, the idea of a bypass for Olney has been talked about for many decades.   The opening of the London-Yorkshire Motorway in the nineteen-sixties was a major factor responsible for increasing traffic flow on the A509. This was followed by the rapid development of Milton Keynes to the south, and sizeable expansion of Wellingborough and Kettering to the north. In the sixties many of the villages and towns on the route had narrow bending roads, certainly not suitable for the traffic pressures of the late twentieth century. Over the past fifty years various improvements have been made to improve the capacity of the route. One of the first communities to benefit from a bypass was Emberton. Motorists following the winding road past the clock tower now would find it difficult to imagine all of the traffic on the route passing through this village as was formerly the case. Bucks County Council, then the authority responsible for highways, suggested a need for a bypass for Olney at a very early date. Their plans also included improvements to the then hazardous bends through the small village of Warrington. The former crossroads in Warrington, where the original A509 crossed the A428, was a notorious accident blackspot before being superseded by the Warrington Tollbar roundabout. Over the border in Northamptonshire, the authorities were also facing problems. Bypasses for Wollaston and Bozeat were conceived and built. Other improvements further north were implemented, including the provision of a ring-road system around Wellingborough itself. However, these developments merely had the effect of attracting even more traffic onto the A509. The major development on the Buckinghamshire side was the building of a bypass for Sherington and Newport Pagnell. By now, traffic flows on this stretch of highway, serving both Milton Keynes and the M1, were increasing dramatically. At this point, a provisional scheme for an Olney bypass was in the County Council fifteen year plan, along with a proposal to dual the Newport Pagnell bypass and also the link road to junction 14 of the motorway. In the meantime, Milton Keynes Development Corporation had been contributing funding to other main road projects in the immediate area, on the basis that such improvements were vital to the continuing growth and prosperity of Milton Keynes. Indeed, the M.K.D.C. had contributed over a third of the cost of the Astwood bypass on the A422. It was felt that Olney would be a prime candidate for assistance of this nature. In 1964, the County Council Planning Department and the Newport Pagnell Rural District Council jointly prepared a report on Olney. They felt that the Market Square and High Street areas were well worth preserving, and suggested that a bypass should be provided at the earliest opportunity. The favoured line was on an embankment to the east of the town, and this was incorporated into the Olney Town Plan approved in November 1965. The initial idea was for a dual carriageway road from the northern end of the Emberton bypass and through the former railway goods yard and utilising the line of the railway to the site of the bridge over the A509. The County Council did further traffic surveys in 1972 and produced a document outlining their proposals for a bypass scheme. They envisaged a three lane carriageway being built in the nineteen-eighties, as traffic flow at the time was felt to be relatively light. The County Council did not accept the original line of the 1965 proposal, as the degree of curvature allowed for a dual carriageway was not acceptable for the proposed single carriageway.  The required overtaking sight distance for a single carriageway was 450 metres, whereas 300 metres was acceptable for a dual carriageway.  It was also felt that a starting point further north would link in to the proposed improvements to the Warrington bends. The planners visualised a route starting at the southern end of the proposed Warrington bypass. The road would then cross the river valley on a short embankment, eliminating the dip at the entrance to Lavendon Grange. Junctions were to be provided for the northern access to the town and also the connection with the B565 Lavendon road. An embankment was to take the road across the flood plain, just above maximum flood level and as close to the river on the western side as possible. The top of the embankment was to be about 0.6 metres below the top of the railway embankment. The route would follow across the bottom of the Recreation Ground, with the boundary fence located in the position of the old cricket pavilion. The road would cross the river by means of a bridge just below the Mill Pool. Flood culverts would also be necessary at various points along the embankment. The road would then link up with the straight section of Emberton bypass, with another junction providing access to the south of the town. This proposal became the County Council’s ‘preferred route’, which was eventually incorporated into the first Milton Keynes Local Plan. Mindful of growing opposition in the town to an eastern route, the County Council also investigated an option to the west of the town. The western route would run directly from the northern end of the Emberton bypass, crossing over Heron Water on a low embankment and aiming to pass clear of the houses fronting Weston Road. The embankment would split off half of Heron Water and also Otter Pool from the rest of Emberton Park. From the river, the road would rise on a high embankment to meet Weston Road, which at this level is 18 metres above the river meadows. A staggered junction was to be provided on Weston Road. To allow the required visibility for overtaking, the road would not be able to follow the steep gradient to the west of Olney, and thus the plan allowed for the road to be run in a cutting averaging 3.5 metres in depth. From a staggered junction at Yardley Road, the road would cross the railway line and the existing A509 north of the Lavendon road junction. There would be a junction at this point, and the road would extend northwards through a cutting to join the southern end of the Warrington improvement, at a point north of the entrance to Lavendon Grange. The County Council firmly believed that the eastern option was the sensible way to proceed for the following reasons:- 

1.  The eastern route was shorter and more direct, the western route being some 880 metres longer.

2.  The eastern route following the flood plain would avoid the gradient change of 27 metres needed  to accommodate the western route.

3.  The eastern route would require less land, not only considering the road itself but also the accompanying earthworks.

4.  The eastern route would have less environmental impact. An 880 metre cutting, 3.5 metres deep, on the western side would be a considerable scar on the landscape. Housing planned for the western side of the town would be isolated from the town by the new road.

5.  A western route would be very damaging to the amenity area of Emberton

   Park.

6.  The eastern route would be cheaper. The County had estimated the respective costs of the two schemes in 1972 as being £815,000 for the eastern route and £1,090,000 for the western route.

Since the County Council produced their discussion document in 1972, a number of factors conspired to rule out both of the potential routes. The development of housing on the former railway station site meant that an eastern route would have to be further away from the town to avoid the affect of traffic noise. The extensive housing developments on the west side of the town ruled out the western option that the County Council had previously investigated. Additionally, the traffic growth on the A509 was exceeding expectations, suggesting that the provision of a bypass was becoming more urgent. Conversely, financial limits imposed by central government had made funding of such schemes more difficult. With an apparent impasse, it was to be a further two decades before the long-awaited public consultation on a bypass route would take place.  

The second part of this article looks at the factors leading up to the public exhibition of four possible bypass routes held at The Olney Centre over three days in May 1994, and the consequences of that event. (This article was first published in the “Olney Phonebox” magazine in April 2010.)

“The expansion of Heathrow would be a catastrophe for our climate and for the thousands of Londoners who would be forced to live with the huge disruption it will cause”, said the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on runway three.

Commenting on the High Court ruling against Government plans to expand Heathrow, Susan Kramer MP who leads the Liberal Democrat campaign against the third runway, said:

“This is a declaration of victory, the final nail in the coffin for the Government’s attempts to steamroll over local and national opposition to its disastrous third runway plans.

“The expansion of Heathrow would be a catastrophe for our climate and for the thousands of Londoners who would be forced to live with the huge disruption it will cause.”

“There is no way the Government can tear up what it has already done and start again - because we know the real climate change figures prove that there is no economic case for expansion at all.

“Labour tough talk on climate change is just hot air.

The Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the review of Policy M3 (Primary Aggregates) of the South East Plan has now been published.  The document sets out the Government’s proposal for the amount of primary aggregates (sand, gravel and crushed rock) that each mineral planning authority in the South East region should be planning to provide. The Proposed Changes and supporting documents can be viewed online at http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/798061/  The Proposed Changes follow the recommendations of the Panel Report (published in November 2009, following the Examination in Public held in October 2009) and recommend an annual apportionment figure of 0.28 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) between 2010 and 2026.  This is a 133% increase from the current adopted figure of 0.12mtpa. The Proposed Changes are now available for public consultation until 5pm on Tuesday 1 June 2010.  Milton Keynes Council will be preparing a response to the consultation which will be the subject of a report for Delegated Decision by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning and Growth at the end of May 2010.  If Town and Parish Councils or Area Forums wish to respond to the consultation they should do so directly to the Government Office for the South East, using the comments form available at the GOSE website, above. Milton Keynes Council is currently in the process of commissioning some research by the British Geological Survey to provide an up-to-date picture of minerals resources in the Borough, which will assist in our response to this consultation and in the preparation of our future minerals planning policy documents. If you have any questions about the Proposed Changes document, please contact Fiona Tarbit or Graeme Marsden in the Development Plans Team (on 01908 252599 or email fiona.tarbit@milton-keynes.gov.uk or graeme.marsden@milton-keynes.gov.uk)  

Delegates at a meeting of the Milton Keynes North East Area Forum have been advised of the council’s strategy for dealing with the vast numbers of potholes resulting from the recent prolonged period of wintry weather. The Forum met at Lavendon Village Hall on Wednesday 3rd March and received a number of presentations, including one from Ian McGregor, the MK Highways Network Manager, about the level of repairs required. Ian’s repair budget is somewhat healthier than he expected following a last-minute amendment from Liberal Democrat Councillor Douglas McCall at the council’s recent budget setting meeting. The amendment suggested adding 0.5% to the Council Tax to specifically generate money to repair potholes. Although the amendment drew the wrath of the Conservative Group Leader, it was eventually passed.

The addition of 0.5% on the Council Tax has meant that an additional sum of £447k is available to repair the unprecedented damage to the highway network caused by potholes. The additional money will be spent over a four month period to deal with as many of the damaged areas as possible. There are currently some 1,300 reported sites, many with multiple potholes. The council has recently been using a different technique to improve the productivity of the repair teams. By hiring in a planing machine the council has been able to implement road closures and do a permanent repair job on the damaged areas. This strategy has resulted in some 200 square metres of road surface to be repaired every day, as opposed to the 20 square metres managed by utlising the normal patching teams.

  

Olney Infant School has been honoured by OFSTED in a celebratory event recognising outstanding schools in England.

Steve Dunning, the headteacher, attended the event at Gibson Hall in central London which was hosted by Christine Gilbert, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills, OFSTED.

She praised the top schools, colleges, childcare and social care providers who had earned themselves a place in the annual list of outstanding providers published by OFSTED. Providers on the  list have shown an excellent quality of care, support and education to meets the needs of the children, young people and adult learners.

Christine Gilbert went on to say: “I wholeheartedly congratulate these providers on their success and hard work in delivering such high standards. Excellence does not happen by chance, these providers have a real drive to inspire, challenge, and support children, young people and adult learners. But there is no reason why everyone can’t be outstanding, I hope they will be a source of inspiration to others.”

  The celebration was held at Gibson Hall on Thursday 21st January. (click on the photo to enlarge)

Christine Gilbert (wearing the yellow scarf in the above photo) was the headteacher of Whitmore High School in Harrow for 8 years. She is married to former Home Office Minister Tony McNulty.

The OFSTED report that found Olney Infant School to be ’outstanding’ can be viewed by clicking on the link to the left of this item. 

The issue of parking in Olney has been a difficult and contentious one for many years. The majority of households have at least one vehicle, and some larger families may have several. Much of the housing in the older parts of the town was built long before the advent of the private motor car and off-street provision is very much lacking. In some of the narrower streets in the town residents have attempted to park in such a way that their vehicles would not impede the flow of traffic. This often meant parking with the two nearside wheels just on the pavement. However, in the past this type of activity has been frowned on by the local police.

Even in our very wide High Street we still get parking problems. The edges of the highway are wide enough to allow the sensible parking of moderate-sized vehicles, but not sufficient to allow the parking of 4×4 type vehicles. Many drivers of these vehicles tend to roll one or more wheels up on to the kerb, causing damage to the integrity of the kerbstones and also the drainage gully covers.

The issue of parking came up at the monthly meeting of the Town Council on 4th January, at which members were advised of some vehicles parking with all four wheels on the pavement! With the amount of traffic using the High Street it is obviously difficult for HGV drivers to make deliveries to the High Street shops, and there are clearly issues with security companies making deliveries and collections for the various banks. However, there does seem to be little justification for parking on the pavement.