positively influencin g the future of midsummer bo

A r

wo

report o

orkshop

n the Mi

- 7th, 8th

idsumm

h and 10

mer Boule

0th Febru

Po

th

M

Ea

evard Ea

uary 201

ositive

he Futu

Midsum

ast to 2

ast stak

14.

ely Influ

ure of

mer Bo

2026.

keholder

uencin

ouleva

r

g

ard

1

Report on the Midsummer Boulevard East Stakeholder Design

Workshops – 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.

Executive Summary.

This executive summary reflects a focused and widely supported set of

outcomes from the workshops held on the 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.

The workshop was attended by 87 participants with diverse

views and objectives for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East yet

the results reflect a high degree of commonality and achieved very high levels

of support.

The summary results of the workshop are listed below – details are given in

the main text:

the specification of what makes a “good” place was agreed

through the identification of 20 design and place qualities;

15 items of concern identified common to several stakeholder

perspectives;

the identification of the 20 strengths, 26 weaknesses and 28

opportunities that the development of MBE needs to address;

25 barriers that have to be overcome to ensure that the MBE can

be considered as a good place by 2026 were clearly identified;

8 initial proposal plans produced that contained 34 specific

emerging ideas and led to the formulation of 18 draft design

instructions to be addressed by a technical team;

The production by a technical team of a first draft composite

package of proposals on plan, containing 10 key ideas;

High levels of support for the first draft composite package;

8 refined proposal plans containing 35 additional refinements to

be addressed by a technical team;

2

The production by a technical team of a second draft composite


Very high levels of support across the workshop for the second

composite package;

The listing of 65 comments as suggested refinements to the

second composite package that would increase the level of

support of the package.

The generation of 12 draft refined aspirations based on the

suggested refinements to the second composite package as the

basis of an outline brief for the development of the Midsummer

Boulevard of 2026.

3

Report Contents:

Executive summary. Page 1

Purpose of the report. Page 5

Structure of the report. Page 6

Workshop participant’s details, aims, structure and format. Page 7

Day 1: Friday 7th February – Developing initial principles and proposals. Page 9

Day 2: Saturday 8th February – Refining the principles and proposals. Page 32

Day 3: Monday 10th February – Finalising principles, proposals & actions. Page 50

Concluding comments and recommendations. Page 65

Appendices. Page 66

List of Tables:

Table 1.0 Participant’s details. Page 8

Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a “good” place. Page 10

Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspectives. Page 13

Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS. Page 17

Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESSES. Page 18

Table 6.0 Composite SWOB analyses – OPPORTUNITIESS. Page 20

Table 7.0 Composite SWOB analyses – BARRIERS. Page 21

Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions. Page 27

Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans. Page 29

Table 10.0 Other emerging issues from 7th February. Page 31

Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan

and package – 8th Feb. Page 38

Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals

- 8th February. 8

Table 13.0 Additional refinements and specific comments on the second composite

package - 10th February. Page 60

List of plans & diagrams:

Figure 1.0 Group 1 first proposals diagram – 7th February. Page 23







4


Figure 9.0 First composite plan – Midsummer Boulevard

– synthesised and conceptualised. Page 34

Figure 10.0 Group 1 revised proposals plan – 8th February. Page 43








Figure 18.0 Second composite plan for Midsummer Boulevard

– a refined package of proposals . 3

Figure 19.0 Group 1 additional proposals plan – 10th February. Page 56








5

Purpose of the report:

The purpose of this document is to present the results of the collaborative

workshops held on 7th, 8th and 10th February 2014.

The purpose of the event was to establish the basis for the preparation of an

outline brief for the future development of Midsummer Boulevard East, Central

Milton Keynes.

The Midsummer Boulevard East development workshops were a collaborative

process whereby invited stakeholders such as local and parish councillors,

residents’ group representatives, local authority officers, consultants, business

and property owners were actively involved in formulating design and

development proposals for the area.

An objective of the process was to engage a broad range of local and national

expertise in order to identify areas of agreement that could be used to

enhance, support and direct proposals for future development and

improvement.

An overall aim was to avoid a prescriptive approach to the production of an

outline brief but rather to provide generic principles, ideas and proposals that

could form the rationale to direct and support subsequent detailed proposals.

These would form the basis for on-going discussions with the workshop

attendees and other stakeholders.

This report reflects this approach and is presented as a chronological account

of the developing design principles, ideas, proposals and key issues of

concern raised during the three workshop sessions. Those facilitator’s

comments that have been included are for reasons of either explanation

and/or clarity.

Within the context of the aim and objectives of the process the consensual

views of the participating groups have been included, which reflects the ethos

of the process whereby a mix of stakeholders working together in groups was

asked to share expertise and find common ground.

6

Inevitably there will be principles and issues that will be open for further

reflected interpretation by individuals and individual organisation members.

This should be perceived as a good thing as much work was produced over a

short period of time and a degree of flexibility and interpretation guarantees

the avoidance of a prescriptive approach and provides the scope for further

negotiation.

Structure of the report:

The report is divided in to 5 sections.

1. Outline of the workshop structure and format - with participant’s details

and group structure.

2. Workshop session 1: Developing initial principles and proposals -

generated at the 7th February session.

3. Workshop session 2: Refining the principles and proposals – generated

from the 8th February session.

4. Workshop session 3: Finalising principles, proposals and actions -–

generated from the 10th February session.

5. Concluding comments and recommendations.

7

1. Workshop participant details, aims, structure and

format.

1.1 Participant details.

87 participants took part in the workshop. The workshop ran over three

sessions, facilitated by Dr Jon Cooper. Participants worked in eight groups

constructed to ensure a mix of representation in each group. Table 1.0 lists

the invited participants and organisations.

1.2 Workshop aims & objectives.

The aim of the workshop was to establish an agreed package of ideas,

principles and proposals from a range of stakeholders that can inform the

future use, layout and design of Midsummer Boulevard East (MBE) and

development alongside it, within the context of the growth and intensification

of development planned for Central Milton Keynes (CMK) by 2026

The overarching intention was to ensure that the 2026 MBE will make an

enhanced positive contribution to the economic, social and environmental

improvement of the Primary Shopping Area within CMK and that the MBE of

2026 will be considered to be a “good place”.

The first day concentrated on developing an initial set of general design aims

and design principles to be applied to the development. This was achieved

by:

1. Identifying the qualities that make a “good” place in the context of a city

centre location like MBE;

2. Outlining important contextual material regarding the planning policy,

physical, transport and user characteristics of MBE;

3. Understanding the perspectives of a range of stakeholders;

4. Carrying out a SWOB analysis of the area (strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and barriers) and;

5. Illustrating a first set of design ideas on a 1:500 base plan.

8

Table 1.0 Participants’ details.

Note: not all participants attended all sessions of the workshop.

Organisation Representatives Organisation Representatives

Abbeygate Clive Faine* MKC Cabinet Leader Cllr Andrew GearyAdelphi St Neighbourhood Watch Hilarie Bowman MKC Cabinet member Cllr David Hopkins*Age UK Milton Keynes Paul Griffiths MKC Cabinet member Cllr Peter GearyAll Bradville Residents Assn Tony Peirson MKC Cabinet member Cllr Keith McLean Arriva Paul Morgan MKC Cabinet member Cllr Edith BaldArriva Maq Alibhai MKC Cabinet member Cllr Alice BramallArriva Stuart Winston MKC Ward Councillor Cllr Cec Tallack*Arts & Heritage Alliance MK Jacky Scott MKC Ward Councillor Cllr Rob MiddletonAustralian Super Jack McGoogan MKC Ward Councillor Cllr Paul Williams*Bidwells Roger Yates MKC Ward Councillor Cllr John BintBray Associates Henry Diamond MKC Chief Executive David HillBray Associates Brian Nunan MKC Development Management Anna Holloway BT Pension Scheme Chris Darroch MKC Economic Development Pam GosalCity Discovery Centre Henk van Aswegen MKC Highways Brian MatthewsCMK Alliance Robert de Grey* MKC Interim Asst Director, Planning David Hackforth CMK Alliance David Lock* MKC Passenger Transport Andrew ColemanCMK Alliance / CMK Town Council Cllr Rebecca Kurth* MKC Urban Design Grant Gibson CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council Cllr Ken Baker* MKC Urban Design Neil Sainsbury CMK Alliance / CMK Town Council Cllr Andy Thomas* MKC Urban Design Alex Hopkins CMK Town Council Cllr Charles Ashbury MKCCM Ian JacksonCMK Town Council Cllr Andre Brady MKCCM Melanie BeckDavid Lock Associates Matt Lappin MKCCM Sarah BannisterDavid Lock Associates Lawrence Revill MKCCM Carmel BlythGreat Linford Parish Council Cllr David Stabler MKDP Charles MacdonaldHammerson James Rowbotham MKDP Bob HillHammerson Adam Blacker MKDP John DugganHammerson James Hepburn Nat'l Market Traders Fed MK Elizabeth Hobbs Hammerson Phillipa Zieba Nat'l Market Traders Fed MK Georgina BaidounHenderson Myles White Resident Douglas Campbell Henderson Chris Pyne Resident David ColesHermes Ben Tollhurst Resident Stuart Turner Hermes Gavin Murray Resident Mike LeroyIntu Properties Brett Harbutt Stagecoach Tom Waterhouse Intu Properties Amy Scanlon Stagecoach Zoe PagetIntu Properties Mark Anders Sustrans Richard Manser Koru MK Kay Greenhalgh The Parks Trust David Foster*MK Forum Tim Skelton Theatre District Management Sara MillsMK Forum Carol Barac Theatre District Management Patrick Punch MK Gallery Will Cousins thecentre:mk Tenants Association James WaughMK Gallery Jess Thompson Urban Eden Theo ChalmersMK Gallery Anthony Spira Urban Eden Ian MichieMK Bus Users Group (MKBUG) Peter Ballantyne Virtual Viewing Stewart Bailey*MK Bus Users Group (MKBUG) Alan Francis Xplain Adrian Morrow

Xplain Linda Inoki*Facilitator Jon Cooper Logistics (CMK Town Council) Paul Cranfield* *member of CMK Alliance (Steering Group / Project Team)

9

On completion of day one tasks a technical team, working on behalf of the

participants, examined the results of the workshop and produced a first draft

composite plan that attempted to bring together the ideas generated by the

participants in the first session.

The second day commenced with a presentation by the technical team of the

first composite plan. This was followed by a viewing of two videos by

Professor Jan Gehl as inspirational pieces designed to ensure that the

participants addressed the experience of place as well as the functional

attributes of the MBE area. On completion of the viewing the participants were

invited to audit the composite plan and refine it in light of the videos and other

additional issues that they considered important.

On completion of the second workshop session the technical team again

worked to combine the ideas generated by the participants and produced a

second refined version of the composite plan.

The third and final workshop session commenced with the participants

presenting their ideas from the second session as a reminder and then they

were shown the second composite plan and invited to check it for accuracy

and to add further refinements. The participant groups were invited to indicate

their level of support for the emerging plan and to identify any additional

actions that would increase the level of support for the emerging plan within

their group.

Throughout the workshop the participant groups were all asked to undertake

the same tasks and on completion of the various tasks feedback sessions

were held to clarify and identify points of common agreement – these points

were recorded throughout the three workshop sessions and their presentation

forms the bulk of this report.

10

2. Day One: Friday 7th February - Developing initial

principles and proposals.

1. TASK 1: Devise the specification for a “good place”;

2. TASK 2: Receive important factual background and context material;

3. TASK 3: Examine and summarise the perspectives of key stakeholders;

4. TASK 4: Carry out a site visit;

5. TASK 5: Complete a SWOB analysis of the MBE area;

6. TASK 6: Illustrate and annotate initial proposals on a 1:500 base plan;

7. TASK 7: Prepare design instructions for the technical team;

8. TASK 8: List other emerging issues.

2.1 Devising a “good place” specification.

At the beginning of the first day the participants were asked to list the qualities

that they considered made a “good” place. Table 2.0 lists the qualities in the

order identified at the workshop – they are not presented in any order of

preference.

Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a ‘Good’ Place.

Understanding of climate – designed for climatic context.

A place to go and a place people want to be in.

It has reasons for people to go there.

Multiplicity of users.

Attractive, happening, vibrant and inspiring – a modern place with “delight”.

Inclusive – accessible for everyone.

Safe and comfortable.

Convenient and accessible – easy to get there.

Ambitious.

Clean.

Entertaining and diverse – something for everyone.

Not dominated by traffic.

11

Table 2.0 Specification of the qualities that make a ‘Good’ Place……continued.

Relates well to people.

Relates well to the natural world.

Vibrant - with a blend of activities.

Distinctive, memorable, easy to get there.

It has and is a unique selling point.

Timeless.

Inviting.

Complementary.

18 initial items were synthesized from the composite list generated at the 7th

Feb event and two additional items (the last two) were suggested for inclusion

in response to the discussions at the Feb 8th workshop.

“Inviting” was suggested at the workshop in response to the material shown

on the videos by Jan Gehl.

“Complementary” was suggested for inclusion to ensure that the character

and function of the MBE supported the wider CMK context.

Table 2.0 presents the participants with a specification that can be used to

audit future proposals for the development of MBE to ensure that it can be

considered to be a good place within the context of the wider city centre of

Milton Keynes.

Facilitator’s observation.

To enable the proper use of table 2.0 as an auditing tool it is suggested that a

series of indicators will need to be developed to assist the participants in

measuring just how closely any future proposals deliver their good place

specification. Essentially the good place specification constitutes a series of

intentions or desired qualities. What needs to be identified is exactly how they

are delivered in reality and how success can be made measurable. It may be

possible for the technical team to identify indicators on behalf of the wider

group of participants.

12

2.2 Essential information - background and context material.

The second session on February 7th consisted of a series of four short factual

briefing presentations providing essential data on the planning policy,

physical, access & movement and user context. Awareness of this information

was considered essential in ensuring that the participants’ emerging ideas

would be deliverable and responsive to the location.

The slides containing the background and contextual information shown at the

event are presented in appendix A of this report.

2.3 Understanding the perspectives and aspirations of

stakeholders.

To ensure that the workshop participants had an opportunity to communicate

their perspectives on the MBE and to ensure that everyone could gain an

appreciation of a wide range of other perspectives and views regarding the

development of MBE within the time constraints of the workshop format, all

the participants were invited to submit a short written statement summarising

their perspectives in advance of the workshop. 18 perspective statements

were received.

The 18 written statements were copied and each participant was presented

with a complete set of written perspectives in the third session on February

7th.

Working in their groups the participants were invited to examine the various

stakeholder perspectives. The groups were asked to read each perspective

statement and:

a) List the key points of each perspective;

b) Identify points of agreement and also highlight potential

disagreements;

c) Record their summary findings on the flip charts provided

On completion of the exercise the results were shared and areas of

commonality and difference were identified.

13

The original 18 perspective statements are available in appendix B of this

report. Table 3.0 below lists the areas of commonality found between the

various stakeholders’ perspectives as identified by the participant groups.

Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements (CSPs).

(G1-G8 the workshop groups).

CSP 1. MBE should be a destination.

Attracting more people to come and to dwell in MBE. G1.

MBE needs to be improved as a destination. G5

MBE – regional destination. G6

MBE needs to become a destination. G8

CSP 2. Provision of a public or civic space(s).

Public civic space – yes/no/ where? G1

Civic/public square for mass gatherings, cultural/civic events venue. G2

Boulevard as the Square. G2

Space to socialise. G3

Town square – yes or no? G3

Public places. G6

Maybe a public square as a focal point. G8

CSP 3. MBE - a pedestrian dominated space.

Tension between different users – PT, pedestrians, cyclists, car, permeability. G1

Pedestrian priority. G2

Not pedestrainised totally – shared on terms. G2

Pedestrianise Lower 9th and 10th Streets – a possible consequence. G2

Alternative to cars – public transport mix but more pedestrian friendly. G6

Pedestrian connectivity. G6

Some pedestrianisation? G8

Pedestrian dominated? G8

CSP 6. Attract retail activity.

Indoor or Outdoor? G2

More flexible to attract retailers. G6

14

Table 3.0 Common points identified in the stakeholder perspective statements

(CSPs)…..continued.

CSP 5. Retain, expand and improve the market.

Market as an asset – how and where? G1

Market – more variety and quality – Market Hall/Cover – management. G3

Market is important but needs to be improved. G5

Market is a strong anchor. G6

Enhanced market. G8

CSP 6. The MBE has different areas that need to be treated differently.

Linear overall space with a number of different ‘places’ and functions along its

length. G1

West MBE is different from eastern MBE. G2

Linked spaces. G3

Degree of thought that MBE east of Secklow Gate needs to be treated differently

from MBE west of Secklow Gate. G5

Two broadly different areas to MBE. G8

CSP 7. Improve public transport access. But how is public transport dealt with in

MBE?

Role as a transport corridor – need for public transport access and interchange –

how and where? G1.

Move buses off. G2

High capacity public transport all through MBE from end to end. G2

Remove the MSP covenant for public transport. G2

Bus interchange on MBE or very close. G2

Circular service – Silbury/Avebury. G2

Buses – critical to have access. G3

Buses – too intrusive and need to be moved out.

Majority support re-routing buses. G5

More public transport. G6

Relocate public transport to a location close to MBE. G8

Stark choice – either keep or remove. G8

Re-open the corridor thorough Midsummer place. G8

15



CSP 8. Provide better pedestrian and cycle access and linkage.

Better linkage between different uses. G1

More and safer cycle routes. G2

Pedestrian links. G3

North – south pedestrian access. G5

Lack of permeability. G8

CSP 9. Provide active edges to MBE.

Use and role of frontage development. G1

Needs more active frontages. G5.

Need for active edges. G8

CSP 11. Provide easily accessible, more and better parking.

Disabled and elderly parking nearby. G2

More and better parking – multi-storey – relocated. G3

Needs some parking e.g. for disabled, but other parking could be moved to multi-

storey car parks to allow space to be used for multi-functional purposes. G5

Better and easier disabled movement/parking. G8

CSP 12. Provide community and family facilities.

Community Hub near central interchange. G8

CSP 13. Increase vibrancy during the day and night.

Day and evening use. G2

Mixed uses. G2

Vibrant activity. G3

Night-time access. G3

Greater vibrancy needed. G5

Space to have evening attractions. G8

16



CSP 14. How to reconcile the past and the future?

Preservation vs Change? G1

Preservation vs Change? G3

CSP 15. How is the width of the boulevard to be addressed?

Width of the Boulevard – central thoroughfare between the trees – flexibility at the

edges? G1

Narrow or integrate uses across - MBE narrow or not? G2

Examination of table 3.0 reveals 15 main themes that the participants

identified as being common to a number of the stakeholder perspectives. 12

of the themes can be considered as common statements of aspiration for

MBE, while 3 others are questions that require attention and clarification

through further dialogue. The 15 items have been arranged below in two

parts: firstly the 12 statements are listed; these are followed by the 3

questions:

MBE should be a destination.

MBE should contain provision for a public or civic space(s).

MBE - a Pedestrian dominated space.

Attract retail activity.

Retain, expand and improve the market.

The MBE has different areas that need to be treated differently.

Provide better pedestrian and cycle access and linkage.

Provide active edges to MBE.

Provide easily accessible, more and better parking.

Provide community and family facilities.

Increase vibrancy during the day and evening/night.

Improve public transport access - but how is public transport

dealt with in MBE?

How to reconcile the past and the future?

17

How is the width of the boulevard to be addressed?

The above list provides an initial set of MBE specific aspirations held in

common by a number of stakeholders, and combined with the earlier

specification of a “Good Place”, it can form an embryonic brief for any

future development team requested to address the design of MBE.

2.4 Evaluating the place – SWOB analysis.

To provide more detail to this emerging and embryonic brief the participants

were asked to visit the MBE area after lunch on February 7th and, using the

good place definition, context information, Stakeholder perspectives and their

site observations as reference points, they were requested to carry out a

SWOB (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Barriers) analysis of MBE

to help decide specifically how MBE can be improved and to ensure that it

could meet the common aspirations and be considered a “good place”.

Tables 4.0 to 7.0 list the items identified by the eight groups and constitute a

composite SWOB analysis of MBE. The tables list the items in order of

frequency of mention across the eight groups of participants.

Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS. (1-8 indicate the number of groups

recording a similar item)

S1. Presence of the market 6

S2. Central and accessible location – the heart of CMK 5

S3. Trees along the boulevard 4

S4. Car parking availability 4

S5. Availability of development land 4

S6. Theatre and gallery and leisure offer 3

S7. Mix of uses 3

S8. Strong retail offer and shopping centre 3

S9. Bus accessibility 2

S10. Portes Cochere 2

S11. Listed building character and appearance 2

18

Table 4.0 Composite SWOB analyses – STRENGTHS….continued.

S12. Retail growth plans 1

S13. Multi-storey car park (short term parking) 1

S14. Disabled parking 1

S15. Pedestrian segregation 1

S16. Linear character – ‘grandiose’ 1

S17. Dual carriageway traffic capacity 1

S18. Flexibility 1

S19. Servicing accessibility 1

S20. High footfall at MSP 1

The participants identified 20 strengths within MBE that should be developed

and enhanced in future design proposals. Five of the strengths were

commonly identified by at least 50% of the workshop groups.

Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESSES. (1-8 indicate the number of

groups recording a similar item)

W1. Maintenance, management and appearance of public realm 8

W2. Limited active frontages 6

W3. Decline in food centre and Theatre District – empty buildings and land 5

W4. Introverted shops 4

W5. Larger than human scale and sheer size 3

W6. Retail offer could be better 3

W7. Wayfinding is poor, esp. Midsummer Place 3

W8. Unattractive bus stops and passenger waiting areas 2

W9. Micro-climate and exposure lack of weather protection 2

W10. Poor quality of market environment 2

W11. Poor lighting of pedestrian routes and Secklow Gate underpass 2

W12. Lack of spatial cohesion 2

W13. Quality of north south pedestrian routes 2

W14. Cycle routes are poorly defined 1

W15. Market layout impedes pedestrian accessibility 1

W16. Retail units too small 1

19

Table 5.0 Composite SWOB analyses – WEAKNESES….continued.

W17. Market opening days are limited 1

W18. Lack of independent retailers 1

W19. Confusing parking regime 1

W20. Traffic dominance 1

W21. Chaotic PT interchange 1

W22. Buses impact on pedestrian environment 1

W23. Space west of MSP lacks role and function 1

W24. End of Secklow Gate is very quiet 1

W25. Surface car parks 1

W26. Lack of events space 1

26 specific weakness were identified that need to be addressed in future

proposals. All groups identified a lack of maintenance and the current

appearance of the public realm as a major weakness. Two strong themes can

be identified:

i) the poor personal experience of the place – words and phrases

such as poor quality, unattractive, introverted, exposure, chaotic,

lack of cohesion, poor definition, impeded access, confusion, –

suggest that MBE currently seems to have a poor image due to its

underlying structure.

ii) lack of high quality facilities – retail units too small, decline in

food centre, market opening limited, lack of role, etc. suggest that

the functional aspect of MBE needs to be upgraded.

20

Table 6.0 Composite SWOB analyses – OPPORTUNITIES. (1-8 indicate the number of

groups recording a similar item)

O1. Development land and space is readily available 5

O2. Increase market days and improve quality 5

O3. Median space could be better utilised linking Campbell Park to market

and programming the space 4

O4. Improve space west of MSP as a gateway to MBE 4

O5. Rationalise/ remove some surface parking if better use can be found 3

O6. Regeneration of food centre and Theatre District 3

O7. MSP public transport easement and covered space 3

O8. Establish two-sided streets and active edges 2

O9. Exploit Sunny side of shopping building and wide footways 2

O10. Accommodate cars in slow streets and shared spaces 2

O11. Extra wide pavements on north side of MBE could be used 1

O12. Book-end eastern end of MBE creating an ‘attractor’ 1

O13. Limited and substantial landownerships 1

O14. Space programming: more events 1

O15. Gallery extension 1

O16. Innovation and being different and unique 1

O17. Campbell Park 1

O18. Remove Secklow Gate ramps 1

O19. Enhance Secklow Gate environment 1

O20. Link portes cocheres and put activity there 1

O21. Remove clutter and signage 1

O22. Flexibility 1

O23. Increase evening activity 1

O24. Better public transport spine and interchange 1

O25. Extend shopping building east and link to Theatre District 1

O26. More active frontages and commercial activity 1

O27. Create a focal point 1

O28. Levels at eastern end of MBE are easier to accommodate 1

O27. Bus interchange in Secklow Gate including community hub 1

O28. Improve connectivity to Campbell Park 1

21

28 opportunities to improve the MBE experience were identified across the

workshop, with 4 of them being common to at least 50% of the groups. These

opportunities should be examined in detail and addressed as the basis for

improvement in future proposals.

Table 7.0 Composite SWOB analyses – BARRIERS. (1-8 indicate the number of groups

recording a similar item)

B1. Secklow Gate is a physical barrier but north-south route is important 4

B2. Level changes 3

B3. Barriers to pedestrians: Market and shopping centre when closed 3

B4. Finance and funding 2

B5. Clutter 2

B6. Trees and planting are poorly sited 2

B7. Too much space and width 2

B8. Car parking as a barrier to pedestrians 2

B9. Uncertainty over public transport proposals 2

B10. Sleeping policemen and speed humps impede public transport 1

B11. Indirect bus routing and dog-leg around MSP 1

B12. Listed status of shopping centre 1

B13. Planning system (generally) 1

B14. Future management 1

B15. Inflexible shop tenant requirements 1

B16. Surface level car parking 1

B17. Power in a few hands 1

B18. Parking and charging regime 1

B19. Too many lanes of traffic 1

B20. Conflict between different users and modes of transport 1

B21. Speed limits on quieter roads 1

B22. ‘Grandiose’ 1

B23. Trees shouldn’t be removed 1

B24. Poor sight lines 1

B25. MK heritage and legacy – people wanting to retain the status quo 1

22

In terms of barriers to the improvement of MBE table 7.0 lists 25 items. They

fall into three broad categories:

i) Physical barriers e.g. trees, poor sight lines, level changes etc.;

ii) Management issues e.g. parking regime, tenancy requirements,

indirect bus routing, conflict between modes of movement and

users and;

iii) Political issues e.g. the planning system, people wanting to retain

the status quo, finance and funding, and uncertainty.

The listing of barriers to improving MBE highlights the participants’ views that

the improvement of MBE is not just a physical issue but will also require

political, economic and long-term management of the place to be addressed

in any future development proposals.

The SWOB analysis provides future design and planning teams with a

detailed evaluation of MBE based on local and expert knowledge. Any future

development proposals should illustrate and make clear to the participants

how these items have been addressed in any future proposals.

2.5 Creating the place – generating initial ideas and

proposals.

On completion of the SWOB analysis the participants were invited to illustrate

how they thought the MBE could be developed by annotating a 1:500 scale

base map and using wooden blocks and other components to scale e.g.

buses and people, to construct a 3D model to represent their group’s ideas.

To ensure each plan was properly examined and that they could easily be

compared the technical team undertook to convert the workshop plans into a

series of representative diagrams. The diagrams are presented in Figures1.0

to 8.0.

23

Figure 1.0: Group 1 first proposal diagram - 7th Feb.


24



25

Figure 5.0: Group 5 First proposal diagram - 7th Feb.


26



27

On completion of the modelling exercise and as a catalyst for discussion

(within the time constraints of the workshop format) one group was asked to

present their design ideas to the other groups. Each group was then invited to

outline how similar or different their proposals were to the first presenting

group’s model and to give a short summary of their proposals. The groups

were then asked to give the technical team two instructions that they felt were

used to guide their model, and which they felt should be used to guide the

future of Midsummer Boulevard East. Further additional instructions were then

invited. The resultant set of design instructions are presented in table 8.0 in

the order they were offered at the workshop - they are not presented in any

order of preference.

Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions.

Group 1

Di1. Extend east end of shopping building with active edges and significantly

enhanced kinks into Campbell Park.

Di2. Introduce a new book-end building at Campbell Park end of MBE, with smaller

attractions including a café and wedding chapel in the park to draw people through.

Group 2

Di3. Create a beautiful promenade along the length of MBE with new paving, safe

routes for pedestrians, and space for public events. Buses removed from MBE

Di4. Shopping buildings expands over wide pavement area along the south side of

the listed building and along northern side next to JLP but not onto parking. Surface

parking on north side of MBE replaced in this location with high quality events space.

Car parking in the south side of MBE retained.

Group 3

Di5. Find new and beneficial uses on vacant land parcels to the south of MBE –

could feature a culture zone, redevelopment of food centre for convenience/family

uses, Point area could be a PT interchange with space for a tall landmark.

Di6. If good active uses can be found investigate the sacrifice of surface car parking

to the northern side of MBE adjoining the shopping building.

28

Table 8.0 Technical Team Instructions from 7th February sessions…..continued.

Group 4

Di7. Retain and expand the market towards Crown Walk, Acorn Walk and into the

underused premium parking bays either side of MBE at Secklow Gate.

Di8. Enhance north south routes at Field, Eagle and Crown Walks. Establish a new

walk – Margaret Powell Walk – to connect to the theatre. Maximise use of Portes

Cocheres.

Group 5

Di9. Conventional buses removed from MBE to be replaced with a clean and safe

system that can work within a pedestrian environment.

Di10. Active frontages and a series of ‘rooms’ to be considered along MBE,

strengthening cross-routes and avoiding fragmentation. Test also removal of part or

all of Secklow Gate east-west ramps as part of the testing of the rooms scenario.

One of the rooms should be a market.

Group 6

Di11. Expand MSP down to Avebury Boulevard taking in the office buildings and

removing buses from MBE.

Di12. Move market to southern side of Secklow Gate.

Group 7

Di13. Demolish the MSP Arch and de-clutter the listed shopping building turning it

into a designer classic. Enlarge at basement level to increase retail floorspace.

Di14. Introduce a shared surface along MBE to be used for a variety of activities with

immaculate paving over which cars can still pass when required.

Group 8

Di15. Western side of MBE to be closed to traffic with buses re-routed and a bus

station off Secklow Gate.

Di16 A 20 storey hotel and conference centre to the east of JLP with views over and

deck to Campbell Park.

Additional items

Di17. Redway route to be extended east/west linking into the Redways at Saxon

Gate.

Di18. Retain Secklow Gate as an important north/south connection. Could be

extended and turned into a more elegant structure flanked by development that

would generate value.

29

The resultant 18 draft design instructions formed an initial technical team

brief. The technical team examined the instructions and also completed an

audit of the proposals shown in figures 1.0 to 8.0 to arrive at a composite list

of specific proposals generated across all the groups.

The list of individual and specific proposals is shown in table 9.0 ranked in

order by the number of groups that mentioned them. This ranking gives a

simple indication of the level of commonality that was emerging at this point in

the workshop in relation to some of the specific ideas and proposals.

Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans.

Initial Proposal Number of

groups

mentioning

the initial

proposal

1. Possibility of extending building lines on the North side. 6

2. Provision of multi-storey parking – NE and /or SW. 6

3. Buses diverted to Secklow Gate with an interchange. 6

4. Mixed-use development east of John Lewis – views over park. 5

5. Strong connections to Campbell Park. 5

6. Market retained and extended on the Boulevard. 5

7. North-south cycle and pedestrian connections 5

8. Book-end, landmark at the eastern end of the Boulevard 4

9. Possibly sever either or both ramps at Secklow Gate 4

10. Market Hall in Food Centre/D3.4 4

11. New pedestrian space at west end – west of Secklow gate. 4

12. A series of linked attractions to be located on the central median - develop an Art walk along the Median.

3

13. Cycle route connections east and west. 3

14. Parking on south side – access on south. 3

15. Active edges to new development. 3

16. Car access from the south 2

17. A new landmark on the point. 2

18. Redevelop Point/D3.4 together. 2

30

Table 9.0 Emerging ideas extracted from the initial proposal plans….continued.

19. Extend the building lines on the South side. 2

20. Keep the trees 1

21. Midsummer Place roof removed. 1

22. Reinforcement of Portes Cocheres lines. 1

23. Fully pedestrianised and no buses. 1

24. Re-open Midsummer Place. 1

25. Open Midsummer Place to electric buses. 1

26. Needs clarity on uses for land on the south side. 1

27. Wedding chapel in Campbell Park. 1

28. Develop the eastern end as cultural zone. 1

29. Provide a western gateway to give a sense of arrival. 1

30. Pedestrian route through Midsummer place retained. 1

31. Remove the V8 underpass. 1

32. Western end to be car and bus free except for disabled access. 1

33. The centre of the boulevard to be used for advanced public transport solutions.

1

34. Develop a series of linked “rooms” along the boulevard. 1

Table 9.0 lists 34 specific ideas for MBE, of which 11 were mentioned by at

least half the groups. On completion of this “ideas audit” the technical team

then worked to consolidate the ideas and place them on to a single base plan

to construct a first draft composite scheme or “package” for review, comment

and refinement by the participants on 8th February. The initial composite

package is shown in figure 9.0. at section 3.2 of this report.

2.6 Listing other emerging issues.

In the final session on February 7th each group was asked to list other issues

regarding the development of the MBE that were not covered on the day and

that will require future attention. The composite list of issues is shown on

table 10.0 in the order they were received at the workshop – they are not in

order of precedence although they are grouped by topic.

31

Table 10.0. Other emerging Issues – from 7th February.

1. Political Leadership and Administration

Oi1.1 Political will and Leadership for public acceptance and Business acceptance

and long-term commitment/consistency

Oi1.2. Imagination and Vision

Oi1.3. Mechanism for collaboration between landowners

Oi1.4. External sensitivities and PR – dealing with the sacred cows!

2. Planning

Oi2.1. Long-term strategy and spatial plan for Public Transport and Parking

Oi2.2. Planning certainty – length of the planning process

3. Development and Development Constraints

Oi3.1. Flexible, sustainable, adaptable design and building materials

Oi3.2. Impact on the Listed Building and constraints on development.

Oi3.3. Phasing

Oi3.4. Cost and viability

Oi3.5. Sustainable Development standards

Oi3.6. Understanding constraints imposed by essential infrastructure

Oi3.7. Need for, role and function of an iconic landmark

Oi3.8. Control of the height and scale of buildings

4. Property Market and Demand

Oi4.1. Extent of mixed use – is residential really acceptable here (probably not!)

Oi4.2. Commercial user and occupier demand for new space

5. The Public Realm

Oi5.1. Who cares for, safeguards and “programmes the public space and finding

resources to change the quality - animation and curating

Oi5.2. Longevity and future proofing like the original CMK design

Oi5.3. How to manage the market to raise its game

6. Connections

Oi6.1. Future of Lower 9th Street

Oi6.2. 24 hour North South route(s) across the city centre.

Oi6.3. The Midsummer Place Covenant – to go or to stay?

7. Environment

Oi7.1 Sunlight penetration to public space

The issues shown on table 10.0 fall into 6 broad categories in terms of

questions raised and possible impacts that will need to be addressed:

32

i) The need for political leadership and administration;

ii) The need for long term certainty in the planning process;

iii) Awareness of physical, management and financial aspects to

the development process and development constraints;

iv) Understanding and imaginative demand to property and

market demand;

v) The long term maintenance, management and improvement in

the quality of the public realm;

vi) The improvement and clarification of connections in to and

through MBE;

vii) Recognition of the environmental aspects and impacts of

design and the impact they have on the experience of public

spaces.

As with the barriers to development shown on table 7.0 the list of other issues

highlights the need for any future proposals to be cognisant of the political,

financial and long tern management needs of MBE.

33

3. Day Two: Saturday 8th February - Refining the

principles and proposals – making sure that we deal

with the experience of place.

TASK 1: receive the first draft composite plan for comment and

checking and get clarification on the emerging first draft composite

package for MBE prepared on behalf of the workshop by the technical

team;

TASK 2: To view two inspirational videos and to use those pieces as

the basis for further refinement of the emerging proposals;

TASK 3: To further refine the emerging composite plan and give an

indication of the level of support within each group for the emerging

proposals.

3.1 Workshop management.

At the start of the event on February 8th the facilitator addressed the workshop

in regard to an issue of process management and protocol. This short section

is included simply as a point of accuracy and as a record of the refinement

and management of the workshop process. It had been brought to the

facilitator’s attention that some members of the various groups felt that their

voice was not being heard and that the group was being dominated by a

single assertive character or opinion. The facilitator made this situation known

to the workshop and requested that: i) those more assertive individuals “take

a step back and allow others to speak”; ii) that the tech team members in

each group did not write on the flip charts; iii) that two people within each

group take responsibility for making sure that everyone had a chance to

speak and; iv) that if problems persisted the facilitator was informed and

would then make an intervention.

3.2 Presentation of the first draft composite package.

In the first session the technical team presented their first attempt at

producing a composite package of proposals from the models produced on

February 7th. The first composite plan is shown in figure 9.0 below.

35

The first draft composite plan represents diagramatically a package of ten

consolidated suggestions:

1. Midsummer Place - reconceived.

2. West of Secklow Gate – de-cluttered, removal of ramps, new carpet.

3. East of Secklow Gate - sculpture walk, ramps retained and vehicles by

invitation only.

4. Market enriched and diversified and extended east-west.

5. Market Hall Options.

6. Porte Cochere crossings intensively used connecting multi-storey car

parks and Midsummer Mall

7. A Midsummer Boulevard transit route

8. Secklow Bus Interchange, left, right and centre.

9. Sunnyside Extended

10. Midsummer Palaces

The presentation of the first draft composite package received a spontaneous

round of applause from the workshop participants. A short question and

answer session followed where some of the emerging ideas were outlined in a

little more detail.

At this point the participants were requested to hold onto any further questions

as they would be provided with a print-out of the emerging composite diagram

and would then be given the opportunity to examine it in detail within their

groups and to make further observation, requests, refinements and

amendments.

36

3.3 Dealing with the experience of place.

Prior to auditing the emerging first composite package the participants were

asked to watch two videos by Professor Jan Gehl and then attempt to use

some of the concepts and ideas shown to audit the emerging proposals and

add further refinements as a means of starting to produce a second

composite package to be shown on Monday 10th February.

The first video can be found at the link below and dealt with the idea of

changing mind sets in relation to transforming public spaces into places for

people and realising very high levels of ambition in transforming the public

realm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lid9ELzzT8Y

The second video can be found at the following link and deals with the more

detailed aspects of place design attempting to ensure that the link between

the physical characteristics of the built environment and the individual human

experience of places is more clearly understood. The extract is only six

minutes long and is taken from a one hour long film entitled “Cities for People”

by Lars Mortensen.

http://mortensenfilm.dk/documentary/cities-for-people

3.4 Scoring the initial composite package.

After watching the video presentations each group was asked to carry out a

detailed audit of the emerging composite proposals in relation to their ideas

from day 1, the other emerging issues and the place experience presentation.

The groups were asked to score the emerging proposals by indicating the

numbers of people within each group that supported or did not support the

emerging proposals and identify improvements in the form of new principles

and/or specific spatial proposals. The cumulative results of the audit are

shown both on table 11.0 and in figures 10.0 to 17.0.

37

A number of the items (2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 on table 11.0) were felt by some

groups to contain a number of sub-clauses that made their final tallies of

numbers supporting/not supporting etc. more nuanced – these subdivisions

are shown in table 11.0.

In addition to the specific items listed on the table four more general points

can be identified from Table 11.0:

Most of the proposals shown on the composite plan (figure 9.0)

received support from a majority of the participants;

A number of items were felt to be too vague to be supported in

anything other than principle – reconceiving Midsummer Place,

extending the market, locating the Midsummer palaces (landmarks).

A number of people abstained from offering a view or recorded a

“maybe” as they felt that they needed more information on which to

base their decision.

A specific item that caused a large number of participants to abstain

was the potential removal of the existing ramps. The removal of the

connecting Midsummer Boulevard with Secklow Gate was part of the

composite proposal but it was generally considered by the participants

that insufficient information was available to enable any specific

decision to be made at this point. Moreover it was felt that any decision

regarding the removal or retention of any or all of the East or West

facing ramps needed much more specific information regarding the

possible impact on the market, impact on connectivity, and visual

impact, and that technical issues also required detailed investigation

e.g. structural feasibility. At this point the removal of the ramps was not

agreed/supported by the workshop.

Table 11.0 provides any future design team with a list of potential actions that

received general support but also a list of items that require further

investigation in order to confirm the participant’s support.

38

Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb.

Proposal Agree/Support Disagree/Don't

support Maybe/Abstain CONDITIONS

1. Midsummer

Place -

reconceived.

65 3 0

Generally agreed in principle but what does the

phrase actually mean? Clarification needed on

detail. Retain thoroughfares. More discussion and

investigation needed regarding the retention of the

roof.

2. West of Secklow

Gate – de-

cluttered, removal

of ramps, new

carpet.

36 6 0

This item was seen by several groups as containing

too many individual clauses to enable an accurate

indication of support as a single item - see items

2a, 2b and 2c.

2a De-cluttering 33 0 1

39

Table 11.0 Cumulative first responses to the initial composite plan and package – 8th Feb ….continued.

2b Removal of

Ramps

It was generally considered that insufficient information was

available to enable any specific decision to be made on this

item at this point.

A decision regarding the removal or retention of

any or all of the East/West facing ramps needs

much more information regarding the possible

impact on the market, impact on connectivity and

visual impact. Technical issues also require

investigation e.g. structure.

2c New Carpet 10 0 0 Clarity required on detail.

3. East of Secklow

Gate - sculpture

walk, ramps

retained/removed

and vehicles by

invitation only.

41 9 1 Support in principle but further information needed.

3a Sculpture walk 10 0 0

3b Ramps

retained/removed

It was generally considered that insufficient information was

available to enable any specific decision to be made on the

item at this point.

A decision regarding the removal or retention of

any or all of the East/West facing ramps needs

much more information regarding the possible

impact on the market, impact on connectivity and

visual impact. Technical issues also require

investigation e.g. structure.

40


3c Vehicles

invitation only 2 8 0

4. Market enriched

and diversified and

extended east-

west.

52 3 3 More investigation required to allow any detailed

decision on the specific location.

4a Market

enriched and

diversified.

10 0 0 More investigation required to allow any detailed


4b Market

extended E and W 2 8 0

More investigation required to allow any detailed


5. Market Hall

Options. 58 1 3 More discussion needed on specific location.

6. Porte Cochere

crossings

intensively used

connecting MSCP

and Midsummer

Mall

46 5 3 Reinstate crossings through the area.

6a Porte Cochere 16 0 0 Currently poor quality.

41


6b Multi-storey

parking 15 1 0

7. Midsummer

Boulevard transit

route

51 16 1

More detail needed on the specific location and

layout. Some people felt it should be on MBE

others that it could run around adjacent roads. In all

cases any solution should be convenient and

accessible by disabled users.

8. Secklow Bus

Interchange, left,

right and centre.

67 0 1 More detail needed on specific design and specific

locations

9. Sunnyside

Extended 47 8 2

This phrase was felt to be vague. More detailed

description needed. More specific location data

needed.

9a Sunny Side 5 3 0

9b North side 4 4 0

10. Midsummer

Palaces 42 5 4

The idea of providing landmarks was generally

accepted but further definition is required to decide

if this refers buildings or spaces or both and to

address, scale, height, massing etc,

42


10a Location East

and West 10 0 0 More specific location data needed.

10b Location at the

Point 10 8 0

Youth congregate at the point. Where will they go?

This issue needs further investigation in order for a

decision to be reached.

Totals 632 79 19

3.5

On

leve

ove

furt

the

on

figu

5 Further

completio

els of supp

er a diagram

her to prov

basis for t

February 1

ures 10.0 to

r refinem

n of the au

port, the gr

m of their o

vide a seco

the produc

10th. The r

o 17.0 belo

Figu

ment of th

udit of the f

oups were

original pla

ond set of

ction of a se

resultant re

ow.

re 10. Group

43

he emerg

first compo

e asked to

an and wer

plans to be

econd com

efined prop

p 1 revised p

ging prop

osite packa

place a sh

re invited to

e audited b

mposite pac

posal diagr

proposal - 8th

posals

age and the

eet of trac

o refine the

by the tech

ckage for p

rams are s

Feb.

e indicatio

cing paper

eir proposa

hnical team

presentatio

shown in

n of

als

m as

on

Figu

Figu

re 11. Group

re 12. Group

44

p 2 revised p

p 3 revised p

proposal - 8th

proposal - 8th

Feb.

Feb.

45

Figure 13. Group 4 revised proposal - 8th Feb.


46



47


At the end of the session held on February 8th each group was asked to

outline briefly their additional refinements to their earlier models, shown in

diagram form in figures 1.0 to 8.0 above, as a means of drawing the technical

team’s attention to the items that the groups wanted to be addressed in the

second iteration of the emerging composite package.

Table 12.0 summarises the additional variations and features proposed by the

eight groups.

48

Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th Feb.

Group 1

1. Working with existing circulation routes.

2. Preserve the trees as the symbol of a sustainable urban showcase.

3. Human Scale.

4. Slow speed limit.

5. Iconic building on the V8 Bridge.

6. Make provision for young people.

7. Exemplar for renewable energy.

8. Development symmetry/consistency each side of Secklow Gate south.

9. Public space for people use.

Group 2

10. The median of the MBE as social space between commercial worlds.

11. Design as distinctive rooms.

12. Give some public space in return for getting some public space upgrades.

13. A social enterprise company or trust needs to be set up to run the [MBE as a]

venue.

Group 3

14. Taxi access.

15. Disabled parking spaces are critical.

16. Traffic access from Avebury Boulevard.

17. Take away the northern ramps only (possibly).

18. Pedestrian route over Secklow Gate.

19. Bike hire provision to be provided.

20. Midsummer place should have or be a public civic landmark.

Group 4

21. Culture/leisure spine on Lower 12th Street.

22. Facilities needed for young people.

Group 5

23. Programming the spaces to complement adjoining uses.

24. Develop the eastern end as cultural/leisure zone.

25. Preserve the central corridor but allow it to change over time to accommodate

flexible transit solutions e.g. Trams etc.

49

Table 12.0 Additional refinements to the original proposals - 8th Feb….continued.

Group 6

26. Maintain a transit route.

27. Mixed-use development in the southwest quadrant of the city centre.

28. Establish a Business Development District.

Group 7

29. University on the Food Centre/D3.4.

30. 5 Storeys maximum height.

31. MBE should be the “largest intimate space in the world”.

32. Green structure should extend into the boulevard.

33. Use trees to alter the microclimate.

Group 8

34. Midsummer Winter Garden – cover the whole boulevard with large “sails” or

canopies [to ensure year round use].

35. Close Midsummer Arcade and relocate the retail frontage to the boulevard.

The technical team took the diagrams shown as figures 10.0 to 17.0 and

examined them in detail in an attempt to consolidate the evolving ideas and

construct a second composite plan that represented the core commonalities

emerging between the groups. The second composite package was

presented for examination in the second part of the session held on February

10th.

50

4. Day Three: Monday 10th February - Finalising

principles, proposals and actions - ensuring that the

future MBE is a good place.

TASK 1: short presentation and verification by each group of their

emerging proposals from day 2 as summarised by the tech team;

TASK 2: The technical team present a second composite summary of

the principles, proposals and actions generated in day 2 back to the

workshop for verification of accuracy and acceptability;

TASK 3: Each group examines in detail the composite proposals

refined by the technical team and decides the degree to which they

support the proposals and list additional changes that would increase

the group’s support.

4.1 Lancing the boils.

At the start of the event on February 10th the facilitator again addressed the

workshop in regard to process management and protocol.

It had again been brought to the facilitator’s attention that some members of

the various groups still felt that their voice was not being heard and that the

group was being dominated by a single assertive character or opinion.

Other participants were concerned that some items had been “agreed” as

representing a workshop consensus and that is was inaccurate.

Several participants were concerned that they had not been given sufficient

time to make important decisions and that they did not have sufficient

information on which to base their decisions.

The facilitator made the above views known to the workshop and made the

following points:

Listening and taking notice. i) Everyone at the workshop had an

equal right to be heard; ii) the more assertive individuals should again

“take a step back and allow others to speak”; iii) the tech team

51

members in each group should not write on the flip charts; iv) two

people within each group, including the tech team member, take

responsibility for making sure that everyone had a chance to speak

and; v) if problems persisted the facilitator was informed and would

then make an intervention.

Time compression – this is not the end. It was pointed out that this

workshop constituted the very start of an on-going consultation

process. Rebecca Kurth stated that it was intended to reconvene the

workshop group to maintain and ensure their further input and

direction.

No fixed decisions at present. At this point in the workshop process

none of the proposals made by any groups or individuals represented

fixed decisions made by the workshop participants although areas of

commonality were emerging.

Conditions are recorded and will be reported. Any conditions

attached to indications of support for the emerging proposals would be

recorded and reported – including the need for more information and

investigation.

Ramps – no decision can be made – impacts not known. In relation

to the specific issue of the existing ramps on MBE/Secklow Gate, it

was reiterated that at the end of the first workshop day (Feb7th) it was

agreed that no decision could be made regarding the possible removal

of the ramps as insufficient information was available in regard to the

possible impacts of their removal on the market, visual character and

circulation and that position had not changed.

Extending building lines – no decisions on where, how or under

what conditions. Regarding the draft proposal to possibly extend the

existing building lines, again no specific decisions had been made by

the workshop participants at this point.

The facilitator then rephrased the aim of the workshop and specifically the aim

of the third workshop event of February 10th. The rephrased aim of the

workshop was/is: “To produce an outline brief for further work”.

52

Facilitator’s comment:

A short discussion took place around these issues and a participant reminded

the workshop that the issue of trust was paramount in the event being

successful and in addressing issues that had been causes of confrontation in

the past. This formed a good point at which to recommence the workshop

process.

At this point the participants were given a copy of a summary analysis of a

recent public exhibition that had received 277 comments from people in the

Centre MK listing what they liked, didn’t like and would like to see in MBE.

Summary details of this analysis can be seen in appendix C.

4.2 Presentation by the groups and listing of new ideas from

the Feb 8th diagrams.

As a reminder to the workshop each group presented their proposals

produced at the Feb 8th event on screen to the whole workshop group. The

proposals are shown in Figures 10.0 to 17.0 and table 12.0 above.

4.3 Presentation of the second composite package by the

technical team and indications of support by the groups.

The technical team presented the second composite plan as a refined

package of proposals that it felt represented the features common to most

groups’ refined proposals - see figure 18 below.

54

12 key features are shown on the second composite plan:

Existing circulation routes to be 24 hour (wherever practical);

New possible building line extensions;

5 outdoor rooms were illustrated running from west to east:

Midsummer Place;

An urban public space;

The extended market;

Garden public space;

Cultural public space.

A Transit route maintained down the centre of the boulevard

A high quality public promenade.

Public transport interchange;

Mixed-use development to the southern side of the MBE.

A short question and answer session took place where opportunity for

clarification was provided.

After the presentation the groups were presented with print outs of the plan

and invited to audit the proposal and indicate their level of support for the

package of proposals.

Table 12.0 shows the levels of support for the illustrated package as indicated

verbally by each of the eight groups.

55

Table 12.0 Levels of support indicated by each group for the second composite

package.

Group 1 = Very High. 100% support, but conditional.

Group 2 = Very High.

Group 3 = Very High – conditional on the transit route supporting advanced

public transit solutions. Overall score of 9/10

Group 4 = 8/10, Very High. Overall score of 8/10

Group 5 = Very, Very High.

Group 6 = Very High. An overall score of 8/10, which would be higher if some

of the unknowns could be overcome.



Overall the second composite package received very high levels of support

from all the workshop groups.

4.4. How to increase levels of support.

In addition to indicating their general level of support the participants were

given tracing paper sheets and asked to record their suggestions for

additional measures that would increase the level of support within the group

plus any additional amendments, comments and refinements for this

workshop. These comments, where provided, are shown on figures 19.0 to

26.0 and on Table 13.0 below.

56

Figure 19. Group 1 additional proposals - 10th Feb.


57



58



59



60

Table 13.0 presents a summary of the additional comments and suggestions

provided by the groups.

Table 13.0 Additional refinements and specific comments on the second composite

package 10th February - suggestions to increase levels of support within the groups. (G1 to

G8 = workshop group)

1. Retain, expand and improve the Market.

A bigger market zone is required with better visibility and provision for a market hall. G3

The market should be extended east and west, and with additional weather protection. G4

The market feels like a barrier at present even though there are routes through. G6

The market needs a larger zone as its area of consideration so that improvement and expansion can be planned, including a market hall in the mix. G6

The market requires strong north-south pedestrian routes if possible on the ground and across Secklow Gate Bridge. It also needs good and clear east-west routes on the ground. G7

2. Provide parking in several locations and in several forms.

The development east of John Lewis with an MSCP. 100% support G2 A MSCP at the east end as part of a development with other uses and access

from the V8 Marlborough Street. 100% support G3 There should be a MSCP at the east end. G4 Development of a car park east of John Lewis should include cultural uses. G5 It is essential to maintain the overall supply of parking during implementation. G7 There is currently a poor arrangement and distribution of disabled parking and

this should be improved. G7 There should be access to any new MSCP at the east end direct from V8

Marlborough Street. G7 3. Create a series of Landmarks and gateways.

A west end gateway required. 100% support G2 There should be a landmark on the Point site. G3 There should be a west end gateway treatment. G3 The arrival point at the west end of the boulevard is neglected. G4 Landmarks are needed at both ends of MSBE. G6 The west end needs a sense of arrival at the heart of the city centre. G6 The east end needs a wider cultural offer to create a bigger draw with a landmark

feature. G6 We need to concentrate cultural uses. G6 There needs to be some form of landmark on the axis to Campbell Park. G7

4. Carefully extend the building lines both on the north and south sides in specific

locations.

Any building extensions need to have regard to heritage, design and the impact on the quality of the public realm. G1

Support for new building lines and extensions on the north side, but why not also on the south side of the boulevard. G2

61

Table 13.0…..continued.

The John Lewis flanks development was agreed but no general agreement for new building lines elsewhere, especially if permanent. G3

There should be residential development at the east end. G4 Building lines should be also extended on the south side where this improves the

definition and enclosure of the “rooms”. Development around the Portes Cocheres could reduce the apparent width of the boulevards. G4

On expansion of the Centre:MK, this team believes in “articulation” – not a consistent building line. The extensions of the John Lewis flanks could come forward of the existing building line. All should be in keeping with the existing architectural style. G4

Mixed use south of the boulevard could include health care. G5 Expansion of the Centre:MK had a difference of view on whether and how it

should be done. G5 In the zone around John Lewis, buildings should come forward on the flanks at

least as far as the existing building line. Elsewhere the preference is for any new buildings to be separated in space to retain the continuous façade. There was some disagreement on this issue. G7

Building line extended on both sides of MBE. G8

5. Create a series of interlinked and themed outdoor rooms along the length of the

Boulevard.

The idea of “rooms” is great but the design and programming must be carefully considered. G1

“Rooms” agreed by most in the group (8.5/10). They need to be related to the uses in the buildings. G3

Really like the concept of “rooms”! G4 The concept of rooms was agreed. 100% support G5 Agree with character rooms approach. G8

6. Support the vibrancy of the Boulevard with a managed programme of events.

The arts and heritage community are happy and willing to help programming and business modelling for a programme of events. G1

The programme of uses and events needed. G6 The programme of uses and events for the “rooms” should be used to drive the

form and design of the spaces. G7 7. Maintain but improve the existing circulation and movement network both north-

south and east-west.

There should be three north-south routes that are available 24/7 G2 There should be cycle hire facilities in the boulevard. G3 There was full support for the continued use of the existing circulation routes.

100% support G3 North-south routes are critical and at least one route at Secklow Gate should be

24/7. G4 The use of existing circulation routes should include at least one 24/7 north-south

route. 100% support G5 North\south routes to be 24/7. G8

Maintain movement system. G8

62

Table 13.0…..continued.

8. Provide a “beautiful” public transport interchange at Secklow gate.

The bus interchange should be bigger and on both sides of Secklow Gate. G3 A question was raised whether a bus interchange was needed at all, and if it was,

could it be on the high level bridge on Secklow Gate. G5 CMK demands “the most beautiful bus interchange in the world”! G7 Why not have bus pick up/drop off points on both sides of Secklow gate? G8

9. Ensure that development provides active edges to all public space along the length of MBE.

Critical to make the edges of the boulevard active. G1 The mixed use development sites south of the boulevard and each side of

Secklow Gate should have active frontages all round. G3 Needs active use on both sides. G8

10. Transform MBE in to a high quality public promenade.

The promenade needs to be able to draw people along the whole boulevard. G1 The promenade was agreed by all. 100% support G3 The idea of a public promenade was agreed. 100% support G5 High quality promenade. G8

11. Provide a transit route along MBE for advanced public transport solutions.

The transit should be high-tech. G1 Support for the transit route. 60% support G2 The transit route was agreed by all (not internal combustion engines). 100%

support. G3 The main boulevard should be a shared space used by the transit route. 100%

support G5 Range of public transport options and personal uses G8

Towards the end of this session of the workshop there was a specific

discussion in relation to the potential pedestrianisation of MBE. The general

conclusion on the accessibility of the Boulevard was that:

MBE will be a pedestrian dominated place, it will contain a transit route

available for advanced public transport solutions, have some parking

provision (especially for disabled users) and have shared access that

varies over time with other vehicles there by invitation only.

(Facilitator’s comment: it is suggested that this item is appended as an

additional item 12 to table 13.0).

Indicating the exact locations and positioning of these features was deemed

to be impossible at this stage in the design process and at the scale and

presentation format of the current composite proposal plans.

63

In conclusion, the second composite package was generally supported by the

workshop and should now be refined and expanded to contain the following

12 draft refined aspirations (DRAs) synthesised from the composite plans and

the items listed in table 13.0 and that reflect the participants’ additional

proposals for Midsummer Boulevard East, some of which were contained in

the first composite plan, as the basis for an initial outline development brief for

MBE.

These DRAs have been paraphrased here by the facilitator on behalf of the

workshop and so are presented in italics.

DRA1. Retain, expand and improve the Market.

DRA2. Provide parking (particularly for users with disabilities) in several

locations and in several forms - ground level and multi-storey.

DRA3. Create a series of landmarks and gateways at the western and eastern

end of MBE.

DRA4. Carefully extend the building lines both on the north and south sides in

specific locations.

DRA5. Create a series of interlinked and themed outdoor rooms along the

length of the Boulevard.

DRA6. Support the vibrancy of the Boulevard with a managed programme of

events.

DRA8. Provide a “beautiful” public transport interchange at Secklow gate.

DRA9. Ensure that development provides active edges to all public space

along the length of MBE.

DRA10. Transform MBE in to a high quality public promenade.

DRA11. Provide a transit route along MBE for advanced public transport

solutions.

DRA12. MBE will be a pedestrian dominated place with shared access that

varies over time with vehicles there by invitation only.

These draft refined aspirations should now be combined with the second

composite package to produce a third composite plan showing a more

specific spatial distribution of features. Numerous specific proposals made by

64

the participants that support the delivery of these aspirations can be found in

tables 8.0, 9.0, 12, and 13.0 above and can be used to provide more detail to

the third plan and provide a comprehensive outline brief that reflects the

participants common aspirations for the MBE of 2026.

65

5.0 Concluding comments and recommendations.

5.1 Conclusions.

Although the workshop was attended by a range of participants with diverse

views and objectives for the development of Midsummer Boulevard East the

outcomes in terms of desired qualities, design principles and strategic

proposals were narrow and well focused with a high degree of commonality

and support.

This was achieved through a collaborative process that has led to clear

guidance for the creation of an outline design and development brief for

Midsummer Boulevard East.

The summary results of the workshop are listed below – details can be found

above in the main text:

the specification of what makes a “good” place agreed through

the identification of 20 design and place qualities;

15 items of concern identified common to several stakeholder

perspectives;

the identification of the 20 strengths, 26 weaknesses and 28

opportunities that the development of MBE needs to address;

25 barriers that have to be overcome to ensure that the MBE can

be considered as a good place by 2026 were clearly identified;

8 initial proposal plans produced that contained 34 specific

emerging ideas and led to the formulation of 18 draft design

instructions to be addressed by a technical team;

The production by a technical team of a first draft composite


High levels of support for the first draft composite package;

66

8 refined proposal plans containing 35 additional refinements to

the original draft composite package of proposals to be

addressed by a technical team;

The production by a technical team of a second draft composite


Very high levels of support across the workshop for the second

composite package;

The listing of 65 comments as suggested refinements to the

second composite package that would increase the level of

support of the package.

The generation of 12 draft refined aspirations based on the

suggested refinement to the second composite package as the

basis of an outline brief for the development of Midsummer

Boulevard.

The workshop results should be used as a design rationale against which

further consideration can be given to specific proposals for the development

of Midsummer Boulevard East and against which the planning authority

stakeholders and community can verify subsequent detail proposals.

The workshops raised key emerging issues that require further consideration

in terms of policy, finance, maintenance and design implementation. These

are likely to affect the way in which the development at Midsummer Boulevard

East occurs. Many of these are beyond the scope of this report but should be

considered during the formulation of any outline brief and subsequent design

and development framework.

67

5.1 Facilitator’s recommendations.

Finally, in relation to observations made by the facilitator during the

workshops and during the formulation of this report there are eight key

recommendations;

Indicators for the specification of a good place should be

identified and agreed in order to audit proposals;

An outline development brief for the improvement of Midsummer

Boulevard to satisfy the growth of development planned to be

achieved by 2026 should be formulated from the results of the

workshop;

There should be a very clear, transparent and auditable link

between the outline brief and the results of this workshop;

The issues of political support, public and private sector

partnerships and long term maintenance must be addressed as

part of any long-term development package;

Several additional exciting ideas that were mentioned at the

workshops by individuals or single groups are worth

remembering and pursuing further:

The functions of MBE should be complementary to

the surrounding Milton Keynes central area;

Canopies over MBE – these could be used to

reinforce the legibility; memorability and usability of

outdoor rooms;

The establishment of a Business Improvement

District;

MBE as an exemplar of renewable energy;

The concept of “give some to get some” in terms of

public space only being given up for building

extensions in return for investment in improving the

public realm;

The setting up of a community trust;

68

Ensuring a long term and very regular arts/events

programme along MBE with a suitable events

business model;

The Bus Company is willing to move the location of

stops in response to the new and ambitious

proposals;

Concern that listed buildings are properly addressed.

the client(s) should consider how the momentum of the

collaborative workshops can inform a more comprehensive

strategy for on-going consultation and public participation.

the client should identify mechanisms for demonstrating to the

general public how the results of this workshop will inform

subsequent design;

a strong recommendation that all participants at the workshops

be issued with a copy of the final report.

Dr Jon Cooper.

February 2014.

69

Appendix A.

Essential information – background and context

material.

70

Slide 1 Planning policy context

Slide 2 NPPFPresumption in favour of sustainable development.

• Three dimensions to sustainable development: ‐ economic, social and environmental roles, working together.

Key areas:

• Ensuring the vitality of town centres

• Promoting sustainable transport

• Requiring good design

• Promoting healthy communities

Slide 3 Milton Keynes Core Strategy, 2013

Primary Shopping Area (PSA) in CMK identified as a regional shopping centre…

• higher quality buildings and spaces around them with greater attention to human scale

• range of travel options

• more pedestrian friendly routes and spaces

• Improved integration between parts of CMK

• Identifies targets for new housing, office and retail development up to 2026.

71

Slide 4 CMK Development Framework, 2013

Six areas of guidance:

• Protection of public realm infrastructure

• Heritage assets and public art

• Design guidance for new and redeveloped buildings

• Access, movement & parking

• Key public spaces

• Land use and character areas

Midsummer Boulevard East should be seen as a key public space in terms of the pedestrian experience.

Slide 5 Planning policy context

Slide 6 CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan

The Plan seeks...

• Delivery of the Core Strategy targets for development

• Flexibility of land uses; promotes mixed use

• Improvements to public realm

• Retention & improvement of public spaces

• Diversification of the PSA – independent shops; covered market hall; expansion of cultural and community facilities

• Identifies Midsummer Boulevard East as an inset area for further design work

72

Slide 7 CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan

Access, Transport and Parking Strategy:

• Good provision for cars remains a competitive advantage for CMK, whilst encouraging a switch to walking, cycling and public transport eg interchange in retail core & CMK shuttle

• Protect the CMK ‘classic’ infrastructure

• Enhance the pedestrian experience with active ground floor frontages

• Protect existing movement corridors

• Improve safe, convenient and attractive access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

Slide 8

Physical

Slide 9 Area of Study

73

Slide 10 Physical Size of MBE

Slide 11 Physical Size of MBE

Slide 12 Champs Elysees, Paris Similar scale in two dimensionsGlobal city icon. Traffic and people

74

Slide 13 Stroget, Copenhagen Densest pedestrian flows in EuropeThe Street as the heart of the city

Slide 14 Canary Wharf, London Quality landscape and managementA procession of linked spaces

Slide 15 Exhibition Road, London Shared space, open access for allCafes, museums, parking and traffic

75

Slide 16 Market Squares at Nottingham and Newark

Slide 17

Slide 18

76

Slide 19

Gentler level changes opposite the Point Gentler level changes opposite the Point

Gentler level changes for a short distance opposite the Theatre

Gentler level changes for a short distance opposite the Theatre

Slide 20

Ramps up to Secklow Gate Ramps up to Secklow Gate

Secklow Gate viewed from in front of Food Centre Retaining wall in front of Food Centre

Slide 21 Sections Through Secklow Gate Bridge

77

Slide 22 Levels Across MBE

Slide 23

Slide 24

78

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27 MBE Tree Plan

79

Slide 28 Connectivity of CMK Street Network

Slide 29 Existing Footpath Connections to Midsummer Boulevard East

Slide 30 Parking

Between 10:00 – 16:00Premium Parking around Centre MK

High of 97% Saturday Dec 2013

Low of 66% Sunday June 2013

80

Slide 31

Slide 32

Access & Movement Context

Brian Matthews, MKC Highways

Andrew Thomas, CMK Town Council

32

Slide 33 CMK Growth Expectations

Core Strategy & CMK Alliance Plan

Today 2026 Increase

Dwellings 2,000 7,000 5,000

Residents 3,000 10,000 – 14,000 7,000 – 10,000

Students 200 2,000 ‐ 5,000 2,000 – 5,000

Jobs (workers)/day 30,000 45,000 ‐ 50,000 15,000 ‐ 25,000

Visitors/day 100,000 130,000 ‐ 150,000 30,000 – 50,000

81

Slide 34

1

2

3

4

A B C D E F G H

6,500*

800

2,000

900

University students & staff New office‐jobs

30,000

toward end of plan period

600

New retail jobs

1,700

400

600

* Includes Network Rail

New visitors (per day)

2,000

1,500

700

600

1,500

400

500300

5,000

Potential Areas of Growth in CMKCMK Alliance Plan

(excluding new dwellings)

10,000 new workers

4,000 new workers

>30,000 more visitors4,000 new retail jobs

Slide 35 Implications of Growth: Challenges for Access & Movement

• How will workers & visitors travel to CMK and within CMK ?Challenges for:

– Parking spaces

– Highways & junctions

– Public transport (e.g. bus; rail; other)

– Social Inclusion

– Cycling/walking

• Spatial implications– Space for wider roads and/or junctions (for more cars & buses)

– Space for pavements (for more pedestrians)

– Number & spacing of bus stops (for more buses)

– Routing of buses (for more buses)

Slide 36 Traffic Queues 2009

36

82

Slide 37 Traffic Queues 2026

37

Slide 38 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW THHOW DO W ORKERSTRAVEL INTO CMK?

38

Modal Split• 2001 7% by bus; 77% by car• 2011 10% by bus; 75% by car• 2026 ??

‘MODAL SPLIT ’

Slide 39 Implications of Growth How do Workers Travel Into CMK?

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

10% by Bus 10% by Bus 25% by Bus

All Other

Walk/Cycle

Bus

Car

39

25,000 workers 50,000 workers 50,000 workers

2001

2026 Scenario 1

2026 Scenario 2

(Driver)

Car (Passenger)

Modal Split:

83

Slide 40 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW TH FOR PARKINGNUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN CMK

40* Excludes residential parking

Additional parking by 2026 (through expected development)• Office blocks = 3,000 – 4,000 • Retail blocks = 1,500 ‐ 2,000 • Total parking spaces in CMK in 2026 ‐> 30,000 – 35,000

25,000

Slide 41 Implications of Growth for ParkingVisitors & Dwell Time

• 100,000 visitors /day require how many parking spaces?

• The answer depends on:– Proportion using cars versus bus/other means

– Average number of passengers per car

– “Dwell time” (time spent shopping or visiting)

• Example:– 100,000 visitors between 10am – 4pm, 90% by car, 2 passengers per

car and…• dwell time of 1 hour => 7,500 parking spaces

• dwell time increases to 2 hours => 15,000 parking spaces

Increasing dwell time increases demand for parking spaces

41

Slide 42 Implications of Growth for Highways

Limited Highway Capacity

• Grid roads surrounding CMK, together with distributor roads within CMK, were designed to support a city centre of 28,500 jobs

• The capacity of grid road junctions can only be increased by 25% through interventions such as adding an additional carriageway, widening roundabouts or adding part‐time signals

42

84

Slide 43 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW TH FOR HIGHW AYSCON STRAIN TS OF EX ISTING ROAD LAYOUT

43

Slide 44 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW TH FOR BUSESBUS ROUTES & BUS STOPS IN CMK

44

The Point (area 3)

• Today – 10 bus stops; 100 buses per hour

• 2026 (Scenario 1) – 20 bus stops; 200 buses per hour needed?

• 2026 (Scenario 2) – ? bus stops; 500 buses per hour needed?

Slide 45 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW TH FOR BUSESBUS ROUTES & BUS STOPS IN CMK

45

Accessibility Considerations• 400m bus stop catchments is considered the desirable spacing• Current pattern of stops means that the whole of CMK is with

400m of one of the 5 groups of stops.

85

Slide 46 IMPLICATIONS OF GROW TH FOR BUSESBUS INTERCHANGEAT SECKLOW GATE

46

Replacing the The Point and Food Centre stop groups with one location at Secklow Gate/Avebury Blvd gives 400m stop catchments as shown above ‐ this shows that the proposal reduces accessibility to CMK overall, especially to the area shown in pink which includes Civic Offices and the Library. NB: does not consider alternative bus routes or shuttle bus

Slide 47 Public Transport Improvements?

05/03/2014Transport Policy Section - Milton Keynes

Council

Current bus, at peak times carries about 30 people

Car occupancy in MK is about 1.16 per vehicle

1 bus carries equivalent to 26 cars

Slide 48 Improved Public Transport?

05/03/2014Transport Policy Section - Milton Keynes

Council

New buses can carry up to 83 car loads!

6 per hour potentially removes 500 cars

86

Slide 49

49

On‐Demand Services – via smaller vehicles

Slide 50

50

Use of Autonomous Pods within CMK?

Slide 51 Implications of Growth: Challenges for Access & Movement

SUMMARY

• Significant growth planned for CMK (regional city centre)

• Implications for how workers & visitors travel to CMK and within CMK – Parking spaces

– Highways & junctions

– Public transport (e.g. bus; rail; other)

– Social Inclusion

– Cycling/walking

• Spatial implications for CMK and Midsummer Blvd East (MBE)– Space for wider roads and/or junctions (for more cars & buses) ?

– Space for pavements (for more pedestrians) ?

– Number & spacing of bus stops (for more buses) ?

– Routing of buses (for more buses) ?

– Other public transport options ?

87

Slide 52

Visitor Context

Lawrence Revill, David Lock Associates

Slide 53 Milton Keynes Catchment

• 6th most affluent in UK• Catchment population (Source CACI 2012)

– 3.2m population– 532,707 within the core catchment

• City centre provides 19% of retail provision within the primary area (Source Javelin 2011)

• Population under 34 almost 1/3 higher than UK benchmark (Source Javelin 2011)

• Comparison Goods potential of £1bn increasing to £2bn when catering and leisure added (Source CACI2012)

Other major shopping centres much lower - Bluewater (8%), Trafford Centre (5%), Meadowhall (13%)

Slide 54 Centre:MK Standing

• Centre:MK ranks 17th as a retail centre nationally (Source CACI 2012)

• Ranks 2nd in the region (Source CACI 2012)

• High visitor frequency (Source CACI 2012)

• Centre:MK is 77% of CMK retail floorspace (Source Javelin 2011)

88

Slide 55 Age and Affluence within a 61‐90 min drivetime

Slide 56 Centre:MK Visitors

• 27 million visits per annum

• 55% people arrive by car

• Average age is 38

• Average 74 visits per year per visitor (very high) (Source CACI 2012)

• For every meal in the evening, there are 3.5 at lunchtime

Slide 57 Busy‐ness

Q2 2013

89

Slide 58 MK Gallery Visitors

• Circa 20,000 per annum (18,055 visitors 2011/12)

– Modern Art Oxford – 95,000

– Nottingham Contemporary – 237,000

• 120,000 (est) potential visitors within the 30 min drive catchment

Slide 59

Slide 60 MK Theatre Visitors

• Circa 350,000 per annum

• Circa 320 shows

• 50% MK postcodes…..

• …..rest within 45 min drive time

90

Appendix B.

Stakeholder perspective papers.

101

INT

U –

Per

spec

tive

s &

Asp

irat

ion

s

98

Hermes Five Principles

1. There is a sense of collective ownership of Central Milton Keynes and Centre:MK and an active interest in the future development of the city centre. We are keen to work with the Council and stakeholders to unlock the potential for long-term, sustainable investment for the future;

2. Our vision is for the city centre to be a regional destination that integrates a diverse range of experiences which collectively act as a more powerful draw than they do individually, but without losing the unique character of Central Milton Keynes. We want to create more reasons for people to come to, and remain in, the city centre with a richness of leisure and cultural experiences and an improved retail offer. We believe this should involve the more effective integration of the core retail area (Centre:MK and Midsummer Place) with the MK Gallery, the Theatre, the Theatre District, Xscape and a variety of places to eat and drink. Midsummer Boulevard could be a lynchpin in this vision by becoming the “glue” between the various land uses. This would include the Food Centre which occupies an important central position on the Boulevard and needs a sustainable and commercially viable solution for the future;

3. Public transport and cars are important for accessibility but should be complimented by a visible volume of footfall exploring the city centre. The Boulevard could become a vibrant heart to the city centre if it provides for both elements but acts as less of a barrier which divides the buildings and their activities. Customer feedback informs us that car parking is one of the biggest single issues in CMK in terms of way-finding, availability of spaces and the charging regime, hence we believe that a more sustainable solution is required;

4. We wish to attract a broader range of retailers from value operators to premium brands to Centre:MK in order to improve Milton Keynes’ retail offer. This is widely accepted in principle but has been difficult to resolve in detail, principally due to the changing demands of occupiers. Therefore flexibility is required to accommodate current and future demand of the retail and leisure markets to ensure that the city centre remains the focus for retail and leisure activity;

5. The market is also an important part of CMK’s overall retail offer and we want to see it improved so that it can become a stronger anchor as well as a successful incubator for new retail businesses.

111

Appendix C.

Public Exhibition: Summary of Comments.

NOTE: The following tables and analyses include all comments received in response

to the public exhibition on 31 January and 1 February.

Please note that these tables are an updated version of the papers distributed at the

Workshop – this is because an additional 20-25 responses submitted to the Council

after the exhibition have now been included and the tables have been re-formatted to

present the data more clearly.

112

MBE Public Exhibition: Analysis of Comments

Topic/Theme Question 1:

Like Question 2: Don't Like

Questions 3: Improvements

Total

Market 15 6 20 41

Design 16 8 16 40

Public transport 7 4 19 30

Shopping experience 6 5 12 23

The Point 6 9 4 19

Public square 1 2 12 15

Access 6 5 4 15

Young people 2 2 10 14

Midsummer Place (Atrium)

1 10 3 14

Pedestrian experience 3 3 6 12

Parking 2 4 6 12

Food Centre 1 5 4 10

Maintenance 2 4 2 8

Cycling 0 4 3 7

Leisure experience 1 1 2 4

Campbell Park 1 1 1 3

Signage 0 0 3 3

Misc 0 0 3 3

Safe 2 0 0 2

Theatre District 0 2 0 2

Total 72 75 130 277

113

Note: Question 4 (Other) responses included in Questions 1 – 3 columns, as appropriate

Public Exhibition: Summary of Comments*

Topic/Theme Question 1: What do you like and think works well about MBE today?

Question 2: What do you dislike and don't think works well about MBE today?

Question 3: How would you like MBE to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved)?

Market (41 comments)

15 positive comments 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.18, 1.20, 1.28, 1.30, 1.32, 1.39, 1.42, 1.48, diversity, variety, good location, valuable resource

6 negative comments 2.29, 2.9, 2.34, 2.37, 4.3, 4.7 unattractive, looks tired and grubby, dated, depressing dark environment under bridge, should be moved

20 comments 3.14, 3.16, 3.18, 3.2, 3.21, 3.29, 3.33, 3.43, 3.48, 3.5, 3.54, 3.56, 3.8, 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.20 Preserve and enhance market, improve appearance, better lighting, bigger market and covered/indoor, investment needed and public toilets, modernise it, add antique/crafts markets, need good permanent stalls and fish market, mini‐market stalls in MSP; night market

Design (40 comments)

16 positive comments 1.16, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.22, 1.29, 1.33, 1.35, 1.40, 1.41, 1.43, 1.45, 1.47, 1.50, 3.45, 3.66 spacious, open, light, trees, keep 'as is'

8 negative comments 2.21, 2.30, 2.32, 2.36, 2.38, 2.12, 2.3, 3.61 fairly ugly, not visually appealling area, exposed, disjointed, no public seating, too much road space, large spaces between buildings with roads and parking in between, no public toilets esp eastern end, not much landscaping (greenery/flowers); area should not be a 'barricade' one side of the city centre from another, especially after closing time

16 comments 3.13, 3.14, 3.23, 3.33, 3.34, 3.46, 3.58, 3.61, 3.62, 3.64, 3.65, 4.2, 4.7, 4.13, 4.21, 4.23 more evergreen trees/shrubs ‐ MBE looks great in summer but bleak in winter, more landscaping and less busy, replace dead Oak tree with another tree, more floral displays, more seating, more indoor seating, small park for lunch time eaters, CMK needs a central garden, more art and sculptures, better leisure (informal and commercial), MBE needs to be developed as a whole, overarching vision ‐ not piecemeal development, improve vibrancy with shops opening doors onto MBE again, more enticing shop windows; convert boulevard to park area

114





Public transport (30 comments)

7 positive comments 1.15, 1.17, 1.26, 1.29, 1.31, 1.36, 1.45 bus stops nearby (but not easy to find right one), no cars hindering buses

4 negative comments 2.14, 2.18, 2.29, 2.31 public transport stops at MSP ‐ put No7 bus through it straight line, bus route ridiculous not being able to travel in straight line, bus access should be lower speed, don't like bus interchange

19 comments 3.10, 3.62, 3.14, 3.15, 3.17, 3.19, 3.24, 3.38, 3.39, 3.41, 3.52, 3.56, 3.8, 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, 4.1, 4.11, 4.23 a bus interchange with facilities ‐ not terrible bus shelters at Food Centre end, open up MSP for electric buses, better facilities needed for bus users, bus station where it will be warm and dry, with shops, toilets, RTPI, etc; need a tramway, need dedicated transport service from train station to Coachway, make sure bus areas work for disabled people; suspended monorail

Shopping experience (23 comments)

6 positive comments 1.4, 1.23, 1.25, 1.38, 1.8, 4.7 easy to find shops, nice variety/range of shops

5 negative comments 1.37, 1.49, 2.6, 2.8, 2.20 very bored to see same shops, chain stores, need more variety, nothing special here,

12 comments 3.65, 3.1, 3.11, 3.2, 3.37, 3.44, 3.46, 3.54, 3.57, 3.66, 4.5, 4.6 same old food chains ‐ more interesting food providers and specialist shops instead, need to subsidise the rent and service charge so local shops and young people can earn a living, more specialist shops ‐ deli's, farmer's market, arts and crafts, more boutique and individual stores subsidised by larger stores, set‐up units for charities on a rotational basis, another department store/Primark but not at expense of market/Secklow Gate; 24‐hr shopping centre; play music whilst shopping

115





The Point (19 comments)

6 positive comments 1.12, 4.2, 4.4, 4.19, 3.66, 3.62, it's iconic, keep it; retain as one of the few icons in MK; it's a landmark; retain and restore it and re‐open it for a new use

9 negative comments 2.11, 2.14, 2.21, 2.22, 2.25, 2.29, 2.7, 3.21, 4.5, has become an eyesore, needs a make‐over, has been left to deteriorate, worn & tired, blow it up

4 comments 3.53, 3.55, 3.64, 4.14 the Point is looking tired ‐ it's iconic but can we make it look better, improve the Point, retain at least the profile; give us an iconic building to replace the Point

Public square (15 responses)

1 positive comment 1.21 Middleton Hall is great civic space

2 negative comments 2.12, 3.65 already have city square near M&S (but not allowed to use it as public meeting place); we already have a disproportionate number of apparent 'undesirables' near McDonalds so why expand the area?

12 comments 3.9, 3.12, 3.23, 3.59, 3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.63, 3.66, 4.19,4.20, 4.25 a city square would be good as long as it has trees, shrubs, flowers and water feature, street entertainers and vendors, choirs, dancers, bands, buskers, gymnasts; maybe some more communal areas with more cover for weather, like idea of square; no single commercial interest should be allowed to dictate use of public square; need truly public space for leafletting, petitioning, etc ‐ valuable civic freedoms

Access (15 comments)

6 positive comments 1.41, 1.1, 1.3, 1.19, 3.66, 4.2 easy road access, keep Secklow Bridge open

5 negative comments 2.1, 2.24, 2.7, 2.8, 2.29 Don't like west end being cut off to vehicles, don't like lack of a right turn onto MBE from Secklow, serious mistake to block off MBE, don't like traffic

4 comments 3.63, 3.42, 3.23, 4.13 Need drop‐off point for car users to pick‐up kids etc; retain segregated carriageways and trees but narrow to just accommodate public transport and pedestrians, relocate market so Secklow Bridge can close, east‐west traffic light timings have very

116





brief timings; better roads

Young people (14 comments)

2 positive comments 1.15, 1.29 child friendly, good places for young people to get together near McDonalds & MSP

2 negative comments 2.18, 4.6 don't like congregation of youngsters around McDonalds; no skateboarders ‐ put skateboard park in Campbell Park not city centre

10 comments 3.12, 3.22, 3,25, 3.3, 3.31, 3.6, 3.6, 3.35. 1.8, 1.13, Need seating area for young people to hang out, areas for children to play like Willen Lake; a skatepark and somewhere where people can sit and watch the skateboarders; youth club; university to breathe life into the area; add fun stuff for kids 0‐12, make a 360 play area for kids

Midsummer Place (Atrium) (14 comments)

1 positive comment 1.24, Lovely & spacious, useful for lunchbreaks in summer

10 negative comments 2.12, 2.13, 2.2, 2.25, 2.26, 2.28, 2.8, 2.32, 2.33, 2.36, windy, rainy gap between shopping areas, too cold in MSP, it's a icebox, we just rush through, canopy has not made this pleasant place,

3 comments 3.36, 3.5, 4.5 doors or more shelter would be useful, get heating; don't mind if fill in with shops

Pedestrian experience (12 responses)

3 positive comments 1.44, 1.46, 1.35 pedestrian‐free thru MSP, traffic free inside thecentre:mk, no worry with

3 negative comments 2.22, 2.38, 2.30, not enough cover for pedestrians walking to furthest car parks, colonnades frequently in use by smokers, dangerous

6 comments 3.14, 3.56, 3.49, 3.4, 4.1, 4.9 more shelter from wind and rain, pedestrianise in front of the Point, put in zebra crossings, more north‐south pedestrian access; retain pedestrian

117





children running around crossing for pedestrians who have priority in car parking areas but not across boulevards

access through MSP; need pedestrian x‐ing from centre to library

Parking (12 comments)

2 positive comments 1.15, 1.37 like nearby free parking for quick shops, good large carpark

4 negative comments 2.15, 3.49, 4.5, 4.7, More free parking needed; Northampton is free all day; nowhere near enough parking

6 comments 3.44, 3.48, 3.54, 3.65, 3.66, 4.18 2 hours free parking works in Bedford, underground (free) parking, more free parking, parking system costing the shops more than any other problem, need another MSCP (possibly behind JL); attractive parking prices

Food Centre (10 comments)

1 positive comment 4.4 Don't get rid of Food Centre as it is so loved by all

5 negative comments 2.14, 2.21, 2.34, 3.21, 3.54 Food centre is a disaster, it's a white elephant, Sainsburys blocking rivals, knock it down ‐ was always a flawed design, no longer what is says on the can

4 comments 3.64, 3.33, 3.66, 3.35 Food centre issue needs to be resolved as prelude to further planning, find new uses for Food Centre, needs a major reburbishment, replace with market square with unique and independent retailers

Maintenance (8 comments)

2 positive comments 1.29, 1.41 lack of litter, clean

4 negative comments 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.38 Porte cocheres need painting, old and dated, looks messy, needs refurbishing, bushes trap rubbish & rats, uneven footpath levels

2 comments 3.55, 3.66 improve main area, particularly road and bus area, roads and car parks in need of repair and resurfacing

118





Cycling (7 comments)

0 positive comments 4 negative comments 2.16, 2.17, 2.34, 2.35 cycle route disappears, difficult access for cyclists

3 comments 3.6, 3.63, 3.4 Redways should penetrate this area to improve connectivity and inclusivity, cyclists should be allowed to cycle between MSP and thecentre:mk, more accessibility for cyclists

Leisure experience (4 comments)

1 positive comment 1.29 choice of fast food outlets

1 negative comment 3.3 more shops and less restaurants and phone shops

2 comments 3.3, 3.47, More entertainment, nice wine bars

Campbell Park (3 comments)

1 positive comment 1.27 like the Park

1 negative comment 2.37 gateway to Campbell Park is poor

1 comment 3.63 Gateway bridge to Campbell Park much wider

Signage (3 comments)

3 comments 3.28, 3.32, 3.33 better sign‐posting for public toilets in shopping centres, more clear signage coming out of town, no clear directions to actual shopping building

Misc (3 comments)

3 comments 4.22, 4.16, 3.64, development of art gallery needs special consideration; nice to improve area but if public expenditure is involved in this era of austerity, more important to provide essential services; pressure groups seem to over‐rule council

119





Safe (2 comments)

2 comments 1.2, 1.3 police presence, relatively safe

Theatre District (2 comments)

2 comments 2.14, 3.64 Theatre District looks grim and desolate, Theatre District is a huddle of buildings and a badly designed car park

120

MBE Public Exhibition: All Comments

Topic No. Question 1: What do you like and think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today?

Post code

Access 1,41 Easy road access, allowing effective public transport access. MK9 2PT

Access 1.1 Keep Secklow Gate Bridge open

Access 1.3 Ease of movement. NN10 8TS

Access 1,19 Shutting Secklow Gate Bridge is a silly idea MK3 6BL

Campbell Park

1,27 Campbell Park MK46

Design 1,34 This place needs more glass to cover area and need more light and warmth and more new things to be more active

Design 1.16 Like trees, but bushes trap rubbish & rats & homeless people

MK6 2HX

Design 1.9 Good shopping centre. Good! Keep it up!

Design 1,10 Its open and airy!

Design 1,11 I like as it is, I think overall work well! MK3 6JA

Design 1,22 It's open and welcoming ‐ you don't feel claustrophobic at all. V. modern

Design 1,27 Entrance to Midsummer Place ‐ Summer Solstice Axis MK46

Design 1,29 Spacious OX16

Design 1,33 I love the bridge through the centre of the centre MK15 8PL

Design 1,33 I love the open area, the trees, the space, the light. MK15 8PL

Design 1,35 Like it the way it is ‐ so many places to eat and chill out and shop as well

MK9 3LQ

Design 1,40 Wide open space. Good visibility. Great access to buses, good parking layout.

PO13 9QP

Design 1,41 Has a special feel to it as it is not closely encroached upon by surrounding buildings.

MK9 2PT

Design 1,43 Big, light, wide open spaces ‐ do not close them off

Design 1,45 Trees in spring or autumn MK6 2SS

Design 1,47 The trees, the trees, the trees… must be retained

Design 1,50 Tree‐lined boulevard is a feature. Traffic moves easily along it.

MK12

Leisure experience

1,29 Choice of fast food outlets OX16

Maintenance

1,29 Lack of litter OX16

Maintenance

1,41 Clean & well presented. MK9 2PT

Market 1.3 Leave the market. NN10 8TS

Market 1.5 Like the Market MK6 2

121


Post code

Market 1.6 My parents go to the market every week. It is closed on Monday and Wednesday. We would like it to be open at least one of the days.

MK13 8ES

Market 1.7 Everything. The market is a good place to get shopping which the stores do not and it is in a key place for the traders.

Market 1,14 The market is find as it is.

Market 1,15 Market MK14 5HX

Market 1,16 The Market MK6 2HX

Market 1,18 The Market is good where it is

Market 1,20 Like to keep MK Market & leave it where it is ‐ keep it as big as it is

MK15 8PO

Market 1,28 The Market MK15

Market 1,30 The Market but not location

Market 1,32 The Market MK13 8ES

Market 1,39 The Market is fantastic. Love the diversity, different smells, variety of produce, bargains. You can buy anything in the market.

MK15

Market 1,42 The Market

Market 1,48

The Market is a valuable resource for myself and public at large. It complements the (largely) chain stores and is only source of fruit and vegetables and small daily items (apart from M&S) now Sainsbury, waitrose have left centre.

MK8 8DN

Misc 1,19 The Shopping Centre doors are locked and this was extremely against the original concept ‐ Open it!

MK3 6BL

MSP 1,24 It's lovely & spacious ‐ especially in the summer. The café's & newsagents is very useful for lunchbreaks.

MK46 5PW

Parking 1,15 Nearby free parking space for quick calls. MK14 5HX

parking 1,15 Good large car park for longer stays, always with space. MK14 5HX

Parking 1,37 Free parking for retail staff like in USA

Pedestrians 1,44 The pedestrianisation works well but do not like the buses coming through as they tend to travel too fast

MK4 3FN

Pedestrians 1,46

Having the whole shopping centre free of traffic is great for everyone, especially families as they can relax. Traffic through Midsummer Place is a bad idea. I think it would put people off from visiting.

MK3 7EL

Pedestrians 1,35 Like not having to worry about children running around where there are cars and buses (inside Midsummer Place) ‐ v. nice in summer

MK9 3LQ

122


Post code

Public square / space

1,21 Middleton Hall is a splendid civic square for more practical use in this climate. Do NOT allow any more encroachent on it.

MK3 6BL

Public transport

1,48

It is served by public transport, which I use frequently (for shops, services and cinema). It provides an undercover external access, less crowded therefore quicker from one end to the other.

MK8 8DN

Public transport

1,15 Bus stops near (but not always easy to find the right one) MK14 5HX

Public transport

1,17 Reinstate the "Reserved Traffic corridor" for the use of electric vehicles.

MK15 0BD

Public transport

1,26 Buses available on Midsummer Blvd, in both directions, important to keep this feature even if an interchange is planned elsewhere

MK9 3AR

Public transport

1,29 The bus stops along the Boulevard MK15

Public transport

1,31 Closure to vehicle traffic but still access to public transport

Public transport

1,36 Excellent roads for buses only, no cars clogging the flow of public transport

Public transport

1,45 I guess, for bus users, it's a handy focus for buses. I've never had any particular thoughts or feelings about it.

MK6 2SS

Safe 1.2 Police[?]

Safe 1.3 Relatively safe. NN10 8TS

Shopping experience

1.4 It's easy to find different shops.

Shopping experience

1,23 Nice variety of shops

shopping experience

1,25 Good range of shops/cafes. Well ventilated in summer.

Shopping experience

1,37 A low rent retail area should be set aside for a variety of independent outlets. And very bored to see the same shops whenever we go. More variety

Shopping experience

1,38 Variety of shops and food outlets

Shopping experience

1,49 Not much. I've never been a fan of the Midsummer Place retail development.

MK8 8DN

The Point 1,12 The Point is iconic.

Young people

1.8 This shopping centre is so good. Add fun stuff for kids ages 0‐12.

Young people

1,13 Make a 360 Play Area for kids

Young 1,15 Good places for young people to get together by MK14

123


Post code

people McDonalds and Point, as well as Midsummer Arcade 5HX

Young people

1,29 Child friendly OX16

124

Topic No. Question 2 What do you dislike and don't think works well about Midsummer Blvd East today?

Post code

Access 2.1 I don't like the lack of a right turn coming up from the South onto Midsummer Blvd

MK15 8PL

Access 2.1 I don't like the West End being closed off to vehicles MK15 8PL

Access 2.24 It was a serious mistake to block Midsummer Blvd. It is a draughty place with few people in it

MK3 6BL

Access 2.7 It seems a 'nothing.' You cannot drive down it as you once could.

Access 2.8 Midsummer Blvd was cut in half by Midsummer Place. Getting around by car & bus was made more convoluted.

MK14 5DU

Cycling 2.16 Dedicated cycle route disappears and the pavements are cracked and wobbly if you cycle on them. The road is full of 'no awareness of cyclists' drivers.

MK15

Cycling 2.17 Better redways into and through area (e.g. what happens to route 51 when you get through Campbell Park

Cycling 2,34 Difficult access for cyclists. MK3 7RE

Cycling 2.35

No redway links extend through this area which diminishes the connectivity from the perspective of cyclists; an inclusionary environment which facilitates alternative ways of getting around is inherently better in terms of creating active, animated and commercially sustainable places.

MK12 5NJ

Design 2.21 Fairly ugly. It is not a visually appealing area. Exposed. MK6 2SS

Design 2,30 Disjointed.

Design 2,32 Public seating ‐ have to go into food outlets if you want to sit down

OX16

Design 2.36 To the east, there is too much road space. MK8 8DN

Design 2.37

It is very motor transport hungry. Large spaces between buildings, with roads and parking in between. The result is poor for pedestrians and cyclists. Campbell Park gateway is poor.

MK12

Design 2.38 There is no public toilet readily accessible in the area, especially at eastern end.

MK8 8DN

Design 2.38 Colonnades are frequently in use by smokers. MK8 8DN

Design 2.12 Not much landscaping etc so rather bleak atmosphere MK14 5HX

Design 2.19 There isn't much greenergy around. It's all a little grey. The spacing between features is good, but yeah, a bit dull.

Design 2.23 Please landscape the sundial area at the front of Midsummer Place

Design 2.3 There isn't enough to look at ie. Flowers / trees etc

Food Centre 2.14 Food Centre is a disaster. MK14 5HJ

Food Centre 2.21 Food Centre has become a white elephant. MK6 2SS

Food Centre 2,34 Dysfunction of Food Centre area due to Sainsburys blocking MK3 7RE

125


Post code

use by rivals

Maintenance 2.4 The Porte cochere 'bridges' need painting! City centre needs maintenance. Other cities look tidy and neat ‐ it doesn't take much to do that. Just the will from city hall.

MK6 2HX

Maintenance 2.5 To old and dated. Road to many accidents.

Maintenance 2.6 Area looking messy, worn out, needs refurbishing. MK6 2HX

Maintenance 2.6 Bushes trap rubbish/rats/homeless people MK6 2HX

Maintenance 2.38 The levels of footpath surfaces are hard to negotiate safely for people with mobility or vision impairment. Also a number of badly cracked flagstones.

MK8 8DN

Market 2.29 Market is tired and grubby. MK46

Market 2.9 Market should be bigger NN10 8ES

Market 2,34 Market area depressing because of raised road producing dark environment

MK3 7RE

Market 2.37 The market is unattractive & poor quality of environment for customers.

MK12

Misc 2.25 Collectomania show in Middleton Hall was moved to Stadium ‐ should be back in Middleton Hall.

misc 2.27 Nothing

Misc 2.10, Nothing MK3 6JA

MSP 2.12 Windy, rainy gap between shopping areas ‐ needs more shelter.

MK14 5HX

MSP 2.13 The cold in winter & when the rain leaks on the floor. MK46 5PW

MSP 2.2 It's too cold. Should have heating.

MSP 2.25 Don't like open air/cold of Midsummer Place.

MSP 2.26 Cold shopping centre in winter. No trees.

MSP 2.28 Midsummer is much too cold. We just rush through. MK14

MSP 2.8 Midsummer Place is an icebox, open to the elements on one side.

MK14 5DU

MSP 2,32 Cold in the winter OX16

MSP 2,33 To cold

MSP 2.36

The shopping building. Midsummer Place is not a patch on the original shopping building and the canopy feature ‐ heavy as a piece of architecture hasn't made this a particularly pleasant place for pedestrians.

MK8 8DN

Parking 2.15 More free parking needed

Pedestrians 2.22 Not enough cover for pedestrians walking from furthest car parks.

PO13 9QP

Pedestrians 2,30

Very dangerous and unclear crossing points for pedestrians who currently seem to have priority when crossing car parking areas but no priority when continuing across roadways. This is frequently ignored by groups of

126


Post code

pedestrians and often motorists stop anyway thus adding to the confusion. This needs sorting.

Public square 2.12 Too much squeezed into 1 area. We already have a 'city square' ‐ north side of M&S which is nicely laid out but we aren't allowed to use it as a public meeting place.

MK14 5HX

Public transport

2.14 It stops at Midsummer Place. Put the No.7 bus through in a straight line to the station.

MK14 5HJ

Public transport

2.18 The bus access should be lower speed limit. MK4 3FN

Public transport

2.29 Traffic, bus interchange. MK46

Public transport

2,31

The Bus route is ridiculous ‐ instead of being able to travel in a straight line from Campbell Park to Saxon Gate & the MK Station ‐ the bus has to travel through several traffic lights ‐ painful & not necessary.

MK14 5DZ

Shopping experience

2.6 If I live in Northampton (or anywhere) ‐ why should I come to CMK? They have Primarks, M&S, etc ‐ nothing special here.

MK6 2HX

Shopping experience

2.8 Midsummer Place contains no shops of interest to anyone but fashionistas (apart from Waterstones)

MK14 5DU

Shopping experience

2.20, It's all chain stores ‐ little individuality ‐ neet to get new stores ‐ local people.

MK16 0HA

Signage 2,30 The Park and Ride signage is completely missing at CMK and this too much be remedied with clearly marked signage at each end of MSB.

The Point 2.11 Don't like the point they have let it go

The Point 2.14 Point' needs a truly imaginative make‐over MK14 5HJ

The Point 2.21 Point has become an eyesore and looks unsavory. MK6 2SS

The Point 2.22 That God awful cinema that looks like they forgot to remove the scaffolding!

PO13 9QP

The Point 2.25 The Point has been left to deteriorate.

The Point 2.29 The Point, worn & v. tired. MK46

The Point 2.7 The Point seems almost derelict to what it once was.

Theatre District

2.14 Theatre District is grim and desolate MK14 5HJ

Young people

2.18 Don't like the congregation of youngsters around McDonalds and the point

MK4 3FN

127

Topic

Q3. How would you like MSB East to look and function in the future (or how could it be improved?

Post codes

Access 3,42 East‐West traffic light timings both on MBE & adjacent roads have very brief timings.

MK9 2PT

Access 3,66 Secklow Gate Bridge should be kept open.

Cycling 3,60 Redway links should penetrade this area of CMK to improve connectivity and inclusivity. All things being equal this will make the area more active and commercially sustainable. As state in the original CMK Development Framework [EDAW, 2001], although Milton Keynes has a well‐design Redway cycle network, the system does not extend well into CMK. Notwithstanding some partial improvements [e.g. completion of north‐south Saxon Gate Redway linkage], cycling through CMK, therefore, remains unduly hazardous; the aspiration of creating an environment where cyclists can more safely share carriageways with motor vehicles throughout the city centre [i.e. as cit in the CMK Development Framework] has not, as yet, been realised. The environs of Midsummer Boulevard East do not have good connections to the Redway network; simply put, it has poor 'connectivity' [see Redway map attached]. Given the above context, the opportunity should now be grasped, via the CMK PSA & Environs Masterplan, to complete the 'cruciform' [i.e. a Redway running up Midsummer Boulevard within the central median] and to better link with other strategic Redways arriving in CMK [e.g. H5, H6, V6, and V8]. Such an approach would be entirely consistent with Poicy T1 [The Transport User Hierarchy] of the MK Local Plan [Adopted 2005] and also 'fit' with MKC's low‐carbon agendas/aspirations. Pursuing and implementing such measures along Midsummer Boulevard East will provide the best opportunity of providing genuine transport choice and the potential for modal shift through the creation of a safe environment for cyclists. Significantly, such an approach will make for a more inclusive environment, and, by improving connectivity will make for a more animated, active and commercially viable 'quarter' of CMK.

MK12 5NJ

Cycling 3,63 Cyclists should be allowed to cycle between Midsummer Place and centre:mk or very near.

MK12

Design 3,13 More evergreen trees/plants ‐ Midsummer looks great in summer but bleak in winter

MK19 6FD

Design 3,14 Better atmosphere for all ages of people ‐ more landscaping and less busy (like the 'City Square' the other side)

MK14 5HX

Design 3,23 More public toilets

Design 3,33 Could make it prettier ‐ better landscaping MK6 2SS

Design 3,34 What are they going to do about the tree? It's almost dead MK6 3JF

128

Topic


Post codes

‐ put a new tree in there (e.g. Maple)

Design 3,4 Landmark Bldg at end e.g. "Midsummer Axis" MK13 8AT

Design 3,45 It's fine as it is

Design 3,46 More floral displays would make it more attractive and more seating available.

MK4 3FN

Design 3,51 Is there room for a seated park where lunch time eaters etc can enjoy like a small London park?

MK6 4UB

Design 3,56 Pedestrianise the in front of the point MK46

Design 3,58 More art and sculptures; more natural features.

Design 3,61

I should like to see it better used for leisure ‐ informal as well as formal (=paying). It should still be readily accessible by public transport and bear in mind needs of disabled and people with young children. There should be ample seating (free, not just cafe) indoor and outdoor and an area of garden for relaxation from shopping. Toilets should be close by and available early and late. The area should not serve to 'barricade' one side of the city centre from another, especially after closing time.

MK8 8DN

Design 3,62

CMK needs a central garden. Some 20 years ago, what is shown as a 'temporary car park' used to be such a space ‐ used for festivals and as general summer sitting area. It would be appropriate for this former use to be restored to CMK ‐ exact form, whether formal garden or informal space to be decided through residential consultation.

MK8 8DN

Design 3,62

Boulevard to east of Midsummer Place should remain with segregated carriageways retaining central trees but should be narrowed down sufficient to accommodate public transport up to sacle of an X5 coach ‐ but allowing for more pedestrian space on either side.

MK8 8DN

Design 3,63 Gateway bridge to the Campbell park much wider than existing so pedestrians & cyclists can use it easier

MK12

Design 3,64

I believe that Midsummer Boulevard East has to be developed as a whole, with an overarching vision. There is too much piecemeal development. The entry point to Midsummer Boulevard, from Campbell Park, needs special consideration, as part of an organic approach.

Design 3,64 The issue of the future of the food court needs to be resolved, as a prelude to further planning.

129

Topic


Post codes

Design 3,65

Vibrancy and space for socializing ‐ I don’t understand why these two very different things have been lumped together. We could improve vibrancy by having the shops open their doors onto MBE again, as they used to. Failing that, we could at least ensure that the shop windows looked remotely enticing. I will attach to my email some pictures that will demonstrate what I mean. We could improve space for socializing by providing more pleasant indoor areas. It has been suggested that one of the original ideas for what is now the Midsummer Place wind tunnel was to have a space like Covent Garden where there could be performers and plenty of seating. The space currently used for the same old food chains could be used instead for more interesting food providers and possibly a few small specialist shops.

MK14 7RB

Design 3,66

The existing beautiful trees in Midsummer Boulevard East should be retained and incorporated in the new development plans. Milton Keynes must be kept as a city of trees.

Design & Parking

3,49 Put in zebra crossings and more free parking MK13 9EQ

Food centre 3,21 Knock down food centre & start again ‐ it was always a flawed design

MK14 5DU

Food centre 3,33 New uses for old Food Centre MK6 2SS

Food centre 3,54 The Food Centre is not longer what it say on the can and is disjointed

MK15

Food Centre 3,66

The Food Centre needs a major refurbish. The free multi‐storey parking should be retained. The small independent shops kept and more encouraged, and a new supermarket. The vacant Sainsburys shop is an eyesore it should be put to a good use as the empty Waitrose shop has been.

Food Centre 3,35 Knock down Food Hall, replace with market sq with unique and independent retailers

Leisure experience

3,3 More entertainment

Leisure experience

3,47 Nice wine bars.

Maintenance

3,55 Improve main area from the lights right up to Midsummer Place, particularly the road and bus area.

Maintenance

3,66 The roads and car parks in Midsummer Boulevard East are all in need of repair and resurfacing.

Market 3,14 Preserve and enhance market MK14 5HX

Market 3,16 Bigger market and covered NN10

130

Topic


Post codes

8TS

Market 3,18 As a market trader of Milton Keynes for 25 years, it would be good to see some sort of Investment on the Market, e.g. public toilets, paving stones around the market replacing

MK4 4HQ

Market 3,2 Antique, craft markets on a more regular basis.

Market 3,21 Good market area for permanent stalls, fish market like we used to have on Thursdays

MK14 5DU

Market 3,29 The Market needs a roof ‐ dreadful working conditions in the wind and wet ‐ probably contrary to H&S Act!

Market 3,33 Improve appearance of market area MK6 2SS

Market 3,43 Better lighting in market & no cracked pavements MK15

Market 3,48 To have a outdoor and indoor market MK13 9EQ

Market 3,5 Continued market MK13

Market 3,54 Bigger and better market MK15

Market 3,56 Massively improve the market MK46

Market 3,8 Modernise Market ‐ look at great markets in Scandinavia & Germany ‐ more tourist attraction ‐ families bring kids to the Market

MK6 2HX

Market 3,63 Market re‐located in a purpose built indoor facility. Secklow Bridge can close to enable development of that area.

MK12

Market 3,64 The open-air market should be an organic part of the overall plan.

Market 3,65

Since I am representing the market traders at the workshop I won’t say much about this but, as a shopper, I will say that the market represents almost all that is left of the ‘high street’ aspect of CMK. It is the only place to buy pet food, hardware, tools, car accessories, and a multitude of specialist items. Even when CMK provides alternatives, they are expensive and not as convenient. For me, walking from Downs Barn, the alternative for fresh fruit and vegetables is M&S at the furthest end of the shopping building. I remember when the shopping building opened and we had small shops selling hardware, decorating materials, home furnishings, electronics, books etc. The market is now the only place for such small or specialist retailers. By all means enhance it. The bigger and better provisioned it is the more I shall like it.

MK14 7RB

Market 3,66 The Market is a big asset to MK residents it should be kept in its current location. It should be refurbished and possibly enlarged.

131

Topic


Post codes

Misc 3,64

The development of the art gallery needs special consideration. It needs to expand, and if the development of an independent cinema forms part of its plans, all to the good (it is surprising that the nearest independent cinemas are in Northampton and Oxford). But if the site is too small, or development compromises the overall picture, then other avenues need to be looked at.

Misc 3,26 How much did it cost to do this mall?

MSP 3,36 It's cold in winter/autumn months as I work in Midsummer Place, doors or more shelter would be useful

MK46 5PW

MSP 3,5 Get heating

Parking 3,44 2 hours free parking works in Bedford!

Parking 3,48 Underground parking (free) MK13 9EQ

Parking 3,54 More free parking MK15

Parking 3,65

There are 22 relevant reviews of CMK on TripAdvisor on the internet http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review‐g187055‐d3138412‐Reviews‐The_Centre_MK‐Milton_Keynes_Buckinghamshire_England.html 9 mention parking charges as a negative and 8 mention the easy availability of parking as a positive (often the same people). It is not just the charges that come under attack but the complexity of sorting out the various categories of charges. What is clear to me as an almost daily visitor is how many of the higher cost spaces are available most of the time. I know this is subject to a separate review so will not elaborate. What does need to be said, however, is how much trade is lost to the shops by the system of parking charges. I frequently meet friends for coffee or lunch who would have happily stayed much longer if they hadn’t already paid for a defined amount of parking or been lucky enough to find time‐limited free parking. I would hazard a guess that this system is costing the shops more than any other problem that we might identify at the workshop.

MK14 7RB

Parking 3,66

Another multi‐storey car park provided, possibly behind John Lewis with access from Marlborough St. Parking should be free for MK residents and low cost for visitors to encourage more shoppers.

Pedestrian/cycling accessibility

3,4 More pedestrian accessibility North‐South MK13 8AT

Pedestrian/cycling accessibility

3,4 More accessibility for cyclists North‐South MK13 8AT

Pedestrians 3,14 More shelter from wind and rain MK14 5HX

132

Topic


Post codes

Process 3,27 Sktech plans needed as I don't believe people understand the overall picture

SG17 5JH

Public square

3,9 Maybe some more communal areas wth more cover for weather

MK3 6JA

Public square

3,12 Like the idea of square

Public square

3,23 Need civic space for free events and stuff that could be put on by local authority and voluntary organisations ‐ need public land, as need free points for amplication etc

Public square

3,59 I like the idea of a town square with the obvious location where market currently is. Any chance the market could be satisfactorily relocated to a position in what

Public square

3,4 Use the car park next to the point as a city square

Public square

3,7 Town centre central public place

Public square

3,8 A public square MK6 2HX

Public square

3,63

Create public square on top of Blvd between Theatre District and John Lewis. In creating a public square, Midsummer Blvd can be closed to traffic to create a pedestrian and cycling environment (between Secklow and Marlborough) . In the public square should be very tall piece of public art to create a landmark structure. Removal of surface parking / closure of the Blvd creates opportunity for the ped/cycle environment described and allow space for leisure/retail development.

MK12

Public square

3,65

I have lived in and adjacent to CMK since 1980 and I have never heard anyone say we needed a town or civic square. Most recently some people of whom most of us know nothing decided that we needed a public memorial site so we now have the MKRose. The MKNews picture of our Mayor as ‘one of several people’ at the recent Holocaust Memorial says it all. If we are looking for outside space we have it in various places including opposite the Council offices, outside the theatre and in Campbell Park. The suggestion that we should have another space further blocking off MBE is a surprise to me. If you have spent any time in the area between MacDonalds and The Point you would know that this is where we already have a disproportionate number of apparent ‘undesirables’, so why would we want to expand it?

MK14 7RB

133

Topic


Post codes

Public square

3,66

A city square would be good as long as it has trees, shrubs, flowers and a water feature with a seating area. Street entertainers and vendors encouraged Not like Queens Court which was lovely but is sadly now soulless, grey and boring.

Public transport

3,10 A bus interchange with facilities that benefit the city. Not the terrible bus shelters at Food Centre end.

MK3 7EL

Public transport

3,62

Midsummer Place retains a corridor for eventual public transport. Now that we have viable electric buses, this should be opened up to take this form of transport. Larger diesel buses could continue to use lower 9th St but all the local buses should be electric ones and travel through canopy area ‐ as part of a redesign for that area.

MK8 8DN

Public transport

3,14 Better facilities for people to use buses MK14 5HX

Public transport

3,15 Bus station to make it easier to find how to get home

Public transport

3,17 Closed bus station for shelter. a central point

Public transport

3,19 A nice long bus station on lower 10th St where it will be warm and dry

Public transport

3,23 Need to make sure bus areas work for disabled people

Public transport

3,23 Drop‐off point for car users to pick‐up kids etc

Public transport

3,24 Create an indoor bus station with shops too MK9 3ES

Public transport

3,38

You need a tramway. The Boulevards were designed to accommodate a double track tramway. Nine new metro lines opened in China last December ‐ we are being left behind. Possible interchange between bus & tram is in the right place already.

MK3 6BL

Public transport

3,39 Heated bus station MK3 6BL

Public transport

3,41 Anything that improves flow and frequency of bus. Local transport needs improving.

Public transport

3,52 Bus station to be relocated to centre

Public transport

3,56 Move bus interchange 1 block east MK46

Public transport

3,8 Dedicated transport service from train station to Coachway (e.g. tram)

MK6 2HX

134

Topic


Post codes

Public transport

3,64

I subscribe to the original transport plan – with a tram or equivalent running in a straight line from the station to Campbell Park, and buses running along the parallel boulevards. This could be a major attraction, and helps resolve the perennial problem of communication between the station and the shopping district. There is no need for buses to weave in and out.

Public transport

3,65

Although I have a car I seldom use it in CMK. I have far more experience as a pedestrian and a bus user. Routing all buses along MBE and then onto the Avebury Boulevard dog’s leg before returning to the Boulevard adds considerably to the time taken to get through the centre of Milton Keynes and has no advantages if you are not intending to alight there. However it is essential that there is quick, frequent and reliable public transport for those who want to alight in CMK and this should go directly between the railway station and the Campbell Park end of MBE. Most towns have a bus station either in or adjacent to their main shopping area. CMK needs either a bus station or, at least, a ‘hub’ where interchange is made as easy as possible. There should also be toilets, protected waiting areas, real‐time information, and a place to buy drinks, snacks, magazines etc. Ideally there should also be an office where information about transport and about CMK can be picked up. The current situation where, in the absence of any real‐time information, you have to run between stops to get the first bus that will take you to the railway station is primitive. In this respect at least the railway station ‘hub’ is a great improvement on the old system.

MK14 7RB

Public transport

3,66 A covered seating and waiting area is needed in the Marlborough Gate Coach Park for coach passengers.

Public transport

3,66

The "bus stopping" area by the Point needs a drastic overhaul, it is currently very run‐down, grim and dirty. Other large cities/towns have covered waiting areas, real time bus display boards and facilities to be proud of.

Shopping experience

3,1 More independent shops but only chain stores can afford the rent ‐ may need to subsidise the rent and service charge. Better to allow local businesses earn a living.

MK9 6FD

Shopping experience

3,11 Need small shopping centre for small independent businesses, not chain stores. For young people ‐ commission, not rents.

Mk1 6

Shopping experience

3,2 Blue Banana store

Shopping experience

3,2 More affordable space for small, local, independent businesses.

MK4 1JP

135

Topic


Post codes

Shopping experience

3,3 More shops, less restaurants and phone shops. MK13 8AT

Shopping experience

3,37 More small shops ‐ specialist, deli's, farmer's market MK16 0HA

Shopping experience

3,44 More boutique & individual stores subsidised by larger stores

Shopping experience

3,46

Set up units for charities to use on rotational basis. Or for vendors inside the centre to use for special sales on weekly/monthly basis. Or coffee/tea units with outside seating.

MK4 3FN

Shopping experience

3,54 Places for local small business, not just big national retailers and franchises

MK15

Shopping experience

3,57 It would be great to have an affordable art and craft area

Shopping experience

3,66 Another department store and a Primark would bring in more shoppers. BUT NOT SITED AT THE EXPENSE OF SECKLOW GATE BRIDGE.

Signage 3,28 Sign‐posting for public toilets in shopping centres WA4 6DF

Signage 3,32 More clear signage coming from out of town, lots of car parkds, no clear directions to the actual shopping area; more likely to find ski dome than mk:centre shops entrance.

PO13 9QP

Signage 3,33 Clearer traffic paths ‐ lots of dead ends at the moment MK6 2SS

The Point 3,21 Blow up the point ‐ I'll press the button MK14 5DU

The Point 3,53 The Point is looking very tired. It's an iconic building ‐ can we make it look better.

MK14 6JX

The Point 3,55 Improve the pont, looks aged because of the lack of investment

The Point 3,62 The Point should be retained and restored and re‐opened for a new use.

MK8 8DN

The Point 3,64

I believe that at least the profile of The Point should be retained in some form or other. Architecturally it may not be a great design, but it is an iconic memory of the original development of MK and has real interest and heritage status as the first multiplex in the UK

The Point 3,66 The Point structure should kept and maintained in good condition, and a viable use found for it. This is important as it is one of the few icons of MK.

Theatre District

3,64 While the theatre is a striking building, the rest of the so-called theatre district is not! A huddle of buildings, and a badly designed car park.

Young people

3,12 Seating area for young people to hang out throughout the Boulevard

MK6 2

Young people

3,22 Areas for children to play and expand their minds (like Willen Lake)

MK10 9NZ

136

Topic


Post codes

Young people

3,25 Family friendly

Young people

3,3 A skatepark, ramps maybe? Mini‐ramps? More variety is great! Somewhere where people can sit and watch [the skateboarders]

Young people

3,31 We would like a skatepark, having a variety is more fun to skate and also it can be fun for people to watch

Young people

3,6 Skateboard area (better than Buszy) so people can watch and interact.

Young people

3,6 Better for young people to enjoy beng there; Place for young people to hang out (e.g. youth club)

Young people / University

3,35 Central university / education to breathe into it

137

Topic No. Q4 Do you have any other questions or comments? Post code

Access 4,2 Keep Bridge Open at all Costs

Access 4,13 Roads need to be better ‐ that's what we pay road tax for, and pedestrian walk ways.

Design 4,2 Make open space with seating by theatre

Design 4,7 More turf down main strip of Midsummer Blvd. Too concrete.

MK3 5FS

Design 4,7 Generally add more plants/flowers MK3 5FS

Design 4,13 More nature Life will make CMK look more appealing to the eye.

Design 4,18

Visitor to area. Very attractive parking prices, easy to find a space, looks like buses are convenient too. Lots of shops, but with so many bits 'added on' need to know where to start. Oh, and maybe more maps of centre itself.

PO13 9QP

Design 4,21 Midsummer Blvd could be converted to Park area. Trees and seating, much like a london park.

Design 4,23 Bring it more upmarket

Design 4,19 Being a disabled pensioner, I do not walk far and somewhere I could have a drink and watch something other than traffic would be good.

MK4 3FN

Food Centre

4,4 You can't get rid of the Food Court either because it is so loved by all

Market 4,2 Enlarge Market

Market 4,3 Market too jammed in ‐ some quality of merchandise is questionable

Market 4,5 Mini market stalls in Midsummer Place

Market 4,6 Leave market as it is, but add indoor market

Market 4,7 Market is dated and needs to be moved MK3 5FS

Market 4,20 Night market ‐ connect with theatre, night out etc MK4 2EV

Misc 4,8 Keep up the good work guys!

Misc 4,10 None NN10 8ES

Misc 4,12 N/A MK3 6JA

Misc 4,22 Pressure groups seem to over‐rule council. Why do we allow so few to make our decisions on what happens in CMK? Who do they think they are….

MK46

Misc 4,16

It would be nice to improve this area but if public expenditure is involved, in this era of austerity, I think there are far more important priorities ‐ especially essential services.

MK6 2SS

Parking 4,5 Want free parking ‐ Northampton is free parking all day

Parking 4,7 Nowhere near enough parking! MK3 5FS

Parking 4,7 Please add more parking!! MK3 5FS

Pedestrians 4,1 Remain pedestrian access through Midsummer Place MK15 0AY

138


Pedestrians 4,9 Need pedestrian x‐ing from centre towards library

Public square

4,19 Get sponsorship from stores to put displays on, ie. Choirs, dancers, bands, buskers, gymnasts. Don't keep putting them inside Middleton Hall.

MK4 3FN

Public square

4,20 Organised Street entertainment / buskers ‐ covent garden style will give area more character and appeal.

MK4 2EV

Public square

4,25

I hope that no single commercial interest or consortium of such, is allowed to dictate the use of the area to its own perceived advantage and to the detriment of the quality of life of residents and visitors. It would be good to see some truly public space, where public gatherings, stalls of a campaigning nature (temporary), leafletting, petitioning and engaging with the public are not excluded or subject to far greater restrictions than is the case in most city 'high streets'. This has been a valuable freedom in British life and should not be 'planned' out of our city.

MK8 8DN

Public transport

4.1 Suspended monorail connecting train station up to Marlborough Gate

MK15 0AY

Public transport

4,11 Provide covered area by the Coach Park behind John Lewis with seating for waiting passengers

Public transport

4,17 Will the transport pods that run from the train station feature in the area in the future?

Public transport

4,23 Better public transport to train station

Shopping experience

4,5 Need Wimpey Bar

Shopping experience

4,5 24‐hr shopping centre

Shopping experience

4,5 Don't mind if fill in Midsummer Place with shops and market stalls

Shopping experience

4,6 Play radio 2 or classic FM music

Shopping experience

4,6 No casinos or betting shops

Shopping experience

4,7 Great range of shops MK3 5FS

Shopping experience

4,15 You should not have chased Waitrose away. We hardly come into CMK anymore ‐ except for this exhibition, which we were told to attend!

MK3 6BL

Shopping experience

4,24 Worried about too many big shopping centres (city centre & stadium) and too few people ‐ they all suffer

The Point 4,2 Keep 'Point' but repaint!

The Point 4,4 Don't get rid of the Point, it is an icon of Milton Keynes

The Point 4,5 Knock the Point down or repaint it ‐ put up flats or social

139


club

The Point 4,14 Give us an iconic building to replace the Point

The Point 4,19 Do not take down the point as it is a landmark of the centre. MK4 3FN

Young people

4,6 Need play group area for kids

Young people

4,6 No skateboarding ‐ skate board park in Campbell Park, not city centre

14

40

positively influencin g the future of midsummer bo

Documents