306 apartments and café at Campbell Park Northside, Campbell Park, Milton Keynes

What was proposed

The application proposed 306 apartments, a canalside café, a pedestrian and cycle link, landscaping, drainage, access, parking and infrastructure.

“Proposal: The construction of 306 residential apartments (use class C3), a canal side café (use class E), and a new pedestrian and cycle link through the site to connect the existing Redway network with associated landscaping, drainage, access, parking and infrastructure.”

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 306 new residential units (Use Class C3), a canalside café (Use Class E), and a new pedestrian and cycle link through the site to connect the existing Redway network, with associated landscaping, drainage, access, parking and infrastructure. The site itself has vehicular access via a left-in-left out junction directly from Overgate with pedestrian and cycle access from Overgate roundabout only.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant 2.53-hectare site lies beside Campbell Park, the Grand Union Canal, Portway, Overgate and existing Redways.

“The site is located within CMK and is an undeveloped parcel of land, which is located to the north-east of the city centre and to the north of Campbell Park a Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG). The site itself measures approximately 2.53 hectares and is bounded by Portway to the north, a Redway to the south, the Grand Union Canal to the east and Overgate to the west.”

“The topography of the site slopes from 82m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) to the northwest corner of the site to approximately 72m AOD towards the Grand Union Canal. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 meaning that the site has a low probability of river flooding, with elements of the site having a low to high risk of surface water flooding. In addition, the eastern tip of the site is located within a Wildlife Corridor.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included a withdrawn 450-apartment scheme and a refused 397-apartment scheme, with the current design reducing building heights to six storeys.

“This application is a resubmission of a previously refused application, as outlined in the planning history section below. The earlier application was refused by the Committee in April 2025 on the grounds that:”

“PLN/2025/2013 2023 application 2024 application Current application 450 dwellings 397 dwellings 306 dwellings Building heights of 10 – 18 storeys Building heights of 6 – 12 storeys Building heights of 6 storeys 758 cycle spaces 649 cycle spaces 534 cycle spaces 314 car parking spaces including provision for disabled parking and 5% provision for EV charging 274 car parking spaces including provision for disabled parking and 5% provision for EV charging 215 car parking spaces…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing, regeneration and economic benefits were considered to outweigh low-level harm to Campbell Park and protected trees.

“The development would result in in a permanent change in the appearance of the setting on the Grade II Listed RPG with the introduction of a scale and massing not currently experienced along this edge of the Park. However, the proposed development would bring about substantive benefits in the delivery of part of an allocated site within Plan:MK, which would boost housing supply in accordance with the NPPF.”

“The development would result in the redevelopment of a vacant and underutilised site in a highly sustainable location to provide for housing needs, which is also encouraged in CMK through policies SD3, DS1 and DS2, and the NPPF. Moderate weight is afforded to the economic benefits that would arise through the construction phase, which is expected to extend over a two-year period and generate approximately 460 construction jobs.”

Officer report

What people said

Interested parties objected to the design, heritage impact, parking, biodiversity, connectivity, delivery, infrastructure and lack of affordable housing.

“The proposal is fundamentally flawed in both design quality and delivery of public benefits. ▪ Key documentation is missing, including a detailed parking plan and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) metric calculation. ▪ The reduction in building height has compromised other elements such as the café size and underground parking, which would have helped reduce visual impact.”

“PLN/2025/2013 ▪ The development prioritises rental flats, whereas Milton Keynes needs more houses, as recommended in the SHMA. ▪ The largest block is located at the highest level of land and will dominate the site with little design merit in the illustrations provided. ▪ The blocks are accompanied by large parking areas of matching footprints with a significantly reduced garden area from the previous proposals.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors spoke against the application, while three people exercised a right of reply and described the design changes and proposed benefits.

Members discussed

Members discussed Redway accessibility, parking, landscaping, the previous refusal, design changes and the level of section 106 contributions.

“Members questioned the layout, which concentrated parking within a specific part of the site. This was proposed in order to maintain a balance between landscaping and hard standing. The Chair, seconded by Councillor Ahmad, proposed the recommendation for debate that: 1) Subject to the completion of a s106 agreement securing the obligations and terms set out in the main report, permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the main report, and as amended by the…”

“Councillor Exon indicated a desire to strengthen the conditions governing the accessibility of the Redway network. • Councillor Soden suggested that the changes to the scheme improved the proposals compared with the previous application. • Councillor McLean reiterated concerns over the car parking layout and suggested that the s106 contributions were low. • Councillor Ahmad praised the uniqueness of the design and indicated support for the proposal.”

Minutes