Eaton Leys Farm Development

Gallagher Estates are proposing to develop the area of land (~103 hectares) which lies between the Gt Brickhill/Water Eaton bypass road and the river Ouzel, the bulk of the proposal is to build some 1900 homes, about 2/3 of this development lies within the Great Brickhill Parish and 1/3 is within Milton Keynes borough.

Gallagher Estates web site relevant page is  and the company are proposing to hold a public exhibition displaying their proposals in detail in The Parish Hall, Horsepond on 15th November. – exact time yet to be confirmed.

We would urge all village resident to  attend in order to inform yourself about this major development within Gt Brickhill Parish.

7 Responses to “Eaton Leys Farm Development”

  • Cheryl ashlee:

    What is going to be implemented to stop more flooding

    • Chris Leech:

      The developers claim that a flood plain zone will be left along side the river to accommodate possible flooding, also a zone along side the A5 which is a scheduled ancient monument will also be lft un-developed, but best pose the question directly to the developers agents on the 15th in the Parish Hall

  • Andrew Smith:

    I have to say, with the massive 1000+ home “Eaton Leyes” proposal I am confused as to where the boundaries are now.

    It was my understanding that Great Brickhill was firmly within AVDC and not a part of Milton Keynes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but looking at the MK Council’s map, it would seem that the red line indicates that the land for “Eaton Leyes” is not within Milton Keynes. See:

    Those who have been here a long time will know that in the late 1960’s, the GB Parish Council was given the option of being part of the embryonic new town called Milton Keynes. At the time Sir Philip Duncombe and various others lobbied hard NOT to be included for fear of urban encroachment, and secured our future within AVDC. Conversely Bow Brickhill decided to be within MK (and is now just about to be engulfed by large-scale development).

    Essentially, I think the position of Sir Philip and others in keeping a sacrosanct buffer between Great Brickhill and the relentless growth of MK was a very wise one.

    What makes Great Brickhill special is our rural identity and the fact that we have a good protection of surrounding countryside. Once the precedent is set of destroying buffer land or selling off rights to development, it’s a very slippery slope.

  • Roma Dee:

    Andrew, you are absolutely spot on about rural identity and the slippery slope. I think that it is important that we as residents of all areas affected work together to ensure that the impact of these proposals is minimised:

    1) Flooding – anyone who walked their dogs in the park on the banks of the River Ouzel last winter or who was anywhere near Manor Fields will have first hand knowledge of the extent of flooding on the land. It seems counter-intuitive to build houses there. Logic dictates that building on or next to the flood-plain will exacerbate flooding, unless significant defense work is undertaken. If you look at the river today, you will see it blocked by trees and reeds and nobody seems to take responsibility – neither MKC or the Parks Trust, the landowners or the Canal and Rivers Trust – so how can we be sure that on a site that is split between authorities that it would be different in the future?

    2) Housing mix – previous submissions to MKC about this land have been focused on how this land can be used for the regeneration of Bletchley and Fenny Stratford and in particular the Lakes Estate. To quote Gallagher in 2012: “A new community designed to meet the needs of existing residents of the Lakes Estate regeneration area – Provision of new affordable housing, offering the potential for
    the regeneration of older housing estates within Bletchley such as the adjacent Lakes Estate
    – Potential for residents and families of affordable housing within Bletchley to be re-housed locally without any major upheaval.- Land made available within the regeneration area for new
    community facilities and additional market and social housing.” These may be laudable aspirations but do not appear to take into account the impact on the other adjoining settlements. I suggest another Lakes Estate is not in the best interest of anyone.

    3) Housing Density and Impact on Transport – anyone who uses the A4146 between the Brickhill roundabout and the A5 roundabout will know that another couple of thousand cars using the road will create gridlock in the rush-hour. Inevitably, local roads will be used as rat-runs. The plans are for high-density housing – do we in the Brickhills want that on our doorstep?

  • MR C:

    The A5/A4146/Brickhill Street roundabout currently experiences high volumes of traffic in the AM (0800-0900) and PM (1700-1800) peak hours. Anyone who has passed through this roundabout can see there are consistently long queues and delays on the A5 North and A4146 approaches in the peak hours. The roundabout does not have any spare capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by this size of development.

    I cannot see additional lanes being enough to ensure this roundabout operates within capacity. Even if lanes for a through-about (so called hamburger links) were introduced this could cause additional problems for the roundabout. Traffic could block circulatory lanes while waiting at the traffic lights which would mean vehicles wouldn’t be able to move when the signals are green, adding to congestion problems at this roundabout.

    Currently the A4146 experiences long queues between the Stoke Road roundabout and Galley Lane roundabout (approaching the A5/A4146 roundabout from the south). A development of this size would properly need an access from the A4146 to the south of the development. Introducing a signalised junction or another roundabout along this road would cause greater delays and queues on the A4146. Anyone who has driven along the A4146 in either the AM or PM peak understands the length of the queues and delays on this road. They continue back onto the A4146/Stoke Road roundabout and causes blocking back on the roundabout.

    The A5/A4146 roundabout has recently undergone an upgrade due to the Newton Leys development. The MK Council approved the mitigation option for this roundabout because it believed it would ensure it operates within capacity. I personally pass through this roundabout everyday and can see that the mitigation options, especially in the PM peak hour, do not go far enough. I cannot see how a development of this size can be approved in such close proximity to this roundabout based on the future levels of congestion that would be experienced, not only on this roundabout but on the other roundabout/junctions along the A5 and A4146. As mentioned above this would inevitably result in rat running causing additional problems the development Transport Assessment wouldn’t pick up on.

  • Peter Skillman:

    My wife and I along with my two daughter reside in Eaton Leys farm, the planning of the 1,900 homes astounds me..we have only lived at the farm for just over 14 months…but I have driven past this area many many times and many times seen the pool of water on the fields.The traffic has defniately increased to the point where we actually dont use that road in the morning but travel up through Fenny Stratford and turn right at old A5 past Dobbies to get to the roundabout…its quicker!.
    The most worrying aspect however is when there is a road traffic accident south of M1 at junction 15….which seems to be a very regular occurrence now days …drivers will exit at Junc 15 head straight down the A5…same applies north bound as happened this very day at Junction 14 north bound people will travel up A5 through Dunstable….
    1,900 homes two cars per house hold.. even a conservative one quarter leaving for work post 07.00hrs so 450 cars added to what already is a back log at the A4146 with the usual A5 and the added possible traffic from M1 motorway accidents will grid lock this area….people will just head into the lanes surrounding villages making rat runs…only way around this is to totally up grade the road net work…thus losing what peace and beauty in the area to become more of Milton Keynes.

  • George Bennett:

    As your neighbours over the river in Water Eaton, we ask you to join us in opposing this development. Whilst we are located within the boundaries of Milton Keynes, the part of the development that lies in Aylesbury Vale would have a significant effect on us, if planning permission were to be granted. We are greatly concerned about Gallaghers Plans, not only because they will displace the Gurney family who have farmed the land for over 120 years and the impact on our settlement and natural environment but because we are not persuaded that there is capacity on the A4146 at this point. We believe that along with The Brickhills, Water Eaton and Fenny Stratford will be used as a rat-run and will be blighted by further traffic congestion and pollution. We are also concerned about the lack of provision of health and social services in the plan as well as secondary school provision. We do not believe our local GPs, hospital and Sir Herbert Leon secondary school can readily absorb more than 5,000 new residents from a new settlement that would be populated by 4 to 5 times as many people as your beautiful village.
    The land is also flood meadow and we are concerned about how building here would increase the flood risk in Bletchley. Whilst this would not directly affect you in Great Brickhill, we are sure you would agree it would be madness to site houses here.
    One of our residents put together this short video that we would like to share with you. Whilst it is the view from our side of the river, we hope it will ring true for you too. This week they start harvesting at a Eaton Leys, let’s hope it is not the last time they will do so.

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments