03rd October 2023
Thank you, Leader
And to our residents, our sincere apologies for not being able to be there with you all today. I appreciate the council's response to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), as you have heard from the residents, there is much to commend.
However, it's important to be clear with residents about what compliance with policy SD15 means. Your big message is the rejection of the SPD because the link road is non-compliant with policy SD15. What is not said is that compliance requires a grid road and grid road corridors, which is the very thing residents are opposed to. And for the avoidance of doubt, Cabinet Member Martin Gowans spelt this out clearly in his amendments to Aylesbury Vale’s policy D WHA001 in Dec 2019 DD, listed as background papers to tonight’s Decision.
So, to say you are supporting residents by rejecting the SPD is disingenuous. Residents feel this deeply and are disappointed.
However, despite this, residents are taking a reasonable approach and are asking you to include in the draft what a grid road should look like, drawing on precedents for other grid roads in MK. I strongly support residents on this. They have brought these mitigations and I ask that these are fully considered and incorporated into your response.
I agree that more clarity is needed on financial mitigations to compensate for the inevitable burden on MK health and council-delivered services – through e.g. S106 contributions - and these are covered adequately in the draft response. Points made about underestimation of school places provision are wholeheartedly supported as we have learnt through experience in Tattenhoe ward.
I would like to highlight the importance of aligning with SD 15 B6 of Plan MK which it clearly states that technical work should be undertaken to comprehensively assess the traffic impacts of the development on the entire road network, including nearby town and district centres and adjoining rural areas. I urge the council to strengthen the SPD on the need to thoroughly evaluate traffic diversion from A421 through a joint study with MK. I draw your attention to significant comments raised by MK Highways on the outline planning application, which adds weight to this need.
I want to emphasise the point made by residents that any changes to reduce the Green, which serves as a vital recreational area for our Kingsmead and Oxley Park residents, should be replaced and situated close to the residents. This is a requirement of policy L2. Tattenhoe Linear Park extension is much too far away.
In conclusion, while we acknowledge the council's response and happy that you are taking Mr Heath's comments on board, we also urge you to re-evaluate and take into account the concerns raised by all residents and adjoining parishes as well. Our primary focus should always be the well-being and quality of life of the taxpayers who are our residents and the ones we represent. Thank you.
