Agenda item

Agenda item

Questions, Statements and Deputations

To receive any questions, statements and deputations from members of the public in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure as set out in Part 4G of the Constitution.

Minutes:

 

The Chairman invited the public speakers to make their statements in accordance with the Public Participation Scheme.

 

Local Plan – Lidlington

 

Mr Booth, on behalf of Lidlington Action Group, spoke in relation to the proposed development for the Marston Vale area and Milton Keynes proposal to expand east of the M1.  He sought clarification on the Planning Inspector’s remit to amend the Local Plan and commented on the consultation process as he felt there had been no changes made to the Local Plan to take into account the responses to that consultation.

 

Ms Turner, on behalf of Lidlington Action Group, highlighted the impact that the proposed development in Marston Vale would have on a family living just outside Lidlington.  She urged the Council to protect the rural areas of Central Bedfordshire and not allow an overdevelopment of the countryside.

 

The Executive Member for Regeneration explained that landscaped areas could not be considered in isolation and that the Council was required to take into account all the elements of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Council had invited the Planning Inspector to recommend modifications, if required.  There had been extensive consultation on the Local Plan before it was submitted to the Planning Inspector.  By having the Local Plan in place it would help protect Central Bedfordshire as the Council would have greater control over the quantity and quality of development in the area and it sought to prevent coalescence.

 

Aspley Woods – Dogs on Leads

 

Mr Daly spoke about the decision by Bedford Estates to ban dogs from being let off the leads in Aspley Woods.  He enquired whether the public funding supporting access and conservation was value for money, whether the Council would renegotiate or abandon the access agreement.  He asked whether the Council would be making representations to the landowner.

 

The Executive Member for Community Services explained that Aspley Woods was privately-owned and the Council provided funding to Greensands Trust to manage public access to the woods.  Without this funding the pathways, cycle and horse riding routes might not be open.  The Council were going to enter into negotiations with Bedford Estates and the outcome of this would be shared with community groups using the woods.

 

Community Governance Review

 

Mr Baker referred to the General Purposes Committee’s decision to reject the proposal to reduce the number of councillors on Aspley Guise Parish Council.  He was concerned that the Parish Council was proposing to raise its precept to fund objections to the Local Plan.  He requested that Officers challenge the decision by the General Purposes Committee and reconsider the number of councillors on the Parish Council before the next election. 

 

The Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Corporate Resources advised that the Parish of Aspley Guise had 1789 electors and that 33 responses to the Governance Review had been received; 23 of these responses supported the reduction in the number of parish councillors. 

 

All the responses had to be balanced against the response from the Parish Council.  There would be an opportunity in May 2019 to hold a contested parish election as long as more nominations were received than seats on the Parish Council.

 

If there was concern about the conduct of a Parish Councillor, a complaint could be made to the Monitoring Officer.  The Parish Council was entitled to raise its precept to any level as it felt appropriate. 

 

Clarification would be sought from Officers as to whether the Parish Council could request a specific review, although this would not be done prior to the elections in May.