Meeting documents

Councillor N Blake – Leader of the Council

Councillor Mrs Paternoster – Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer: Tracey Aldworth (01296) 585003

(a)          Decision(s)

(1)  That the principal points summarised from the Member seminars, as set out in paragraph 4.14 of the Cabinet report, be included within the Authority’s written response to the consultation together with the following additional points:-

·         There is a hybrid version of the Corridor that needs to be properly explored, including the potential of a new junction from the M40,which could combine aspects of routes A and B.

·         Acknowledge that Corridor C is probably the "least preferred" as it does not contribute as well as the other corridors could against all of the current measured factors indicated, although improvements to the A421 should be considered as part of the connectivity study.

·         The need for an overall coordinated approach at Government level, with timely announcements to ensure that all the councils across the Corridor area can proceed to adopt their current Local Plans, but also effectively plan for, and commit to, early reviews of their Plans, and also working with adjacent authorities, to work up the spatial plans referred to by the NIC to facilitate delivery of long term growth.

(2)  That the Director with responsibility for planning, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy, be authorised to write and submit the formal response to Highways England.

(3)  That AVDC’s written response to the NIC’s report be supported along the lines of the document attached as Appendix 3 to the Cabinet report and the views expressed by Cabinet in relation to mitigation measures, community engagement and the need to demonstrate community benefit, and that the Director with responsibility for planning, after consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy be authorised to submit the formal response to Government.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

To enable the Council to respond to the consultation.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

To do nothing.  But the location of the expressway will have a significant impact on the growth of Aylesbury Vale and Cabinet felt it essential that the Council’s views should be submitted.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Environment and Living.  The response is required by 12 April, 2018.  Accordingly, the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee has, in accordance with the provisions within the Constitution for dealing with urgent matters, agreed that this item should not be subject to call-in.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) report "Partnering For Prosperity", published in November, 2017, viewed east west infrastructure as a once in a generation opportunity to unlock land for new settlements and alleviate some of the constraints in the arc in terms of housing affordability, as well as congestion, and to better link the thriving economies of Oxford and Cambridge.  The decision on the "missing link" - the expressway corridor - (Option A,B or C) between the M40 and M1 was key.

Highways England, who had been commissioned by the Department of Transport to deliver the expressway project, had sought views from stakeholders on the preferred corridor route and the least preferred.  Members’ seminars had been held to seek views but no overall consensus had been reached on the preferred corridor route.  The Cabinet report, which could be viewed on the Council’s website at http://democracy.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/documents/g2473/Public%20reports%20pack%2010th-Apr-2018%2018.30%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10 set out the key considerations raised during the seminars, which focused on the lack of information available to be able to make a fully informed choice about the corridor route at this time.  Concern had been expressed that the decision about this important aspect was being made in isolation of decisions for locations and scale of new settlements across the corridor and areas for economic growth.  Comments had also been made about the absence of evidence from connectivity studies or other detailed analysis. 

Three non Cabinet Members attended the meeting to comment specifically on the expressway options and their views were taken into account during Cabinet’s discussions, as were the views expressed individually in writing by a number of other Members in response to an invitation to comment on this issue.

Whilst Cabinet concurred with the proposed response referred to in paragraph 4.14 of the Cabinet report, it was felt that a number of additional points should be made (as set out below in the resolution to this Minute).  Cabinet wished the Council’s response to make clear that the routes were not designed to meet existing growth but to meet the needs of significant future growth.  It was also felt that the Council’s response should refer to the need for community engagement, that the preferred route should demonstrate community benefit and the need for any mitigation measures.

A response was required by 12 April, 2018 and in accordance with the urgency provisions contained within the Constitution, the Chairman of the Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee had been consulted and had agreed that this item should not be subject to call-in in view of the timescale.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That the principal points summarised from the Member seminars and set out in paragraph 4.14 of the Cabinet report be included within this Authority’s response together with the following additional points:-

·         There is a hybrid version of the corridor that needs to be properly explored, including the potential of a new junction from the M40, which could combine aspects of routes A and B.

·         Acknowledge that Corridor C is probably the "least preferred" as it does not contribute as well as the other corridors could against all of the current measured factors indicated, although improvements to the A421 should be considered as part of the connectivity study.

·         The need for an overall coordinated approach at Government level, with timely announcements to ensure that councils across the corridor area can proceed to adopt their current Local Plans, but also effectively plan for and commit to early reviews of their Plans, and also working with adjacent authorities to work up the spatial plans referred to by the NIC to facilitate delivery of long term growth.

(2)  That the Director with responsibility for planning, after consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy, be authorised to draft and submit the Council’s response to Highways England.

(3)  That AVDC’s written response to the NIC’s report "Partnering For Prosperity: A New Deal for the Cambridge-MK-Oxford Arc" be approved along the lines of the document attached as Appendix 3 to the Cabinet report and the discussions at this meeting, and that the Director with responsibility for Planning, after consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy, be authorised to submit the response to Government.