“You’re only interested in ticking boxes,” says neighbour objecting to Milton Keynes hamlet's homes plan

The site is Cross End Cottage, is in the hamlet of Cross End, near Wavendon, which next door neighbour Malcom Riley said “could not sustain further development”.

Mr Riley said: “I spent the last couple of months speaking to Lakeisha Peacock, planning officer, and Phil Caves, the highways officer, about the over development of Cross End but they don’t seem to be interested and only seem to be interested in ticking boxes.”

Speaking at Thursday’s meeting of Milton Keynes Council’s development control panel, Mr Riley said: “In the last 12 months there has been enough planning applications approved in Cross End, when completed will nearly double the amount of dwellings.

“Neither Lakeisha Peacock nor Phil Caves were willing to factor this in to their decision-making process, as it wasn’t in a box to be ticked off.”

“Cross End cannot sustain any further development and nobody is taking this into consideration because it seems that the people making the decisions are only interested in this policy and that policy.

“These are all valid reasons to refuse this application. There cannot be any more demand whatsoever for any more houses to be built in Cross End when you have approximately 4,000 new homes being built in the surrounding area.

“Refuse this application unless you can guarantee to the residents of Cross End that their already crumbling road will be resurfaced, a footpath added and extra street lighting installed. A couple of passing bays at one end of Cross End is not sufficient.”

In reply, senior planning officer Lakeisha Peacock said she and the highways officer had visited the site “on many occasions.”

She said the application from Goldcrest (Campell Park) Limited had been assessed. Even though the site is in the open countryside, where development would normally be blocked, this is considered to be previously developed land.

She added that even though the developer had offered money to pay for road improvements, the council cannot request it as part of the planning process.

But she said that the council is planning to take “mitigation measures” on the road, which sparked a debate among councillors who wanted to find a way for the council to take the money.

In support of the application, planning agent Sam Dix of Smith Jenkins, said it would not have a “severe impact” on the roads in the area, and could not be refused on those grounds.

“It’s an acceptable use for a large plot,” he said. “It’s not open countryside, it’s a residential plot. It is in residential use already,” he said.

“The proposals represent a suitable form of in-filling and will provide two high quality family dwellings in a sustainable location,” he said.

Councillors voted to approve the plan and to try to find a way for the council to accept the money offered by the developer.