Cllr Ken Tuckett, of Woodlands, Kingsteignton, writes:I'm not sure what point the front page article of the MDA Kingsteignton edition last week was making. Except for Ley Lane and Fore Street, the 'brainstorming' thoughts on roads needed for future traffic management in Kingsteignton were largely mine. Kingsteignton and Newton Abbot are often almost traffic gridlocked, but the MDA questioned with me whether the new roads I was suggesting were actually needed. The roads I suggested were those of the Kingsteignton Urban Extension which, we are told, will happen like it or not. If that be the case, Kingsteignton must have all the support infrastructure that was included in that development. Some 1,000 new dwellings are being built or are proposed at Jetty Marsh, Whitehill Cross, Rackerhayes and Newcross.However, the hitherto associated new roads – necessary to provide a new route into, out and through Newton Abbot, the Newton Road Relief Road, the bridge crossing the River Teign, Stover Canal and the railway line and the Jetty Marsh to Whitehill Cross Link Road – are not included in the planning applications soon to be determined by the district council. The county council is also making a late objection to the associated Zitherixon Link Road. Teignbridge's Core Strategy was rejected because the essential support infrastructure for the Kingsteignton development was found to be not financially deliverable. The current applications prove the decision of the core strategy inspector and the more recent Newcross decision of the Secretary of State were absolutely right. The MDA congratulated the Secretary of State on her decision.It would now benefit the community if the MDA was to ask some searching questions of the developer and of the county and district councils to establish what support infrastructure is to be delivered within the Kingsteignton development.

THIS AND OTHER LETTERS IN OUR ONLINE EDITION