2.2 M1 Junction 13

The additional evidence produced by the Council fails to address the concerns set out by the Planning Inspector over the justification for, and soundness of, the allocation to the Marston Vale site. Specifically, we believe the following concerns should remain as ‘matters and issues’ and subject to examination at public hearings:
• Traffic impact cannot be sustainably managed for Marston Vale at the proposed scale and would be better achieved by utilising alternative sites.

• The allocation to Marston Vale should be reduced to 1,800 as a modification to make the submitted Local Plan sound pending the Council’s proposed ‘Early Review’ of the Local Plan which should address ‘material changes’ since the Plan was submitted in 2018 including reviewing housing needs and the distribution of development.

‘The additional modelling is clearly going to form a critical piece of evidence which directly relates to the location of the Plan’s largest allocation for up to 5,000 new homes at Marston Vale. In order to reach a robust, substantiated conclusion on the soundness of the Plan it would be necessary to consider the implications of the new evidence when it emerges and test it through further examination hearing sessions. In the absence of this modelling we continue to have reservations about the cross-boundary impacts which have been identified. In the context of an allocation for up to 5,000 new homes, we fail to see how the evidence is an accurate reflection of likely future transport pattern. In summary therefore, given the already high levels of congestion around Junction 13, and the planned level of growth nearby, the modelling is critical to understanding whether improvements can be undertaken that effectively mitigate the impact of additional development in this location.’
[Paras 46 - 48 of Planning Inspectors letter to Council September 2019 – Exam 69]
2.1 The additional evidence produced by the Council includes a new joint statement from CBC and HE concluding that ‘..in terms of highways impact on M1 J13, we have agreed the level of growth proposed within the local plan for this area can be accommodated.’ It also includes a more plausible forecast growth in traffic volume using the A421 to Milton Keynes. At issue then is whether the Inspector is content to accept this partial reassurance and the Council’s strategic modelling of the traffic impact of allocated development and proposed mitigation of ‘hot spots’ as sufficient evidence that the traffic impact could be sustainably managed.
2.3 The Planning Inspector will be aware that CBC continue to argue that that the strategic modelling they have carried out should be sufficient to judge the soundness of the development proposed in the Local Plan. In our view, an allocation of this scale on this site requires a higher level of confidence that the traffic impact can be sustainably managed. This is because of characteristics of the site and local factors which are not picked up in the modelling.
2.4 Data from the 2011 census (published by CBC as part of the Cranfield and Marston ward profile) recorded 7,540 cars linked to 4,720 dwellings (a ratio of 1.6:1). An allocation of 5,000 houses then might be expected (crudely) to increase the number of cars in this area by 7,987 (106%) or around double the current level. Even after allowing for a range of factors which would reduce that increase (including development since 2011, the mixed use nature of the site etc) it is clear that any adverse impacts from such a substantial net increase could be significant or severe.
2.5 Exam 114 concludes that the increase in traffic can by sustainably managed via mitigation to Junction 13 of the MI and by the committed dualling of the westward link of the A421. But there are substantial increases in traffic on other routes from the Marston Vale site. These are not visible in the strategic modelling within the submitted Local Plan or addressed by Exam 114. For example, the traffic assessment submitted by the developer in support of the planning application for Marston Vale forecasts increased traffic flows of 202% on the Lidlington High Street and Bury Ware link; 611% on Sheeptick End; 117% on the Station Road / Church Street link in Lidlington; 81% on Bedford Road in Marston; 34% on the C94 and 344% on The Lane / Marston Rd between Marston and Lidlington.
2.6 The developer’s transport strategy and travel plan outlines mitigation of the impact of the increased traffic in the AM and PM peak periods which they claim ‘demonstrates that the residual impacts of the Proposed Development on driver delay in the peak periods would not be significant’. That strategy and plan includes ‘demand management; improvements to the local public transport network and walking and cycling facilities; minor physical improvements to existing roads and junctions; and provision of new or expanded roads where necessary.
2.7 The 2011 census showed that 78% of economically active residents in the Cranfield and Marston ward travelled to work by car. 60% travelled to work outside Central Beds (to Milton Keynes, Bedford, and Luton mainly); 12% within Central Beds; and 28% within the ward. Only 6% walked to work; 4% used the train; 5% ‘other’ (including cycling) and 7% worked from home. The developer’s travel plan aims to reduce car use by -25%; increase bus journeys by 82%; rail by 38%; cycling by 68%; and walking by 4% [EIA Volume III Chapter 5 Appendix E Interim Travel Plan table 6.8].
2.8 There is nothing we have seen which would provide confidence that this development could demonstrate those levels of modal shift from cars and onto public transport, cycling or walking. The frequency (2 or 3 an hour), journey time (double that in a car) and likely cost of the proposed new bus services are unlikely to persuade sufficient people to leave their cars at home. The nearest rail transport hub will be at Ridgmont (the 2024 additional train services will not stop at Lidlington) which is beyond walking distance from the site.
2.9 A bus service and cycle lane to Ridgmont would require access to land which neither the developer nor the Council control. That new train service - as is the case now with the existing stopping service – does not go to where people travel to work (with the exception of Bedford) and at one train an hour in each direction does not support daily commuting involving connections at Bedford and Bletchley.
2.10 It seems unlikely that a sufficient proportion of the ~5,000 jobs on this mixed use site would be taken by people living on the site – at least not in the medium term and unless there was some kind of scheme linking affordable tenures to local recruitment. The developer’s assumptions about the effectiveness of the mitigation measures they propose are, in our view, over-optimistic.
2.11 Even if some meaningful modal shift could be achieved, there would still be significant increased traffic using local roads to access other routes and destinations. There are three roads which run across the site. Two of these merge 100yrds or so north of the level crossing at a point where traffic is expected to increase by 117% in the centre of Lidlington where the barriers will be down twice as often as they are now once the new train service starts in 2024. That road then merges with the third road via a T junction to a steep hill which joins the A507 at the Bury Ware T-junction where traffic is expected to increase by 202%, locally regarded as dangerous as it is close to a blind summit on a road which has a 50mph limit. The developer is proposing a new east-west ‘Cross-Vale’ road which aims to funnel traffic onto the C94, by-pass Marston and – along with other measures – deter traffic from going through Lidlington and Millbrook.
2.12 In a survey carried out in 2010 for the Parish Plan, 73% of residents reported experiencing ‘severe’ congestion on these local roads. Congestion occurs every time there is a significant increase in traffic – for example, because of incidents on the A421 / M1 or car boot sales in the locality.
2.13 This part of the Marston Vale experiences ‘temperature inversion’ events whereby cold air (and any air pollution) is trapped near the ground as warmer air moves above it from the Greensand Ridge which borders the area from the west and south. That increases the risk that any traffic congestion could lead to breaches in air quality and adverse impacts on public health. That, in turn, should increase the level of confidence required that the traffic impact can be sustainably managed to be sure this allocation is sound.

Re: Removal Policy SE2 M1 Junction 13 Marston Gate Expansion from the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan

I am writing to request the removal of Policy SE2: M1 Junction 13 Marston Gate Expansion from the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and for development to be kept west of the Bletchley-Bedford railway line, which will protect the Greensand Ridge and protect designated heritage assets.
My reasons are as follows:
• The 2005 Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan designated the land east of the railway as an ‘area of great landscape value’
• Central Bedfordshire Council’s 2016 Landscape Character Assessment states the need to ‘safeguard open land at the foot of the ridge to provide for the setting of the ridge and the associated villages’
• Central Bedfordshire Council’s 2017 Employment Site Assessment states that it is ‘important to retain development west of the railway and not allow spread into open countryside’
• In 2007 Bedfordshire County Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Study concluded that ‘this area itself is very sensitive as the setting to the Greensand Ridge’
• The Inspectors charged with examining the Local Plan highlight in their September 2019 letter that ‘Policy SE2 is not justified due to the harm that would be caused to the landscape character of the area’
• M1 Junction 13 is defined as a ‘hotspot’, currently Highways England and Central Bedfordshire have yet to produce modelling or potential solutions to address this ‘hotspot’
• Congestion on A507 the Marston Gate, allocation site would be accessed from the A507 a key east-west route across the district
• The council already expects the A507 to experience high levels of congestion, however no modelling or potential solutions have been devised to address them
• This is also an allocation which the council does not need to make, in other words there is no need expressed in planning policy for this allocation, it is therefore not required economically or for reasons for economic growth. The council’s Functional Economic Marketing Assessment and Local Employment Land Review reports show there is currently an over supply of employment land and alternative brownfield sites available

Marston Gate Expansion: Policy SE2
1. Despite the very clear concerns from the Inspectors, Policy SE2, remains as an allocated site to build a warehouse and distribution centre. It is situated principally in the Parish of Ridgmont, but it is also partly in the parishes of Brogborough, Husborne Crawley, Aspley Guise and Lidlington. All five parishes are affected by this proposal in that the site is located in the heart of the nationally important Greensand Ridge country, the setting for numerous heritage assets with numerous public rights of way, notably the Greensand Ridge itself and the John Bunyan Trail.
2. The overall area of the land to be occupied by warehousing, and distribution centre is 35 hectares, equivalent to about 80 football pitches. The site will be four times larger than the existing Marston Gate and will operate 24x7. The height of the buildings will be 18.5 – 21m high, with all the incumbent light and noise pollution.
3. The current Marston Gate Industrial Park was built on the site of the old brickworks, designated as brownfield. The allocation Policy SE2 will necessitate building on open land adjacent to the Greensand Ridge public footpaths and the John Bunyan Trail footpath will actually cross the site; south of the railway line has always been
regarded as the buffer of protecting urban sprawl into countryside and should be retained as such.
4. This policy if adopted would allow the expansion of the Marston Gate distribution park onto a new site to the east of the existing complex – further away from Junction
13, on the other side of the Bletchley-to-Bedford railway line, and into open countryside.
5. For years this area of countryside east of the Bletchley-to-Bedford line has been recognised for the quality of its landscape, forming part of the unspoiled setting of the Greensand Ridge as it crosses Central Bedfordshire from Leighton Buzzard to Sandy. This land also provides the setting for the nearby medieval ringwork fortifications at Brogborough Park Farm, a designated Scheduled Monument; three conservation areas at Ridgmont, Husborne Crawley and Aspley Guise; Grade II* listed structures and Scheduled Monuments.
Landscape Impact
The Inspectors’ key concerns regarding Landscape have not been overcome:
• This application proposes the development of a large complex of storage buildings and associated infrastructure on open land to the north of the M1 motorway adjacent to the existing Marston Gate industrial site. This would bring large scale building into an area of open countryside not previously developed
• Due to the topography of the site, it’s prominence and the size and type of development proposed, the allocation would still have a significant visual impact
from the surrounding network of public footpaths;
• Situated on rising ground at the foot of the Greensand Ridge its appearance would still be harmful to one of the defining landscape characteristics of the area
• Given the size of buildings proposed, the visual impact of the allocation would not be mitigated by additional landscaping
• The location of the site at the foot of the Greensand Ridge will remain prominent when viewed from parts of the John Bunyan Trail and Greensand Ridge Walk
None of the following key objectives have been used to test the landscape and visual attributes of the site in the either EXAM 112 or Exam 115.
• Maintenance of productive clayland arable farmland and its hedgerow pattern;
• Protection of the long and panoramic views to and from the Greensand Ridge over the vale;
• Protection and enhancement of the public enjoyment and recreational use of the vale and Greensand Ridge;
• Promotion and delivery of the Forest of Marston in this area;
• Avoidance of further fragmentation of the landscape;
• Protection of views to landmark features such as St James Church spire;
• Reduction in the impact of highway and other infrastructure on the views and landscape;
• Avoidance of development at the base of the Ridge;
• Promotion and delivery of the Greensand Country Landscape Partnership projects and objectives in this area.
Heritage Impact
The key concerns of Historic England have not been overcome and their in principle objection to SE2 remains:
• This allocation of Prologis Park Marston Gate II which would expand the existing logistics park to provide up to 166,000 square metres of B8 accommodation and associated uses, parking and access roads. The site lies
in a shallow valley to the east of the main railway line and to the north of the M1 motorway. The size of the site and the number and scale of the warehouse buildings proposed mean the development has the potential to
affect the setting and significance of a number of designated heritage assets in the surrounding area.
• It would increase the visual impact on the setting of several designated heritage assets at Brogborough, Ridgmont, Husborne Crawley and Aspley Guise. This would result in harm to the historic significance of these
designated heritage assets in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework.
• Husborne Crawley comprises of two conservation areas. The oldest part of the village around the Church of St. James at Church End lies on higher ground to the north. The conservation area appraisal for Church End notes its location at the eastern end of a greensand outcrop in a rural agricultural setting. It highlights the extensive views to the north and east and in particular those from the churchyard. It contains a fine group comprising the church, adjacent manor and nearby Crawley Park House. The church dates from the thirteenth century but was extensively remodelled in the early twentieth century. Like many historic churches it is prominently sited, reflecting the importance of the building to the community.
• The eastern part of the Husborne Crawley conservation area consists of a linear settlement along the boundary wall of Woburn park with a succession of terraced model cottages built in the 1850s by the Bedford Estate and the
village school at the northern end. The area is flanked by the trees behind the estate wall on its eastern side and open fields on the west and north and there are some views out of the village to the north east from School Lane towards the application site
• The proposed development sits just north of the Husborne Crawley Church End conservation area. This shows that while the motorway and existing Marston Gate development is visible from here the scale of the proposed new building would further erode the landscape setting of the village. The parish church sits on higher ground and the churchyard to the east of the building opens out to provide expansive views across the countryside to the north east.
• Views from Husborne Crawley church include the motorway and existing development but otherwise comprise rural fields with the church at Ridgmont acting as a corresponding landmark to the east. The proposed
development would extend the area of modern industrial building into this landscape compounding the visual impact on the setting.
• At the eastern part of the Church End conservation area, beside the historic core of the village the proposed development would extend large scale industrial development across part of the landscape, eroding the rural character of the countryside.
• The eastern part of the Husborne Crawley conservation area includes the village school and the White Horse public house, important parts of the estate village, along with characteristic estate cottages at its northern end. School Lane from the conservation area boundary the proposed development would appear as a large, elongated built mass above the distant trees, extending
development of a form and scale alien to the rural setting of the conservation area. This would detract from an appreciation of this setting and the contribution it makes to the significance of the conservation -area.
Light and Noise Pollution
• In areas where the existing industrial development and M1 motorway are visible the proposed development would significantly increase the impact of large scale industrial building on the rural landscape including the
intensification of noise and artificial lighting associated with it. This effect would degrade the setting of the Brogborough ringwork, Aspley Guise, Ridgmont and Husborne Crawley conservation areas
• The warehousing and distribution centre is 4x larger than the existing Marston Gate and will operate 24-7
• While the night-time visual impact is already compromised by the motorway and existing industrial park, the expansion of Marston Gate would significantly increase light pollution and increase its visual presence in the dark landscape. Interactive Maps of Light Pollution and Dark Skies has shown that Prologis Marston Gate is the highest ranking, which is >32 NanoWatts/cm2/sr, which is the brightest on the scale.
• No reference to the impact of light and noise pollution is contained within any of the additional SA documents produced by Central Bedfordshire which addresses these issues. It remains that there is little confidence that the impact of noise and light pollution can be sustainably managed to be sure this allocation is sound
M1 Junction 13 is defined as a traffic ‘hotspot’
• At the Examination last summer, the Planning Inspectors identified substantive issues with the soundness of the Local Plan, and in particular the
cumulative effects on M1 Junction 13 from the proposal for 5,000 homes in the Marston Vale, Policy SE2 Expansion of Marston Gate, the expansion of Milton Keynes and Bedford along the A421 and Covanta. They subsequently asked CBC to review the assessment of the cumulative impact of traffic on local roads; and establish whether effective mitigation of traffic congestion at M1 Junction 13 is actually feasible. Currently, CBC and Highways England have reached a statement of Common Ground, however it remains uncertain
that the modelling solutions put forward will overcome the cumulative effects of increased traffic at Junction 13.
• Exam 114 concludes that the increase in traffic can by sustainably managed via mitigation to Junction 13 of the MI and by the committed dualling of the westward link of the A421. But there are substantial increases in traffic on
other routes particularly A507, which will be further affected by increased traffic from SE2. These are not visible in the strategic modelling within the submitted Local Plan or addressed by Exam 114.
• The development of the site would worsen congestion on the A507. The Marston Gate allocation site would be accessed from the A507, a key eastwest route across the district. The council already expects the A507 to
experience ‘high levels of congestion’ by 2035, even without the allocation; and although the council is undertaking a study of the A507 to identify ways that the congestion problems can be alleviated, no modelling or potential solutions have been devised as of yet to address them
• There is nothing apparent which would provide confidence that this development could demonstrate those levels of modal shift from cars and onto public transport, cycling or walking. Bus services are infrequent and cycles lane to Ridgmont would require access to land which neither the developer nor the Council control. The existing train service – does not go to where people travel to work (with the exception of Bedford) and at one train an hour in each direction does not support daily commuting involving connections at Bedford and Bletchley. That new train service of East West rail
will not be an electrified line and will only increase the service to 2 services an hour beginning at 6pm in the morning until 10pm at night, which will not suit shift patterns of working.
• Even if some meaningful modal shift could be achieved, there would still be significant increased traffic using local roads to access other routes and destinations.
Proposed mitigation Exam 106
The Council believes that the proposed changes in EXAM106 (to reduce the visual impact) are sufficient to resolve the Inspectors’ deep concerns, but Husborne
Crawley Parish Council suggest that this is not the case.
• It is proposed to reduce the maximum height of the buildings by 3m to 18.5m, however the buildings will be built on raised platform levels, the levels of which
have not been changed. The proposed buildings will therefore be placed on higher ground than those on the existing Marston Gate, resulting in a further increase in height above the existing Marston Gate.
• The extent of the proposed buildings has not changed. Therefore, despite the reduction in the height, there is little change in the mass and scale of the development, and it will still appear as substantially higher than the existing Marston Gate.
• EXAM106 suggests that the multi-barrelled roof is additional mitigation.
However, this was proposed in the Design and Access Statement by Prologis in November 2018, therefore there is no change.
• A development of this mass and scale cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through the proposed colour palette. The development will be visible from viewpoints
and also from higher viewpoints where the roofs will be most prominent. It will also be visible against the hillside and the sky.
• There are no changes proposed to the on-site planting or the land modelling, on which it will be planted.

Conclusion
The Inspectors’ key concerns have not been overcome and have not been demonstrated in either EXAM 112 or EXAM 115.
Furthermore, Central Bedfordshire has relied on Exam 106 the site promoter’s evidence, which is not independent or objective. We contend that Policy SE2 is not justified due to the harm that would be caused to
the landscape character of the area and the setting of important and historical heritage assets.
Husborne Crawley Parish Council respectfully requests that this letter is passed to the Inspector and it should be noted that the Parish Council wishes to speak at the further Hearing sessions.

I’m writing to object to the additional evidence that has been produced as part of the Examination of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

Reading through the additional evidence for junction 13 of the M1 it does not take into account future factors of neighbouring councils and their plans. Neighbouring councils are sited very closely to Central Bedfordshire’s and have close road links which are not factored into the additional evidence of junction 13 and how this might affect future traffic volume/capacity on our roads within Marston Vale.
Milton Keynes council are planning to create 1000’s more homes just off junction 14 of the M1, this will have a major impact on junction 14 and junction 13 as it offers alternative diversions. Nowhere in their evidence has it taken this into account. Or the fact that more homes will be available to others just minutes up the motorway, lessening the need for more homes in Central Bedfordshire.

It’s also been brought to my attention that the council is not taking into account material changes regarding the size of development and latest ONS projections regarding population growth, which are much lower than they were 2 years ago, so I would question the need for 5000 extra homes on top of the ones already projected to go ahead. A new build 3 bed house on our street sat empty for 2 years before anyone moved into it, where is the need here? New developments at Marston Fields advertise they have sold 3 houses in 3 weeks, so 5000+ homes in 5000+ weeks? The demand is slow and new build houses are still available to buy but sat empty, again where is the evidence for 5000 houses?

The East West Expressway which has since been aborted by the Government, was one of the major justifications for the number of houses in Marston Vale to be viable. With this no longer going ahead where is Central Bedfordshire’s evidence to support the location and infrastructure to support 5000 homes with the potential 10,000+ additional car journeys a day on top of the ones already taking place? We have a very limited bus and train service but majority of travel is by car, this is not sustainable transport, where is their evidence to support it?
I would also like to add that I am sending this email as trying to find my way around the consultation to object (or make any comment) is near on impossible. The consultation was also only brought to my attention by neighbours, not the council, to ask for my opinion on the evidence they have submitted after I objected to previously. I had hoped anyone who had placed an objection would be notified of this consultation with dates of when it starts and finishes but it seems to have been overlooked amongst Covid-19 and heatwave notifications. I only hope you get a good number of villagers responding to this consultation, as it seems there are not many that are aware of it via Central Bedfordshire Council.

Additional practicable mitigation solutions for the Bedford Road/Salford Road junction (Junction C in EXAM 114A section 3) must be identified in order to deliver additional capacity sufficient for the Local Plan growth. Specific consideration should be given to local traffic from the A507 and Marston Valley crossing the strategic network and shift workers commuting to/from Marston Gate. This detail is appropriate as part of the strategic plan considering the complex nature of traffic flow around the J13 area, the known bottlenecks now confirmed by the J13 modelling and the fact that the boundaries of the two main development areas nearby (Marston Gate / Marston Valley) do not directly connect to the bottleneck junction so may not automatically be in scope of any planning proposal or subsequent negotiation between each developer and CBC through the normal planning process.

Paragraph 2.2.9 is misleading in concluding that mitigation solutions "....can deliver additional capacity sufficient to mitigate the impact of Local Plan growth." EXAM 114C Executive Summary clearly states that the Bedford Road/Salford Road junction is currently at capacity and additional mitigation is required. EXAM 114 does not explicitly recognise the need for additional mitigation (cf. para 2.2.8) and makes no commitment for any such action. This junction is one of two bottlenecks that have a negative impact on J13 operation and the proposed mitigation solutions (ref. sensitivity study in section 5 of EXAM 114C).

CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN -
CONSULTATION ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE (JUNE 2020) LETTER OF OBJECTION
I welcome this opportunity to comment on the additional evidence Central Bedfordshire Council (“the Council”) has submitted to the Planning Inspectors, in response to their letter of 30 September 2019 (Exam 69) on the examination of the emerging local plan (“the Plan”).
The Council’s retrospective evidencing of the soundness of the Plan’s policies has unnecessarily prolonged the period of uncertainty for those living in the shadows of its
allocations, blighting the lives and homes of the communities it serves, with consequential effects on their mental health.

However, before I set out my objections on the additional evidence, in view of the extensive evidence that has been submitted since the examination began (including
several schedules of proposed modifications and changes agreed in statements of common ground), I ask if the Council would produce a track-change version of the submitted Plan (NSIP developers regularly supply updated versions of their DCOs during examination).
Please note that where this letter contains quotations, the use of bold font is my emphasis.
My objections relate to policy SA2 - Marston Vale new villages.
1. Summary of objections
The SA Supplementary Report (Exam 115) fails to acknowledge that: the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway has been paused; the Forest of Marston Vale has been
designated part of the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy; and Milton Keynes Council has published a Milton Keynes Draft Strategy for 2050, which includes the sites of the Aspley Guise and Marston Vale SAs (Objection 1).
Furthermore, the Council’s misconduct in safeguarding the Aspley Guise SA for any future Expressway, demonstrates its lack of willingness to work with Highways England to consider how the SA could be delivered without undermining the Expressway (objection
2). This, and it’s failure to make provision for direct access into the Aspley Guise SA as part of its current A421 upgrade - dualling the carriageway from the Eagle Farm roundabout down to M1 J13 (objection 5) evidences how quickly the Council closed its mind to Aspley Guise as a reasonable alternative to Marston Vale (objections 13 and 14).
It is also illogical that the largest housing allocation in the Plan is in close proximity to M1 J13, one of the most congested hotspots in Central Bedfordshire (objection 6).
The Council has also failed to consider how the potentially negative effects of policy SA2, on the predominantly rural Marston Vale landscape, might be mitigated by differing scales of development - all five growth scenarios include potential new settlements at Marston Vale of 5000 dwellings (objection 7).
The SA Supplementary Report Appendices (Exam 115B) also contains a number of discrepancies in the assessments of the Marston Vale (policy SA2) and Aspley Guise SAs (objections 8 through to 12). Until these are addressed, it is difficult to determine whether
policy SA2 is indeed, the most effective strategy for meeting the housing need in Area C (East-West Corridor).
Policy SA2 also needs strengthening to ensure future planning applications comply with the forest plan (Exam 14), which is a material consideration in planning decisions, by delivering at least 30% new woodland creation (not counting street trees and those in residential gardens). Indeed, I contend that this landscape led development must be ambitious in beginning to address the current underachievement of the overall 30% target for the Marston Vale community forest. This would also deliver on the strategy in the
forest plan that the Brickfields should secure a higher level of new planting than elsewhere in the community forest (objections 3 and 4).
Although not raised as an objection (as it is outside the scope of this consultation) the Council has relied on unpublished evidence (ie not included in the examination
documents) to assure the inspectors (at the examination hearing last year) it can achieve it’s two commitments of providing both separation and screening between the existing villages in the Marston Vale and any new development. This contravenes the principles of an open, fair and transparent examination.
Also out of scope and therefore, not raised as an objection, is the inspector’s decision at the examination hearing into policy SA2, to refuse the Council’s modification to designate three heritage buffers within the Marston Vale SA (Exam 7J, 7M and 7M Annex 1). In effect, to modify the boundary of policy SA2 shown on the proposed allocation map to exclude these areas from the policy. I would respectfully correct the Council when it said (at the hearing) that this was as a result of its [unpublished] masterplanning; it was in fact the outcome of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) the Council carried out in response to the former inspector’s (Mike Hayden) request for it to “clarify the historic environment
evidence on which the CBLP has been based and how this has informed the plan’s strategy and choice of site allocations” (Exam 2) and to show that policy SA2 is “justified and consistent with national policy in respect of its heritage impacts” (Exam 6).
Accordingly, Exam 7M concludes that, to be consistent with national policy, the settings of several heritage assets must be safeguarded (the three heritage buffers). Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable that the conclusion of the HIA would be incorporated as a
modification to the Plan, otherwise what purpose did it serve in answering the former inspector’s concerns?
The discrepancies in the Council’s assessments, coupled with its failure to consider differing scales of development at Marston Vale, and its mis-conduct in prematurely
safeguarding the Aspley Guise SA for the (now paused) Expressway, demonstrate that it has not properly considered the reasonable alternatives to policy SA2. Without such proper consideration, policy SA2 is not sound. The Aspley Guise SA was first promoted in
the Milton Keynes South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (MKSM SRS) and so, I contend it is the natural and logical choice for meeting the housing need for Area C (East West Corridor); not Marston Vale.

2. Matters arising from Sustainability Appraisal of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan Supplementary Report (Exam 115)
Objection 1: In respect of the Marston Vale SA, the SA Supplementary Report (Exam 115) fails to acknowledge that:
A. The Oxford to Cambridge Expressway (‘the Expressway’) has been “paused” (Department for Transport Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020–2025 (RIS2)).
Indeed, the SA Supplementary Report Appendices (Exam 115B) still references implementing the Expressway.

B. The Forest of Marston Vale has been designated part of the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy, a network of forest conservation initiatives throughout the 53 nations of the Commonwealth2. It is one of just five sites currently designated in the United Kingdom.
C. Milton Keynes Council has published a Milton Keynes Draft Strategy for 20503 that proposes a Metropolitan Milton Keynes area that if adopted, would include the
Marston Vale. Indeed, the Marston Vale new villages are referenced throughout the draft strategy.
These have potential consequences for the assessment of the strategic allocations in Area C (East-West Corridor), which the Council has not considered in its SA.
1 “A further improvement has also been identified as part of the commitment to growth in the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, to implement a new route known as the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, linking the M40 and the M1 to create a fast and direct connection.” (page A-7) “A428 Oxford to Cambridge Expressway – The case for a strategic link to connect the cities of ‘the Brain Belt’ together has been set out following the identification that east-west links in England could benefit from improvement. The Stage 3 Report involved the assessment of the three short listed Expressway options and benefits identified were promising enough to take
them forward to the next stage of assessment. A Strategic Outline Business Case was set out for the project which concluded that the Expressway along with other transport interventions, including improved east-west rail connectivity, are critical to overcoming existing local, regional and national infrastructure deficits”. (page B-4)
2 https://queenscommonwealthcanopy.org
3 https://www.mkfutures2050.com
2A. The Expressway RIS2 states:
“We are now pausing further development of the scheme [the Expressway] while we undertake further work on other potential road projects that could support the
Government’s ambition for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc...”
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps had previously said the "benefits" of the Expressway were "finely balanced against its costs, both financial and environmental". He also said the scheme would only "proceed" if it has "local support".
4
Whilst, if I have understood the Transport Technical Paper (Exam 114) correctly, policy SA2 is not dependant on the Expressway (or a similar scheme that substantially meets the same needs/objectives), the pausing of the Expressway further weakens the Council’s
already flawed argument that it prevents the Aspley Guise SA from being progressed as a strategic allocation (ie as a reasonable alternative to policy SA2). In this regard, Exam 115 and 115B state:
“Aspley Guise This site was prevented from being allocated due to it being within the potential alignment for the Expressway. The Council was aware the route would connect at J13, meaning allocation of this site could have prejudiced its delivery. This site could only be considered once strategic decisions around infrastructure in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc were further down the line.” (page 58, Exam 115)
“Not progressed as a Strategic Allocation to allow time for identification of the proposed Expressway and associated road and junction improvements” (Table C.5
Growth Locations for Strategic Growth – Housing, Aspley Guise, Exam 115B).
One of the key benefits of the Expressway was to unlock opportunities for economic growth along the OxCam arc, so it’s something of an anomaly that it’s having the
opposite effect at the Aspley Guise SA.
The Council should have worked more closely with Highways England to ensure that opportunities for growth at Aspley Guise were maximised, similar to the approach taken by the North Essex Authorities5 for the local plan Garden Community at Marks Tey, which considered how A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening (Junctions 23 to 25) improvements could be delivered without undermining the proposed housing growth.
The A12 proposals had progressed further than those for the Expressway, but the parties signed a statement of common ground that:
“Given that a key function of the Strategic Road Network is to facilitate economic growth, Highways England has worked closely with the relevant local authorities to consider how the A12 could be delivered without undermining the proposed housing growth proposals for the Garden Community at Marks Tey. This has resulted in a further 4 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50489564
5 Braintree District Council, Colchester Borough Council, and Tendring District Council non-statutory consultation to gather public feedback on four alternative routes running between junctions 23 and 25 that could be used if the proposed garden community does go ahead. The consultation closed on 1 December 2019.”
6
Objection 2: The Council has not worked with Highways England to consider how the Aspley Guise SA could be delivered without undermining any future (but now paused) Expressway.
The Council’s actions in safeguarding the Aspley Guise SA for any future Expressway are not commendable. It is under no obligation (legal or otherwise) to safeguard land until the highway authority has served written notice (a “notification of development”) of its intention to build, alter or improve a highway7. Even then, a notification of development cannot guarantee to safeguard land for a proposed highway, it is only its aim. Can the public now understand that (if the Expressway is progressed) notwithstanding that a consultation into possible route options has yet to be undertaken, a route through the
Aspley Guise SA has been pre-selected?
2B. Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy
At a ceremony performed by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal at the Marston Vale Forest Centre on 30 July 2019, the Marston Vale Community Forest received the prestigious honour of being designated part of the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy. It is currently one of only five designated sites in the United Kingdom.
I realise that a Community Forest is about creating both sustainable communities and woodland landscapes. The two must sit in harmony, complementing each other, in order to truly realise this concept. However, the Marston Vale Community Forest now sits along some of the most prestigious, inspiring and important forests in the world.
Following the hearings last year, the Forest of Marston Vale: Forest Plan (2000) (“the Forest Plan”) (Exam 14) was added to the examination documents. It confirms that the 30% tree cover in policy SA2 is to realise the aim of providing “woodland cover”, “woodland planting” or “woodland creation” (pages 12, 17 and 22).
The Forest Plan also states that:
A. It is “a material consideration used to inform the preparation of statutory development plans” (page 8).
B. The Brickfields (policy SA2 is completely within the Brickfields, see map on page 15) needs to “secure a higher level of new planting than elsewhere in the Community Forest” (page 16), with “the core Brickfields and urban fringe zones being targeted for the highest proportion of tree planting” (page 21).
6 Braintree, Colchester and Tendring Local Plans: Section One, Examination Document SCG.017A ECC & Highways England - December 2019
7 Town and Country Planning (Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. A notification of development is not issued before the preferred route of a new highway is announced C. “expanding settlements... require substantial planting to offer landscape, wildlife, recreation and amenity benefits” and “the landscape value of larger woods will be significant when the Vale is viewed from the ridges” (page 16).
In addition, Breathing Space Creating Green Infrastructure in the Marston Vale8, which also refers to achieving “30% woodland cover” (pages 1 and 7), states:
“Existing water bodies, housing, industry and hard infrastructure mean that to achieve 30% woodland cover across the 61 square miles, 39% of the remaining land must become available for woodland creation.” (page 7)
It is clear from these two documents that:
A. The 30% tree cover is to be “woodland”;
B. The 30% woodland cover must be of the total area of the community Forest (the areas of existing water bodies, etc. are included in that calculation);
C. The highest proportion of tree planting should be in the “Brickfields [where policy SA2 is located] and urban fringe zones”;
D. The core aim of the Forest Plan will fail if 39% of the remaining land (which includes policy SA2) does not become available for “woodland” creation.
However, evidence submitted to the examination by the developer9 conflicts with this. It’s 30% calculation includes “street trees and planting within private gardens” and it calculates the site area “excluding water bodies”. It also proposes to create 69 ha of woodland “outside the development area” (had the Council intended that additional land could be utilised in achieving the overall 30% tree cover, it would have made provision for this in policy SA2).
Policy ENV1 East of England Plan10 defines the Forest of Marston Vale as “an area of landscape, ecological and recreational importance” and (along with the Milton Keynes to Bedford Waterway Park and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) as “assets of regional significance for the retention, provision and enhancement of green infrastructure” through Local Development Documents. That was before it was designated part of the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy, which must now elevate it to a landscape asset of national (if not international) “significance”.
In contrast, Aspley Guise does not form part of the Marston Vale Community Forest (or the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy).
Objection 3: Policy SA2 should acknowledge that as the site forms part of “the Brickfields” it needs “to secure a higher level of new planting than elsewhere [in the
community forest]”. Given this is a “landscape led” development and policy SA2 provides 8 http://www.communityforest.org.uk/resources/Forest_of_Marston_Vale_Breathing_Spaces.pdf
9 para 4.4 and Table 4.1 - Local Plan Examination Matter 6, Issues 1, 2, 6 & 7 Statement on behalf of O&H Properties Ltd Appendix A: (i) Marston Valley OPA Development Specification
10 https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pscd07_-_east_of_england_plan.pdf commitments that the new villages will be both “separated” and “screened” from existing settlements11, it should set ambitious targets. It should require that significantly in excess of 30% of (not a total of) the land become available for woodland creation.
Objection 4: Whilst further clarification should not be necessary, given the differing views of the parties, it would be helpful if policy SA2 clarified what is expected by “woodland cover” so that everyone understands this requirement. Strengthening this policy now will support the Council in standing resolute in achieving it. Otherwise, it risks forever destroying this asset of regional significance and of landscape, ecological and
recreational importance.
2C. Milton Keynes Draft Strategy for 2050
The Milton Keynes Draft Strategy for 205012 (MK 2050) proposes a Metropolitan Milton Keynes area that if adopted, would include the Marston Vale and Aspley Guise SAs. In particular:
Figure 4: Green infrastructure potential growth framework, shows how two new settlements could be provided in the Marston Vale13, with substantial belts of green infrastructure around existing villages and along the A421 corridor, in compliance with the Forest Plan.
Figure 6: Possible Mass Rapid Transit Network Routes, extends into the Marston Vale, to provide sustainable public transport, mitigating: (i) congestion at M1 J13 and A421 into Milton Keynes; and (ii) access coalescence with existing villages.
Whilst, policy SA2 will “deliver viable and efficient public transport routes through the development that link with key destinations...” (principle 12) the Council has yet to consult on proposals.
Figure 13: Recommended Spatial Strategy, shows the recommended strategy in this proposal.
Notwithstanding the draft status of MK 2050, or that (until I see more detailed proposals for how this development might proceed) I have concerns about the sustainability and adverse environmental effects of building 5,000 dwellings in the Marston Vale, I support its broad vision.
11 The Council’s assurance to the inspector at the examination hearing into policy SA2 on 13 June
2019 (https://cranfieldandmarstonvale.co.uk/marston-moretaine/marston-valley-discussed-athearing/)
that it was confident that separation between the villages could be achieved is unsubstantiated. The Council relied upon its “comprehensive and quite extensive masterplanning work” that is not an examination document; nor is it in the public domain. As such this aspect of policy SA2 has not been properly tested through examination. The reliance on unpublished
documents contravenes the principles of an open, fair and transparent examination.
12 https://ddd3d78e-749e-4b55-9eee-73303fdcb896.filesusr.com/ugd/
02d3f7_6179d2c547974a38ad86344e338fabdf.pdf
13 This accords with the Council’s earlier proposal to provide for “two distinct villages separated from existing settlements of Marston Moretaine & Lidlington by blue/green infrastructure” (para 8.93 Exam C31).
In these simple figures, MK 2050 has illustrated a far clearer vision for policy SA2, than the Council has been able to convey to local communities in the three years since its Reg 18 consultation.
With the detail held back for the masterplanning, many residents still have little idea what this development could look like. Until then, those who (like me) accept we need to build significantly more homes, would feel like ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ if we supported policy SA2. Without clarity, we are expected to act in good faith (potentially to our detriment) on our own interpretation and limited understanding of the Plan. As I have demonstrated, the lack of clarity has already led to conflicting interpretations by the parties regarding the 30% woodland creation14 (objection 3). A constraints map, for example, would be an invaluable start in aiding understanding.
Housing Trajectory 31 January 2020 (Exam 90) shows development commencing in 2021/2022, suggesting the Council’s proposals are in fact, far more detailed than it is currently willing to communicate to the local communities it is supposed to serve.
3. Highways - access and congestion hotspots
The Council’s current A421 upgrade - dualling the carriageway from the Eagle Farm roundabout down to M1 J13 could have easily incorporated an at-grade roundabout (this stretch of the A421 into Milton Keynes already contains two such roundabouts) to provide
direct access into the Aspley Guise SA. It is not known why the Council did not take this opportunity.
Authorisation to make the Central Bedfordshire Council (A421 widening and improvement) Compulsory Purchase Order 2017 was sought in April 201715, evidencing that by then (ie before its Reg 18 consultation in the Summer of 2017) the Council had firmly closed its mind to the Aspley Guise SA.
In comparison, for the Marston Vale SA, access onto A421 is only possible through the existing villages of Marston Moretaine and Brogborough (in conflict with the prevention of coalescence - policy SP5). Direct access onto A421 would require a new grade separated junction.
Objection 5: The Council has intentionally missed key opportunities with its A421 upgrade to bring forward the Aspley Guise SA in accordance with MKSM SRS.
Nevertheless, it is noted that “Junction 13 M1 improvement works which took place in 2007/08 were future proofed to take account of an urban extension for Milton Keynes which would include the capacity of this [the Aspley Guise SA] site, as promoted in MKSM SRS.” .
16
Tables 4.2 and 4.3 Transport Modelling Stage 1C & 1D (Exam C26) identifies M1 J13 as one of the most congested hotspots within Central Bedfordshire, scoring 9 out of 10 for 14 There are other conflicts between policy SA2 and the developer’s outline planning application that the Council will need to address, but it not appropriate to discuss these here 15 https://centralbeds.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s71627/A421%20Dualling%20M1J13%20-%20Milton%20Keynes%20Magna%20Park%20-%20CPO%202017.pdf
16 NLP463 Q.8 (critical infrastructure requirements)
congestion in the reference case 2025 (increasing to 10 out of 10 in the 2035 reference case).
It is also unclear whether the forecasting methods for determining the future operation of M1 J13 in the 2025 and 2035 forecast years (para 2.2.5 Exam 114) have factored the increase in traffic from the developments currently being built at Marston Moretaine and Wavendon, together with the approved Milton Keynes eastern expansion (Budget 2020 awarded Milton Keynes a Housing Infrastructure Fund package to support building 5,000 new homes east of the M1, as set out in Plan:MK), the former Stewartby Brickworks (Bedford Borough Adopted Local Plan), and the Rookery Pit incinerator, which when it comes online, is expected to significantly increase HGV movements in the area. All of
these developments will impact on movements at this junction.
Objection 6: It is illogical to situate the Plan’s largest housing allocation (policy SA2) and the employment allocation at Marston Gate (policy SE2) within a couple of miles of this congestion hotspot.
4. Consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Marston Vale SA
4A. Growth scenarios for Area C (East West Corridor)
In respect of the growth scenarios for Area C (East West Corridor), the SA states:
“All five scenarios include a potential new settlement at Marston Vale in Area C (5000 homes)”
17
The inspectors raised concerns (Exam 69) that the January 2018 Suitability Appraisal (Exam C31) which tested 5 Growth Scenarios for each Area, allocated 4,000 dwellings for North of Luton in all the growth scenarios for Area A (except the ‘No Development’
scenario). Therefore, the inspectors concluded that they failed to see how the SA had adequately considered reasonable alternatives for Area A.
Why in requiring the Council to consider the reasonable alternatives for Area A, have the inspectors not similarly required it to consider the reasonable alternatives for Area C?
Given that policy SA2 is the largest housing allocation in the Plan, one would similarly expect it to be fundamental that the SA thoroughly considers the reasonable alternatives to it in Area C, before concluding which is the most appropriate strategy for meeting the housing need. Until it does so, I contend the case for policy SA2 is unsound.
At no point does the Council seek the vary the scale of the proposed development at the Marston Vale SA, despite Exam C31 also noting:
“The effect of the growth on settlements will depend on the scale and design of the development proposed.
“Potential for negative effects on the predominantly rural landscape. These could be cumulative and residual effects will depend on the scale and scope of the development and how the potential impacts are mitigated.
17 Section 5, para 5.48 and Table 5.3 (Exam C31), as referred to in Table C.5 Growth Locations for Strategic Growth – Housing of (Exam 115B)
“The effect of the growth on settlements will depend on the scale and design of the development proposed.” (para 5.106)
The Council has now produced three options (with different scales of development) for each of the Arlesey, Luton North and Luton West SAs to assess, compare and contrast how scale affects the SA objectives. Why has it not completed similar assessments for the Marston Vale SA? If nothing else, I would suggest that reducing the number of homes to say 4,000 (which would be sufficient to met the housing need in Area C over the Plan period18) may potentially improve the assessment of the SA objectives (and therefore, scores), whilst further meeting the aims of woodland creation in the Forest Plan.
Objection 7: The SA fails to test how “scale” might effect “the growth on settlements” and its “residual effects”. In doing so, it fails to consider how options for smaller scale
development at Marston Vale, might mitigate the “potential negative effects on the predominantly rural [vale] landscape”. Again, without this evidence, the Council’s case that the scale of policy SA2 (5,000 dwellings) is the most appropriate strategy for meeting
the housing need in Area C, is unsound.
4B. The Aspley Guise SA
With the Aspley Guise SA being promoted in MKSM SRS and the Council being under no obligation whatsoever to safeguard it for any future (now paused) Expressway, the
assessment/ scores for this and the Marston Vale SA will be fundamental in determining which offers the best solution for meeting the housing need for Area C.
There are a number of discrepancies in the assessments/ scores of the SA objectives for these SAs (Exam 115B Appendix F) that need to be explained or resolved, as follows:
(a) SA objective 1: housing - it is unclear why the Council has used a capacity of only 3,000 dwellings for the Aspley Guise SA (the assessment states “The delivery of up to 3,000 new homes...”). This conflicts with the 5,000 dwellings put forward by the site promoters in response to the Council’s call for sites and the Council’s own assessment methodology, which arrived at a figure of 4,677 19. Perhaps the capacity has been reduced to take account of any future Expressway through the site, although this is unclear.
Objection 8: The Council has not justified how (or indeed why) its assessment has scaled back the Aspley Guise SA to 3,000 dwellings, being just under the 3,700 proposed to be delivered by policy SA2 in the Plan period. 20
(b) SA objective 3: Services and facilities: The significance criteria for this objective (table 3.3: Sites SA Framework, Exam 115) states:
“The nature and significance of the effects against this SA Objective will relate to the distance of the site from existing services/ facilities.
18 Housing Trajectory 31 January 2020 (Exam 90) provides for 3,700 homes over the plan period 19 NLP463 Q.1 provisional site capacity 20 Housing Trajectory 31 January 2020 (Exam 90)
“The Council considers key facilities/services to include schools (primary and secondary), GP surgery/medical centre & retail provision (Town Centre/ Local Centre).
“The SA assumes that larger strategic development options have greater potential for enhancements to existing provisions. However, this will not have an impact on the nature and significance of the effect against this SA Objective. This will be a consideration through the Council’s wider site assessment process.”
The assessment for Marston Vale states “These significant provisions [the new local facilities proposed in policy SA2] will support improved accessibility in this area and address existing accessibility issues, with the potential for a significant long term positive effect against SA Objective 3.”
Policy SA2 scores ++ which means the site is located within reasonable walking distance (within 800m) of all existing services and facilities (Table 3.3: Sites SA Framework, Exam 115).
Objection 9: Why does policy SA2 score ++ for services/ facilities, if it has “existing accessibility issues” (noting that the potential for the SA to enhance existing facilities
does not impact on the significance of effect against this objective)?
(c) SA objective 4: Employment opportunities - The Aspley Guise SA scored 0 for employment support on the basis that “If no employment is being proposed as part of development, as it is a housing site option, then it is considered to have a neutral effect against this SA Objective” (Table 3.3: Sites SA Framework, Exam 115).
Interestingly, it then scored + for a town centre, which will of course provide employment opportunities. Indeed, I understand that local shops, primary and secondary schools, and a GP surgery or medical centre were offered as part of this development21, offering a
number of employment opportunities.
Objection 10: In assessing a strategic allocation for housing, it is questionable to score it less favourably simply because it does not also include employment opportunities. It is unnecessarily dogmatic to require those employment opportunities to be specifically
located within the SA. That approach conflicts with the assessment methodology for other SA objectives, for example the approach to highways naturally considers the effects beyond the SA boundary (where the Marston Vale SA references the future expressway improvements, which would finish at M1 J13 and East-West Rail, which whilst passing through the SA does not actually stop there). Indeed, I thought the strategic vision for the
OxCam arc was to create homes and employment across the arc, rather than considering each allocation in isolation.
The Aspley Guise SA is particularly well situated to Milton Keynes22 and the approach taken by the developer is no different from the housing development that would 21 Site Assessment NLP463
22 The M1 lies to the north of the SA and the Bedford to Bletchley rail line to the south, forming man made boundaries to Milton Keynes at this location, putting the SA firmly in Milton Keynes, which lies to the west and forms the third side of this triangular site practically adjoin it, currently being constructed at Wavendon 23. In considering employment opportunities beyond the SA, Aspley Guise will benefit from the extensive opportunities in Milton Keynes - Magna Park, Kingston (retail and distribution), Brinklow (distribution) and the Open University, are all within three miles of this SA. These are far greater and varied than the up to 30ha of employment land being proposed in policy SA2.
One might argue that employment opportunities outside of the SA increases local traffic.
However, transport is assessed separately and to reflect on the impact of local traffic movements under “employment” would be double counting. Nevertheless, in relying on employment opportunities at Milton Keynes, the Aspley Guise SA would not impact on traffic movements at M1 J13.
Home working also appears to be increasingly popular for office based staff (not just as a result of the current COVID-19 pandemic).
(d) SA objective 11: soil (previously developed land) - The Marston Vale SA scores + for previously developed land, which in accordance with Table 3.3: Sites SA Framework, (Exam 115) means that “The majority of the site is brownfield land and will not result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land”.
However, the assessment for the SA objective states that “Development in this site will predominantly result in the loss of greenfield land with the potential for long-term
negative effects” and that “The site does not contain any previously developed land”.
Objection 11: If the Marston Vale SA does not contain any previously developed land and is predominantly greenfield, with “the potential for long-term negative effects”, why does it score + for the objective of using previously developed land?
(e) SA objective 12: Biodiversity and geodiversity - the SA assessment of the Aspley Guise SA contains conflicting information. It states:
“There are opportunities for enhancement of the biodiversity network in the local area.
“Enhancing connections between the two CWSs and Priority Habitats with the NIA through new ecological corridors and biodiversity network improvements would result in benefits for both areas. The creation of new habitat sites in and around the site option would also help improve the local biodiversity network.”
However, it concludes: “... the potential for habit fragmentation at the CWSs and Priority Habitats means an overall minor negative effect is expected” and scores -?.
23 “Development of 2,900 homes within the Parish of Wavendon with supporting infrastructure including new access roads; a secondary school, two new primary schools; playing fields and strategic open space and a landscape buffer to protect the setting of the village of
Wavendon” (Milton Keynes Strategic Land Allocation Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Adopted November 2013 - https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/
planning-and-building/planning-policy/strategic-land-allocation-development-frameworksupplementary-
planning-document-spd-adopted-november-2013)
Objection 12: How does “enhancing connections between the two CWSs and priority habitats” resulting in “benefits for both areas”, lead to the conclusion that “habitat fragmentation at the CWSs and priority habitats means an overall minor negative effect is expected”?
(f) Minerals and waste - approximately half the Marston Vale SA is in a Mineral Safeguarding Area for Oxford Clay24 and is subject to Mineral Strategic Policies MSP11 and MSP1225, which require “development proposals” to be accompanied by a Mineral Resource Assessment (MRA). In this regard, the Council’s assessment notes:
“At this stage, it is not considered that there are any significant sustainability issues within Central Bedfordshire in relation to Minerals and Waste. While development proposed through the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan will affect this topic, it is considered that these effects are unlikely to be of significance.” (Exam 115, Table 3.3: Sites SA Framework).
I was unaware that a MRA had been undertaken for the Marston Vale SA to inform that conclusion.
Objection 13: Until these discrepancies are resolved, the Council is unable to demonstrate that the Marston Vale SA is the most effective strategy for addressing the housing need in Area C and therefore, that policy SA2 is sound.
4C. Consideration of a combination of the Aspley Guise and Marston Vale SAs
The Council could also have considered dividing the housing allocation across the two SAs. This might have:
• provided greater flexibility in the masterplanning;
• enhanced opportunities for separation and screening between new and existing villages, improving settlement identities and their relationship to their surroundings;
• enabled significantly more woodland creation at Marston Vale in support of the aims of the Forest Plan;
• redistributed traffic movements at M1 J13 (access from the Aspley Guise SA into Milton Keynes would not use this junction). However, the movement of residents across the two SAs would need to be understood (eg shared employment opportunities and facilities); and
• provided opportunities to progress both sections of the Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway.
Objection 14: This option has not been tested through the Council’s SA to properly understand these opportunities. As discussed in objection 7, the one constant throughout
24 Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Councils Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies adopted January 2014 - https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/
migrated_images/policies-map-location_tcm3-2131.pdf
25 https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/migrated_images/minerals-waste_tcm3-2120.pdf
the development of the Plan, from the initial site assessments and throughout the various iterations of the SA, was that Marston Vale was always going to provide 5,000 new homes (regardless of the proposed village structure). The Council has never considered the reasonable alternatives to development scale at the Marston Vale SA.
Conclusions
A. The Council’s latest SA (Exam 115) fails to even acknowledge a number of key developments potentially affecting the strategic allocations in Area C (East-West
Corridor), let alone consider their impact.
B. The Council has been premature in safeguarding the Aspley Guise SA for the Expressway and therefore, in dismissing it as a reasonable alternative for meeting the
housing need in Area C (East-West Corridor).
C. The Council has not considered how differing scales of development in policy SA2 might affect the SA objectives and, therefore, what scale best meets its objectives.
D. The Council’s latest SA (Exam 115B) contains a number of discrepancies that need to be explained/ resolved.
E. Policy SA2 also needs strengthening to ensure future planning applications comply with the forest plan (Exam 14), by delivering at least 30% new woodland creation.
F. Until matters A to E are resolved, the Council is unable to demonstrate that policy SA2 is the most effective strategy for addressing the housing need in Area C and therefore, that the policy is sound.
Accordingly, I contend that the Aspley Guise SA is the natural and logical choice for meeting the housing needs of Area C. If the Council has justification for scaling back its assessment of the Aspley Guise SA to 3,000 dwellings (objection 8), the Marston Vale SA could then provide the remainder of the housing allocation (around 700 dwellings26) at the end of the plan period, with the Marston Vale continuing to be built out in the next plan
period. For reasons unbeknown to me, the Council: (i) disagrees with the conclusions of the MKSM SRS; and (ii) missed the opportunity to provide direct access into Aspley Guise as part of its A421 upgrade.

The conclusions (7) on the whole seem to say that the scenarios do not solve the traffic issues sufficiently. Nothing in this document convinces me that the addition of traffic lights to control traffic flows on the junction will do much to help users but will serve to infuriate drivers still further, thus causing more collisions and subsequent congestion. There needs to be a second junction ( 13 A) Also, the time scale of the works will mean the piecemeal changes will be out of date by the time they are actioned. We are not convinced that the data used from March 2018 is also relevant, as so much has already changed in the subsequent two years and five months. Since the duelling of the A421 towards Milton Keynes is not complete and thus not able to be assessed for impact and neither is the section of the M1 smart motorway due to open in 2022. There are too many unknowns in these scenarios. True data is what should be considered with so many massive demands falling on this junction if you give the go ahead to the Marston Vale housing development and SE2 development. Also the already built, but also not in use yet, Covanta, Dawson’s development and the new warehouses on the junction, which will be in use soon. Not to mention the MK expansion plans.

The diagrams illustrating the before and after scenarios show that the congestion back through our village on the C94 will be increased. This was never supposed to happen, after the opening of the new A421 in 2010 , it was expected to alleviate our traffic problems through our village permanently.

This is one of multiple submissions. The attachment letter covers all submissions. The documents are submitted against each consultation document as a separate submission SEE ATTACHMENTS
A01

This submission focusses on the related issues arising from the Hearing Sessions into Central Bedfordshire’s Local Plan and the Inspectors’ letter dated 30th September 2019. It forms the basis of Ridgmont Parish Council’s objections in relation to the soundness of Central Bedfordshire Council’s Revised Sustainability Appraisal and other documents, which are the subject of the consultation. The objection is pursuant to the allocation SE2
PLEASE SEE ALL ATTACHMENTS