2.4 J11a & M1-A6 Link Road

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Transport Technical Paper [EXAM 114]

Representation ID: 14467

Received: 10/08/2020

Respondent: Chalgrave Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

change with the Covid19 pandemic
spend money wisely
spend the money providing bike lanes and public transport
total cost has been given but it is likely to exceed £22m per mile
increased air pollution and carbon emissions, This is hypocritical and is exactly the opposite of tackling the climate emergency.

A09
P02
Object to M1-A6 Link Road: Money should be spent on more environmentally friendly schemes

Change suggested by respondent:

Scrap the plan to build the road and spend what will be scarce money on environmentally friendly things like bike lanes and public transport

Full text:

Although planning permission has been granted circumstances have changed with the Covid19 pandemic.
We need to spend money wisely and to recover by building a healthy, green and fair future for all. This means a review of spending and road building.
You should spend the money providing bike lanes and public transport
No clear estimate of the total cost has been given but it is likely to exceed £22m per mile. In the post Covid economic situation there are much better ways to spend this money
CBC is committed to responding to Climate change. This road will lead to countryside loss of trees and to increased air pollution and carbon emissions, This is hypocritical and is exactly the opposite of tackling the climate emergency.
We understand the Government inspectors have questioned the need for a new road and it seems local opposition has been ignored

Comment

Transport Technical Paper [EXAM 114]

Representation ID: 14520

Received: 10/08/2020

Respondent: CPRE Bedfordshire

Representation Summary:

A01
P02

Concerns relating to M1-A6.
Deliverabilty
Funding

Full text:

CPRE Bedfordshire would like to appear and speak at any further “Hearings in Public” should they be deemed necessary by the Inspectors in order to provide more detailed explanations of the comments we have outlined in this response.
1. Introduction
The following are CPRE Bedfordshire’s comments on Central Bedfordshire Council’s Consultation regarding their response to the questions laid out in the Inspector’s Letter to them dated 20 September 2019.
For the sake of completeness we have kept this as a single document but identified within it the relevant EXAM Documents to which our comments and objections relate.
CPRE supports a plan led system and Local Plans which provide a clear framework for sustainable housing growth and employment whilst at the same time protecting and enhancing our countryside.
Good land-use planning is the unsung hero of environmental protection. It can help slow the growth in road traffic, encourage urban regeneration, curb urban sprawl, protect the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside, and safeguard wildlife habitats.
We believe in the benefits of the Green Belt and the intrinsic value of the countryside.
Central Bedfordshire has some beautiful countryside including the northern edge of the London Metropolitan Green Belt, The Chilterns AONB and the Greensand Ridge.
It is our countryside and the “Quality of Life” enabled by it that attracts businesses and people to Central Bedfordshire and Bedfordshire as a whole.
Poorly planned and excessive development can rapidly destroy the very things that make Central Bedfordshire such a great place to live, work and do businesses.
We want the right type of development, which we can all be proud of, in the most appropriate locations which will enhance the very special character of Bedfordshire.
We have made extensive representations to CBC’s previous Local Plan 2035 Consultations on the issues detailed below and would wish to speak at any further Public Hearings should the Inspectors find them necessary.
In our previous response to the Consultation on the Pre-Submission version of the CBC Local Plan 2035 we have indicated the reasons why we consider the Local Plan 2035 to be unsound.
These reasons have not changed due to CBC’s response to the Inspector’s letter.

2. General Comments regarding CBC’s response to the Inspector’s Letter dated 20 Sept 2019 (EXAM 69)
In our view, CBC has, both in its actions since the Hearings ended, and in its response to the Inspector's letter, completely ignored and dismissed the Local Plan democratic process.
This democratic process, enables local residents of Central Bedfordshire, Town and Parish Councils, Environmental Groups, Developers, Land Owners etc. etc. to submit their views at various public consultations during the period of the Local Plan development and then finally at Public Hearings in front of Inspectors.
After hearing all the evidence from all parties, the Inspectors letter to CBC, which is the reason for this current consultation, raised serious concerns regarding many of the key strategic elements of CBC's Local Plan e.g. the need for the A6 - M1 link Road and the chosen route which is entirely in the Green Belt and which slices through the Bedfordshire Chilterns AONB, the need for SA1 North Of Luton, the huge range of development proposed for the Green Belt, the Employment Strategy and many others.
Instead of taking on board the Inspectors concerns, which in many cases reflected those of residents and other stakeholders, CBC just ploughed on regardless - effectively giving themselves planning permission for the A6 - M1 Link Road, despite widespread objections and providing planning permission for development East of Biggleswade, to give just 2 examples. We understand that there are more controversial applications in the pipeline which will be approved before the Inspectors provide their final assessment of the Local Plan.
In effect, CBC has completely ignored the democratic process which residents and other stakeholders have engaged with in good faith, relying on the process to have their cases heard fairly and independently.
What CBC has done is the complete antithesis of local democracy.
In their responses to the Inspectors letter, rather than offering change or compromise, it seems to us that CBC has simply tried to provide justification for almost every area of concern expressed by the Inspectors.

Partial Plan Review (Appendix 7)
Following the Public Hearings and the Inspector’s letter we are still unclear as whether or not the Partial Plan Review which proposed a further 20,000 new homes, has been removed from the Local Plan 2035, as we understood CBC agreed to at the Hearings in Public or, whether it remains as a Policy?
Partial Plan Review
Land West of Luton: 2,000
Land at Tempsford: 10,000+
Land East of Biggleswade: 5,000
Aspley Guise North of railway line: 3,000
Total - Partial Plan Review: 20,000 new homes
We look forward to clarity on this matter.

3. Comments on Additional Evidence (EXAM) Documents
3.1 Exam 112 Employment Technical Paper and Exam 109 Employment Land update
General
These papers reinforce our previously expressed concerns that CBC’s employment strategy is based around the easy option of attracting footloose demand from the logistics and distributions sector.
This strategy is not well founded as: -
(i) The majority of the jobs created by the sector are often low skilled and low paid.
(ii) The trend in warehousing is towards ever higher levels of automation with a subsequently reduced need for labour. So, it may be very difficult if not impossible, to achieve the employment numbers predicted.
(iii) Warehousing is an extremely inefficient user of land.
(iv) Development land within the District is scarce due to the national environmental designations such as Green Belt AOB etc. Additional and unnecessary development pressure should not be placed on these areas of the District
(v) Logistics activity will increase the level of HGV freight movements by road into and out of the sites placing further pressure on the primary road network which is already at or above maximum capacity levels
(vi) Increasing traffic will increase air pollution.
Exam 112 and 109 reinforce these concerns.
In response to (ii) and (iii) above paras 3.2.18 – 3.2.21 of Exam 109 highlight that the employment and site densities previously used when assessing these types of use are now out of date. Employment densities are much lower – the new Lidl warehouse in Central Bedfordshire is expected to provide a ratio of 1 worker per 125sq m (the previous HCA guidance was 1:77sq m).
The use of land is also becoming even less efficient – often with 30% site coverage as opposed to the previous 40% norm.
The documents highlight that CBC are now facing a shortage of true employment land as they have allowed this footloose demand to locate on what was previously proposed non warehousing employment sites.
Rather than try and address this balance and encourage new innovative employment opportunities to thrive and locate to Central Beds, CBC’s proposals are to further remove employment opportunities such as RAF Henlow and allocate more land for strategic warehousing including more land within the Green Belt at North Luton.
This is not strategic long-term planning but a knee jerk reaction to short term market demand.

6.4 Marston Gate Policy SE2
We have commented under Exam 115 that CBC’s assessment of whether to allocate land for strategic warehousing or not does not support the proposed allocation at Marston Gate. In addition, the SA ignores any negative impacts on the land at Marston Gate.
In table 4.3 and 5.3 of Exam 115 there is no recognition of the impact of Landscape (which is shown as positive) and Historic Environment (neutral) despite all the information CBC now has on this site.
It is only as a result of this inaccurate assessment that this site is deemed in para 5.67 in Exam 115 to be one of the best performing.
There is still therefore little justification for this allocation. Our previous comments and comments above highlight our strong concerns for CBC’s employment strategy which underpins this allocation on such a sensitive site.
We have also noted that rather than address the Inspectors’ concerns on this allocation themselves and commission an independent expert to assess this, CBC has continued to use the applicant’s professional team to justify overriding the serious design and landscape issues surrounding this allocation.
This is not an impartial approach.
We do not consider that the additional evidence has addressed the concerns or justified this allocation.
Para 6.3.27 – 6.3.29 A6 – M1 Link Road
CBC state in these paragraphs that:
“The Council has recently granted full permission for this road (January 2020). As such the issues raised within EXAM 69 in terms of the alignment of the road are no longer applicable. Further details on this can be found within the Transport Technical Paper (EXAM 114).”
Surely this cannot be the case? - The issue does not go away simply because CBC has granted planning permission - in this case, in effect, to themselves.
The matter of the alignment of the road is still very much a live issue.
It will slice through the southern edge of the nationally important Bedfordshire Chilterns AONB, is entirely within the Green Belt and will adversely impact 2 “ancient” woodlands (planted before 1600).
CBC has still not provided evidence that it has properly investigated alternative routes.

3.2 Exam 113 Housing Technical Paper & Exam 115 Sustainability Appraisal of the CBC Local Plan – Supplementary Report
Housing Numbers
Exam 115 continues to be fundamentally flawed, by CBC’s intention to accommodate the unnecessarily high growth figures and housing numbers. As stated in our previous evidence we believe these figures are way in excess of what CBC should be planning for in the future and therefore what needs to be accommodated within the Local Plan.
We welcome the Inspectors’ request that CBC consider the most up to date ONS household projections and the impact that this will have on the housing numbers within the Local Plan.
CBC have only just published their response on this issue, and we have not had the opportunity to review this in detail before the submission date of these representations. From an initial read of the documents CBC appear to be using technical arguments to justify the continuing use of their inflated assumptions, particularly relating to Luton’s unmet need. We assume these assertions will be tested fully by the Inspectors.
CBC’s whole rational for Green Belt Release is based on the need to accommodate these housing numbers, and the proposed allocation at Luton North is justified by the agreement to meet Luton’s unmet need. We do not consider that decisions can be made on either of these issues until an agreed position is reached with the Inspectors on housing numbers including the quantum of Luton’s unmet need.

Methodology
We note that CBC has tested further growth scenarios however a number of these Options are based on unrealistic assumptions and we would question the conclusions reached based on this Option testing. In particular the options which assume that the land North of Luton can accommodate 4,000 homes when it was quite clear from the Inquiry and admitted by CBC that this is not the case.
In addition, a wide range of housing units are adopted for Houghton Regis North, some of which are unrealistically low when again these numbers should be clear as these are already housing commitments
Surely sound Option testing should be based on realistic and achievable alternatives

Green Belt Issues
Exam 115 continues to understate and underplay the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt and as such its importance is not reflected in the recommendations and conclusions. Green Belt considerations continue to only features as a subset in 1 of CBC’s 14 Strategic Objectives
The documents still provide no justification as to why CBC have ignored National Planning policy which states that the Green Belt should have been considered as a constraint when setting housing targets.
We are pleased to note that following the Inspectors clear recommendations CBC have agreed to remove 6 of the proposed allocations within the Green Belt.
This still however leaves the proposed release of over 380ha of Green Belt land for housing and over 60 ha for employment.
In removing these allocations CBC has admitted, despite having been through the various steps leading to their initial allocation, CBC were not able to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to remove these allocations from the Green Belt. In addition, CBC have also admitted that in some cases they had not fully researched the deliverability of certain sites.
This does not provide any confidence in CBC’s allocation process.
CBC’s explanation for the exceptional circumstances justifying their proposals to release land from the Green Belt are set out in their Green Belt Topic paper dated April 18. In this they justify Green Belt Release through a combination of requirements:
i. To satisfy the overall housing numbers,
ii. Location of sites (close to Luton to meet their unmet need) and
iii. Sustainability issues.
The Topic Paper states in respect of (iii) sustainability issues that “Development within the Green Belt will also bring its own site-specific advantages such as improved infrastructure provision such as schools, roads, healthcare etc”.
However, Exam 115 in considering the benefits of the various growth options, identified the poorest performing options were Option 3 (village extensions) and Option 4 (growth around strategic roads).
Many of the small and medium allocations within the Green Belt are these poorest performing options- village extensions. In many cases they represent significant increases in the built form of these historic settlements and there is no evidence to support the claim that this extra housing will act as a catalyst for additional physical and social infrastructure. They will just add to the pressure on what few facilities already exist.
We fail to understand how these allocations will enable the advantages outlined in CBC’s justification for Green Belt release particularly as evidenced in EXAM 115 they are the poorest performing Option of all the proposed scenarios tested by CBC.
Neither Exam 113 or Exam 115 document makes any effort to consider the various alternatives we have suggested previously to accommodate additional housing without the need to release land from the Green Belt.
In particular we have highlighted the lack of development at Houghton Regis North.
Despite planning permission being given in 2014 and the land being withdrawn from the Green Belt by order of the SoS because he was told by CBC that the new homes were "desperately needed". And, despite the investment of £200m of tax payers money in new road infrastructure completed in 2017 (A5-M1 Link Road and the Woodside Link Road). According to CBC's latest Housing Trajectory (updated Feb 2020) just 50 homes will be constructed during 2020/21 and just 110 new homes will be built in 2021/22.
Over the entire Plan period only 2,828 new homes will be delivered (at a rate of 200 a year) out of the 5,000 planned. This will have taken CBC 21 years to achieve!!
With this as background, it is completely unacceptable that CBC now seeks to withdraw even more land from the Green Belt in order to construct 3,100 new homes at SA1 North of Luton which will require an new Road (A6 - M1 Link Road) which is also entirely in the Green Belt and which will slice through the edge of the Bedfordshire Chilterns AONB.
In our view CBC should be compelled to build-out HRN1 as quickly as possible before Inspectors even consider releasing any further Green Belt land for housing development.
The Inspector of Luton's Local Plan said that HRN1 was the best site to build Luton's additional housing need.
In conclusion, CPRE Bedfordshire fails to see how CBC can justify any “exceptional circumstances” for removing land from the Green Belt. One of CBC’s key priorities within the Strategic Assessment which underpins the Local Plan is to maintain and enhance community and settlement identities.
This was the very reason the Green Belt was established and should remain.

Retention of Harlington Allocation
We are disappointed to note that CBC have not taken the Inspectors’ advice and deleted the Green Belt allocation at Harlington. Others will be making more detailed representations on this however we believe the main reasons this allocation should not remain are:-
• The site would be separated from the village by the railway line (dysfunctional as a village) and would expand towards the Toddington motorway services so reducing the existing gap. This is unsustainable development which will not be supported by services within the village. As previously identified these services were exaggerated during the site assessment process to justify this allocation and identify Harlington as a Minor Service Centre. It is worth noting that since this assessment was carried out the closure of two businesses has reduced that provision further due to the impact of Covid 19. Given the separation from the village and its position on Toddington Road, it is more likely that residents would access the far wider provision of services in either Flitwick or Toddington itself.
• The access to the site and the identified Safer Route to School cannot be made safe by the proposals put forward by the developers, as the measures are not considered deliverable or sufficient. It is not possible to widen footpaths over the railway bridge on Toddington Road or under the bridge on Westoning Road without narrowing already narrow roads (which are unlit) and this could only provide a footpath of sorts to one side of the road. No safe cycling routes are possible and proposed traffic calming measures to address the blind bends on Toddington Road would urbanise this ‘countryside’ entrance to the village Conservation Area and make it unsafe.
• The developer does not own the Green Belt land required to connect the site to Westoning Road via a footpath/cycle path which could not be lit.
• The Increase in housing density to accommodate the school within the site and the proposed number of homes, would be out of character and urbanising on this Green Belt site. It would also result of loss of green spaces within it and be inappropriate and increase the impact on the landscape.
• The site is not directly connected to Luton and therefore against Highways England’s policy to avoid hop on hop off journeys on this stretch of the M1. The M1 is already running at 120% capacity and set to increase to 150% with the addition of allocations in the Local Plan (HRN1 and 2), and not including the other proposals for Green Belt village extensions that would access the M1 at J12 via the A5120 and new allocations of land for warehousing at J11a.
• Nearby Flitwick is being developed as a Transport Hub and has funding for step free access – Harlington has no step free access. NWR were not consulted prior to the inclusion of Harlington in the allocations for the LP, it is therefore unlikely that this has been taken into consideration in forward plans. Not all trains stop at Harlington Station and given the status of nearby Flitwick Station, this is unlikely to change as it would lead to a drop in journey times.

Land North of Luton and M1 A6 link
The documents assume that because this road now has planning permission it will be delivered. This is not the case.
We have commented under EXAM 112 (see pages 4 & 5) on CBC’s assertions that now they have granted themselves planning permission the issues relating to alignment are no longer applicable which is quite clearly not the case.
Of equal concern is whether CBC can fund and deliver the road. Funding for the road is to be provided through a combination of SEMLEP Growth area Funds (£32.75m) and contributions from the developers of the proposed Luton North development and the Sundon RFI. We assume CBC will have to cashflow the project for the time between construction and receiving the developers’ contribution. This will be a significant and risky financial commitment particularly in the current uncertain climate when Local Authority’s funding is under severe pressure.
There are several issues which seriously challenge deliverability of the road and call into question whether it will be built.
Based on information provided by CBC in response to an FOI request we are aware that: -
i. CBC still need to obtain approval from Department for Transport to the Full Business Case for the project before it can be confirmed. This is due to be submitted in November of this year.
ii. A condition of SEMLEP’s Funding is that is must be spent by March 2021. Quite clearly this will not now happen, and no extension has yet been given to this deadline.
iii. The costs of the project are still not known despite CBC having issued a tender for the construction contract. CBC confirmed the construction costs were £64.6m in July 2019 however these have increased and now need to include the costs of mitigations works to J11A, and extensive additional drainage solutions which would involve cross border issues and agreement with Thames Water.
iv. There is no agreement in place with either the developers of the land North of Luton or Sundon RFI on the extent of contributions or certainty over if and when these developments will happen.
v. CBC will need to be responsible for any cost overruns and any shortfall between the cost of the road and the contributions received together with the on- going maintenance costs.
Assuming the SEMLEP funding is granted an extension (and this is not yet confirmed) CBC could therefore be left in the position of having to fund either in the medium or long term a significant cost relating to the Road which we have not seen any evidence they have either the approval or funds to do so.

Employment Strategy Options (section 4)
We note CBC have carried out an assessment of the two Options of either allocating land for footloose demand for Strategic Warehousing or making no allocation.
The conclusions from this do not support the proposed allocations at either Marston Gate or Sundon RFI.
Para 4.41 of Exam115 states:
“The effects of Option 1 on the environmental SA objectives are generally negative. Because strategic warehousing developments are usually large in scale, they can be prominent features in the landscape and any adverse effects on the landscape and cultural heritage, in particular, may be difficult to mitigate.
The nature of these developments also means that they are likely to be located close to the main roads, with many employees likely to travel to work via car with the associated impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the negative effects are uncertain until the location and design of sites are known, and mitigation proposals are detailed. As the effects at this strategic level of assessment are so uncertain, it is difficult to conclude whether the social and economic benefits of warehouse sites could outweigh the potential negative effects.”
We fail to understand why having highlighted the potential strong negative impacts of strategic warehousing CBC then allocate 2 highly sensitive sites (one of which is within the Green Belt) for this use, knowing full well the impacts this will have. This is not a sound basis for future policy making.
Whilst Exam 115 does highlight the negative impacts of an allocation at Sundon Rail Freight Interchange, which along with three other sites, has the largest number of significant negative effects associated with any one site, it ignores any negative impacts on the land at Marston Gate. In table 4.3 and 5.3 there is no recognition of the impact of Landscape (which is shown as positive) and Historic Environment (neutral) despite all the information CBC now has on this site. It is only as a result of this inaccurate assessment that this site is deemed in para 5.67 to be one of the best performing.
Section 5 of EXAM 15 sets out CBC’s reason for decision making and proposes the retention of the Marston Gate, based on its performance within the SA and the completely inadequate mitigation measures which have been proposed by the applicant and not independently assessed by CBC. This is not a sound impartial decision.

Marston Vale
We remain of the opinion that this proposal is an example of excessive over development with far too many homes planned for the site.
It is entirely within the Forest of Marston Vale which was created to deliver environmentally led regeneration of the area. CBC does not appear to have taken into account material changes since the Local Plan was submitted in 2018.
The additional evidence is silent on changes the Plan should address including: the latest ONS projections of population growth which are much lower than they were in 2018; the adoption by Milton Keynes of its Local Plan which includes development east of the M1; and the Government’s decision to abandon the commitment to the East West Expressway which undermines the justification for development on the proposed scale in Marston Vale.
Marston Vale is assessed as ‘strongly positive’ on sustainable transport.
Building 5,000 houses would more than double the number of car journeys which begin and end here.
‘Sustainable’ transport means that strategic and local roads can cope with the increased traffic and moving people out of cars and onto public transport, cycling or walking. There is nothing in the additional evidence which would support that happening.
There is insufficient weight given to the designation of this site as part of the Community Forest of Marston Vale which functions effectively as a valued environmental amenity and an important contribution to managing climate change.
The Plan involves delivering 25% of the overall need for development from Marston Vale on the grounds that it is located along a strategic route despite the decision to abandon the East West Expressway and ignoring sites on the A6 – M1 – A5 strategic route which has planning permission and is committed to delivery.
It also involves the permanent loss of AONB, green belt and community forest land whilst ignoring opportunities to develop options for expanding existing towns in Area D with access to existing facilities

3.3 Exam 107 Sundon RFI
The proposed RFI is not a Strategic RFI as agreed by CBC, who also admit this site is being provided for the footloose logistics sector. We would draw your attention to Exam30 letter from NWR dated June 2019 in relation to the freight capacity on this line. Given its proposed size and the sensitive nature of the site adjacent to an SSSI and Country Wildlife Site, and the fact that the small RFI itself is unlikely to take substantial freight off the road, there is no justification for GB release as the very special circumstances required have not been demonstrated. This site is also dependent on the construction of the M1 A6 Link through Green Belt, and across the Chiltern Hills AONB, and so the very special circumstances ‘bar’ should be set very high indeed.
CBC are relying on the developers themselves to justify this site as the only one suitable but, apart from the obvious lack of objectivity, this ignores the fact that this site was originally considered as an alternative to the permissioned site at Radlett St Albans, where it has been reported work has now begun. The distance between these sites is negligible in freight transport terms.
Recently what was intended to be a multi-use employment site on land removed from the Green Belt as part of HRN1, has been given planning permission for the sole use of a large Lidl warehouse creating thousands more freight journeys – 2 smaller warehouses have been added on Sundon Road and further warehousing is planned for the North of Luton Urban extension site.
The impact of this additional warehousing on the M1 and J11a and the proposed Link road to the A6, had not been considered when formulating the Local Plan and the proposals for the RFI and warehousing at Sundon Quarry.
These elements of the Local Plan had not been revisited in the lights of changes that have happened since their inception many years ago. Instead the justification has been retrofitted into the LP relying on evidence that has exceeded its sell by date.

EXAM30 Link - https://centralbedfordshire.app.box.com/s/2l2bfd3jh16882klx8vu1391m8g1f4dx/file/560430125059
3.4 Exam 108 Biggleswade Holme Farm
CPRE Bedfordshire are both disappointed with the retention of the strategic warehousing and dismayed at the suggestion that the size of the development is to increase by some 17ha in an open countryside setting with wide ranging views from the A1 travelling North.
The footprint of the proposed development is so vast it would dominate the Southern approach to Biggleswade as well as extending the Town Westwards into open countryside establishing an urban sprawl. It is difficult to understand how any form of landscaping mitigation can be deployed given the size and volume of warehousing structures. Should there be a “real” need to provide and increase warehousing off the A1 a more sensitive and lower cost impact alternative would be to extend the existing Stratton Park Industrial Zone to the East of Biggleswade thus focusing on building out in an Eastwards direction along with other major developments currently being considered. Transportation and access to the Stratton Park Zone is already established and can be extended at a lower cost than erecting a costly footbridge across the A1 to provide access to the services and facilities at Stratton Park for the employees in the proposed warehouse campus.
CPRE Bedfordshire maintain their viewpoint that Policy SE3 is not justified due to its harmful impact on the landscape character and setting of the area West and South of Biggleswade. We propose the lower cost alternative of providing Warehousing capacity if required should be fully explored.

3.5 Exam 110 North Luton LVIA
For reasons previously stated we remain opposed to this allocation. This document is yet again an example of the land promoter’s trying to increase the density of this allocation by impacting on and developing one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the site. It is not an impartial and independent analysis of this key green belt site.

Attachments:

Object

Transport Technical Paper [EXAM 114]

Representation ID: 14522

Received: 11/08/2020

Respondent: Chalton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

A01
P02

Query transport modelling around M1 Junctions and roads and cumulative impact of Sundon RFI and other nearby employment development.

Full text:

Re Central Bedfordshire Council Draft Plan Submission – Sundon Rail Freight Interchange.
Chalton Parish Council (CPC) have reviewed the further information submitted with the Draft Plan and with regard to the Sundon Rail Freight Interchange (RFI) wish to express their opposition to this Plan.
In their response to the supporting documentation first submitted with the Draft Plan the Inspectors commented in EXAM69 that the Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt (GB) the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and once established the GB boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. They expressed their concern about the absence of robust evidence to justify the exceptional circumstances necessary to alter the Green Belt boundary at Sundon.
In their reply CBC have sought to justify that their approach is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for promoting sustainable transport, including large scale facilities such as Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI’s). CBC have additionally supplied a report (EXAM 107 and 107A) titled “Sundon Rail Freight Interchange Alternative Site Assessment” prepared by Litchfields. We understand that this report was bought and paid for by the developer Prologis. Accordingly it presents a view which is only in favour of this development.
Regrettably CBC have in their attempt to justify the Sundon RFI ignored the many negative aspects of this development and have not considered its impact on Chalton village, Chalton Parish and indeed the surrounding area.
2
RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE
CBC in EXAM 112 Employment Technical Paper section 6.3.3 report that the NPPF requires strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including large scale facilities such as RFI’s.
The Sundon RFI which due to its small scale would not be classed as a strategic site should be seen not as a standalone site, but in the wider context of its location and contribution to the strategic rail network. There are within a radius of 40 miles three much larger strategic
RFI’s which are currently being constructed, or for which Planning permission has now been granted. They are
1. Northampton Gateway. Located by M1 Junction 15, 32 miles to the North. This facility of 46.8Ha will accept 16 freight trains per day.
2. Daventry International. Located by M1 junction 18, 40 miles to the North. This facility of 174Ha will accept 32 freight trains per day.
3. Radlett. Located close to the M1 and M25 motorways 25 miles to the South. This facility of 30Ha will accept 12/14 freight trains per day.
The Radlett strategic RFI will attach to the Midland Main Line as would the Sundon RFI.
By comparison the developer has said that the proposed Sundon RFI could accept 4 freight trains per day. The Sundon site is also constrained by the surrounding hills and cannot in the future be expanded, in comparison to the other sites which we understand have scope for
expansion, a requirement of the National Policy Statement for National Networks 2014 (NPS).
The Northampton and Radlett RFI’s are both reported as being capable of supplying the Milton Keynes and London areas and by inference are ideally located, as well as having the size and scale to economically supply the Luton / Dunstable area.
CBC has throughout their submission amplified what they regard as the benefits of Sundon as an RFI. Without the RFI the Sundon site becomes just another warehouse development which on its own could not outweigh the environmental policies and the necessity to show the very special circumstances necessary for the construction of such developments in the Green Belt.
We are concerned that should the Draft Plan allow this development any developer will find it financially expedient to construct the warehousing before going to the expense of building the RFI. Such a developer could then not unreasonably suggest that the other nearby larger strategic sites being more economic to operate render the Sundon RFI uneconomic to build. The NPS reports that we quote “The increasing performance and efficiency required of our logistics system would not allow reliance on an expanded network of smaller terminals.
While there is a place for local terminals, these cannot provide the scale economies, operating efficiencies and benefits of the related business facilities and linkages offered by SRFI’s.” In this respect the Sundon RFI site must be considered in its close proximity to three larger and better connected strategic RFI’s.
3
The Radlett and Sundon RFI’s would together be serviced by some 16/18 freight trains per day from the four line Midland Mainline Railway (MMR). As many local residents know this is a major commuter line into London and the South Coast. There are four commuter trains
per hour using the two slow tracks between 05:00 and 21:00 hours and two or three trains per hour through the night in each direction. In addition to these commuter trains there are long distance passenger trains which utilise the two fast tracks and which stop only at main
stations. Some long distance freight principally ballast, bulk cement and heavy fuel oil is also carried on these lines.
The control and transfer of a 775m long freight train into and out of two separate and independent sidings some 36 times per day will take time, with the likelihood of
considerable interference and disruption to the passenger traffic. There will therefore be a preference for such movements to take place in the evenings and early hours of the morning, the noise of which will be clearly heard in Chalton village.
The potential for passenger numbers having to be reduced in order to accommodate this rail freight traffic cannot be ignored. The uncertainty as to whether the current timetable could be altered to accommodate the 16/18 daily freight trains which would run on the MMR
must be considered.
The Secretary of State in his reasons for the refusal of the second Howbury appeal gave significant weight to this and also pointed out that overall this would conflict with the aims of a number of Development Plan policies that seek to minimize any adverse impact on the wider transport network and safeguard or improve public transport services. We believe this is particularly relevant as the NPS reports that there will be a considerable growth in passenger traffic in the next 10 years which demonstrates the scale of pressure facing the rail network. We understand that at times there are already passengers in excess of capacity on these lines.
EFFECT ON LOCAL ROADS AND AIR QUALITY
EXAM 112 section 6.5.5 highlights the decongestion of the roads as a particular benefit.
Unfortunately CBC does not mention the 6,400 vehicles that the developer has said will access the Sundon RFI site each day.
Although CBC have not specifically mentioned the considerable increase and unacceptable impact of the air pollution that will result from this increase in traffic they have identified this land as having individual attributes which reduces its appropriateness to meet this demand. We quote EXAM 112 6.2.11
“Land East of Junction 11A & North of the Vauxhall Plant is identified within the SA as having significant negative effects in relation to the Green Belt as well as in relation to SA Objective 6 in that development could intensify air quality issues at the AQMA on the M1 at Luton. The
SA also identified that development would impact upon the identity of a nearby hamlet which is part of Chalton. Overall, the SA identified that this was one of the sites that performed least well”
4
In the second Howbury appeal the Secretary of State agreed that substantial harm to the GB would carry significant weight against the scheme. He also agreed that where there is adverse impact to the landscape and also adverse visual impact that these would also attribute significant harm to the scheme.
As we have already mentioned it is important that the Sundon RFI is considered not in isolation but examined in its contextual relationship to other facilities in the surrounding area. There are in the immediate (within 2Km) area the following warehouses, all of which are within the Chalton Parish boundary.
1. Vauxhall (Spare Parts) 90,000m2
2. Panattoni Park, two warehouses, one currently not let 35,000m2 and one 5,000m2
(electrical parts supplier)
3. Lidl Supermarkets 120,000m2, Planning permission granted, construction planned to begin in 2021. When operating, this warehouse will be accessed by 625 lorries each day and employ some 700 people.
There are in addition two adjacent industrial areas which lie just within the Luton Town boundary.
1. Camford Way, approximately 38Ha
2. A smaller Toddington Road industrial area, approximately 12Ha.
The addition of the 45 Ha Sundon RFI warehousing (if permitted) will result in the creation of a 120Ha warehousing / industrial area.
We have not included the further 20Ha which will be released for development when the M1-A6 link road is completed, nor the large and currently empty warehouse located by the Thorn Turn on the A5.
All the traffic from this large area of warehousing and industry together with the increase from the proposed A6 link road will access the M1 Motorway via Junction 11A.
As far as we are aware no local transport model has been prepared which will show not only the impact of the Sundon RFI, but as we have detailed above, the significant number of other projects which will shortly come on line or are planned. Without this analysis there
remains considerable uncertainty about the impact of the traffic produced by these projects.
Although it has been in operation for only a few years, junction M1 11A, due to its poor accident record and design configuration requires significant revision to cope with the substantial increase in traffic that will access the M1 following the completion of the A6 link road. Added to this will be the 6,400 vehicles per day from the RFI warehousing, should the Green Belt boundary be allowed to change. There will be a further estimated 2,000 vehicles per day from the already permitted developments leading to an additional 8,400 vehicles
per day accessing junction 11A and or using local roads.
The changes to this junction are only verbally described by CBC. There are unfortunately at this stage no published drawings which would allow a visual judgement of the magnitude and scale of the upgrading which is required.
5
Whilst CBC in EXAM 6.3.9 highlight the positive of taking freight traffic off the roads, they fail to either mention, consider or prepare for the negative effects of the substantial increase in traffic this will bring into this already congested area.
CBC highlight the savings in pollution resulting from four rail freight trains but avoid mentioning the resultant significant increase in local air pollution which is misleading.
We believe there have been no comprehensive studies on the increased air pollution and detrimental effect on the health of the local community that will result from the
introduction of so much additional traffic into a local area and onto a single motorway junction. It is therefore difficult to see how this development meets objective 5 of improving the health and wellbeing of communities. It can be foreseen given the projected increase in the volume of traffic and consequent significant increase in air pollution that the effect will not be positive but negative.
LOSS OF AND DAMAGE TO THE GREEN BELT
As the Inspectors have pointed out exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated before a GB boundary is changed and or land is released from the GB. CBC has attempted to show that these circumstances exist by amplifying the benefits of the Sundon RFI element and by minimising the negative effects on the surrounding GB.
CBC has in regard to the GB made several claims which we find difficult to comprehend.
In EXAM 112 6.3.8 they claim that as the site is we quote
“The site is also identified as being within, or in close proximity to, areas of the strategic green infrastructure network, therefore supporting improved links to the strategic green infrastructure network which could provide employees at the sites with access to open space and recreational areas. This is considered to be a significant positive effect.”
In EXAM 112 6.3.22 they claim that the site in general terms occupies a visually contained context with land form variations and nearby woodland and mature planting that in visual terms has the capacity to assimilate a well framed design.
CBC comment in EXAM 112 6.3.24 that whilst the site is in close proximity to a SSSI site an area of Priority Habitat and a Country Wildlife Site (CWS) there is the potential for minor negative effects. They continue we quote, “However, the SA also identifies that the employment area has the potential to provide enhancements to the local biodiversity through the creation of new areas of habitat as well as ecological corridors which could be used to link isolated areas of Priority Habitat to the south and east, with benefits for local wildlife movement.”
CBC together with Luton Borough Council prepared a joint GB study in 2016/7. In the study Plan Fig 3.1 Stage 1 Assessment of Central Bedfordshire Green Belt – Parcels and Broad Areas shows that parcels HR1/2 and L1/2 which run from the A5 to the North Hertfordshire
border form a green corridor which separates Dunstable, Houghton Regis and Luton from areas A and B to the North where there is permitted urban extension in the GB.
The Sundon RFI and 45Ha of warehousing would cut into this green corridor practically separating it into two unconnected blocks, destroying the integrity of its essential continuity.
It is therefore difficult to see how a vast 45Ha block of warehousing can provide any of the benefits which have been claimed by CBC.
The GB as shown in the drawing follows the distinctive chalk hills and escarpment which provide viewpoints from which the landscape can be appreciated. The GB study assesses these areas as having strong contributions in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Visual appearance is a key factor and CBC make the claim that as the area in which the proposed development will be built is both generally flat and as it is well screened it will be mostly hidden.
Again the facts do not support this claim. An Ordnance Survey map shows that the profile of this area rises from 105m by the M1 in the West to 125m in the East where it meets the old quarry boundary and to 135m in the South as it rises to meet the Sundon Road.
The screening mentioned by both CBC and Litchfields is an 850m long avenue of some 320 mature Poplar trees. Regrettably the indicative drawings all show that this magnificent and impressive avenue would be cut down in order to provide space for warehousing.
Whilst some trees would remain they would offer only partial screening and both the RFI and warehousing will be clearly seen from Chalton. Floodlighting, noise and fumes from the development will be both seen, heard and carried to Chalton where they will have a significant adverse affect.
The development is of such a scale and in a position where it would be seen from a considerable distance. It will be seen from Toddington and also from the surrounding areas where it will interrupt and visually adversely affect the continuation of the GB.
CBC has ignored the Chiltern Way which passes directly through the centre of this development. This long distance walking path designed by the Chiltern Society follows a route to highlight the ANOB’s and the best features of this historic landscape. Should the development be allowed the path will require a major diversion from the chalk escarpment which it follows in this area.
The planned warehousing boundary will be directly contiguous with the disused Sundon quarry and whilst this site suffers to some degree from the attention of off road bikers it is nevertheless a SSSI and carries the protection that offers.
There is significant ecological content in this large complex of disused chalk pits which support a mosaic of habitats including chalk grassland, chalk springs, lakes and developing woodland.
7
It is the home to sixteen breeding species of dragon and damsel fly, the protected Great Crested Newt, and twenty four species of butterfly. It is also home to rare species of plant and is suspected to have the largest national colony of the rare Chiltern Gentian.
There has been no statement on biodiversity and geological conservation as required by the NPS. It can be clearly seen that noise, vibration, area lighting and air born pollutants emanating from the warehousing will have a considerable adverse affect on this valuable
nature reserve.
There is a presumption in the NPPF that land in the GB should not be used for development and that other sources of land should be sought wherever possible. Where development is planned it must be shown that very special circumstances exist. Whilst the Government
support strategic RFI’s they recognise that the smaller RFI’s such as that proposed for Sundon cannot economically meet the demand. As the Sundon site does not meet the criteria for a strategic RFI it does not in our opinion meet the criteria to justify very special circumstance.
EFFECT ON WATER RESOURCES
The NPS states that Government Policies make clear that the Planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by amongst other things preventing both new and existing development from contributing to, or being put at
unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by water pollution.
The chalk underlying this section of the GB is a valuable source of underground water which is being increasingly utilised. Anglian Water report that 50% of our water comes from underground sources. The NPS recognises that infrastructure development can have adverse
effects on the water environment including ground water particularly form the risk of spills and leaks of pollutants. These effects could lead to adverse impacts on health or on protected species and habitats with the resulting failure in surface waters and ground waters failing to meet environmental objectives.
There has been no study on the potential of this development to adversely affect the nearby source of the river Flit.
CONCLUSION
There are contradictions in assessments put forward by CBC. On one hand they say that the Sundon RFI will reduce pollution and not affect the GB whilst on the other hand in EXAM 6.2.11 they say that the SA has identified this area as performing least well due to its significant effect on the GB. They additionally reported that it could also intensify air quality issues and the impact on the local community. Chalton Parish Council considers that these factors provide such significant adverse weight against the Sundon RFI that the development should not be allowed.
8
CBC has in our opinion not shown that broadly similar benefits could be obtained from alternative non GB sites.
We trust that the information we have provided will allow the Inspectors to fully assess the impact and damage which the Sundon RFI would cause not only to our community but also the surrounding area.

Attachments:

Object

Transport Technical Paper [EXAM 114]

Representation ID: 14749

Received: 12/08/2020

Respondent: Chilterns Conservation Board

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

A01
P10
M1-A6 link not justified by the additional evidence. Retrospectively applied and will have a negative effect on the AONB. Not a sustainable policy and foe snot comply with the NPPF.

The proposals for the North of Luton expansion and its inextricably related M1-A6 link road are not justified by the “additional evidence” which is clearly being applied retrospectively to decisions already made by the Council. The proposals in this area, even reduced in scale to 3,100 homes (although the fatally flawed ‘Eastern Bowl’ proposal as worded enables a larger development) will definitely have major negative impacts on the Chilterns AONB setting, even though the Sustainability Appraisal demonstrates that there are other sites with similar benefits that could be used and not cause harm to the AONB. The proposals are neither sustainable nor do they comply with NPPF policy or the section 85 duty in the CROW Act 2000.

Change suggested by respondent:

As set out above, the Plan includes proposals that will cause unnecessary harm to the Chilterns AONB and its setting that are not justified by the Council’s SA/SEA – hence the proposals fail the NPPF para 172 test for major development in an AONB without being able to demonstrate an over-riding public interest or a lack of suitable alternatives. The Council has not demonstrated compliance with its duty under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard to both protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB area.
Policy SA1 and the M1-A6 link road must be removed from the Plan and replaced either with an alternative site in a less damaging location, or the combination of that and a much-reduced proposal that takes positive account of its location in the setting of the Chilterns AONB, including a link-road of a reduced scale within the site, and a suitably landscaped natural buffer zone between the development and the AONB boundary.
If this option is not selected, then the current proposal for a development of (not more than) 3,100 homes may be acceptable, if the potential for “additional” development in the Eastern Bowl is removed, and clarity given that the design of the whole site must take careful account of its location in and adjacent to the AONB, and seek opportunities for its enhancement. At the very minimum, we would expect a requirement for a suitably landscaped buffer and an expectation that design of the scheme should accord with the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide.
The Chilterns Conservation Board was established in 2004 under the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to promote the conservation and enhancement of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and increase the understanding and enjoyment by the public of the special qualities of the AONB. Our full involvement in matters relating to the strategic planning of the AONB is essential to these objectives.

Full text:

The Chilterns Conservation Board would like to highlight our previous submissions on the Central Beds Local Plan. We understand that these will continue to be taken into account by the Council and the Inspectors in the consideration of the soundness of the local plan.
Our opposition to the North of Luton development area (policy SA1 etc) and the associated M1-A6 link road is maintained in the context of the additional evidence.
Fundamentally, the Board’s opposition to these proposals arises from the failure of the council to properly apply the major development test enshrined in para 172 of the NPPF (and its predecessors) in selecting both the development site and the route of the link road, in particular a failure to properly consider alternatives. The additional evidence, for example in documents Exam 110, 112, 113, 114 and 115, provides some retrospective support for decisions already taken by the Council, but this does not address the main point that sustainable alternatives that avoid harm to the Chilterns AONB in the first place have not been considered when drawing up the plan’s spatial strategy.
On this point, the Board draws the Inspector’s attention to the first (unnumbered) paragraph on p.10 of the non-technical summary of the SA Supplementary Report (document Exam 115a), which states: “Looking across the 19 residential site options as a whole, the likely sustainability effects are not particularly varied in terms of the number of likely significant positive and negative effects identified.” This demonstrates that the choices assessed by the Council (which, arguably, were far from exhaustive) are, in most respects, equivalent in terms of pros and cons.
The following paragraph goes on to state that “Luton North Option 1 also has three significant negative effects but these are counterbalanced by four significant positive effects. The other two Luton North options have two significant negative and three significant positive effects each.” This demonstrates that the Council appear to have taken a fairly superficial, arithmetic approach to their consideration of the SA, which bears closer scrutiny, and is unfortunate given that, in the case of policy SA1, the identified negative impacts relate to harm to the nationally designated AONB, highlighted in the NPPF (para 172) as deserving “the highest status of protection”, where “great weight” should be given to their conservation and enhancement and where “the scale and extent of development … should be limited.” The harm that will be caused to the AONB and its setting (and the other harms identified in the SA, e.g. to settlement identity and heritage) by the policy SA1 proposal and its associated link road are givens – they will definitely happen – whereas the benefits identified in the SA, from community facilities and sustainable transport to climate change) will depend very much on how well the development is implemented. In the context of the deregulation of planning under the current reforms, plus the inevitable changes in viability that will be argued if the forecast recession lasts, the benefits of the current proposals are very much in question.
The selection of sites from those assessed in the SA must be made on a more sophisticated basis than simply balancing positives and negatives: if there is any alternative that has similar positives without causing harm to an area that the NPPF requires to be given “the highest status of protection”, then the alternative must be selected.
Furthermore, the SA currently scores the Landscape impacts of the North of Luton options 2 and 3 as “minor negative” with a question mark. The Board considers that both these options will have a significant or major impact on the landscape in this location, especially given that all three options are contained within the same site boundary and are associated with the M1-A6 link road. While the Board would acknowledge that a smaller development would, potentially, have a lower impact, this does not mean that the impact would be “minor”.
In view of the above, it remains difficult to see how the Council has applied its duty under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. By creating a form of development built out to a bypass both of which cause direct harm to the AONB as well as its setting (and with no thought of enhancement of the natural beauty of the area), without full consideration of alternatives that would not cause such harm, and without a clear public interest justification (which cannot be made without considering those alternatives), these proposals render the Plan unsound, both from a legal compliance point of view and from the perspective of the achievement of sustainable development.
While the reduction of the scale of the SA1 development from 4,000 to 3,100 homes potentially reduces its impact (but not, as noted above, from “major?” to “minor?”), there is no concomitant amendment to the route or impact of the link road. Furthermore, the proposed main modifications to policy SA1 in document Exam 117 are not compliant with national policy on AONBs. (Note that (a) the user accessibility of the Modifications document is hampered by the failure to number each modification, and (b) the Council has chosen not to show on the maps accompanying these modifications either the AONB boundary or the route of the proposed M1-A6 link road, which is “essential” for the SA1 proposal.)
It remains the Board’s view that the SA1 proposal and the M1-A6 link road should be reduced further in scale and impact to avoid direct harm to the AONB and reduce harm arising from development in its setting, but if the Inspector is minded to support the current unsustainable scale of development, then we would like to make the following comments:
1. The modifications include inconsistencies in how the volume of new homes is described (e.g. “approximately” or “at least” 3,100 dwellings); if the outcome of the SA has been to reject options for 3,600 and 4,000 homes on this site as being unsustainable, then there is good reason to clearly cap the proposal at 3,100 homes.
2. The wording of the “Eastern Bowl” modification is unclear. What does “beyond” the Eastern Bowl mean? This may be clear to the author, but it may be re-interpreted by a clever planning barrister. Similarly, to which part of the site does “on this part of the site” refer – the Eastern Bowl, or the bit “beyond” it? A labelled site diagram might help.
3. In the same modification the part referring to development within the Eastern Bowl is not compliant either with the NPPF or with section 85 of the CROW Act, and is a critical and fatal flaw in the modifications. Critically, these throwaway words entirely negate the reduction of the scale of development in policy SA1 from 4,000 to 3,100, by allowing for additional development on this part of the site, without the opportunity to seek alternatives that will not cause harm to the AONB. In effect, the proposal as currently worded is no different from the original 4,000 home proposal, and should therefore be rejected for the same reason. This section also implies that development on the rest of the SA1 site (including those parts that fall within the AONB) will not be subject to rigorous assessment in terms of its impacts on the AONB and its setting, with a requirement not only for mitigation, but enhancement, as required by the CROW Act.
4. The modifications confirm that, even for the reduced 3,100 home development to go ahead, it is “essential that the development is served by the M1-A6 link road”. Since this road will have a significant harmful impact on the AONB, and development that is dependent upon the link road must, by definition, also have a significant harmful impact – this confirms the issue identified above regarding the assessment of the landscape impact in the SA Supplementary Document.
With regard to the M1-A6 link road, the Board recognises (but does not agree with) the planning permission for the road’s construction, and notes the outcome of recent legal action on that matter. In our view, the need for such a road as part of a strategic East-West route is constantly being reduced as a result of (a) increasing likelihood of improved strategic East-West transport options as part of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc proposals, and (b) changing work and travel patterns arising from the post-Covid “new normal” (in addition of course to the need to reduce carbon emissions and address air quality issues). If there is a still a need for some improved connectivity here, including as part of a reduced development proposal consistent with the area’s location within and in the setting of the Chilterns AONB, then a smaller scale local distributor road within the development would be sufficient. For this reason, we consider it proper and appropriate that the link road be removed from the Plan, allowing for the current planning permission not to be implemented.