BEDFORDSHIRE

• Who we are
• Contacts
• Bedfordshire Issues
• What's New
• Events
• Getting Involved
• How to Join
• Links
• 
• CPRE National Office
• Campaigns
• Policies

• Local Development Frameworks
• Growth Plans for Bedfordshire
• Milton Keynes Expansion
• Luton Town Football Club
• Marston Vale and Eco-towns
• Center Parcs
• Planning and Climate change
• Windfarms
• Transport, Roads
• Transport, Airports
• Mineral Extraction
• Waste
• Nirah
• Rowing Lake
• Canal
• Green Belt
• Housing Developments

In this section we include some of the county issues the branch deals with on a regular basis or has been engaged in over the last few months or even years. We refer to strategic planning matters and large scale planning applications

Local Development Frameworks

As part of the process of creating the Local Development Framework (LDF) to show how planning will be managed in our area, each district in Bedfordshire has been through a lengthy process of public consultation before being able to publish any of the documents that will make up the final folder of documents, the LDF. Further details on the various stages of the process in the various districts across this county can be read in back copies of Bedfordshire Matters. CPRE Bedfordshire has responded to the Luton & Southern Beds Core Strategy: Preferred Options Consultation.

Download CPRE Bedfordshire's response   (PDF 80KB)

Download the Preferred Options summary document   (PDF 672KB)

Growth Plans for Bedfordshire

The East of England Plan is the Government’s Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) produced by the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA), which provides a regional level-planning framework for the East of England. So far figures have been agreed to 2021. The plan is now being reviewed to extend its coverage to 2031 and there are consultations.

Deadline for responses is 23 November 2009.

For guidelines to help you respond see CPRE Beds notes for
East England Plan Review to 2031   PDF 32KB

More information is available on the East of England Regional Assembly website

Bedfordshire, shown in yellow, is in the East of England Region. The neighbouring counties of Northants and Bucks are in separate regions but all three counties make up the Milton Keynes & South Midlands Growth area.

Under the Government’s plan for housing growth in Bedfordshire, the provision of 59,100 dwellings has been agreed in the East of England Plan, published May 2008; of these 45,800 dwellings form part of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (MKSM) for housing to 2031, around Bedford and in South Bedfordshire.

The remaining figures are additional allocations under the East of England Plan, largely around Mid-Bedfordshire.

(Extract from the East of England Plan: The revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England).

In addition to these allocations, there are plans to extend Milton Keynes with a possible 5,600 dwellings in Mid-Bedfordshire. Housing in the Marston Vale as part of an Eco-town has been withdrawn but developers indicate their intention to process applications for further growth (housing and industrial) through the normal planning procedures. Meanwhile EERA is looking at sites for housing up to 2031, which could include a new regional scale settlement of up to 20,000 dwellings. Three areas have been singled out in Bedfordshire but none have as yet been recommended. Bedfordshire could see a total of some 85,000 new dwellings by 2031 making a regional total of approximately 500,000 new dwellings by 2031.

In recent years CPRE has supported the Government’s improved policies for new homes and urban renewal, but is concerned that the major Greenfield development proposals, as in the MKSM, could be at the expense of the environment and declining urban areas. The current strategy contains major threats to designated Green Belt and the wider countryside; road schemes which will fuel traffic growth and congestion. It will not guarantee long term affordable housing and has no mechanism for creating jobs for the future.

Plans for Bedfordshire are featured in the MKSM which covers one of the four growth areas under the governments Sustainable Communities Plan

Further information available at the following links .........

CPRE National Office East of England Plan - News Update
East of England Regional Assembly website
Government Office East of England, Regional planning

The final approved version of this plan is not expected until 2007. CPRE along with the National Trust and other conservation organisations wants to see major changes in this Plan.

Milton Keynes City Expansion

Plans for the expansion of Milton Keynes (MK) are an extension of one of the four main growth areas under the Milton Keynes & South Midlands sub Regional Strategy (see the Sustainable Communities Plan).

At the Inquiry into the Draft South East Plan (SEP), representatives of various groups from Bedfordshire argued against the numbers of dwellings proposed for the extension of Milton Keynes into Bedfordshire, in the so-called Aspley triangle. They also argued that development should not be considered under the auspices of the SEP, as Bedfordshire was a part of the Eastern Region. Mid Beds District Council advocated its plan to extend the South Beds Green Belt north of the village of Aspley Guise to prevent coalescence of the historic village with the new extension to Milton Keynes. This proposal had received widespread support in the locality. However, when the South East Plan Panel reported, they recommended that there should be10,400 homes in the South East Strategic Development Area, with 4,800 in Milton Keynes and 5,600 in Mid Beds.

  ...........   read more about MK Expansion

Luton Town Football Club New Stadium

It is very gratifying to be able to report that Goodman International’s application for 205,000 sq. metres of warehousing and a new football stadium on Green Belt land adjoining Junction 12 of the M1 at Toddington has been withdrawn – at least for the time being.

Two factors appear to be behind Goodman’s decision. Firstly, the application was based on the assumption that widening of the M1 between Junctions 10 and 13 was going to take place as an immediate follow-on to the widening now nearing completion between Junctions 6 and 10. However, the instruction since given to the Highways Agency by the Secretary of State to look first at the scope for increasing capacity between Junctions 10 and 13 through better traffic management – in particular the use of the existing hard shoulders as carriageways – means that there are now considerable uncertainties about the delivery timetable for improvements in capacity at Junction 12 itself, which would be a pre-requisite of any development there. Secondly, the new ‘Luton 2020’ consortium, which has now legally acquired ownership of Luton Town Football Club from the Administrators, has re-affirmed it is looking at all available site options for a new stadium, and has made it clear that until its studies are completed it is not in a position to say whether the J12 site is of interest to the Club or otherwise. The threat to the Green Belt at Toddington has not yet entirely gone away, but there is at least some prospect that it might!

CPRE has been working with local action groups CaSH and CaST throughout this campaign. Follow this link to download a PDF (120KB) of CPRE's Statement of Objection

View towards the proposed site from M1	Families enjoying a picnic on the land

Eco-towns for Bedfordshire

In 2008 the Government put forward a list of fifteen potential eco-towns including two for Bedfordshire, New Marston and Marston Vale, from which ten were to be short-listed.

To read CPRE Bedfordshire’s submission to the Government please download (PDF 92KB) CPRE Beds Eco-towns response

Although both developers, Gallaghers at New Marston and O & H for Marston Vale, have withdrawn their eco-town proposals (updated Feb 09) , any major housing and industrial schemes in the Vale have the potential to link up Milton Keynes and Bedford and come on top of all the housing that the county has already been asked to allocate through the regional planning process. It raises many questions about the provision of sustainable transport, sufficient employment possibilities and high enough standards in providing ecologically sustainable townships for the long term.

  ...........   read more about Eco-towns

Center Parcs

View before development	After development ?

The branch has been engaged in responding to the plans for a 5th ‘holiday village’ to be built in Warren Wood, Millbrook (off A507). Although not against such resorts in principle, CPRE Beds, along with many other groups including Steppingley Parish Council, is concerned that such a development is inappropriate for the location which is on Green Belt land and in an Area of Great Landscape Value; the building of 700 villas, a hotel and a conference centre and the many leisure facilities will draw on shrinking water resources and generate considerable traffic congestion while the contribution to local employment is negligible in an area of low unemployment. See our response by downloading this PDF (60K) document - Center Parcs

Mid Beds District Council refused it as the proposal was contrary to Green Belt policy. However, the Secretary of State (Hazel Blears) did not agree with this and granted permission on the grounds that the need to create jobs for a growth area justified making an exception to policy.

Following an Inquiry in January into the proposed diversions of footpaths, the Inspector has confirmed the orders for the diversion of two public rights of way. For the many objectors to the village, the loss of well-loved paths across the site has been a very important issue. Horse riders may have benefited most with a new circular bridleway around the wood, at least 30 metres away from main roads, which will connect with various existing and extended rights of way. Center Parcs say they intend to start building by early 2011 but the delay could be much longer.

Planning and Climate change

Dr. Paul Leinster CBE, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, began his speech at the CPRE Beds Countryside and Design Awards presentation 2008 by drawing attention to climate change as an issue we should all be concerned about.

He states that ‘a lot of people don’t always tie up climate change with their own consumption’ and that it is the ‘responsibility of all of us to reduce our energy consumption however we can to combat climate change.’

Dr. Leinster also raises the issue of specific effects of climate change within Bedfordshire, stating that ‘the flow of the Great Ouse by 2050 will have reduced by 80%.’

Climate change: a threat to the countryside

Climate change is a huge threat to the English countryside because, within a few decades, it is likely to alter many of our most typical and cherished landscapes forever – unless global emissions are drastically reduced. Hotter, drier summers, wetter winters, storms and high winds will threaten many of our landscapes and habitats. Some familiar trees, wild flowers and animals, which are characteristic of our countryside, may no longer be able to survive in a much warmer England. As sea levels rise, large areas of coastland habitat may be flooded. Very dramatic changes are likely, especially in the East of England, with the loss of fens, beaches and entire villages.

We need to tackle climate change by securing the energy we need in ways, which reduce emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’, mainly carbon dioxide. We need to do this in a way that protects our countryside for all to enjoy. CPRE is campaigning for energy policies and solutions that protect both the planet and the countryside. We are changing our climate mainly by burning oil, coal and gas, adding ever more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

CPRE is part of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition

CPREs policy on Energy   PDF (July 2008)

Climate Change Toolkit:
Our changing climate, our changing lives   PDF 436KB (February 2008)

For further information on climate change follow the link for the Met Office   where the Hadley Centre, the UK’s foremost climate change research centre is based.

Wind Farm Schemes and Renewable Energy

This branch has been engaged in a campaign opposing the siting of a windfarm in the Podington Hinwick area of North Beds, bordering Northamptonshire. Our response is available to download as a PDF (88K) should be seen in the context of increasing planning applications for wind farms in and around Bedfordshire, backed by the Government’s support for wind rather than other renewable energy sources. Each of the 9 turbines, 125 metres high, would have a huge adverse visual impact over a very large area.

Turvey to Carlton road	Turbine height to Podington Church

The illustration above left shows the Turvey to Carlton road where the turbines would be visible in the distant space between the trees high above the horizon. Illustration above right The balloon shows the height of each turbine in relation to the nearby Parish Church of Podington.

Follow this link for a summary of the presentation on Renewable Energy given by Michael Jefferson, international expert, at the branch’s AGM in April 2006 in which he concludes that central England has insufficient wind speed to make wind energy a viable investment. This application has not been determined. Follow this link to downlaod a PDF (49K) of CPRE’s policy on onshore wind energy .

Read about the Wind Farm proposal between Langford and A1 trunk road in What's New

Transport, Road Building and Bypasses

Increasing traffic congestion brings pressure for new roads and bypasses which CPRE believes should still be the option of last resort. Any short term relief through road building is likely to come at high cost to the countryside. CPRE believes there are better, less damaging solutions. The Government’s Planning Policy on transport (PPG13) advocates CPRE’s approach that road building programmes should always consider the full effect of the schemes on the countryside and the alternative options to road building. Planning and transport policy should: promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and should reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

The branch comments on the Local Transport Plan (covering 5 years) during its preparation. It has also campaigned for a policy to identify lanes in the county that could be classified as ‘Quiet’, making them safer and more tranquil for pedestrians, cyclists and horses. Follow this link to download a PDF (35K) of our Policy on Roads and Bypasses . The branch monitors all major road building schemes and comments accordingly.

Current consultations or approvals

Dunstable Northern Bypass

The road is proposed to run between Thorn Turn on the A5 north of Dunstable to a new Junction 11a on the MI south of Chalton, thus providing an alternative route for north/south traffic moving between the A5 and the Motorway.  It will also provide a direct link between the Motorway and the A505 Leighton Southern Bypass.

CPRE accepts the need for the road in principal, on the basis that it forms a much less damaging proposal for traffic relief in Dunbstable than the original 'Easterm Bypass' concept which would have cut right through the base of Blows Down.

  ...........   read more about Dunstable Northern Bypass

........... read the update on the Luton Northern Bypass Options in What's New

A421 dualling improvements

The dualling of the A421 between Bedford and J13 is underway and due for completion in late 2010.

Follow the link to a map of the improvements to the A421 Bedford to M1 Junction 13

CPRE recognises the need to dual the A421 but is unhappy about the impact on the landscape around Wood End, Marston, where the new road will make a big sweep into the countryside away from the existing road. (See illustration) We are also concerned about the environmental effects of so much additional road traffic travelling across the county from the A1 to the M1. We are pleased that the route will only be lit where there are major linking junctions.

The widened A421 will sweep into the countryside at Wood End, Marston near Marston Thrift, a woodland of special scientific interest (SSSI).

East Luton Corridor

The East Luton Corridor, helping to link the M1 to the airport south of Luton, has recently been approved for central Government funding. It was in fact a scheme put forward long before the Growth Area plans for Bedfordshire. CPRE Bedfordshire supported the road improvement except for a proposed bus loop which would have carved a chunk out of the historic parkland of Luton Hoo, which flanks the Corridor at this point.  Pressure from CPRE and South Beds District Council forced Luton Borough to withdraw this proposal even though it would have shortened the bus route.

M1 Widening

The Highways Agency has been widening the road between Junction 6a and 10. In January 2006 it announced the preferred route for the widening of the M1 Junctions 10-13. The widening scheme has been put on hold, while the Highways Agency considers whether using the hard shoulder would provide a better value solution for at least parts of the scheme.

Follow the link to the Highways Agency map of the M1 Jct 10 to 13 Widening

Currently  ' In build '

Leighton Linslade Western Bypass

BEFORE	AFTER
Footpath route Linslade Bypass	Linslade bypass route Feb 06

Leighton Linslade Western bypass extending the A505 west of Leighton Buzzard towards Milton Keynes. First illustration (Footpath route Linslade bypass) shows the route we campaigned against through beautiful countryside. We were represented at the public enquiry. In the end we secured an agreement for a reduction to minimal lighting to reduce pollution. The second illustration (Linslade bypass route Feb 06 TA) shows the destruction to the fine landscape.

Bedford Western Bypass

We have campaigned long with local action group ARK (Action for Rural Kemptson) against the route chosen for the crossing of the River Great Ouse, from the flood plain to within 100 metres of All Saints church, Kempston Rural. We are convinced that the extra cars generated by the housing alongside the route will add to Bedford’s traffic congestion. Meanwhile Government funding is intended to pay for both the section that will relieve Kempston of some through traffic heading for the A421, but also for the viaduct past All Saints, before the housing programme that will repay for the scheme.	View from Ridge Road, Kempston towards The Bury & All Saints Church on the left
The Bedford Western bypass will cut through the fields to the right of the parish church seen on the left in the distance. Approx 1000 dwellings will follow this side of the river, enclosing Bury House, far right.

Transport, Airport Expansion Luton Airport

Updated 29.01.2008

Proposals for a new runway to the south of the present runway have been withdrawn. It would have taken in a huge area of land lying in the South Beds and North Herts Green Belt, much of the latter being also designated an area of Great Landscape Beauty. It would have blanketed a whole new swathe of countryside with noise and air pollution. The 2nd runway proposal would have enabled the airport to deal with a throughput of 31m passengers p.a., compared with the current throughput of 10m.

A greatly enlarged airport would skirt the edge of Someries Castle, Bedfordshire’s oldest brick building.

The airport’s owners say they will now concentrate on building throughput up to the maximum possible with the existing facilities, assessed by them at 15m p.p.a. As this is 50% above present levels, serious concerns remain about the impacts on the local environment, particularly from the perspective of surface access and traffic generation. CPRE will stay closely in touch with other environmental groups in watching the situation closely.

Information and PDF files of the plan are available for download at this website address Luton Airport Project 2030 . Use this link to download a PDF (37K) of CPRE’s Policy on Air Travel

Minerals Extraction

The varied geology of Bedfordshire has led to a range of minerals being extracted over the years, from chalk in the south through greensand to clay and gravel further north. The branch comments on the county’s draft strategic Minerals and Waste Development Framework (Plan). It is particularly concerned at the number of proposals for future gravel extraction at rates higher than currently, and intended to support the proposed housing growth.

Waste

Update - February 2009

Bedfordshire has many substantial voids left from mineral extraction. These have come to be seen as suitable sites for the disposal of increasing amounts of waste now being generated; indeed some historic permissions for extraction have required restoration with 'appropriate materials.’ General waste has in the past been determined as appropriate.

This has resulted in the commercial exploitation of several of the voids for massive inputs of waste from other areas, mainly London with attendant problems of traffic, litter, smells, vermin, noise and the loss of land which has started natural regeneration.

CPRE Bedfordshire agrees with the County in its support of national and regional policies on waste minimisation. We are opposed to any new major landfill site while there is still space in currently licensed sites. We are not opposed to extending the life of existing sites if inputs can be restricted to local waste. CPRE Beds is also opposed to proposals for an Energy From Waste plant in the Rookery Pit at Stewartby.

Nirah

An outlining planning application to build a National Institute for Research into (freshwater) Aquatic Habitats and Visitor Centre, on 40 hectares of a former clay pit (Quest Pit), was submitted 30th November 2006. A detailed planning application is to be submitted spring 2009 with the proposed start date for construction being winter 2010. CPREs main concern is the impact of transport issues.

Visit the Nirah website  

For further details on the current status of Nirah are available on the Bedfordshire County Council planning pages  

Bedford River Valley Park / Rowing Lake

Permission was granted in July 2006 for the creation of an Olympic sized rowing lake (2300 m long) as part of the ongoing extraction of aggregates at Willington. The Branch did not oppose a rowing lake but opposed the size and position, which results in the severance of the East / West rail link through Bedford. The County Council accepted the need to maintain Bedford ‘as a rowing centre of excellence’ and following the Report on the Examination of the East of England Plan, it also considered that heavy investment in a rail link east of Bedford was not a priority. The Branch is much concerned by the hidden agenda of applications for substantial collateral development which will follow, and which will be ‘justified’ by the need to fund the extra work on the lake.

The lake would form part of the Bedford River Valley Park (BRVP) now owned by the Marston Vale Trust, which produced a Framework document in April 2008 outlining how the Park will be developed. Stakeholders will be contacted on the Framework in spring 2009.

Click link to download a map of River Valley Park   (PDF 5.5MB) including the rowing lake.

Milton Keynes to Bedford Canal

The branch does not oppose the canal in principle but is concerned about the impact of supporting developments on existing villages and the open countryside along its entire route. It is also concerned about the potential loss of tranquillity to the river and its character if the canal traffic joins the river through Bedford itself. We remain sceptical about the unquantified ‘benefits’ of the canal.

Green Belt Land

CPRE has long campaigned for Green Belt land to protect our countryside from urban sprawl, by protecting the setting of existing historic towns and villages and by preventing the merging of these settlements. Follow this link to read more about CPRE’s Green Belt Campaign link to CPRE's Green Belt Campaign. The Bedfordshire branch has engaged in many successful campaigns over the years to protect Green Belt land in the county.

In 2004, thanks to prompt action by the Bedfordshire branch, land between Flitwick and Maulden was re-designated as Green Belt by Mid Beds District Council to whom a proposal had been made that the Green Belt status should be removed. Removal could have led to coalescence of the villages through future development.

'View of Green Belt saved' - photographer, Eric Meadows (Click image to enlarge)

In 2005, we concluded a major successful joint campaign to retain land as Green Belt alongside Flitwick Moor, in order to protect the Moor itself. Flitwick Moor is Bedfordshire's most important wetland area and an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest). In recent years we have also campaigned to protect Green Belt at Toddington, threatened with plans to develop land around a new football stadium. Meanwhile we are still campaigning to extend the Green Belt at Aspley Guise and Husborne Crawley to include the threatened land north of the villages, to prevent coalescence between an expanded Milton Keynes and the villages.

The Green Belt land north and east of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis and around Leighton Buzzard has been an essential element in preventing development on the valuable landscape north of these towns and around the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Some of this Green Belt status will now be reviewed to accommodate the housing growth demanded by the Government. CPRE Bedfordshire will monitor the review proposals carefully.

Housing Developments

The branch monitors weekly planning applications for housing and other development in areas that will affect the countryside and its environment and responds to these in a balanced and informed way. We also monitor the briefs for the larger scale developments and comment on strategic plans. Many of these are discussed in our newsletter   Bedfordshire Matters