Sponsored by
Planner answers Leighton critics
Cllr Tom Nicols replies to LOUD
From Cllr Tom Nicols, chairman of the Luton and South Beds joint planning committee to Rob McAlister, spokesman for
Leighton-Linslade Opposes Unsustainable development (LOUD)
Dear Mr McAlister,
I would open with my apologies for my extended delay in responding to your various Emails on the subject of the growth agenda as it affects Leighton Buzzard. You will be aware that a a significant application for development to the East of Leighton Buzzard is currently in process.
I generally avoid correspondence on applications where I believe that to do so might prejudice the ability of our planning officers in reaching a satisfactory outcome. I should add that at this immediate moment in time the Core Strategy only exists in its draft form and is not ready for public dissemination that is it is somewhat premature for me to make a comment upon it until it is published in its final form.
That said I will endeavour to respond to your questions with generalities that should not create difficulties for our officers. Clearly I should have replied in this vein some time ago. I am further aware that you seek a simplistic answer to your query that can readily be placed with the news media but I regret that this issue of housing growth is complex and demands an lengthy response which may not be ideal for a newspapers perspective.
I will first address the requirement placed upon this region for growth then address the deliberations wherein some of the growth has been planned for that region broadly sited to the East of Leighton Buzzard.
As you and your committee will be aware South Bedfordshire, Luton and environs has been targeted by the government as being responsible for delivering some 41,700 new homes by the year 2031.
The Core Strategy issues and Options document that identifies this level of growth is the end product of a government dictation that some two million new houses be built in the South of England.
This expectation of national growth has in fact since risen to three million homes. As long ago as 2002 this area; Luton and South Bedfordshire, was identified as a region subject to an excess of nationally identified deprivation, that is seven wards in Luton and three in South Bedfordshire were known to meet the definition for economic and social deprivation, Luton being further identified as an authority subject to very high levels of population growth.
The government decided that this situation had to be resolved by the provision of a substantial number of additional homes. It was clear that this level of housing growth could not possibly be accommodated within the confines of Luton Borough borders and so the neighbouring authorities would be tasked with planning for the bulk of this growth.
Thus this requirement for a very significant increase in our housing growth was proposed as far back as December of 2002 as a result of the MK&SM study. You should be aware that South Beds District Council then mounted a very public and visible effort to first consult with our electorate and then to develop and argue a case for our not being included in the countries growth agenda.
I can refer here to a copy of the South Beds "Inform-action" publication of September 2003; which was delivered to every single address in South Bedfordshire that then sought the views of our residents on these growth proposals. A response questionnaire was included in the publication.
The return rate for this questionnaire was frankly surprisingly limited, one might indeed say apathetic. I sincerely hope Mr McAllister that all the members of LOUD responded to that questionnaire? In any event South Beds District Council then attended the Examination in Public which was held in Luton in April of 2004. I myself attended that EiP along with my officers and representatives of Leighton Buzzard Town Council; who at that time supported the growth plan. I do not recall your attendance at that EiP?
Whilst I recognise that LOUD had not been developed as early as 2004 the issue of growth was most definitely then in the public domain and you should have been active in your campaign at that critical time as we clearly understood that the outcome of the EiP would be a binding requirement that we could never oppose. The verdict of the EiP was that we should deliver some 41,700 homes by the year 2031. In terms of development around Leighton Buzzard this was specified; by the Secretary of state, as:
"To achieve these objectives, the Green Belt will be reviewed around Leighton Linslade to provide the town with scope to increase its sustainability and make an appropriate contribution to the Growth Area"
It may be in your mind that we could have simply refused to accept that edict, I have to say that an elected government wields a considerable amount of legitimate power. It would not be possible either legally or morally for a local authority to ignore such a clear government mandate.
The efforts since that time have been focused on implementing the growth in a way that delivers the best possible solution for the region. This has required a great deal of hard work my members and officers alike.
I will now turn to the specific decision making process that has led to the draft Core Strategy proposal that Leighton Buzzard should accept 2,500 homes.
I would first wish to clarify the status of the growth that has been delivered within the town over the past five years, I refer here to such developments as the Pratts Pit estate and the emerging Southern Leighton Buzzard development.
This growth has been largely included in the numbers allocated as a result of the EiP, that is they contribute to the 41,700 that we are required to build. However these developments were in fact envisaged and expected in the Local Plan that was published as early as 1995, that is this development would likely have been delivered regardless of the effects of the government's recent growth agenda.
The task of determining where precisely the growth will be delivered has fallen to a committee that I currently Chair; The Joint Planning Committee. This committee draws its membership from Luton Borough, South Bedfordshire Council and Bedfordshire County Council.
We have consulted widely over the past five years, including a public consultation event that was held in Luton in May of this Year. You will be aware of this as I took great care to ensure that your organization was invited and was given a voice at that meeting.
Given that the EiP has determined that some significant proportion of the growth must be awarded to Leighton Buzzard we first had to determine how much development might decently be placed on brown field land that is already in the built environment such as on unwanted factory sites and in the few parcels of land that are suitable for re-development within the Town.
I am aware that the residents of Leighton Buzzard generally object to any overly intensive developments. Dunstable and Houghton Regis Town councils like wise frequently object to such over intensive developments. We were therefore able to determine how much housing could be accommodated within the existing Towns and how much would be required within the current Green Belt.
We then needed to determine how much Green Belt land would be required to deliver this many houses, this is essentially a question of housing density. We; the Joint Planning Committee, settled on 40 homes to the hectare.
It is arguable that we could have gone to 50 homes to the hectare and therebye; perhaps, avoided further development within Leighton Linslade. My own view; and that of the South Beds Growth Committee, is that 40 to the Hectare is quite high enough and is arguably too high. In any event we arrived at a figure of 40 to the Hectare. I should be interested if your members really want or expect a higher density.
Having determined how much growth might realistically be built within the existing development boundaries and what density might be acceptable in the Green belt then it is possible to allocate growth in all the appropriate regions of the growth area of Luton and South Bedfordshire. Given the dictate of the Secretary of State of October 2004 regarding Leighton Buzzard the number of 2,500 is no longer a matter of choice. It would indeed seem to be the smallest number that can be sustainably built in that region.
I would accept that a further 2,500 homes delivered within the Leighton Buzzard area might be seen as challenging if transport issues are to be considered fairly, but it is the belief of the Joint Committee that a significant investment and improvements local transport infrastructure should be feasibly derived from the developer if a number of 2,500 is accepted. We would not believe that the necessary infrastructure investment would be generated were the number of houses to have been any less.
Mr McAlister, The proposal to award 2500 homes to the East of Leighton Buzzard is a determination that is clearly a compromise between what we had to deliver as of necessity and that which will pay for the various elements of infrastructure. This is not a choice that is likely to satisfy both LOUD and the development community.
I trust this late answer is of some assistance though I do understand that the resulting growth in Leighton Buzzard is unlikely to be welcome to LOUD but would hope that we can work together in delivering a quality and viable development in Leighton Buzzard over the course of the next fifteen years or so.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Leighton Buzzard
Thursday 09 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: -0 C to 2 C
Wind Speed: 6 mph
Wind direction: South west
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: -4 C to 2 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: South east
