Leighton Buzzard campaigners warned planning changes could weaken fight against industrial scheme

Residents on a Leighton Buzzard housing estate who lost their campaign against a scheme for eight industrial units off Chartmoor Road are now faced with the potential “negative impact” of the developer contesting some planning conditions.

Concerns of the Roman Gate Action Group included traffic and the safety of schoolchildren, excessive noise, the effect on local wildlife and the loss of proposed cycling links.

Applicant Abraham Investments Limited submitted full plans to Central Bedfordshire Council for eight storage and distribution warehouses on six-and-a-half acres of land south of Chartmoor Road.

Having been deferred early in July 2025, planning permission was granted by the local authority’s development management committee later that month.

Several changes were made along with some new planning conditions, which resulted from public pressure and opposition from local councillors.The site is designated as employment land in the adopted CBC Local Plan.

Liberal Democrat Leighton Linslade South ward councillors are objecting to a request to review some of these conditions.

The developer is suggesting reducing the length of time needed to maintain the acoustic fence to 15 years, from in perpetuity, according to councillor Chris Leaman.

There were to be no deliveries and commercial vehicle movements from 7pm to 7am, but an adjustment to the times HGVs can access the site is desired, he explained.

“This was because the committee was aware the site is next to a residential area. The varying of condition application seeks to alter these hours, preventing any HGV activity between 11pm and 7am instead.

“The conditions were agreed to by the applicant in good faith with officers. I object to changes being made to overturn obligations committed to by the developer.

“The relevant conditions are:

• 14 for public art that should be delivered;
• 17 which is the safeguardto protect residents from noise and air pollution;
• 29 relates to a guarantee the acoustic fence will be operational well beyond 15 years;
• and 11 differs from substantial evidence there could be protected species on site.

“The current Local Plan says economic development mustn’t conflict with neighbouring land use,” he added. “This application conflicts with a nearby residential area.

“The original planning conditions reflect that policy and are designed to recognise such tension. Removing or varying those would go against this policy.”

His Lib Dem ward colleague councillor Emma Holland-Lindsay said in her response to CBC: “It’s disappointing this application aims to remove these very reasonable conditions.

“If approved, this would have a negative impact on local residents. Extending the hours of operation will result in noise pollution and cause disruption to daily life, particularly in the evenings and early mornings.

“The proposed removal of the condition prohibiting engine idling would have a detrimental effect on air quality, impacting local residents negatively. The acoustic fencing is absolutely crucial in ensuring residents aren’t disturbed by noise from the site once it’s operational.

“This must be maintained and functional for as long as the site is used. It’s very concerning to see a request to reduce this and put a time limit on its maintenance.”

A Project Design Studio Limited covering letter to CBC stated: “New HGV access times would see a change to standard national timings, working in conjunction with the rest of the industrial estate and guidelines for commercial buildings.

“The condition on commercial vehicle movements and engine idling are inappropriate requests within an industrial area. The acoustic fence variation is based on the site being private land and maintenance is part of the general management of such a location.”