Butterfield Green - Development Control meeting  Wed 28 Aug 2002

 

Item 8 (4 pp + 20pp appendix from previous meeting where outline planning consent was granted,

listing planning conditions)  Planning application reference number 00/00573/OUT, condition 24. 

Comments must reach the Town Hall not later than 5:00pm on Wed 28 August.

Comments to Luton BC from David Oakley-Hill

 

I am the Co-ordinator of Luton Friends of the Earth.

I chaired Luton's Agenda 21 Transport Committee for three years and have recently become a member of Luton Assembly to help target funding at disadvantaged communities, my remit being environment and transport.

 

In the week of the Earth Summit, it is embarrassing for me to have to make this statement.

We all agree the current global system cannot be sustained, or we wouldn't need the Earth Summit.  On a human and environmental level, the system is unfair.  We all have to think globally, act locally.  At a local level, developments like Butterfield Green are unfair. 

 

Planning for people

The Urban Task Force was established by the Deputy Prime Minister, to tackle the worsening crisis that saw green field sites being consumed by new development.  Its Chair, Richard Rogers, says: "we found that sprawling car-based development was killing our city centres, isolating communities and consuming the countryside.  We found we need to make them environmentally sustainable by upgrading the existing fabric, and to use derelict and brownfield sites before encroaching on our countryside."  He says: "the easiest thing to do would be to ease restrictions relating to building on Greenfield land. But this would be entirely misguided, a betrayal of our cities and residents.  Urban renaissance should focus on brownfield sites and public transport hubs."   The Butterfield proposal shows that Luton isn't keeping up.  The government has called an urban summit in October and I hope key decision makers from Luton will attend.

 

Council -  thhe people's protector?

Scarcely publicised, the plan to develop a massive industrial estate on Butterfield Green, one of the two largest remaining open green spaces within Luton's boundaries, could virtually be decided this evening.  Councillors are voted in to listen and act on behalf of Luton's citizens, who are right most of the time, and certainly are on this one.  This is the sort of proposal that you look to your council to prevent. 

 

Developers want to build on greenfields.  They'll come to Luton because other local authorities (councils) are more responsible about protecting greenspaces, and won't let them build there. 

It's extraordinary that Luton Council itself, as cemetery owner, should spend so much money, time and effort supporting this development over many years.  As 'poacher & gamekeeper', should it 'declare its financial interest' and allow the application to be determined by a third party?

 

Democratic role

This is not about need, but money and prestige.  If this development is passed, and those who have promoted it step down or are voted out next May, it'll be too late for the town.  What prestige is there in being responsible for irreversible damage to the town's environment, heritage, health, and quality of life?

 

There have been large petitions objecting to this development.  At several public meetings, usually attracting over 200, the public has told you unanimously that they place great value on this area of green fields.  It is where the countryside begins.  It's part of the heritage of everyone in the town.  It is our quality of life.  A wonderful, tranquil, view across green fields.  Drivers, walkers and those living nearby would see this monstrous industrial complex when approaching Luton as well as leaving, ruining the landscape.

 

Not needed, not welcome

The term science park is meaningless.  It is an industrial estate, which may eventually contain some hi-tech industries.  There is good science and bad science. We already have some in our town who are unwelcome, as they are in the arms trade or researching GM crops against the wishes of a large majority of the public.

 

Wrong jobs, wrong place

The University is struggling.  It did not initiate this development, and may or may not become involved.  Indeed, it shouldn't be - the university and its students should be at the heart of the town, making use of existing buildings, as the University does in Leicester, as Oaklands College does in St Albans.  Croda would have been an excellent site for University expansion. Existing buildings could have been used rather than demolished - a much more suitable use than hundreds of  new houses crammed into the space - but the opportunity has been missed.

 

The council must recognise Luton is FULL, and act accordingly.  Jobs should NOT take precedence over all other considerations.  People's environment and quality of life are crucial. 

We need local jobs for local people - preferably a substantial number in walking distance, or an easy public transport or cycle journey. 

 

Jobs at Butterfield would mainly be from outside the town, for the more well off who would contribute little to the local economy, but bring more pollution.  In all new developments, job numbers are overestimated, and damage to environment, transport needs, health and quality of life underestimated.

 

The council has allowed thousands of houses to be built on attractive green areas like Bushmead and Wigmore, crammed right up to the boundaries, leaving the town with little green space for its population to be comfortable, happy and to breathe easily.  There is a wide feeling of disempowerment and apathy.

 

Planning for social and environmental regeneration

Regeneration is about restoring and improving what's there, NOT building on Greenfield sites in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Laporte Way proves businesses are attracted to brownfield sites.  Yet the council has ignored guidance and built houses on large employment sites like Electrolux and Dallow gasworks.  Dallow ward has the highest unemployment in the country!  Jobs at Butterfield are unlikely for those in Dallow.

 

I have proposed several new public green spaces to improve lives and counter in a small way the progressive loss we've suffered.  For the public who have asked me for help, I have objected to many damaging developments.  These have virtually all been ignored, even minor environmental improvements to developments.  Frankly, I don't know why I continue to bother. 

 

Nature conservation and heritage

The words sustainability and development control are a joke in Luton. Yet they should be at the heart of planning policy.  Luton Council uses Development Control to promote most development in this town, even if it destroys the heritage of old buildings - protection of which the government wants to be a priority. 

 

The County Biodiversity Action Plan was launched this year, attended by several Luton officers.  But nature conservation here is a low priority, exemplified by the decision to sell off half a County Wildlife Site at Croda, compromising what's left of the site - despite protests from conservation officerrs.  

 

There are ancient field boundary hedges running through the Butterfield site, which will be ignored and destroyed, against national policy protecting hedgerows.  New hedgeplanting cannot replace present diversity, with meadow margins either side of hedges providing wildlife corridors. The skylarks will be displaced and their population reduced. This is large scale destruction of wildlife.

 

 

Park and Ride

 

As Chair of Luton's Local Agenda 21 transport group, I compiled a 20 page report recommending transport needs for the town, based on the comments of more than 50 people over three years, entitled 'Sustainable Moves'.  Park and ride was one of the facilities most people thought would be very useful.

 

An outline planning application for development of Butterfield Green was approved by the Development Control Committee in March 2001, subject to many conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

One condition was that the 900 space Park and Ride facility should come first, before any other part of the development is occupied.  Now we hear the landowners, Crown Estates and Putteridge Bury Estate Trustees, can't be bothered with Park and Ride - they'd rather do it later; or not at all, so have asked for the varying of conditions - either delete or phase them with the development.  The development is in three phases over 15 years!  We might never get park and ride, an important facility much needed by the town.

The only thing that IS important to put here is park and ride - it's all Luton's people would get out of a massive development which would ruin their environment.  It would not be an eyesore, as it would only occupy one field near the road, at ground level, screened with hedges and trees.  For years FoE has requested this, plus another park and ride coming into Luton on the A6.  Park and ride must be properly managed for security and not too expensive to use.  It has made a big difference, improving many town centres and pollution levels, and reclaiming space so people can move about in safety and comfort.  It is a simple idea - for every 30 people bringing cars into our congested town, from Hitchin and elsewhere, ONE bus can take them into the town centre - and perhaps another to the airport, IBC and Capability Green. 

If park and ride is to be separate from the development - a genuine bonus to help the town and not just a sham - it needs to be established FIRST. 

Traffic pressure has being building in the town centre for many years, giving the car more priority than all other transport.  The council now has a transport hierarchy to prioritise walking, cyclists and public transport.  To satisfy government guidelines, this needs action ASAP.  The town needs park and ride whether or not Butterfield goes ahead - it's the only sustainable thing about the whole development!

 

Cemetery 

It would be shocking, noisy and unpleasant for people visiting graves when building work is going on.  Sustainability is about providing enough land for Luton's dead to be commemorated in the future, which this development would prevent. [as the cemetery land will be surrounded.]  About the same amount again was set aside in the sixties for a cemetery extension.  The town's increased vastly since then, and also takes dead from outside Luton, but the council claims they need less space than in the sixties.  Isn't it maladministration to squander this vital cemetery land for short term gain?

 

I am on Luton Assembly trying to help this town help its disadvantaged people and those who need help to improve their environment, and their transport, and their air quality, and their health needs.  This development would directly contribute great disadvantage for a whole community. 

 

There is good and bad development - this is BAD.  These fields have NEVER been built on.

 

Question:

When the govt (or is it European Objective 2 funds?) apparently approved a grant for £8m, were they aware that this development is unsustainable and opposed by local people, who were not invited to be part of the democratic process; that the council misled its own members over the necessity to develop? 

 

In a paper to party members, they claimed a previous inspector instructed them to develop.  In fact he told them that only if the new road was built (which it hasn't been), the land enclosed by it might be considered for housing.  The council now considers the land unsuitable for housing.  Yet they maintained they'd been told to develop the site, and there was nothing they could do about it!  When FoE showed this outrageous document at the local plan inquiry, the planners denied it and we were not allowed to cross-examine them. 

 

The Local Strategic Partnership included Crown Estates, Putteridge Estates (landowners) and the University; so it was undemocratic.  Ian Slater even thought FoE and residents groups wouldn't want to be on the group because we were against it! 

 

Planning minutes state that while in the greater part of the Local Plan Inquiry they would not need strong representation, for specific areas like Butterfield Green they would need the very best legal representation in order to overcome opposition from the public - who voted them in!  This is clearly against the spirit of PPG1.  (Is it illegal, or maladministration?)