Supplementary memorandum by Bedfordshire
Councils Planning Consortium (RG 96(a))
Additional Evidence from South Bedfordshire
Friends of the Earth on behalf of Bedfordshire Councils Planning
Consortium
1. THE PRESENT
SITUATION FOR
BEDFORDSHIRE
1.1 Bedfordshire is particularly badly served
by the regional systems. The county is situated at the edge of
three regions, the SE, the East of England and the East Midlands.
Bedfordshire which is officially in the East of England looks
far more closely to Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Northamptonshire
than it does to Suffolk and Norfolk, yet Milton Keynes and Aylesbury
are in the South East and Northamptonshire is in the East Midlands.
1.2 People in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
look more closely to London than they do to Cambridge and the
rest of the east. London hospitals are more accessible to people
in Leighton Buzzard than their official local hospitals in Aylesbury
and Luton/Dunstable. There is such an absence of east west links
that Norfolk and Suffolk are only accessible through London by
public transport and via a tortuous route by road. As the main
connections are to London and to Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire
it would be very difficult to enthuse people to vote for a Regional
Assembly that covered the area to the East of Bedfordshire.
1.3 It could be argued the Milton Keynes
South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy deals with this problem and
unites this middle band of the country. However this policy only
creates more confusion for large parts of Bedfordshire. The boundaries
of MKSM SRS are very vague and it only covers the growth towns
in the area and does not supposedly cover the villages and the
rural areas. This confusion was amply displayed by the participants
including the government offices at the examination in public
for The East of England Plan, this February. Also the SRS is not
a complete document in itself as it relies on the other regional
spatial strategies to fill in many of the policies. The overlay
of the East of England Plan and the MKSM SRS is very confusing
for those living in this region.
1.4 The East of England region is almost
as diverse as the nation is as a whole so that it is hard to see
there is a need for a regional strategy as well as national policies.
There are national strategies and national funding streams to
cover most of the issues covered in the East of England Plan.
The amount of housing development which is the greatest challenge
for the region has been decided at a national level. EERA has
no power to limit the housing numbers. Nor can EERA go against
the various PPSs and PPGs and government white papers etc on vitality
in town centres, keeping the local character, on reducing the
need to travel, on open spaces, on biodiversity, on the rural
economy, and on sustainable development principles. With the extent
of white papers and guidance there is surely no need to have this
repeated at a regional level.
1.5 We are concerned that regional economic
strategies can lead to detrimental competition. One of the aims
of the regional strategies is to be able to compete economically
with the European regions and hence the role of the Economic Development
Agencies. However in as much as the housing numbers have been
set by national government so is the economic agenda set by national
government. The jobs are supposed to be based on the increase
in knowledge based jobs which is a national agenda set by the
treasury and the growth in airports in the regions is set by the
aviation white paper. Indeed we believe very strongly that economics
should be set nationally so that regions do not detrimentally,
compete against each other. This is already happening through
the Bedfordshire and Luton Joint Economic Development Strategy,
where in the need to create an extra 50,000 jobs to cope with
the new growth, there is an ambition to attract employers from
the rest of the UK in order to create between 14,500 and 16,500
of the extra jobs. Unless there is a national strategy then other
regions could suffer as employers move to Bedfordshire. Also there
is concern at the lack of national strategies like a national
ports strategy which could create a better economic distribution
for all the regions.
1.6 We are concerned at the manner in which
the regional funding allocations are reached The regions are now
giving funding advice to the government particularly on transport.
Many people herald this as devolution, however the size of the
regions and the mechanisms of meetings and sub groups mean that
democracy, and local accountability is being ignored. Despite
the government stating that we cannot build out way out of congestion,
and despite the new accessibility and social inclusion agenda,
the regions have overall asked for 72% of the government's funding
to be spent on roads yet only 28% is to be spent on public transport.
The East Midlands and the South East have made a case for 95%
of their allocation to be spent on roads. Despite serious concerns
over the social exclusion in villages in Bedfordshire due to lack
of public transport and the forecast huge increase in congestion,
local people are barred from being involved in how the region
spend its transport money.
The extract below is a summary of the concerns
of Denise Carlo concerning the regional funding allocation process
in relation to transport in the East of England. She has represented
STEER on the East of England Regional Transport Strategy (RTS)
Task Group for the last five years. STEER is a voluntary regional
network (Transport Round-table) of environment and transport groups
with the aim of promoting sustainable transport. (NB These are
not her exact words.)
"In my experience, the advice submitted
by EERA should be viewed with some caution. Economic objectives
have been given overriding priority, with a corresponding disregard
for the environment and social inclusion, contrary to RSS objectives
and national policy. Environmental bodies, both statutory and
voluntary have been sidelined. Parts of the process have lacked
transparency and openness.
Consultants Steer Davies Gleave were
commissioned by EERA in July 2005 to develop a methodology for
prioritising transport schemes. The RTS Task Group acted as an
advisory group to the study.
The Regional Planning Panel on the morning
of 20 October approved a methodology for assessing transport interventions
against regional objectives and establishing a score for each
alongside deliverability considerations. The regional objectives
were drawn from the priorities identified in the Integrated regional
Strategy viz.
In the afternoon of the same day, the
consultants gave the same presentation to the RTS Task Group that
included a set of pilot tables using the 135 transport schemes
submitted for consideration to illustrate the method. Using this
method, public transport schemes scored much higher than road
schemes (see attached table at Appendix 1; for example, A11 Fiveways
and A47 Blofield to North Burlingham Dualling scored very low).
The chair of the RTS Task Group pointedly
told the consultants that EERA would not accept the list in its
present form and asked them to go away and give more weight to
strategic roads. I am the sole environmental representative on
the RTS Task Group and at the 20 October meeting I was the only
person present who voiced concern over the need to support environmental
objectives. No minutes of the meeting were issued, but I took
notes at the time. Having met regularly over the past five years,
the RTS Task Group has not met since this date and has had no
further input to the RFA process.
The next occasion as a RTS Task Group
member when I saw the results of changes to the weightings was
when members were advised of the outcome of the Regional Planning
Panel meeting on 22 November. The methodology had been re-weighted
to support economic goals. The list of priorities featured 13
road schemes and 10 public transport-related projects (later increased
to 14 road and 11 public transport projects) based on a new set
of objectives:
— to improve connectivity
between and within Regional Interchange Centres and international
gateways;
— to tackle the infrastructure
deficit and congestion on the regional strategic network; and
— to sustain and support
growth and economic regeneration.
The submitted list of road schemes includes
a number of controversial proposals which were not tested against
environmental objectives eg:
— Norwich Northern Distributor
Route—potential impact on River Wensum SAC.
— A11 Fiveways to Thetford—impacts
on heathland SSSI/SPA.
— A120 Braintree to Marks
Tey—potential 'serious adverse' impact on biodiversity.
— The Regional Assembly
on 8 December added a further controversial road scheme:
— A127/A1159 Cuckoo Corner
Priory Crescent.
I rang the consultants, Steer Davies
Gleave, to inquire why the changes had been made and how the environment
and social equity had been taken into account. The response was
that the new weightings reflected the emphases of regional stakeholders
and that environment and social equity were reflected in the Draft
RSS Regional Interchange Centre objective and in relation to deliverability.
It appears that the consultants relied entirely on information
provided by the scheme promoters and did not attempt to contact
other sources, such as the statutory environmental bodies.
During October/November, EERA, GO-East
and EEDA conducted a limited consultation exercise among selected
bodies. I am not aware that any environmental stakeholders were
consulted. The Final Draft Report on Advice on RFA to Government
dated 19 January 2006 lists respondents to the consultation, most
of whom were local authorities. Defra is the sole stakeholder
with an environment brief listed.
The narrow range of stakeholders consulted
is contrary to the spirit of the Regional Funding Allocations
guidance published by HM Treasury, DTI, DfT and OPDM (July 2005)
which advised Government Regional Offices to:
`establish a process which engages
a wide range of regional stakeholders, to ensure that the region
benefits from the widest possible evidence-base and to create
conditions in which a consensus can emerge...
Other regional, sub-regional and
local bodies and stakeholders, including the business community,
the voluntary and community sector and local government should
be brought into the process to ensure that the advice reflects
relevant interests and concerns'.
A newly-established regional forum which
fed into the RFA process was the Regional Transport Forum (RTF).
The RTF comprises transport portfolio holders, and representatives
of the Highways Agency, Government Office and Regional Development
Agency. Whilst containing economic representation through EEDA,
it does not include any environmental representation. The meetings
are closed to the public.
I wrote to the RTF Chair to inquire
who had ownership of the forum and why it was closed to the public.
The response was:
`On the issue of ownership, the RTF
is not owned by any particular body. It is a meeting essentially
of the transport portfolio holders from each of the strategic
authorities plus two or three other bodies. As such the accountabilities
of the individual members lies with their constituent authorities.
The members of the forum reiterated their position with regards
to the meetings being held in public at their meeting on Friday.
Essentially the meetings are not open to the public. The members
are well aware of the various transport interests that exist and
of the need to be inclusive in any decision making process. This
forum is not however a decision making body.'
However, there is a clear relationship
between the RTF and EERA. The RTF provides important advice to
EERA which in turn provides the secretariat and facilitates the
meetings of the Forum. Yet the meetings are not open to the public,
notes of meetings are cursory and the memberships is narrowly
drawn.
The Regional Assembly meeting on 8 December
approved the prioritisation advice to Government contained in
the Region's FRA advice document. As the last stage in the pipeline,
EERA remitted the `final sign-off' to the new Regional Partnership
Group (RPG).
Membership of the RPG includes a small
number of regional environmental representatives, but a meeting
of the new body on 27 January, a few days before submission of
RFA advice to Government was too late to make much difference.
NE partnership representative made the following comment:
`Contributions to the debate were
made regarding the absence of an environmental dimension to the
infrastructure proposals, despite this being identified as a key
regional issue (in the Integrated Regional Strategy and Examination
in Public) and part of the strategic infrastructure programme
that is proposed. As a result, it was agreed that the report would
be modified to acknowledge the need for all the schemes to be
subject to the relevant transport and environmental assessments.'
The Regional Partnership Group is similarly
debarred to the public on the grounds that it is not a decision-making
body."
2. TOO MANY
TIERS OF
GOVERNMENT
We are concerned at the number of tiers of government
that are both elected and those that are not elected. It is very
difficult for the public to realise that often those with the
access to the money are not democratically elected.
2.1 At present in Leighton Buzzard in South
Bedfordshire, as regards elected bodies, we have Leighton Linslade
town council, South Bedfordshire District Council, and Bedfordshire
County Council. From the work that I have done with local groups
it is extremely confusing for people to understand the different
roles of the different councils.
2.2 As regards organisations that are not
directly elected there is the new Joint Planning and Transportation
committee for Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis and Leighton-Linslade
growth area, the Local Strategic Partnership for South Bedfordshire,
the Local Area Agreements and the East of England Regional Assembly.
These organisations are even more confusing.
2.3 We are also very concerned about the
new Joint Planning and Transportation committee for Luton/Dunstable/Houghton
Regis and Leighton-Linslade growth area. This is a group of councillors
some from Luton Borough Council and from South Bedfordshire District
council and from Bedfordshire County Council. None are directly
elected by the residents of the growth area. Yet this committee
will be responsible for some of the biggest changes to the whole
of South Bedfordshire that will dramatically affect the lives
of the existing residents of the area. Due probably to lack of
funds there is has been little publicity or explanation to local
people concerning this committee. Although there will be consultation,
the process is confusing and consultation can easily be ignored.
If people are very unhappy in the way that the housing is being
delivered they cannot easily vote out these councillors or vote
directly for those whose policies they support. This completely
disenfranchises people and leaves them disillusioned with the
process and leaves the local population with no option but to
directly protest. This is very alarming for democracy. Across
Bedfordshire Partnerships and Local Delivery vehicles are being
set up and it is now very difficult to understand who is in charge.
3. THE FUTURE
OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IN
BEDFORDSHIRE
As we have already said the three-tier system
as in Bedfordshire is very difficult for local people to understand.
I think that it is very important that there are minimum layers
of government so that people can understand the processes. I think
that it is also important that people can relate to the whole
area, that their council covers. Many people in Bedfordshire do
not know much of the county, and it is a large area to get to
know. It is nearly impossible to travel around Bedfordshire by
public transport. A county council can cover such a large area
that many people feel very remote from it. Whereas in a district
such as South Bedfordshire it is not difficult to travel around
the area and get a feel for it. It is much easier to understand
the positions and arguments of councillors and officers and therefore
the direction that local government is taking. It is also much
easier for the electorate to express their views and to see the
effect that their votes can have. The smaller the unit the easier
it is for local people to feel involved in their communities.
It obviously has to be large enough to make economic sense. There
has to be partnership working between authorities, and probably
the regional government offices should be kept, to help steer
economic development etc. However there is so much national guidance
that surely there is no need for a regional layer of government.
People can understand the difference between the national guidance
and the local guidance, but the layers in-between can be very
complicated and possibly not very effective. The reductions of
layers of government would also reduce costs considerably and
the cost saving could be used to keep and to raise the quality
of local authority staff and to make sure that there are adequate
resources.
The most important aim should be to increase
participation in local elections. In order to do this the system
has to be very easy to understand and people need to see clearly
how they can make a difference being involved.
Victoria Harvey,
Co-ordinator of South Beds Friends of the Earth and
Voluntary and Community Representative on the LSP
On behalf of Bedfordshire Councils Planning Consortium
|
