Post on 07-Dec-2021
KINGSTON UPON THAMES • CAMBRIDGE www.allenpyke.co.uk Landscape • Urban • Environmental
GREEN BELT REVIEW
Land off Front Street at Slip End, Luton
Prepared on behalf of:
Legal and General
Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4
Date: August 2017
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The joint Legal & General and Luton Hoo Estate landholding at Slip End is located in the Central Bedfordshire Council’s administrative area and lies within designated Green Belt. The local authority have identified the need to use Green Belt land for development, particularly in the southern parts of the district where major pressure for future residential growth is greatest around the large towns of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis.
Slip End has a population of under 2,000 but is classified as a large village in the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. The settlement is located beside Junction 10 of the M1 motorway, which separates it from the south-western edge of Luton. The L&G land is located between the eastern settlement boundary of Slip End and the M1 junction, where it shares a common boundary with the entire eastern perimeter of the site.
Landscape Context and Attributes
The rural landscape around Slip End consists of a series of dispersed small villages and hamlets set within a mosaic of fields with large areas of woodland, hedgerow-lined field and road boundaries that create an enclosed or semi-enclosed countryside. The countryside around the MI junction consists of the undulating chalk landscape of the Chilterns with its wide flat ridges on the dip slopes and steep sided valleys.
Slip End is positioned on an elevated dip slope that gradually falls southwards and eastwards across the L&G land to the motorway. The adjacent part of the Luton settlement boundary is occupied by an extensive sports and recreational area that straddles a ridge at Stockwood Park on the opposite side of the M1 to the L&G land.
L&G Land
The L&G site covers approximately 20 hectares with a proposed net developable area of 12 hectares, which consists of the main single, elongated and irregularly shaped field currently under arable agricultural production and an area of allotments. The balance of the land is to be used to create extensive boundary landscape buffers incorporating the substantial existing boundary tree belts and hedgerows, the primary area being along the motorway boundary.
The developable area within the landholding is surrounded by tall vegetation creating an enclosed site with little visual intervisibility with the adjacent countryside and a limited zone of visual influence around the site boundary and Slip End.
Development Proposals
The scheme proposals would create a high quality residential development of predominantly 2 storey dwellings that would be set within a robust green framework. Housing styles, the scale of development and selection of materials would be sympathetic to the location.
The remaining 8 hectares would include a landscape buffer and amenity spaces of up to 100 metres in width along the motorway boundary. The proposed development would be set around a new village green and will provide a focal point for Slip End. The scheme layout would incorporate and reinforce the existing tree belt and provide informal incidental recreational areas and equipped children’s play space. The existing public footpath and bridleway crossing the landholding would also be retained in attractive green corridors to encourage their use. The existing allotments would be relocated within the new development.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4
The landscape strategy for the site would create an attractive new living environment for residents with the boundary buffers establishing a well-defined, enduring and appropriate new settlement edge to Slip End along the motorway boundary.
Green Belt Appraisal
In July 2017 Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Council jointly published an updated Green Belt Study as part of the evidence base for their emerging Local Plans. The document post-dates the ‘Turner’ judicial review in 2016 but follows the traditional ‘volumetric’ approach to the assessment of the purposes of the Green Belt. The document omits the ‘visual dimension’ the Turner ruling suggests is implicit in the interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework guidance on Green Belt assessments.
The 2017 Study followed a two-stage process identifying larger parcels of Green Belt land, which were tested against the purposes of the Green Belt as defined in the NPPF. A more detailed second stage reviewed of land that contributed ‘weakly’ or ‘relatively weakly’ against the purposes of the Green Belt and were, therefore, considered of lower risk of harm for release from the designation.
The L&G land was carried forward into the second stage assessment as part of ‘Area SE1a’ that wrapped around the southern part of the Slip End settlement boundary. The Study considered the area to be borderline in terms of its contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. However, the higher ranking ‘moderate’ contribution to preventing encroachment of the countryside meant in volumetric terms the parcel was not recommended for release.
Having completed the study, Central Bedfordshire had to accept that the exercise identified the release of less than 1% of the Green Belt, which was insufficient for their development requirements and, in addition, not all of this weakly performing land was suitable for development. The Study concluded that it will be necessary to release better performing areas of Green Belt land in order to realise the strategy set out in the Local Plan, although no indication was given of a new selection threshold being set.
Conclusions of this Green Belt Review
The landscape and visual appraisal prepared on behalf of Legal & General established that their landholding and allotment area was not subject to any landscape or environmental designations, it was not an area of heritage significance to the village, and the landscape and physical attributes were not sufficient to warrant the landholding being recognised as a locally valued landscape.
The Review took into consideration the visual openness aspects of the Green Belt, in accordance with the Turner ruling, and found the L&G landholding to perform more weakly in terms of its contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt than the local authority’s 2017 Study findings. The conclusion being that the landholding should qualify in its own right for consideration as a weaker category site of low risk of harm for release from the Green Belt.
The character and visual characteristics of the L&G landholding were not considered by the Review to be typical of the area around Slip End. The greater sense of landscape and visual enclosure, and limited intervisibility make the L&G site capable of accommodating residential development without detriment to the character and integrity of the surrounding areas of Green Belt countryside.
The L&G land at Slip End is, therefore, suitable for consideration for release from the Green Belt as a residential allocation in the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4
LAND OFF FRONT STREET AT SLIP END, LUTON GREEN BELT REVIEW CONTENTS:
Page:
1. Introduction 1 2. Scope of Review 2 3. Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Attributes 7 4. Development Proposals 14 5. Green Belt Appraisal 16 6. Summary and Conclusions 27
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This report has been prepared by Allen Pyke Associates Ltd (APAL), a landscape design consultancy
specialising in landscape character and visual assessments across a variety of scales and types of
development. The practice has over twenty years’ experience of preparing landscape studies in
support of planning applications for major developments on Green Belt land and other designated
or sensitive valued landscapes.
1.2. The practice has been commissioned by Legal and General (L&G) to provide landscape advice in
association with Savills planning consultancy for a residential development on their landholding
off Front Street in the village of Slip End, which is located to the south-west of Luton in
Bedfordshire beside Junction 10 of the M1 motorway.
1.3. Allen Pyke Associates are familiar with the site having worked with Savills on behalf of L&G on the
initial feasibility studies and LVIA assessment work for the landholding since 2003. The site was re-
visited in 2010 after completion of improvements to Junction 10 and further visits were made in
May 2016 and March 2017 to confirm existing conditions and update photographs taken from key
visual receptors around the site.
1.4. This document will review the landscape and visual aspects of the purposes and openness of the
Green Belt designation and their significance in relation to the L&G landholding and the Luton Hoo
Estates allotment area off Front Street that jointly form the proposed residential development
area.
1.5. The report should be read in conjunction with a companion ‘Landscape Appraisal’ for the site (ref:
2728-RE-01-P4), which has also been produced by APAL.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 2
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
Background
2.1. The role of the London Metropolitan Green Belt, which washes over the southern part of the
Central Bedfordshire administrative area, is to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of larger
towns, as well as preserving the separation between these settlements and the outer built edge
of the capital. The fundamental aim of Green Belt is to keep land beyond defined urban boundaries
permanently open.
2.2. The National Planning Framework (2012) (NPPF) sets out in Section 9 national policy on protecting
Green Belt land. The chief purpose of the document is to assist the planning system in achieving
sustainable development (para. 6) and promoting sustainable patterns of development in Green
Belt (NPPF para. 84).
2.3. Green Belt is not an environmental policy designed to protect the condition of land or high quality
landscapes. The designation does include valued landscapes but they are subject to their own
protection policies at national and local levels.
2.4. Green Belt policy does not create an outright ban on development within the designation but does
prohibit inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful and should not be approved in
the absence of very special circumstances (NPPF para.87).
2.5. There is no defined method, or accepted standard test, for assessing the potential effects of
development on ‘openness’ or the purposes of the Green Belt designation. Traditionally, this has
been a planning exercise that considers development in purely ‘spatial’ or ‘volumetric’ terms,
either on ‘greenfield’ land or as a comparison of footprint, height and volume on previously
developed land.
2.6. The ‘Turner’ High Court judicial review of May 2016 (John Turner v Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government and East Dorset Council) has confirmed that a ‘visual
dimension’ should be included in the assessment of the purposes of the Green Belt as implied by
NPPF para. 81. Therefore, this review will examine the visual relationship of the site with the
surrounding Green Belt landscape, which is described in the companion ‘Landscape Appraisal’.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 3
2.7. This information will be used to provide a peer review of the visual contribution the site makes to
the purposes of the Green Belt (NPPF para. 80) and the significance of the effects of its use for
residential development on the integrity of the remaining adjacent designated countryside.
2.8. Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) commissioned Land Use Consultants (LUC) to produce a
‘Central Bedfordshire and Luton Green Belt Study’ as part of the evidence base for their emerging
Local Plan. The LUC document was prepared in November 2016 but only released by CBC to the
public in July 2017 with a short explanatory preface.
2.9. The document contains a review of ‘good practice’ precedents in planning procedures and
planning guidance for the assessment methodology but makes no mention of the Turner
judgement or the adoption of a visual dimension to the assessment. Paragraph 3.12 of the study
confirms the traditional ‘spatial/volumetric’ approach to the appraisal:
“Openness in a Green Belt sense relates to the lack of built development more than visual openness,
although the two often go hand in hand. The key distinction is that where vegetation provides
visual enclosure this does not reduce Green Belt openness, even though it might in practice mean
that development would have less visual impact. Openness should be judged based on the scale
and density of existing development. The extent and form of existing development affects the
degree to which a parcel can be considered to be part of the countryside rather than an extension
of the urban/settled area, or a built-up area in its own right.”
2.10. This definition is contrary to the Turner ruling, which sees vegetation and other topographical
features as an integral part of the overall perception of Green Belt openness and the correct
interpretation of NPPF guidance. The retention of landscape features and incorporation of open
green infrastructure within a development in Green Belt has the potential to provide mitigation
that will reduce the degree of harm caused on a site as well as significantly reducing or avoiding
any impact on the integrity of the remaining wider Green Belt setting. The vegetation, landform
and resultant visual containment in and around the L&G and Luton Hoo Estate joint landholding
at Slip End are a fundamental consideration that greatly weaken any contribution the site makes
to the purposes of designation and reduce the risk of visual harm to the Green Belt.
2.11. The same authors were previously commissioned by CBC to prepare a ‘Green Belt Technical Paper’
in June 2014 as part of the authority’s ‘Development Strategy’. The purpose of the earlier
document was to set out the ‘exceptional circumstances’ by which the CBC believed it could justify
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 4
the release of Green Belt land or make changes to the boundary of the designation. These were
identified as a need for residential and employment development and to redress the significant
imbalance and deficit in the future provision of such facilities in the southern part of the district
where the population was much larger.
2.12. The 2014 study included a sequential two-stage assessment with Slip End forming part of a much
larger land parcel to the west of Luton and the M1. The conclusion reached by the study was that
development in this location “would have a significant impact upon the Green Belt and its
function”. The area was, therefore, considered to be rated ‘Red’ – the highest and most significant
contribution a land parcel could contribute to the Green Belt in the assessment’s 3-level scale.
2.13. The 2017 CBC study now also incorporates the limited areas of Green Belt land within the Luton
Borough Council settlement boundary. The study is, however, more focused on the contribution
individual land parcels make to the first four of the five purposes of the Green Belt defined in NPPF
paragraph 80. A 5-point sliding scale was used to rate the performance against each purpose, and
ranged from the highest ‘Strong Contribution’ through to lowest ‘Weak/No Contribution’ category.
2.14. The document again adopted a two-stage approach with only land parcels, or selected parts,
identified in the ‘Relatively Weak’ or ‘Weak/No Contribution’ categories in chapter 4, passing
through to the more detailed second stage. This second assessment provided a more detailed
division of each land parcel into sub-areas and explanation of the Green Belt criteria.
2.15. The land around Slip End was identified as Areas SE1 and SE2 in stage one with the L&G landholding
forming part of SE1 the south-east of the B4540 (Markyate Road/Church Road). The assessment
for both areas gave, in aggregate, an overall ‘moderate’ contribution to the purposes of Green
Belt. Although a threshold with only weaker performing land was to pass through to stage 2, both
areas were included as ‘borderline’ sites. Area SE1 was reduce in size to exclude land around
Pepperstock and was renamed Area SE1a. The L&G landholding formed a distinct part of sub-area
SE1a and was again given a ‘moderate’ aggregate rating and omitted from further consideration.
The results of the 2017 assessment are analysed fully in Section 5 of this Review document.
2.16. In assessing the Green Belt boundaries, the 2017 study also set itself the task of reviewing the
existing settlements ‘washed over’ (include within) or ‘inset’ (outside) the Green Belt in Central
Bedfordshire. Slip End is an ‘inset’ village with the settlement boundary containing all the existing
built form, with the exception of the Slip End Lower School. The recommendation in the CBC Study
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 5
is to retain the village as an ‘inset within the Green Belt’. The rationale for this conclusion is agreed
and will not be examined further.
2.17. However, following completion of their study Central Bedfordshire had to concede that having
sought to identify sufficient weakly contributing Green Belt land to meet their immediate
development requirements the main implication was:
“As less than 1% of Central Bedfordshire’s Green Belt was assessed as performing weakly, and may
not necessarily be suitable for development for a variety of reasons, it will be necessary where
exceptional circumstances apply, to release better performing areas of land in order to realise the
strategy set out within the Local Plan. This will be considered alongside other technical evidence
base studies and tested through the Examination process.”
Purpose of this Review
2.18. The Green Belt report will demonstrate that the L&G and allotments at Slip End is a ‘weaker’
performing piece of land that should be considered for release from the Green Belt for residential
purposes because there is a lower risk of harm to the designation than from the other land parcels
in the SE1a area. In making the necessary justification this document will provide::
1. A summary of the key landscape and visual characteristics of the landholding as context to the
Green Belt Review:
- Landform and topography;
- Land cover and land use;
- Built and Cultural aspects;
- Visual amenity and the intervisibility of the site and its setting; and,
- Landscape sensitivity.
2. An appraisal of the ability of the landholding to accommodate development and the landscape
mitigation measures necessary to assist the integration of any future residential proposals into the
local landscape, and reduce their potential effects on the character and visual amenity of the
immediate setting; and,
3. A strategic assessment of the contribution the landholding makes to the purposes of Green Belt
and its visual sensitivity and significance in relation to the land parcel defined in the 2017 CBC &
LBC ‘Green Belt Study’.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 6
Methodology
2.19. The Review follows the broad best practice principles set out in the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment’, Third edition, 2013 (GLVIA 3) published jointly by The Landscape
Institute and The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.
Assumptions
2.20. To provide a baseline for the assessment of the potential effects of residential development and
its massing, it is assumed that the built form will predominantly consist of 2-storey dwellings with
ridge heights of approximately 9 to 11 metres. This does not preclude some dwellings being of
greater height or is meant to suggest that higher buildings would be inappropriate on the site.
2.21. Layout details, house types, earthworks and associated green infrastructure would be agreed in a
full planning application and the discharge of conditions. It is assumed that any scheme proposal
would be well designed and be appropriate to the location in terms of materials, styles, landscape
treatments, scale and form.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 7
3. APPRAISAL OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ATTRIBUTES
Topography, Land Use and Setting
3.1. Slip End is a settlement with a population of approximately 1,800 that is classified in policy terms
as a ‘large village’. It lies around 2.5 km south-west of Luton town centre, and is close to the
western boundary of the M1 motorway at Junction 10 but has no direct access to the junction.
Other settlements of any appreciable size in the surrounding countryside are the villages of
Caddington, 1.2 kilometres to the north-west, and Markyate, 2.4 kilometres to the south-west.
The parish of Slip End includes the adjacent hamlets of Lower Woodside, Woodside and
Pepperstock (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph
3.2. The village is located on high ground within the rolling chalk landscape of the Chilterns. The area
is characterised by a series of broad ridge tops on the chalk dip slopes that are often separated by
wide, steep-sided valleys.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 8
3.3. The L&G landholding consists of a single elongated and irregularly shaped arable field that wraps
around the eastern edge of the Slip End settlement boundary along Summer Street, The Oaks and
New Street. It also abuts the allotment area at the corner of New Street and Front Street. Beyond
the settlement boundary, the site extends along the undeveloped lengths of Church Road (B4540),
to the north, and Front Street, to the south, with the entire length of the eastern boundary being
contiguous with the M1.
The Site
3.4. The site has a gross area of 20 hectares but with a proposed net developable area of 12 hectares
because of the provision of additional substantial landscape buffers and green infrastructure to
reinforce the existing belts of vegetation along the boundary of the landholding. The highest point
is at 167m AOD along the Front Street boundary, the land then falls gently to the east and south
with some slight undulations in the field. The lowest point is at 150m AOD along the north-eastern
edge of the site, adjacent to the M1 embankment beside the Church Road bridge under the
motorway.
Land-cover and Relationship with Surrounding Countryside
3.5. Slip End and the series of dispersed small villages and hamlets that surround the settlement are
set within a mosaic of fields with large areas of woodlands, and hedgerow-lined fields and road
boundaries that run across much of the countryside to the west and south of Slip End. The
substantial framework of native vegetation contributes to the more remote rural character of this
area.
3.6. To the north of Church Road and the Markyate Road, and west of Slip End, a larger scale field
pattern becomes more evident. This landscape is partly devoid of field and road boundary
vegetation, and forms part of a wider more open section of countryside running to the west of the
M1 motorway.
3.7. Junction 10 and the motorway also mark the south-western settlement boundary to the Luton
Borough administrative area. The landscape to the east of the M1 is also dominated by Junction
10 and 10a at the head of the Luton Hoo valley. Church Road extends a short distance beyond the
motorway under-bridge to Newlands Road where the land rises to a ridge in Stockwood Park on
the edge of the Leagrave area of Luton. The park contains a number of major recreational activities
with the slopes facing Slip End and the M1 being used for a golf course (Figure 1 above).
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 9
3.8. The motorway forms a substantial physical barrier between the Luton settlement edge and Slip
End.
Built and Cultural Aspects
3.9. The entire field area within the L&G landholding and the allotments are open with no internal
blocks of vegetation, individual trees or lengths of hedgerow. The L&G land does not contain any
built form other than a local power line with a double telegraph pole carrying cables over the
north-eastern tip of the site.
3.10. All the land lies within the Green Belt designation but it is not subject to any other landscape or
environmental designations.
3.11. The Draft Caddington and Slip End Neighbourhood Plan does not identify the landholding as having
any cultural or historic associations and it is not recognised in the document as being a ‘Local Green
Space’ as defined in NPPF paragraphs 76 to 78.
3.12. The companion Landscape Appraisal demonstrates that there are no other physical attributes,
recreational, conservation, or perceptual associations to distinguish the site as being a ‘valued’
local landscape in any other regard other than its Green Belt status. The allotments are used by
the local community but will be relocated within the proposed development.
Character of the Countryside
3.13. The L&G site is lined by tall hedgerows and tree belts, which, in combination with the elevated
sections of the motorway embankments around Junction 10, create an overriding sense of
enclosure within the field area (see Figure 2: Landscape Attributes Plan, below & photographs 3.25
to 3.28 in the Landscape Appraisal).
3.14. The existing substantial tall band of trees and hedgerow vegetation along the motorway boundary
would form the base to the proposed landscape buffer and reinforced screening along the
common M1 boundary. The tall belt of mature trees running along the boundary with the rear
gardens in Summer Street, Church Road and The Oaks also provide a significant level of visual
separation between properties on these roads and the site. These properties, in combination with
the boundary trees, hide the site from the main body of the village to the west. The scale and
density of this vegetation is likely to continue providing a significance sense of screening in winter
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 10
months although the development will be more visible in the narrow visual envelop around the
site boundary.
Figure 2: Site Landscape Attributes Plan
3.15. At the southern tip of the landholding, by the motorway bridge on Front Street, is a small remnant
field that is currently visually separated from the main part of the site by the belt of tall vegetation
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 11
running along the eastern edge of the large field. It is intended that this area would also become
part of the widened landscape buffer along the M1 boundary (Figure 2 above).
3.16. Broken hedgerows line the two undeveloped sections of the road frontages on Church Road and
Front Street with mature trees allowing limiting visual permeability into the site from these local
roads. The site boundary with the allotments, located on the corner of Front Street and New Road,
is open but they are both screened from Front Street by the roadside native hedgerow.
3.17. To the immediate south of Slip End, around Pepperstock, and west of the village the ground on
the elevated, wide flat-topped ridge contains substantial areas of woodland, tree-lined lanes and
fields that enclose the village although longer views across larger open fields become more evident
to the west of the settlement. Development in Pepperstock extends along the tree-lined Half
Moon Lane but is not visible from the L&G land.
3.18. To the north of the village, modern arable farming techniques have removed some hedgerows and
created in places a more open character to the rolling countryside around Woodside, the
motorway corridor up to Junction 11 and the urban edge of the Luton/Dunstable conurbation.
Visual Amenity and Intervisibility of the Site and its Setting
3.19. There are limited long views of the surrounding landscape from the site. The top of the distant
Luton Hoo ridge can currently be glimpsed from the Church Road end of the site over an elevated
section of the motorway, where the natural ground falls away into the northern end of the Hoo
and Slip End valley along Newlands Road. The planting on the realigned northbound slip road
around the Church Road bridge is yet to fully establish but once this vegetation reaches maturity,
along with the extensive landscape buffer proposed beside this vegetation, these long views from
the site and Church Road will disappear.
3.20. There are some reverse views from the north back to Slip End and the tree-lined site boundary on
Church Road from Woodside and public rights of way in the countryside running over the large
open fields. There are also views back from the ridge at Stockwood Park and Newlands Road but
from these locations the site is mainly screened by the M1 and the tall vegetation running along
the motorway boundary, which would be greatly reinforced by the proposed widened landscape
buffer along the site boundary.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 12
3.21. The enclosed nature of the landscape around eastern side of Slip End means there is little
intervisibility with wider landscape and the visual envelope around the landholding is limited. The
flat ridge top landform and combination of existing vegetation around the development area
prevent long views and leave the site visually and physically separated from the neighbouring
countryside.
3.22. Any visual effects from the proposed scheme would not have any significant adverse influences on
the character or appearance of the wider adjacent countryside around the village.
Landscape Character and Sensitivity
3.23. The local authority’s Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) no longer provides a character and
visual sensitivity rating for each character area. However, the companion Landscape Appraisal
demonstrates that the proximity of Slip End to the motorway and other adjacent urban influences
reduce the level of sensitivity of the landholding and its immediate setting when compared with
the overall character of the rural area.
3.24. The landscape attributes and their sensitivity are identified in the CBC LCA assessment of Area 12C
(Slip End Chalk Valley) and Area 11B (Caddington-Slip End Chalk Dip Slope). The boundary between
these two areas follows an arbitrary contour across the landholding with Area 12C covering the
majority of the field and its description is more representational of the site characteristics (see
Landscape Appraisal, Appendix A Fig.03).
3.25. The CBC assessment recognises the sensitivity of the L&G land to the prominent audible and visual
presence of the motorway and identifies the ridge crests along the M1 valley north of Slip End as
being particularly sensitive. However, the Slip End landholding is positioned on a part of the ridge
where there is no pronounced scarp crest or steep side to the valley but the land does fall gentle
across the site to the northern part of the motorway junction.
3.26. The visual sensitivity of the L&G land and the allotments is generally limited by the flatter landform
and visual containment provided by the tall blocks of vegetation around the site boundary.
Ability of the L&G Land and Allotments at Slip End to Accommodate Development
3.27. The existing contained nature of the proposed development site, its physical and visual separation
from the surrounding landscape, in combination with the proposed substantial boundary
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 13
landscape buffers and green infrastructure, would ameliorate the most significant adverse effects
of development.
3.28. Slip End village and the L&G land are located on a visually less prominent dip slope location
favoured by the local authority in preference to exposed crests on chalk scarps in the area. The
flatter location is also more compatible to construction than the steep sided valley slopes.
3.29. Although well maintained in productive arable use, the site is not a valued or distinguished
landscape and is otherwise ordinary and common place in terms of its land use in rural
Bedfordshire and the surrounding countryside.
3.30. The proximity to the settlement edge of Slip End and junction 10 of the motorway means the site
is subject to significant urban influences despite its rural fringe location.
3.31. The Landscape Appraisal demonstrates that the topographical features and containment around
L&G land and the allotments provide it with a good capacity to accommodate development,
notwithstanding its Green Belt designation.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 14
4. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Figure 3: Conceptual Landscape Strategy
4.1. The scheme layout would be designed to create a high quality residential development that
respects the character of the area and the existing built form of the village as well as preserving
the local landscape character and visual amenity of the area. This would be achieved by enhancing
and renewing existing strategic, sensitive landscape features and protecting the visual amenity of
the area through a landscape led approach to the design and treatment of the land. A Conceptual
Landscape Strategy has been prepared for the site (Figure 3: Conceptual Landscape Strategy,
above) to demonstrate how the green infrastructure would maintain the enclosed character and
dictate the location and extent of the proposed built development.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 15
4.2. The proposals for the 12 hectares of developable land would consist of predominantly 2-storey
dwellings set within a strong landscape framework wrapping around the site, with 8 hectares
including widened landscape buffers and recreational amenity space of approximately 100 metres
width along the entire motorway boundary. This zone would include all existing on-site vegetation
and new informal recreational facilities.
4.3. The existing allotment area would be used to ctreate a village green and include an equipped
children’s play area to form the hub to the development and focal point for the village. A
sustainable urban drainage system would also be incorporated into the buffers in a series of
landscaped swales and ponds to complement the appearance of the development and increase
biodiversity.
4.4. The landscape buffers would increase the screening of the motorway and include new noise
attenuation measures for the new development as well as benefiting the whole of the village.
4.5. The creation of substantial green corridors within the development along the main vehicular
access routes would also enhance the character of the location, as well as improve the rural
approaches to the village. New allotments would be created within the development boundary.
4.6. The proposals would enhance the existing public footpath that crosses the middle of the
landholding and bridleway that runs through the existing tree belt and proposed landscape buffer
along the eastern boundary. Both public rights of way would be set within their own green
corridors to create attractive routes that will encourage connectivity between the village, the new
development, and the adjacent countryside.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 16
5. GREEN BELT APPRAISAL
Green Belt Designation and Policy
5.1. The L&G landholding lies towards the northern edge of London’s Metropolitan Green Belt, which
wraps around the Luton Borough boundary. Locally, the responsibility for the designation is more
complicated with the wider setting being covered by three local authorities. Slip End and the L&G
land are located entirely within Green Belt at a narrow neck of land that forms part the Central
Bedfordshire Council administrative area. The local authority’s land extends across the M1 at
Junction 10 between Slip End and Pepperstock, in the west, and Luton Hoo to the east (see Figure
4, below).
Figure 4: Green Belt
5.2. To the south, the Green Belt boundary between the CBC district and the northern edge of the
Dacorum Borough Council administrative area follows an arbitrary line along field boundaries
south of Pepperstock. The countryside within the adjacent parts of Dacorum are also designated
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 17
Green Belt. To the east, the Luton Borough Council administrative area runs along the opposite
side of the motorway and arrives at its most southerly point at Junction 10 and the M1 spur road
to Luton Airport (New Airport Way). None of the adjacent land in Luton, which includes Stockwood
Park, forms any part of the Green Belt designation.
5.3. Local Green Belt policies reinforce the NPPF. Policies associated with the site and the surrounding
countryside are:
• Central Bedfordshire Council: Policy GB1 - Green Belt
• Dacorum Borough Council: Policy 4 – Green Belt
Compliance with the Purposes of Green Belt
Introduction
5.4. The NPPF (para. 79) states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts with
their fundamental aim being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the
essential characteristics being their openness and their permanence.
5.5. The five purposes of the Green Belt are defined in para. 80 as being:
• To check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
• To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
• To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
• To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
• To assist in the urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban
land
5.6. Planning decisions and Green Belt assessments prior to the 2016 Court of Appeal ‘Turner’ ruling
were primarily based on a ‘volumetric’ or ‘spatial’ exercise that considered ‘openness’ as
essentially freedom from development – either built form or engineering works. Where exceptions
may be considered ‘not inappropriate’ in Green Belt (NPPF paras. 89 and 90) they are generally
still required to preserve ‘openness’ and comply with the purposes of the Green Belt designation.
5.7. The 2016 ‘Turner’ judicial review has confirmed a ‘visual dimensions’ to the interpretation of the
NPPF.
Paragraph 14 of the ruling states:
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 18
“The concept of ‘openness of the Green Belt’ is not narrowly limited to the volumetric approach…..
The word ‘openness’ is open-textured and a number of factors are capable of being relevant when
it comes to applying it to the particular facts of a specific case. Prominent among these will be
factors relevant to how built up the Green Belt is now and how built it up it would be if development
occurs………….and factors relevant to the visual impact on the aspect of openness which the Green
Belt presents.”
Paragraph 15 then goes on to state:
“The question of visual impact is implicitly part of the concept of ‘openness’ of the Green Belt as a
matter of the natural meaning of the language used in para. 89 of the NPPF. I [Lord Justice Scales]
consider that this interpretation is also reinforced by the general guidance in paras. 79-81 of the
NPPF… . There is an important visual dimension to checking ‘the unrestricted sprawl of large built-
up areas’ and the merging of neighbouring towns, as indeed the name ‘Green Belt’ itself implies.
Greenness is a visual quality: part of the idea of the Green Belt is that the eye and spirit should be
relieved from the prospect of unrelenting urban sprawl. Openness of aspect is a characteristic
quality of the countryside, and ‘safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’ includes
preservation of that quality of openness. The preservation of ‘the setting … of historic towns’
obviously refers in a material way to their visual setting, for instance when seen from a distance
across open fields. Again, the reference to para. 81 to planning positively ‘to retain and enhance
landscapes’ visual amenity and biodiversity’ in the Green Belt makes it clear that the visual
dimension of the Green Belt is an important part of the point of designating land as Green Belt.”
CBC Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy: Green Belt Technical Paper (2014)
5.8. The purpose of the first study paper prepared by CBC was:
“to set out the ‘exceptional circumstances’ which the Council believes justifies the release of Green
Belt land, and to summarise the methodology employed in reviewing the existing boundaries of the
Green Belt. In doing so it is hoped that it will provide a sound basis for the release of Green Belt
land and the identification of urban extensions as proposed by the development strategy.”
5.9. Green Belt policy in South Bedfordshire originated in the 1960’s when there was considerable
growth pressures on the main towns in the area (Luton, Dunstable, Houghton Regis, Ampthill and
Flitwick) (ref: Technical Paper Section 2), which coincided with the completion of the M1
motorway. The Paper identified a requirement for substantial new growth to meet housing needs
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 19
and to achieve the required numbers in the plan period up to 2031. The Paper accepts that
development was required on Green Belt land (Paper Section 4) and Southern Central
Bedfordshire was identified as having the greatest housing need (4.3.1 and 9.1).
5.10. Having identified the exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Land the Technical
Paper undertook a systematic identification of sites. The study sought to identify larger tracts of
land that had least impact on Green Belt principles and were located close to areas of most need
(Section7).
5.11. The authority’s assessment was undertaken in two stages. Part 1 (Section 8) was a high-level
strategic assessment that divided the administrative area into parcels based on Parishes with each
parcel determined on its performance against the five purposes of the Green Belt. Part 2 (Section
9) reviewed boundaries in relation to specific smaller areas and locations where there was a
proven intent to develop (9.3).
5.12. The Slip End site was not assessed individually at either stage but its inclusion in larger land parcels
that were judged to be more sensitive Green Belt land. This meant the village was considered to
be part of an area to the ‘West of Luton’ (and the M1) that contributed most in the purposes of
Green Belt and was not regarded as appropriate for development.
Central Bedfordshire and Luton Green Belt Study (2017)
5.13. The methodology used for the 2017 CBC assessment is set out in chapter 3 of the document. Unlike
the previous 2014 study, only the contributions made to the first four purposed of the Green Belt
(as listed in 5.5 above) were reviewed. Purpose 5 was excluded because all parts of the Green Belt
in the administrative area have the potential to make a strategic contribution to urban renewal
but it was not considered possible to quantify how any individual land parcel delivers against this
purpose.
5.14. It is common practice for Green Belt studies to exclude both Purpose 4 and 5 from assessments,
particularly with Purpose 4 where a town or city is not recognised as being a historic settlement of
special character as defined in the NPPF. The CBC assessment describes the historic development
of Luton and its setting (3.53 to 3.56) rather than providing the evidence base to support the
proposition that the limited cultural and heritage attributes are of sufficiently special character or
quantity to warrant the town being given historic status for Green Belt purposes.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 20
5.15. In setting the context for the town, the adopted Luton Local Plan 2001-2011 provides a more
mundane description of its ‘main features’:
“3.11 Luton is a busy town, with a centre focused upon a large Arndale shopping centre. To the
north of the central area, extending from Plaiters Lea to High Town, is the area previously
dominated by the hat industry. The surrounding areas were intensively developed during the
industrial revolution, and still contain a mix of residential and employment uses. Some substantial
parks were created during the Victorian period and they still exist today. During the first half of the
20th century, major employers, such as Vauxhall, Electrolux and SKF, developed their businesses in
the town.”
“3.12 Housing development has taken place at a steady rate since the end of the First World War,
with 40% of the total stock being built between 1970 and the end of the 20th century. Luton is now
generally developed up to its administrative boundary.”
5.16. The first stage of the CBC study divides the Green Belt into a series of land parcels around the
‘inset’ villages and towns, and subdivides the remaining areas of Green Belt into ‘broad areas’ -
Area SE1 for Slip End falls within the former category. Each parcel was assessed for each of the
four purposes of the Green Belt on the 5-point scale according to the relative strength or weakness
of the contribution.
5.17. Stage 2 drew on the Stage 1 work to ‘isolate’ areas of Green Belt judged to make no more than a
‘relatively weak’ contribution to all of the Green Belt purposes - a total of 29 areas were identified.
Land achieving a higher rating (‘moderate’, ‘relatively strong’ or ‘strong’ contributions) were not
included because it was considered that making a higher contribution to just one purpose of the
Green Belt posed a greater risk of harm. However, the desk-based judgements needed on such a
wide-ranging study meant the authors decided to include parcels with ‘borderline’ ratings
between the ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’ contribution categories.
Analysis of the CBC 2017 Green Belt findings for Area SE1
5.18. The area around the Slip End settlement boundary was divided into two with Area SE1 (including
the L& G land) to the south-east of the B4540, and Area SE2 to the north-west of the B4540. Both
had identical results and were taken forward to stage 2. This Review will only deal with reduced
Area SE1a taken through to stage 2, which still included the area to the south-east of Slip End, and
the L&G land, but excluded Pepperstock.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 21
Stage 1 Assessment of Purposes of the Green Belt
Test 1: To check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
Commentary:
CBC Green Belt Study findings for Purpose 1: considered to make a ‘Moderate’ contribution
5.19. The scheme proposals would extend built form onto a previously undeveloped strip of agricultural
Green Belt land between the Slip End settlement boundary and the M1 motorway at Junction 10.
However, Slip End is defined as a village not a large built-up area in policy terms and the provision
of an appropriately well designed urban extension in keeping with the village character, and to
fixed boundaries does, not constitute unrestricted sprawl.
5.20. The landholding is located in a transitional zone where the increasing urban artefacts and similar
development on, or close to, a major motorway junction on a nationally important transport
corridor already heavily influence the character of the land and visual appreciation of its setting.
5.21. The companion ‘Landscape Appraisal’ demonstrates that there is extremely limited intervisibility
between the site and its setting because of the surrounding ground form and vegetation in and
around the site boundary. The retained site vegetation and extensive landscape mitigation
treatments included in the development proposals would reinforce the well-vegetated character
of the site and reduce the visual effects of massing and scale on the village and its immediate
setting.
5.22. While it is accepted that development on the joint site would irreversibly alter the character of the
land, the same case could be made for any built development on countryside in Green Belt land.
5.23. The difference with the L&G land is the ‘visual dimension’ - the lack of intervisibility and the more
remote and visually self-contained attributes of the site, both from the exiting village and the
surrounding Green Belt land.
5.24. The proposed development would complement the existing built form, provide new access and
retain substantial green areas for recreation and both physical and visual amenity. The substantial
landscape buffers along the motorway boundary would also provide an enduring and well-defined
edge to the settlement.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 22
5.25. The site is undistinguished in landscape and environment terms and the use of this land should be
preferred to development of other Green Belt land in more sensitive, prominent or remote
countryside locations.
5.26. The L&G land, within the wider SE1a area, is considered in visual terms to make a ‘relatively weak’
contribution (low risk of harm from release) to Purpose 1 and development could be achieved
without any significant effects on the visual integrity of the surrounding Green Belt or character of
the area.
5.27. The CBC assessment of the site making a ‘moderate’ contribution (moderate risk of harm from
release) to Purpose 1 is not agreed. It is considered that the visual characteristics and nature of
the development on the L&G land mean it makes a weaker contribution to the sense of sprawl and
would cause less risk from harm for the Green Belt.
Test 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
Commentary:
CBC Green Belt Study findings for Purpose 2: considered to make a ‘Weak/No’ contribution
5.28. The nearest major town of significant size is the southern settlement edge to Luton on the opposite
side of the motorway. Dunstable lies 4.0 km to the north-west, Harpenden 3.0km to the south east
and Hemel Hempstead 6.0km to the south in straight-line distances between the site and closest
point on each settlement boundary. The distances to each town are too great and development is
not of sufficient extent to create a physical or visual sense of merging with these towns, which are
also surrounded by Green Belt.
5.29. There is limited intervisibility with the landscape to the north around Woodside. The L&G land lies
to the south of Church Road and would not create a sense of coalescence between Slip End and
Woodside. Caddington lies further north and is not visible from the proposed development area
because of the intervening vegetation and generally flat landform. From the Pepperstock area and
countryside to the west of Slip End, the L&G land would also be hidden by intervening vegetation
and the proposed landscape buffer that would be retained in the southern section of the
landholding along Front Street.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 23
5.30. The boundary with Luton is separated physically by the substantial width of the M1 corridor
although the landscape around Newlands Road and the Stockwood Park golf course has an urban
fringe character with a collection of urban artefacts associated with the motorway junctions and
prominent overhead power lines present in views. Development of the site is unlikely to alter the
visual relationship between Slip End and the hidden urban edge of Luton. Intervisibility would be
further reduced with the proposed reinforcement of the landscape buffer along the motorway
boundary beside Church Road.
5.31. The CBC assessment of the site making a ‘weak/no’ contribution (very low/no risk of harm from
release) to Purpose 2 is agreed.
Test 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Commentary:
CBC Green Belt Study findings for Purpose 3: considered to make a ‘Moderate’ contribution
5.32. The site forms part of a buffer strip of agricultural land between the motorway and the village
edge, which currently varies in width between 170 metres, at its closet point, and 290 metres along
the Church Road frontage. This enclosed and narrow piece of land is already visually separated
from the surrounding Green Belt countryside by the topography, the motorway, substantial blocks
of surrounding vegetation and the existing built form of Slip End.
5.33. Significant future boundary buffer planting would create a further physical and visual sense of
separation between the L&G land and the countryside to the north, south and west of the village
whilst still preserving the adjacent countryside character and complementing the character and
appearance of Slip End.
5.34. The site has a contained zone of visual influence and makes a limited contribution to the
appreciation of the wider countryside around Slip End. The site is generally seen in the context of
the motorway when viewed from the roads leading to or from the village. The site plays a limited
part in safeguarding the main part of the open countryside around the village from encroachment
and its use for housing would not prevent the village from retaining its rural character and
important physical relationship with the existing surrounding Green Belt countryside to the north,
south and west.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 24
5.35. Development of the enclosed L&G landholding and the allotment area would avoid the need to
use more visually prominent or sensitive alternative Green Belt land in the surrounding rural
landscape to meet housing supply quotas in the southern part of Central Bedfordshire.
5.36. The CBC assessment of the site making a ‘moderate’ contribution (moderate risk of harm from
release) to Purpose 3 is not agreed. The L&G land is considered to make a ‘relatively weak’
contribution (low risk of harm from release) to Purpose 3. The visually enclosed nature of the site
means development would avoid any significant sense of encroachment. Development could be
achieved without any significant effects on the visual integrity or character of the surrounding
countryside in the Green Belt.
Test 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
Commentary:
CBC Green Belt Study findings for Purpose 4: considered to make a ‘Weak/No’ contribution
5.37. Slip End is not a designated historic settlement, nor is Luton a historic town whose character or
setting has been designated as special in policy terms for either its appearance or heritage value.
5.38. The urban area of Luton is not visible from the L&G landholding in Slip End and the only view into
suburban edge of Luton is of Stockwood Park, a major sports and recreational area. The only part
of this large park visible from Slip End is the west facing ridge slope that is used as a golf course.
This landscape has no historical significance other than its Victorian origins, and is not visually
recognisable as forming part of Luton.
5.39. The L&G land and adjacent part of Stockwood Park are both heavily influenced by the adjacent M1
motorway, which dominates the setting to both Slip End and extreme south-west tip of Luton.
5.40. The CBC assessment of the site making a ‘weak/no’ contribution (very low/no risk of harm from
release) to Purpose 4 is agreed.
Stage 2 Assessment of Purposes of the Green Belt
5.41. The detailed Study divides the Area SE1a land, to the south-east of the B4540, into three. The L&G
landholding north of Front Street forms the eastern section. The western section stretches
between the Slip End Lower School on the Markyate Road and the Brickhill Park residential
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 25
development on Half Moon Lane in Pepperstock. The central section of the area runs from the
village edge at Crawley Close, along the southern side of Front Street opposite the village
allotments and the L&G land to Half Moon Lane in Pepperstock.
5.42. The Stage 2 study provides only a brief assessment of the three sub-parcels with a cursory overview
of the landscape characteristics and visual relationship between the area and its setting. The
assessment for the L&G land states:
“The motorway forms strong containment to the north and east, but a mature well-treed hedgerow
provides a strong visual barrier and there is no built development within the parcel north of Front
Street. The landform in this area adds to the sense of distinction from the inset settlement: a
distinct valley cuts through the centre of the northernmost field, parallel to Church Road, and to
the east the land slopes down towards the motorway.”
“Land to the south-east between Slip End and Pepperstock is more contained by development and
also occupies high ground at a similar elevation, and so relates less strongly to the wider
countryside, but to the west of this the landform falls away, and the parcel’ outer boundary is
weaker, giving the area a stronger relationship with the countryside to the west.”
“The parcel is too separate from Luton to contribute to its historic setting.”
5.43. Given this analysis of the three sub-parcels that make up Area SE1a, there does not seem to be
any logical progression in either ‘volumetric’ or ‘visual’ terms to the conclusions reached:
Central parcel:
“The fields contained by Front Street, by the inset settlement edge of Slip End on Crawley Close, by
Half Moon Lane [in Pepperstock] and by a hedgerow to the south-west, as indicated on the map
above, are considered to make a relatively week contribution to the Green Belt purposes. These
features would form a stronger potential alternative Green Belt boundary than the inset edge, but
would call into question the status of the adjacent Park Home development at Pepperstock.”
East & West Parcels:
The parcels to the west and east (the latter being the L&G land north of Front Street) received no
further explanation of their landscape or visual significance to the Green Belt and were simply
grouped together and judged to make:
“…a moderate contribution to preventing encroachment on the countryside.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 26
5.44. While the ‘weak’ contribution made by the Central parcel of SE1a is accepted, there is no clear
reason for this sub-area scoring less in Green Belt terms than the other sub-parcels to the east and
west. New development on either of the western or central parcels, which are larger-scale and
semi-open landscapes, would create coalescence between the Markyate Road and Crawley Close
in Slip End and Half Moon Lane in Pepperstock. The western parcel, as recognised in the parcel
description, also has a stronger relationship to the Green Belt countryside to the west and if
developed would create an obvious sense of encroachment into the rural landscape.
5.45. The conclusions fail to give any significant weight to the different physical and visual characteristics
of the L&G land north of Front Street and their benefits over the other two sub-parcels to the south
of Front Street in visual Green Belt terms. The high level of containment provided around the entire
perimeter of the L&G site by the boundary vegetation visually separates the landholding from the
adjacent surrounding countryside. This is already physically reinforced by the intervening built
form of Slip End to the west and the extensive M1 junction to the east. The shorter boundaries
along Front Street to the south and Church Road are also lined by vegetation. This sense of visual
enclosure does not occur to the same degree on the other two more open sub-parcels.
5.46. Unlike the CBC Study, this Review considers that the L&G land is visually different to the other two
sub-parcels in Area SE1a, it makes the weakest contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt and
would create the least risk of harm if released from the designation. The development proposals
would retain a substantial proportion of the land as new multi-functional green infrastructure and
provide accessible public open space.
Overall Assessment
5.47. The L&G site is a discrete and self-contained piece of land that has the capacity to accommodate
development without any appreciable effects on the character of the adjacent countryside or the
integrity of the surrounding Green Belt – unlike the other parcels in Area SE1a.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 27
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1. The proposed development site at Slip End lies within designated Green Belt. The introduction of
any development onto the L&G and Luton Hoo estate land at Slip End would be contrary to the
strict volumetric concept of ‘openness’ implicit in NPPF Green Belt policy. However, the ‘Turner’
judicial ruling in 2016 has confirmed the need to introduce a visual dimension in addition to the
volumetric exercise traditionally undertaken in decision-making and assessing the purposes of the
Green Belt designation.
6.2. The visual assessment included in this Review has taken into consideration the perception of
openness, the intervisibility between the site and its setting as well as the limited zone of visual
influence between the L&G site and its Green Belt setting.
6.3. This Review disagrees with the conclusions reached by the two stage assessment included in the
‘Central Bedfordshire and Luton Green Belt Study’ published in July 2017 in relation to the L&G
land. The study adopts the strict traditional ‘volumetric’ approach to the methodology and does
not take into account the ‘visual dimension’ to Green Belt assessment as directed by the Turner
ruling. Consequently, the local authority’s study does not give due regard to the visual implications
for the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and fails to acknowledge or give weight
to the distinct visual benefits of the L&G landholding.
6.4. The visual consideration generally has the effect of weakening the L&G site’s contribution to the
purposes of the Green Belt as suggested in the CBC 2017 Study and lowering the potential risk of
harm of releasing the land from the designation.
6.5. The proposed L&G development site has a high level of visual and physical containment created
by a complementary combination of vegetation, land form and existing built development in the
form of Slip End village and the substantial M1 motorway junction that forms a barrier between
Slip End and the settlement boundary of Luton .
6.6. The L&G land is not subject to any other significant landscape or environmental planning policies
other than Green Belt designation. The heritage and cultural attributes of the land are also
insufficient to warrant its classification as a ‘valued’ landscape. The arable field is undistinguished
and has no rarity value in terms of its appearance or land use in the Bedfordshire countryside.
Allen Pyke Associates
Land at Slip End, Luton: Green Belt Review APAL Ref: 2728-RE-02-P4 28
6.7. The combination of landscape and visual attributes give the land off Front Street and Church Road
a good capacity to accommodate residential development. The proposed development would
respond sympathetically to the setting, include a wide range of recreational and amenity facilities
set within a strong green framework that would enhance the village and increase on-site
biodiversity. The proposed village green would form a focal point for Slip End.
6.8. The landscape strategy and associated boundary buffers would establish a clearly defined,
enduring and appropriate new landscaped settlement edge to Slip End against the motorway
boundary. The landscape treatments would also ensure the development would not cause
significant harm to the character of the immediate setting or visual integrity of the remaining
Green Belt designation in the area.
6.9. The authority’s preface to the 2017 Green Belt Study acknowledges that less than 1% of Central
Bedfordshire’s Green Belt was assessed as performing weakly, and may not necessarily be suitable
for development for a variety of reasons. The Study concluded that it would be necessary to
release better performing areas of Green Belt land in order to realise the strategy set out in the
Local Plan, although no indication was given to a new threshold being set to include more strongly
performing land parcels.
6.10. The conclusion reached in this Review, when taking into consideration the visual implications, is
that the L&G landholding should qualify in its own right for consideration as a weaker category site
that would be of low risk of harm for release from the Green Belt. However, if taken as a
‘moderate’ ‘borderline’ land parcel, as suggested in the local authority’s study, then the site, in
any event, should be next for consideration in any logical sequential landscape-led approach to
site selection.
6.11. If Green Belt land is to be used for development it is preferable, in landscape and visual terms, to
use environmentally undistinguished sites next to existing settlements, such as the L&G
landholding, rather than that take more sensitive, valued, visually prominent or remote locations
within the designation.
6.12. The L&G land at Slip End is, therefore, suitable for consideration for release from the Green Belt
for a residential allocation in the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.