One of the most frequent issues that came up on the doorstep while campaigning during the Mid Bedfordshire by-election was the number of housing developments lacking associated infrastructure. Having walked around numerous housing estates over the last few months it seems that developers are permitted to lazily lob in a generic play area and completely ignore the need for any shops, community spaces, or anything at all for older children.
The fact that we need more houses, particularly affordable houses is undeniable, but people are rightly unhappy about how the new housing does not seem to bring the much-needed infrastructure along with it – and the resulting pressure that is put on our doctors, schools and roads.
Firstly, to meet the significant challenge of climate change we will need to both cut CO2 emissions from our housing stock and reduce our reliance on the car. Secondly, to help get communities onside with the need for more housing we must be transparent about how money received from developers (known as S106 funding) is allocated. Currently, I believe we are failing in both areas.
This blog will talk about, and evidence, the lack of transparency in how this money is spent as well as the need for dedicated cycle lanes, separate from road traffic, to encourage a modal shift from the car to the bike to reduce pollution, cut our CO2 emissions and promote a healthier lifestyle.
What is S106 funding?
The definition of S106 funding, taken from the Local Government Association website is as follows: “Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism which makes a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable. They are focused on site-specific mitigation of the impact of development. S106 agreements are often referred to as ‘developer contributions'”.
There is a very useful Q&A on S106 produced by East Lindsey Council here: https://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/media/10014/Section-106-Contributions-Facts-and-Questions/pdf/Section_106_Contributions_Facts_and_Questions.pdf and below is a ‘myth buster’ re S106 funding from Central Bedfordshire Council below.
Cycle routes in Bedfordshire
I will discuss S106 funding, specifically in relation to a development in Langford, Bedfordshire later in this blog, but before then a brief description of cycle paths, or the lack of them, across Langford and the surrounding area.
There is currently a significant gap in the National Cycle Network between Arlesey and Biggleswade and anyone cycling between these two towns has to share the road with cars and lorries or travel along poorly maintained unlit bridleways prone to flooding and barely suitable for cyclists commuting to work. Improvements to the cycle network in the Langford area (Langford is a sizeable village with 3,712 residents in 2021) have been identified for many years. These improvements were set out in the Local Area Transport Plan (LATP) for Arlesey and Stotfold, published in 2013 and covering the period between 2011 and 2026. The main areas of improvement are set out in the table below.
10 years on and we are still waiting for a cycle route between Langford and Biggleswade, real-time information signs at bus stops in Langford and new bridleways on the East side of the railway line. Currently, the bridleways to the East of the railway line, the vertical line in the centre of the map below, are fragmented and do not provide a direct route between Langford and Biggleswade.
A map of the footpaths and bridleways in the Langford area. The brown dotted line indicates a potential route to link the bridleways between Arlesey and Biggleswade.
S106 funding agreement
The need to provide both a safe cycle route across the East Coast Mainline railway and the linking up of bridleways seemed to have at last been recognised in the S106 funding agreement for 150 houses planned on the South East edge of the village of Langford. The Section 106 funding agreement relating to the housing development off Cambridge Road, Langford was signed on 16th April 2021, and planning permission was granted three days later on 19th April. This funding agreement included the following commitments:
Part two of the agreement sets out that the ‘Highways Contribution’ must be paid prior to the commencement of the development and the ‘Cycle Links Contribution’ paid in instalments as the development is occupied. For reference, below is a selection of some of the other S106 funding for the local(ish) area:
For those who live in Langford, the more detailed table below may be of particular interest. The table shows the itemised S106 amounts for each contribution type.
Data from P139 of September 11th 2019 Development Management Committee Meeting pack relating to application number CB/19/00336/OUT
While researching for this blog I did manage to find more information about the status of the S106 funding in terms of whether it had been received by the council from the developer and if those funds received have yet to be committed. Here is the link for these reports for parishes across Central Bedfordshire: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/2
However, while this information is welcome it lacks detail on how exactly the money was spent, if indeed it has been spent at all, and the data also indicates that a significant amount of money received up to 10 years ago remains ‘uncommitted’. It is not clear whether this is due to data not being regularly updated, or whether there is a large fund of uncommitted money/committed money not yet spent in local council coffers. Either way, the lack of transparency of the data and the publicity given to it means that the general public has little idea of the benefits provided to their communities via developers’ contributions.
Returning to the cycle path issue in Langford, an outline of the plan to ensure cycle and pedestrian access across the East Coast railway line via the humpback bridge was set out in a memo (dated April 2019) from Central Bedfordshire’s Highways Department to the Principal Planning Officer. The relevant sections of this memo are set out below:
In addition to these plans there is a memo (dated April 2019) from the Rights of Way Officer detailing plans for a bridleway extension across the humpback bridge:
Indicative map created by the Central Beds Council Rights of Way Officer. The grey vertical line just to the right of centre indicates the path of the East Coast Mainline. The humpback bridge crosses this at the Edworth Road/Cambridge Road junction
The two memos from the Highways and Rights of Way officers to the Principal Planning officer were responses to a consultation, so it doesn’t mean what they recommend will actually take place – although I would argue that extending and linking bridleways should be a priority for any local council if they are serious about promoting sustainable means of travel.
It is clear that the local Parish Council had concerns about whether these plans were going to be taken forward in the planning application and set out these concerns in an email to Central Bedfordshire Council on 13th September 2019.
Looking back at the relevant minutes of the Central Bedfordshire Council Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting on 11th September 2019 (two days before the email above) the Highways Officer again puts forward the case for speed reduction measures and pedestrian and cycle route access over the East Coast Mainline via the humpback bridge – further they suggest an £80,000 contribution via S106 funding to assist in achieving this. Further down in the minutes the Rights of Way Officer again suggests linking up the bridleways via the humpback bridge (see Figure 1 above).
The response of the Central Bedfordshire planners to these two issues is confusing and lacking in necessary detail.
The response to the Rights of Way Officer’s suggestion is fairly straightforward, if disappointing. They rule out linking Bridleway 4 and Bridleway 8 due to the slope of the land on the Southern side of Cambridge Road leading up to the humpback bridge, but point out that a contribution of £40,000 has been agreed by the developer to “provide cycle links between the development and Arlesey and Biggleswade stations”.
The planners’ response to the Highways Officer’s recommendations is far less straightforward and just as disappointing. It agrees that speed reduction measures should take place and the £80,000 figure, but states that these be de-linked from the delivery of the development. Crucially their reasoning for their decisions lacks any detail on the nature of the speed reduction and fails to mention anything about cycle or pedestrian access across the humpback bridge. As the proposals (whatever they are) have been de-linked from the development they were not included in the ‘recommended conditions’ which must be satisfied to enable the development to proceed.
The humpback bridge looking towards Langford and the site of the new development.
From this point, the trail of what exactly is happening in terms of creating a cycle route across the humpback bridge goes cold. The issue has been raised in a number of Langford Parish Council meetings, including by me as a member of the public in October 2021. However, despite the issue being raised by myself and others, and answers sought from Councillor attendees, no answers have been forthcoming.
What is known is that to date Central Bedfordshire Council has received the £80,000 Highways contribution and £20,000 of the contribution to cycle paths between Arlesey, Langford and Biggleswade. What is unknown is how the Council intends to spend this money and whether it will be spent as per what is set out in the S106 funding agreement. While the planning team at the Council have acknowledged my query, they have yet to provide a satisfactory response.
Conclusion
Central Bedfordshire’s cycle network, like many other areas across the UK, is badly fragmented – and where it does exist cyclists will often have to share the road with cars and lorries. Councils seem to believe that painting a white bicycle on the road surface somehow provides cyclists protection – a lazy tick-box attitude that does little to solve the issues faced by cyclists. A perceived lack of safety puts off many potential cyclists and it’s clear that a modal shift from our cars to our bikes will not occur until we have dedicated cycle lanes separated from vehicle traffic. The looming climate emergency means that we must take all practicable steps to reduce car use and increase cycling, walking and the use of public transport as sustainable means of travel. Further, cycle paths need to be of a sufficient standard to encourage commuter as well as leisure use. Turning up to work looking like you’ve just taken part in a cyclo-cross event is clearly not acceptable.
Bridleway 9 South of Biggleswade
We also need far more transparency in how the money received by Councils from developers is spent in our communities. Currently, as I have found out through researching this blog, this means looking through multiple pages online and delving through Excel spreadsheets, without actually getting to the bottom of how monies have been spent. This lack of transparency and accountability further erodes our trust in politics and politicians.
Creating linked-up cycle networks across the Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire region isn’t rocket science. However, they will need funding and Councillors and Councils with both the vision to make them happen as well as the ability to work with landowners across the region to come to agreements regarding land use. There will be challenges, but the multiple benefits of lower pollution, reduced congestion on our roads, cuts to our CO2 emissions and a healthier population are surely worth the time, effort and money required.
Julian Vaughan
30th October 2023
*Postscript: When doing some final checks prior to posting I did find further information on how S106 funding is spent across Central Bedfordshire. The link to the latest reports can be found here: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/8
I note that while the collection of the money is set out per development, when the money is actually spent it is not clear from which development in which village this money originated from. Further, it is clear there is a substantial amount of money that has been received by the council, but has yet to be allocated. As this money could be held for a number of years it further reduces the transparency of the process. The table below shows the amount of unallocated money from previous years up to 2021/22. This figure of almost £46 million is a substantial increase in unallocated funds from just two years previously when the figure stood at £29 million. For reference, the ‘Leisure and Libraries’ budget for 2023/24 is £5.1 million.
Sources and Further reading
Central Bedfordshire Council decision re Land of Cambridge Road, Langford https://cms-centralbedfordshire-uk.azeusconvene.com/data/45cdcad9-fd9d-4452-9bbd-a1b90ac50b6a/parts/6.2%2019.00336%20Report.pdf
Central Bedfordshire Rights of Way https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/82/countryside/431/rights_of_way
Sustrans – National Cycle Network https://www.sustrans.org.uk/national-cycle-network
Langford Parish Council Minutes https://langford-pc.gov.uk/parish-council-minutes/
Langford Neighbourhood Plan https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory_record/87061/langford_neighbourhood_plan
Central Bedfordshire S106 funding agreements by Parish https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/44/planning/458/planning_obligations/2
Central Bedfordshire Council – Development Management Committee minutes 2019 onwards https://cms-centralbedfordshire-uk.azeusconvene.com/index.html?TYPE=hFUdrecOOu
Comments