John MacRae discovers that a common boundary is no indication of shared prosperity or similar expectations.
Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire face the future with different degrees of confidence. Economically, Buckinghamshire is outperforming most other areas in the UK; but Bedfordshire is underperforming, certainly in terms of the South East, and much depends on economic reconstruction in Luton.
Buckinghamshire’s new deposit draft structure plan for the period 1991 to 2011 states that it is a “prosperous, attractive and highly accessible county, so pressures for development are intense”.
In the High Wycombe travel to work area, which includes Aylesbury, unemployment fell to 5.2% in October 1994, the ninth lowest rate in the South East, compared with 6.5% in October 1993. Job vacancies are also increasing, says High Wycombe council planner David Frost. But a different mood pervades Bedfordshire’s consultation draft structure plan for the same period. This acknowledges that the local economy has underperformed the rest of the South East region and forecasts that “the prospects for high levels of growth in the local economy, and a return to the lower levels of unemployment seen in the late 1980s, appear to be optimistic”.
It goes on: “The county should avoid planning for levels of population and household growth which are out of step with the ability of the local economy to provide jobs.” Since 1990, unemployment in the county has approached average levels for Great Britain and the plan speaks of a “serious economic situation in Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis”.
Despite these problems, Bedfordshire was unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain assisted area status for the Luton/Dunstable area and for Objective 2 status and EU regional funds.
The Department of the Environment’s revised planning guidance for the South East (RPG 9), issued in March 1994, gives a broad outline of the contrasting fortunes of the two counties.
RPG 9 allocates an extra 3,267 dwellings pa to Buckinghamshire in the period 1991 to 2006, and an extra 2,467 pa to Bedfordshire. It specifically mentions that the “decline in defence expenditure will continue to have a major impact on Bedfordshire”.
The development strategy for Bedfordshire steers growth to the north of the county, particularly to the Bedford area. The guidance points out that Luton and Dunstable are hemmed in by the green belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that employment in Luton’s motor and engineering industries is declining.
Buckinghamshire’s development strategy, confirmed by the Examination in Public, concentrates new urban growth at Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and High Wycombe. It seeks to reduce travel in order to counter global warming, save energy and reduce pollution.
RPG 9 says that Milton Keynes will remain a major growth area until after the turn of the century and that Aylesbury also has the potential for further growth.
As an indicator of likely growth patterns, the structure plans envisage a total of 62,000 more dwellings in Buckinghamshire in the period 1991 to 2011; 36,000 in Milton Keynes; 14,600 in Aylesbury Vale; 6,700 in High Wycombe; 1,900 in the Chilterns; and 2,300 in south Buckinghamshire.
Milton Keynes is likely to exhaust its development land by 2006, when the population should have reached 205,000, compared with about 145,000 today. But Chris Kenneford, a principal planner with Buckinghamshire county council, says that an additional tranche of 6,000 to 8,400 dwellings is possible thereafter.
However, despite the air of optimism in Buckinghamshire, several important infrastructure projects have been stalled. The delays to some of these are probably temporary – CrossRail, for example, still seems likely to go ahead before the end of the century and would give a powerful boost to Aylesbury.
But the future of the Department of Transport’s major east-west trunk road from the M40 to Aylesbury, Luton, Stansted and the East Coast ports is under review.
Proposals for the A5 Leighton Buzzard to Stansted section were withdrawn in the DOT’s Trunk Roads in England Review 1994. The section from the M40 to the A5 is to be the subject of a strategic study by the new Highways Agency when it comes into operation in April.
Pending the outcome of this study, the A418 Wing bypass scheme to improve the links between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes has been suspended. Bypasses are also planned at Linslade and Stoke Hammond on the A4146, and the county is seeking improvements to the A4010 between Aylesbury and High Wycombe.
Access to Bedford is to be dramatically improved. The long-awaited southern bypass, which will open up several employment sites, is now under construction. Road improvements between Bedford and the M1, and east to the A1, could result in a dual-carriageway M1/A1 link before the end of the century. Local agents believe that this will improve development prospects in the town.
Luton’s loss of engineering and manufacturing jobs is compounded by the problem of derelict land, which makes the development of recycled sites more expensive. It also means that there is a lack of suitable land and buildings of the size, quality and prestige to attract modern industry. Capability Green and Cranfield Technology Park are very much the exceptions.
The borough has 326 acres (132ha) of derelict land – a concentration of 7% of all the derelict land in the South East in less than 1% of the land area of the region. The fact that Luton has reached the limits of its geographical boundaries makes recycling inevitable.
A study by Cambridge Econometrics, commissioned by Luton council, predicts that engineering employment will fall by 25% between 1989 and 2000, with the net loss of 5,300 jobs, and that manufacturing employment as a whole will shrink by the same amount, with a total loss of 7,200 jobs.
Vauxhall’s plant in Luton continues to be a fundamental part of the local economy – although it employs few people. The main economic opportunity for the future is the possible expansion of London Luton Airport, which is controlled by the borough council.
Expansion of the airport would involve lengthening the runway to enable it to cater for big jets, transferring landside activities to the town centre and building a new railway station which would be linked to the airport. Passenger throughput would rise from the present 2m per year to 10m per year. Every million passengers is expected to generate 1,000 jobs.
Whether this grand idea comes to fruition remains to be seen. Although the Government agrees that extra runway capacity in the South East is necessary, it has decided that the existing system can cope for another five years.
The expansion of Luton Airport was one option considered in the runway capacity study (RUCATSE) published by the government in July 1993. The study decided that, although the expansion of Luton would have “relatively low benefits”, it would need less investment than alternative development at Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow.
The Local Government Commission’s proposals for Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire are now being considered. For Buckinghamshire, the commission proposes four unitary authorities based on Milton Keynes, Aylesbury Vale, High Wycombe and South Buckinghamshire. Bedfordshire would have three unitary authorities at Luton, Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.
