B&MK WATERWAY 2010

COMMENTS OF THE EAST ANGLIA BRANCH OF THE LANDSCAPE INSTITUTE
Prepared by The Landscape Partnership

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The proposals are preliminary, with very little information provided on the landscape and environmental effects of the proposals. The plans provided are also very schematic and not particular clear. Consequently, it is difficult to provide detailed comments as requested in the letter from James Clifton. Therefore these comments are provided based on the general knowledge of the area.

1.2 There are no effects on any nationally designated landscapes, including AONB, although the southern corridor will effect the scarp edge of the Greensand Ridge AGLV, a locally important landscape with a number of important areas for nature conservation.

2.0 Landscape Benefits

2.1 There are a number of benefits that the proposed canal will offer to the local landscape and community, and these are as follows:

• the opportunity to create new habitats and wildlife corridors. Transport corridors are often noted for their value in acting as wildlife corridors, but canals in particular are valued, due to the nature of the traffic and the likely wetland habitats associated with canals. This will particularly help link a number of important wetland habitats within the local landscape, allowing movement of protected aquatic fauna, but also providing an important resource for birds and land-based mammals. Hedgerow and woodland planting should be encouraged where this is appropriate to the landscape character;

• good recreational opportunities. Firstly for boats in the linking of the Grand Union Canal (one of the main navigational thoroughfares) with River Great Ouse. It will also provide a resource for water sports, walking, cycling, fishing, as well as providing opportunities at specific locations for such features as marinas, visitor centres, sporting facilities, restaurants and pubs. All such opportunities would be welcomed, where appropriately located. The canal should be designed so as to provide an adequate width for all users to comfortably use the canal without being in conflict with each other, in particular walking, cycling, fishing and boating. Preferably the canal should be designed with two shelves either side of the main channel to allow marginal aquatics to establish and create a sheltered zone for aquatic fauna, as well as providing more preferable conditions for fishing;

• the scheme will provide a major potential benefit to the Marston Vale Community Forest, including Forest Centre, Millennium and Stewartby Country Park. The Marston Vale Trust will need to be introduced to ensure dovetailing with their objectives and needs. The proposed canal will provide an additional attraction, attracting new and additional visitors and opportunities for further revenue. The Country Park and Community Forest will also provide benefits and attractions to the canal user, thus creating a mutual and symbiotic relationship;

• one of the key opportunities identified by the study is linking the canal proposals to future development. The canal would indeed provide a visually strong and distinctive feature within these developments if appropriately designed. It would create an attractive feature and recreational resource that would help draw investment and encourage stronger design and more attractive office and residential development;

• enable opportunities to improve local landscape character and visual enhancement, e.g. route 2 – near Fenny Stratford, route 2 and 3 – along the Bletchley and Bedford railway corridor, A, B & C through Marston Vale, through the planting of woodland, hedgerows and creating wetland habitats. There are a number of policies in the County Structure Plan and District Plans to enhance the landscape quality of the Vale, which has suffered degradation through brick extraction and landfill.

3.0 Landscape Disadvantages

3.1 The following points should be noted:

• the study identifies that there are a number of SSSI’s, CWS’s, ancient semi-natural woodland, SAM’s and sites of archaeological notification, which lie within the northern and southern corridors, which presumably could be adversely effected. There is no indication as to proximity to the proposed alignment to these developments, nor the likely effect.
  The northern corridor has less SSSI’s, and CWS’s within its area, but has more linear wildlife habitats and river corridors. The southern corridor follows the base of the Greensand Ridge AGLV and through the associated designation of Area of Attractive Landscape. in Milton Keynes Unitary Authority. The Greensand Ridge is an important local landscape with a number of areas of nature conservation value. Neither routes 2 or 3 directly cross the ridge, and affect a more peripheral area, but nevertheless will effect this landscape. As such the effects need to be carefully considered to avoid detracting from the landscape character or losing valuable habitats; and

• route selection should carefully consider those routes that will cause the minimal loss of important habitats, disruption of protected species, and avoids damaging and preferably enhancing landscape character. Insufficient information is provided within the study to provide guidance on the appropriateness of each route. It is noted that a more detailed environmental appraisal/impact assessment will be carried out for the chosen route, in which it will be possible to more accurately assess the effects of the canal on the immediate landscape. It is recommended that we be consulted at such a stage and provided with the environmental impact assessment.

• it is proposed to use a wheel boat lift at Brogborough to deal with the fairly significant changed in level. The nature of this feature could have a significant adverse effect on the adjacent landscape.

4.1 Route C appears to crosses Rookery Pit – North, which is subject to Planning Appeal for low level restoration, probably a lake. There is also a proposed road and rail link to the pit. Rookery Pit – South is also at Planning Appeal with a proposed restoration to a landfill site. No information is provided on the logistics of constructing a canal across this area. Obviously, this would not be feasible within the life of the pit (proposed to be 30 years), and afterwards would provide significant constraints in construction.

4.2 No information is given as to how the canal will cross the existing A-roads and other roads, other than the M1 and A421 trunk road. It may be necessary to raise the roads, with the relevant bridge crossings and embankments. This raising of roads would create a greater visual prominence within the surrounding landscape, particularly the A-roads, resulting in a potentially significant adverse effect.