Site Assessment Pro Formas

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site access is from the west side of Hall End Road. Note that the site title states it is at 66 Hall End Road but the drawing shows the site slightly south of that. Some moderate traffic congestion in the vicinity, however the scale of this development should not significantly impact this in isolation. However likely cumulative impacts with other proposed developments in the area. Hall End Road has a footway on the east side and verge on the opposite side at this location. There is no designated cycle route in the vicinity but Hall End Road is a quiet, bicycle-friendly road. The closest bus stop is within 400m from the site with 68, 53A and C5 stopping every few hours. The second closest is about 750m away with 53 and C1 services connecting to Bedford 4 times per hour . TA would be needed to assess the overall impact of the developments in the area as the cumulative impact would be quite large on the local highway network. Crossing should be provided to footpath on the other side of Hall End Rd.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
No answers chosen.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access proposed to the east of the site on Wilden Road. The site sits along a bend in the road, which is quite narrow and visibility is currently poor. There is moderate congestion in the vicinity at peak times which the site would contribute to. The closest bus stop is just 200m away on Church End, offering bus line 27, with 1 bus per hour. Wilden road is narrow and has a 1m wide footway on only one side. There are no cycling facilities in the surrounding area. Additional assessment would be required of access suitability given visibility on this sectio of Wilden Road. Footway widening required outside the site. Shared cycle paths could be implemented along Wilden Rd to the north and/or Church End. Investigate increase in bus frequency, or additional bus lines.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
0 The proposal appears to have no impact on heritage assets and their significance.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located on land West of Pavenham Road on the outskirts of the village of Oakley. Access will be provided via Pavenham Road, a single carriageway of about 6m width with narrow footway next to the site. Pavenham Road normally carries light traffic. The footpath is quite narrow and not of the best quality.There is no cycle path in the vicinity and the closest bus stop is 150m away from the site entrance, serving bus line 25, at less than once per hour frequency. Cycle connection improvements would be recommended as well as improvement of the pedestrian facilities, such as widening and improving the quality of the footpath.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
adjacent sewage pumping station would need to be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? All other types

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
No answers chosen.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
No answers chosen.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
x The site is located within a source protection zone and the proposed use could harm water supplies eg because it is an industrial use

11a. At risk of flooding?
No answers chosen.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located east of Radwell village approximately 7.5 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site off Moor End Lane is currently unsuitable for the size of the site and requires improvement. We note that the cover letter suggests that up to three potential accesses could provided subject to full assessment. The proposed area could cause significant congestion issues in Radwell village, especially on Moor End Lane. This could potentially be mitigated by providing direct access to the A6, which would require a bridge crossing the River Great Ouse, which could be feasible given the scale of the development. The closest bus stop located west in Radwell village approximately 750m of the site. There are no footways and cycleways serving the site. The potential access points need to specified - access via a new junction with the A6 and a bridge crossing the River Great Ouse, would likely be preferable for the scale of the site and to limit congestion issues in Radwell. The feasibility of this would need to be assessed. A Transport Asssessment would be needed to assess the impact of the development on the highway network, particularly along the Moor End Lane. Improvement of pedestrian access would be needed - provision of a footpath as well as potentially pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities along Moor End Lane.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
main noise concern is rail noise from the line adjacent to the site

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
x Serious capacity constraint

Highway comments
The site is located at the rear of properties fronting onto Armstrong Close and the rear of properties fronting onto Whitworth Way, in the village of Wilstead approximately 6 miles south of Bedford town centre. Cotton End Road is a single carriageway road with footways of approximately 1.2m in width on either side of the carriageway and a carriageway width of approximately 5.5m. There is no cycling provision serving the site. Cotton End Road can at times have moderate traffic congestion. Cotton End Road is a bus route and both eastbound and westbound bus stops are present and accessible on Cotton End Road between junctions with Ivy Lane and Elms Lane. The distance between the extremity of the boundary of the site and the bus stop on Cotton End Road is less than 400m walking distance; however, there are no footways for this section. The current eastbound and westbound bus service to Wilstead operating Monday to Saturday (exc Bank holidays) is no. 44 by Grant Palmer Limited. This service runs every hour. In addition, Stagecoach also operates no. 81 Whilst vehicle access is provided, the access route is most likely not sufficient for the proposed scale of development. The site would benefit from it's own bus stop or public transport route.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Ivy Lane is an adopted and an unclassified road off Cotton End Road. Ivy Lane is very much a rural road with no kerbs, no footways but verges either side. The width of the carriageway is approximately 4.5m. Cotton End Road can at times have modrate traffic congestion. Multiple potential access points are available from a new access at the southern end of Ivy Lane and / or utilisation of the existing farm access further north. Both of these would require substantial work for the intended use.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Existing access is suitable to the West of the site on High St. Congestion on High St, impact assessment recommended. Bus route 28, 29, VL7, VL12 and VL14 provide public transport accessibility adjacent to the site. Narrow pavements could potentially be widened to 2m.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from school and rear must be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
No answers chosen.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
There is an existing but largely unused exit on the roundabout north of the site which is the proposed access. This would require minimal work to the existing road and will provide an efficient and safe access point. There is moderate traffic congestion on some local roads, however the main arterial roads serving the development (the A4280 and A421) have some congestion. There are bus stops within 100m where the number 5 bus provides five5 services per hour to Bedford, and the 905 bus provides a half hourly service to Cambridge. There is currently no pedestrian connectivity, a crossing across the A4280 would be needed to access the existing shared footpath/cycle path there. Improve pedestrian access to the existing bus stops - this should at least include a pavement from the site entrance to the westbound stop, and a crossing across the A4280 to access the eastbound stop. Also provide cycle connectivity to shared path on the opposite side of A4280.

Contaminated Land
Likely to require contaminated land assessment and remediation if required.

Environmental Health
road noise from A4280 and noise from industrial units immediately to south of road

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the east side of Luton Road and at the rear of properties fronting onto Howard Close. The potential access fronting Luton Road is opposite the junction with Pollards Close. Luton Road is a classified road of 30mph speed limit and continues north, linking with the cross road junction Church Lane to the west and Cotton End Road to the east. The area (and Luton Road especially) have moderate traffic congestion during both AM and PM peaks. Luton Road and Bedford Road are both bus service routes. The nearest bus stops are located on Luton Road, approximately 160m to the south of the site. Passengers travelling northbound have a bus shelter. There are also bus stop facilities on Bedford Road approximately 320m north of the junction with Church Lane. Both bus stops are within the maximum 400m walking distance. The carriageway has hatched markings outside the site. Pedestrian crossing refuge islands are located on the south side with only a refuge island on the north side on Luton Road. Outside the site is a verge with 1m footway and at the back of the grass verge, a slabbed water course running along Luton Road. The current bus service to Wilstead operating Monday to Saturday (exc Bank holidays) is route no. 44 by Grant Palmer Limited. This service runs every hour. The proposed access is directly from Luton Road. This will require some tree/orchard removal, which will be relocated on the land itself as part of any development. Given the number of dwellings proposed, an access road to adoptable standards would be required in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards and the required radius kerbs. Geometry of the adoptable road must be accommodated within the limits of the site frontage. Given the length of the site frontage, it appears that an adoptable access road junction can be accommodated with the curtilage. Although footways are present outside the site, the width of the footway is sub-standard however given the wide verges there is scope to widen them to current standards of at least a width of 2m. There is no provision for cyclists, however given the 30mph speed limit and the scale of the development, the TA shall introduce measures to provide and improve facilities for cyclists. The frontage of the site appears to be of sufficient width for an adoptable road off Bedford Road, and the required 2.4m x 90m visibility splays can be achieved on both sides, provided that the footway is widened to at least 2.0m and any hedging set back behind the visibility splays. However the visibility splay in the Y direction will depend on the 85th percentile speeds to be determined from a speed survey along Luton Road in the vicinity of the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of Keysoe Road north of the village of Thurleigh approximately 7.3 miles north of Bedford town centre. There are two access points off Keysoe Road and the site is also accessible via the existing access to the clients commercial premises. There is no significant traffic congestion recorded on Keysoe Road. The nearest bus stop is located 1.4km south of the site in the village of Thurleigh. There are no formal footways or cycle paths, however Keysoe Rd is likely quiet enough for cycling. No footway connections possible to anywhere nearby. An extension to existing bus routes in Thurleigh would also be necessary and there is likely not going to be sufficient demand for this from this particular site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
consider plamer motorsport

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
xx The proposal has the potential to cause very high harm (which may reach the level of substantial harm) to a heritage asset. Development with this level of impact will be removed from further consideration unless it can be demonstrated that the harm can be avoided, mitigated or outweighed by substantial public benefits.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
x Serious access constraint wider impacts

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The proposed site is located between St Lawrence’s Church and Manor Farm off Church End approximately 4.5 miles east from Bedford town centre. The access to the site is through a private drive of approximate width of 5.0m. Traffic generation from this development would have a moderate impact on the local network but intensify the use of the site and access. There are bus stops located on Church Road either side of the junction with Churchill Place. The proposed access is approximately 570m walking distance from the bus stops. Church Road and Church End do not benefit from a footway in either direction however; the road is lightly trafficked and semi-rural in nature and is classified as a cycle friendly route. The proposal would require a suitable access road for adoption. Expanding the width of the existing access to accommodate additional traffic is likely not feasible for the scale of development proposed.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located at the junction between New Road and Wilden Road in the village of Colmworth, approximately 6.5 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is possible via New Road, which is a 40mph road. Traffic in the vicinity is light to moderate however the development is unlikely to impact this significantly. The closest bus stop is located 750m north of the site on Church Road. Both New Road and Wilden Road have space for footways to be constructed, however there would still be no pedestrian accessibility to anywhere else in the vicinity. There is no specific cycle connectivity however the road surface could be used for cycling. Pedestrian mitigation likely not feasible given the distance from any other footways. Any development considered for approval for the site may require the speed reduced to 30mph through the process of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Consider marking on-street cycle lanes.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the north side off School Lane in the village of Roxton in Bedfordshire approximately 10 miles east of Bedford town centre. The closest bus stop located in Bedford Road opposite the junction with Park Road approximately 500m west of the site. There is no presence of footways along the frontage of site on School Lane, but it can used by cyclists. Although the speed limit on School Lane is 30mph, it is a classified road; therefore the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) will apply in respect of determining the visibility splays and the Stopping Sight Distance (SSD). A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic on the highway as well as mitigations measures. The carriageway will need to be to 5.5m with 2.0m footways either side of the carriageway where it is possible. For a development of this scale to consider a bus service route then the carriageway should be widened to 6m to accommodate manoeuvring for buses. The TA should identify satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists, specially in School Lane.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
general no noise concerns but school should be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
xx Development would be in flood zones 3a or 3b.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located on the east side of Box End Road in the village of Kempston Rural approximately 4.5 miles west of Bedford town centre. The proposed development frontage is heavily tree/vegetation lined however, the proposal is to be accessed off Box End Road, which is controlled by a 40mph speed limit. Traffic generation from a proposed development of this nature would have a minimal impact on the local highway network. The nearest bus stop is 600m walking distance and the site being mainly car-based. There is no footway outside the site but there is a footway of approximate width of 0.5m and 6m verge on the opposite side. Cycling is possible by using the road surface. There is sufficient frontage to achieve cross-sectional width for the proposed access. However, a footway of at least 2m in width shall be provided in order to achieve the required visibility splays for both pedestrians and vehicles. If the development is considered for approval a scheme for improvements for footways/accessibility and safe crossing points coupled with the provision of bus service with bus stops shall be provided and agreed with Bedford Borough Council as the highway authority.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? All other types

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
xx Development would be in flood zones 3a or 3b.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access will be as existing onto Bedford Road. The access road will need to be improved but the access point itself has no problems. There is little traffic congestion in the area and none between the site and the A421. The nearest bus stops are over 1km away where the 905 bus provides a half hourly service between Bedford and Cambridge. The 905 does drive past the site however, so it may be possible to create a stop for it just outside the site access point. There is no pavement on Bedford Road or any public footpaths near the site. There are no specific cycle facilities however the national cycle network goes through Great Barford nearby which provides off-road and quiet-road links to Bedford and St Neots. Pedestrian access should be provided, this is most likely to be feasible as a pavement or separate paved footpath along Bedford Road to Great Barford. However, the size of this development is unlikely to make the costs or works involved for a new footpath feasible.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No information supplied as to proposed use. Majority of the site is a lake.

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access to the site is feasible from Broadmead Road to the south and Manor Road to the north. There is a train Station 'Kempston Hardwick' around 400m distance from the east side of the site. The site lack of accessibility to footways and there is no provision for cyclists. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and for satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
railway line to be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Majority of the site falls in MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
No answers chosen.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access from north (Bedford Road) frontage of site. The W9 bus service running once monthly serves the site, further away to the south (approx 800m) are 2 hail and ride bus services and the twice hourly 905 service. The site is served by a paved shared footway route on the southern side of Bedford Rd with other shared footway and off-road routes available to the north.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no concerns for B1 use

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located at the eastern side of the Garden Centre on the north side of Sandy Road in the village of Willington approximately 4.5 miles east of Bedford town centre. The site fronts onto Sandy Road and access is proposed here, but there is no existing access to the site. The proposal will intensify the use of the site and impact on Sandy Road at the access point as well as the immediate junction with Bedford Road/Sandy Road and Station Road. The distance from the site to nearest bus stops is approximately 350m. There is a footway of approximate width of 1.0m with verge of 1m width outside the site. Barford Road from the west of the junction with Wood Lane is part of the Thatcher’s Way cycle route. A Transport Statement will be required to identify the impact of development on the highway with mitigation measures, focussing on the safety impact on nearby junctions. Footways along Sandy Rd should be widened and a crossing provided. On street cycle connectivity could be marked along Sandy Road to connect to the Thatcher's Way cycle route.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from garden centre would need to be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? All other types

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
No answers chosen.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Proposed access is off the new road that is currently used solely for accessing Lidl, a slight reconfiguration of the road may be needed here to accommodate the new site. This provides access to the A4280 dual carriageway via an existing signalised junction. There is moderate traffic congestion on some local roads, however the main arterial roads serving the development (the A4280 and A421) have manageable traffic levels. Given the size of the site and the unknown scale of the development proposed, further assessment should be undertaken.There is a bus stop 250m from the site entrance where the number 5 bus provides five services per hour. There is a pavement on the road where the proposed access is which leads to a signalised pedestrian crossing across the A4280, where there is then a shared cycle/pedestrian path. Given the uncertainty over the scale of the proposed development, a Transport Assessment will likely be required to assess the impacts on surrounding networks. A slight reconfiguration of the access road may be required - the best option would be to continue the road directly into the site and make a give way junction for the Lidl access.

Contaminated Land
Likely to require contaminated land assessment and remediation if required.

Environmental Health
road noise from A4280 and noise from industrial units immediately to south of road

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is part of the garden centre in Site 747. The site's proposed access point is off the south side of Barford Road. The proposal will intensify the use of the existing access as well as the site and the impact is on the immediate junction with Bedford Road/Sandy Road and Station Road. The nearest bus stops are located just on Bedford Road and Station Rd approximately 380m west of the site. There is no footway immediately outside the site along Barford Road. Barford Road from the west of the junction with Wood Lane is part of the Thatcher’s Way cycle route. Given that verges exist outside the site and opposite the site, there is scope to convert these to footway and/or widen the existing footway to a minimum of 2.0m. The junctions with Bedford Road/Sandy Road namely Wood Lane, Station Road and Barford Road also need to be improved for pedestrians and cyclists.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise fom the garden centre would need to be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
++ The site is within a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
No answers chosen.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Includes sites 747 and 749 above. The site fronts onto both Barford Road and Sandy Road and there are existing private accesses off Barford Road towards the west but with limited existing accesses along Sandy Road. The proposal will intensify the use of Barford Road which has moderate traffic congestion at peak times and the impact is at the immediate junction with Bedford Road/Sandy Road. The nearest bus stops are located approximately 300m to the west of the site. There is a footway of approximate width of 1.2m with varying width of verge behind footway on the opposite side and from southwest from the property no. 23 Barford Road up to the junction with Station Road. There is no footway immediately outside the site along Barford Road and there are no footways either along Sandy Road. Barford Road from the west of the junction with Wood Lane is part of the Thatcher’s Way cycle route. The position of the access off Barford Road need to be identified so that the required sight lines on both sides of the access can be achieved together with sufficient spacing between opposite and adjacent junction from existing accesses/junctions. Given the scale of the development, a Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of development on the highway with mitigation measures. Footways on Barford Road should be improved, and better pedestrian access should be implemented at the junctions with Bedford Road/Sandy Road.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Part of the site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
No answers chosen.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
xx Development would be in flood zones 3a or 3b.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Adjacent to site 441. The site located north of Northampton Road and Grange Lane in the Bromham area approximately 3.5 miles west of Bedford town centre. Access from Northampton Road. Footways serve the site but are overgrown and need improvements, including a shared cycle and footway opposite the site. Bus stops in close proximity. Some congestion within Bridge End but scale of development would not exacerbate significantly. Clear footway on southern side of Northampton Road or provide crossing to northern footway which is in better condition. Upgrade of the bus facilities outside of the site. Potential marking on-street cycle lanes.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located north of Northampton Road in the Bromham area approximately 4 miles west of Bedford town centre. There are no significant traffic issues on Northampton Rd and the development would not cause significant congestion. The nearest bus stop is 100m southeast of the site. There are no footways or cycle lane along the frontage of the site, however a footway is present approx 25m to the southeast of the site access. Pedestrian footway connection to existing footway 25m to the southeast. Consider marking on-street cycle lanes.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
xx Development would be in flood zones 3a or 3b.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the north side of Ford Lane in Roxton, approximately 10 miles east of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible only from a small part of Ford Lane, which is a narrow road with width of around 2.5-3m. The closest bus stop located in Bedford Road opposite the junction with Park Road approximately more than 800m northwest of the site. There is no presence of footways along the frontage of the site on Ford Lane or around the site. On the north and west side of the site, there are some cycling routes. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic on the highway as well as mitigations measures. The carriageway will need to expant to 5.5m with 2.0m footways on either side of the carriageway where it is possible. From the TA should identified a consideration for satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists, especially in Ford Lane.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
Adjacent to and on an allocated minerals extraction site.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Majority of the site falls in MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of Box End Road and approximately 4.5 miles south-west of Bedford town centre. The proposed development will be accessed via Box End Road which is currently subject to 30mph speed limit. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 220m north of the site. There is no footway fronting the site, although there is a footway strip less than the standard 1.8m in width on the opposite side of the site. Cycling is possible by using the road surface. Although there are no provisions for cyclists, cyclists can ride along the carriageway. Given the proposal, a road to adoptable standards is required in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards in respect of width of carriageway, provision of footway/maintenance margins and radius kerbs at the junction. Because of the speed limit change from 30mph to 40mph along Box End Road, it is recommended that the 30mph speed limit is extended further south and the exact length of extension to be agreed with local highway authority. Given the scale of development to increase pedestrian and traffic movement then satisfactory footway should be provided so that accessibility for pedestrians is increased.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
opposite box end farm but should not be insurmountable noise issues

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Adjacent to sites 19/457/751. The site is located south of Northampton Road in the Bromham area approximately 4 miles west of Bedford town centre. The access points are all located on Northampton Road, which is a 40mph speed limit road outside of the site. The proposed development could cause traffic congestion on Northampton Road and mitigation measures may be necessary. The nearest bus stops are located outside of the site. A shared cycle and footway is situated opposite the site. A Transport Assessment would be needed to assess the impact of the development on the highway network, especially in Northampton Road and at the Northampton Road/Chestnut Avenue, Northampton Road/A428 junctions. This should also consider the cumulative impact of proposed neighbouring developments. Potential signalisation of the junction Northampton Road/A428 needed. Provide crossing to shared footway/cycle path. Consider reducing the speed limit of Northampton Road along the frontage of the site to 30mph. Upgrade of bus facilities outside of the site recommended.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
only noise concern is A428

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access will be onto Church Road which is sufficiently wide, straight, and has little traffic in the area. Bus stops within 100m but only approx. 4 services per day and there is no footway between the site and the village/bus stop. The existing pavement could be extended 70m to the edge of the site to connect the site with Chapel End village, bus stops, and several public footpaths. No cycle connectivity but quiet roads allow reasonable cycle access to St Neots. Pedestrian access is needed. There is a public footpath crossing the site linking to the nearby village but it crosses fields so is not ideal. An extension of approx 70m to the existing pavement on Church Rd would provide better, all-weather connectivity to the village and bus stops.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access onto Church Road which is sufficiently wide and straight for a safe access point. No traffic in the area and whilst this number of homes would greatly increase the number of cars on local roads, the roads are wide enough to cater for this. There is a bus stop at the NW edge of the site but only approx. 4 services per day per direction. There is a narrow pavement on Church Rd which could connect to the NW edge of the site. No cycle connectivity but quiet roads allow reasonable cycle access to St Neots. Connect site to existing pavement of Church Rd (NW corner of the site). Preserve and ideally enhance the public footpath running along the eastern edge of the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
xx The proposal has the potential to cause very high harm (which may reach the level of substantial harm) to a heritage asset. Development with this level of impact will be removed from further consideration unless it can be demonstrated that the harm can be avoided, mitigated or outweighed by substantial public benefits.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Site is very close to site 682. The site is located in the village of Wootton approximately 6 miles south-west of Bedford town centre and abuts on south side of Keeley Lane near the junction of Keeley Lane with Bedford Road. The development only contains residential properties and on it's own unlikely to generate significant traffic, however likely cumulative impacts with other proposed developments in the area. The footpath on the other side of Keeley Lane is very narrow and there is no designated cycle route in the vicinity although Keeley Lane is a quiet and cycle-friendly road. The closest bus stop is within 400m from the site, serving routes 53 and C1 Cranfield Connect, which connect to Bedford approximately 4 times per hour. A Transport Assessment would be needed to assess the overall impact of the developments in the area as the cumulative impact would be quite large on the local highway network, particularly at the Bedford Road junction. Improvement of pedestrian and cycle access would be needed - widening of the footpath and designated cycle path. The previous assessment references potential visibility issues towards Bedford Road to the East.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The promoter suggests the site would be accessed from and upgraded roundabout at the A421 slip road junction. Also potential access point to the east of the site on Water End, where there already is a dirt road. Some congestion issues in the vicinity. Part of the southern perimeter has a footway that is wider than 1m, no footways along Water End. No cycle connectivity in the vicinity. The closest bus stop is 300m North on Green End, offering bus line 27 with 1 bus per hour. The double roundabout just south of the site has some congestion issues at peak times and could benefit upgrading to support this development if it proceeds. Part of the southern perimeter has a footway that is wider than 1m. This footway could be extended north on Water End. River Great Ouse to the south of the site has a cycling route. This could be connected to the site offering significant benefits, but likely at a substantial cost.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from bypass only concern

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
0 The proposal appears to have no impact on heritage assets and their significance.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access from north (Wood End Lane) frontage of site. There are approx. 4 bus services (2 routes) per hour stopping within 150m of the site. The site is within 500m of the start of a mostly off-road cycle route to Bedford town centre. Pedestrians: There is no footway on the side of both roads that the development would front on to. A new footway that side of the road or a pedestrian crossing to the existing footway would be needed.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access onto St Neots Road directly opposite an unnamed road. No significant traffic congestion congestion in the area. Nearest bus stop is over 1km away and provides approx 4 services a day to Bedford. However, the 905 Bedford- Cambridge passes the site on a half hourly basis so a new stop could be formed for this. There is an adequate pavement outside the site on St Neots Road which leads into Bedford. There are no cycle facilities however the pavement is wide and if designated as a shared path could provide a useful cycle link from the site into Bedford. Create a new bus stop on St Neots Road to make the site accessible from the 905 Bedford-Cambridge bus. Connect to the existing pavement outside the site on St Neots Road. Consider redesignating/upgrading the pavement on St Neots Road from the site to the outskirts of Bedford as a shared path to create a direct cycle link.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
close proximity to bypass

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site would be accessed from St Neots Road to the south of the site, however will require construction of approx 300m long access road. Alternatively, access may be possible from Asgard Drive and/or Thor Drive, however these are residential roads without footways and with 5.3m wide carriageways. There is a segregated cycle path directly to the west of the site. The closest bus stop is 450m West of the site on Norse Road, with lines 27 and 5, offering 3 buses per hour overall. Asgard Drive and Thor Drive are designed to accommodate an estimated 300 residential units so an upgrade may be necessary to accommodate the extra traffic generated, although there are two routes on Asgard Drive that could potentially accommodate the traffic which would help with flow and capacity. Footway connectivity to St Neots Road would be required and may require improvement along St Neots Road itself. Size of the development would definitely warrant an additional bus stop closer to the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The proposed development is to be accessed off Top End via a private access. The traffic conditions on Top End are moderate, with mild lunchtime and PM peaks, however traffic generation from this development would have a minimal impact on the local network. The proposed access doesn’t contain a footway or cycleway access, however two footpaths run to the eastern and southern borders of the site which provide connectivity to the rest of the local rights of way network. There is also a footway on the opposite side of the road from the proposed access. No cycle connectivity is available. Given the proposal, a road to adoptable standards is required in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards, which may not be possible within the constraints of the site. The closest bus stop is just outside the site access point, serving line 27 with 1 bus per hour. An increased service frequency might be useful for Top End. The bus stop would also need to be moved to facilitate access to the site. Improve footway along the top end and provide on-street non-segregated cycle connectivity.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
x Serious capacity constraint

Highway comments
Access is proposed from Bedford Road via a new roundabout. This would help deal with the traffic flow however due to the size of the development there is still a risk that the moderate traffic already seen on local roads could worsen. A Transport Assessment will be needed to fully understand the potential impacts. The main village bus stops are approx. 500m from the proposed access point to the site, where the 905 bus provides a half hourly service between Bedford and Cambridge. There is no pavement outside the site on Bedford Road, however the proposal says that a pavement will be provided between the site access and the existing pavement in Great Barford. There is no specific cycle access however the national cycle network passes through the village providing off-road or quiet-road connections to Bedford and St Neots. A Transport Assessment will be needed to fully understand the potential transport impacts of this scale of development. Ensure that a pavement is built from the access point of the site to the existing pavement in Great Barford village. The proposed roundabout entry to the site should be kept as it will help mitigate problems arising from traffic flow to/from the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
with commercial units in ara part of the cite developed, no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
N/A in UAB

9a. On previously developed land?
No answers chosen.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access using existing access on Church Lane. Most roads within 1km show moderate traffic in weekday peaks, but not directly outside the site. 6 bus services per hour 330m from the site - number 10 bus twice an hour and number 5 bus four times an hour. Adequate footway passes site, but access to site could ideally be widened and resurfaced to better accommodate wheelchair users. A shared cycle/pedestrian path is on Goldington Road 500m from the site, towards the town centre. Allowing cycles to use paved paths in Goldington Green Park would cut distance to this path to 225m. Resurface and widen footway access to site (approx 10m length). Look at allowing cycles to use paved paths on Goldington Green to give better access to Goldington Rd.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Hotel

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access using existing access to football club. Two bus services per hour approx 100m from the site (bus number 73). Footway on Cambridge Rd/Meadow Ln currently stops approx. 30m short of the access point, but there is space in the verge available to extend the footpath. No cycle connectivity for the site, but if the pavement on Cambridge Rd were upgraded to cycle/pedestrian path it could provide a link to Priory Business Park and segregated routes to the town centre. Extension of footway on Meadow Ln approximatly 30m to connect to the site access point. Improvements to the Cambridge Rd pavement and redesignation as a shared path could provide traffic-free cycle connectivity to Bedford town centre.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
potential noise from Bypass, odour from slaughterhouse and sewage plant

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the north side of Silver Street in the village of Stevington approximately 5.7 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Suitable access is achievable direct via the Silver Street frontage. Some traffic congestion is present along Silver Street leading up into Stevington at various times of the day. The closest bus stop is located 400m northeast of the site on Park Road. There are no footways in the vicinity of the of the site, only a green verge close to the access point that could be used by pedestrians, however ownership of this verge would need to be confirmed to enable connectivity to existing footways closer to Stevington. Cycling is possible using quiet roads in the vicinity. A footway would be necessary outside of the site to provide connectivity to existing footways to the north, however ownership of the verges will need to be confirmed. Consider marking on-street cycle lanes.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
xx The proposal has the potential to cause very high harm (which may reach the level of substantial harm) to a heritage asset. Development with this level of impact will be removed from further consideration unless it can be demonstrated that the harm can be avoided, mitigated or outweighed by substantial public benefits.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Site is very close to site 682. The site is located in the village of Wootton approximately 6 miles south-west of Bedford town centre and abuts on south side of Keeley Lane near the junction of Keeley Lane with Bedford Road. The development only contains residential properties and on it's own unlikely to generate significant traffic, however likely cumulative impacts with other proposed developments in the area. The footpath on the other side of Keeley Lane is very narrow and there is no designated cycle route in the vicinity although Keeley Lane is a quiet and cycle-friendly road. The closest bus stop is within 400m from the site, serving routes 53 and C1 Cranfield Connect, which connect to Bedford approximately 4 times per hour. A Transport Assessment would be needed to assess the overall impact of the developments in the area as the cumulative impact would be quite large on the local highway network, particularly at the Bedford Road junction. Improvement of pedestrian and cycle access would be needed - widening of the footpath and designated cycle path. The previous assessment references potential visibility issues towards Bedford Road to the East.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
No answers chosen.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access via Woodend Road, a single track road serving this development only. As the road does not serve anywhere other than the development site, it is likely that a single track road will be sufficient, however some additional passing places are likely to be required. No other traffic problems in the area. The nearest public transport is a bus stop in the village of Roxton over 1.8km away. Woodend Road does not have any pedestrian connectivity - there is space for a footway to be constructed to connect to the footway on Bedford Road, however this is 1km so is likely not feasible. For cycle connectivity there is a shared path on Bedford Road 1km away and Woodend Lane will likely be fine to cycle along as it only serves this development. The nearest public transport is nearly 2km away and there is no pedestrian connectivity to get there. There is a shared cycle/pedestrian path on Bedford Road however this is over 1km from the site, all of which has no pedestrian infrastructure. The size of this development is unlikely to make mitigation of this scale feasible.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
current agricultural and commercial use new proposed use is employment and there is no nearby NSP

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? All other types

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
? The site is within the impact risk zone of an SSSI / Natura 2000 site

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access is onto unnamed road south of the site. This is single track and in a very poor condition. Land use will need to be considered regarding access improvements. No traffic in the area. There is a bus stop approx 1.2km away with 3 services per day. There is no pedestrian or cycle connectivity. Resurface and widen current access track to site. Include a pavement or footway to connect with Yelden.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
employment proposed but should consider wind turbine noise for practicality of use

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
? The site is within the impact risk zone of an SSSI / Natura 2000 site

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the south side of Church Lane and on the west side of Spring Lane, in the village of Yelden approximately 14.5 miles north of Bedford town centre. There are two accesses to the site. One is in the northeast corner of the site by Church Lane and the other located in the southeast corner by Spring Lane. The closest bus stop is located 180m west from the site on High Street with low service frequency. There is no footway serving the site and cycling is possible only on-road. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic in the network and in Church Lane/Spring Lane, Church Lane/High Street and Spring Lane/High Street junctions as well as satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. However, the width of both Church Lane and Spring Lane are very tight to be able to handle the additional traffic from the potential development.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
potential noise from farm

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access to the site is feasible from Bedford Road and High Street road. There is a ditch outside the site and any access to it would need to take this into account. The section of (Old) Bedford Road and the use of the site will be intensified in comparison to existing use. The nearest bus stops with bus shelter present are located on Bedford Road opposite the junction with Park Road approximately 500m from the site. There is, in Bedford Road, a shared footway/cycleway of approximately 1.0-1.4m in width with verges either side of the shared facility. In view of the current national speed limit along (Old) Bedford Road, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) will apply in respect of determining the visibility splays and the Stopping Sight Distance (SSD). If separate accesses are proposed for each property then as well as the required vehicular sight lines subject of a speed survey, pedestrian visibility splays of 1.8m x 1.8m are also required at the back of the highway boundary on both sides of each access. Bedford Road forms part of the National Cycle Network Route 12 and links with National Cycle Network Route 51 to the south through Great Barford. Hence there is scope to widen the existing 1m shared footway/cycleway along Bedford Road and also outside the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Part of the site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located on the south side of High Street in the village of Sharnbrook approximately 8.1 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from High Street, which is a 30mph speed limit road. There is moderate traffic congestion on High Street and at the High Street/Kennel Hill junction. The nearest bus stop is located 170m northwest of the site. There is no footway serving the site, but there is a 1.5m footway on the other side of the High Street. There are no formal cycle tracks in the vicinity of the site but cycling is possible on-road Widening of the current 4.1m access point would be needed, however there is limited space. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of the proposals on High Street and on the High Street/Kennel Hill junction.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The proposed development is to be accessed off St Neots Road in the NW of the site, via a proposed new roundabout. The proposal will require adoptable standards in accordance with Bedford Borough Council’s highway standards. Traffic conditions on St Neots Road can be slow moving, particularly around peak times, and any new development would have to demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on the A4280. The closest bus stop is about 600m to the west. Shared cycle connectivity available approx 600m to the west. The site would be accessed from a new roundabout junction on St Neots Road. The closest bus stop is about 600m to the west - investigate potential for closer additional PT provision. Expand footway along St Neots road and provide shared cycle connectivity to the existing shared cycle route 600m west. Highways England should kept informed about the proposed development, as there may be adverse impact on the A4280.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
employment use just needs to ensure wont affect housing to t he north west or farm house to the set

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
++ The site is within a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access will be onto Vicars Close, a single track road. There is often moderate traffic on Main Road (which Vicars Close joins). There are bus stops within 400m where the 41 bus provides an hourly service between Northampton and Bedford. Vicars Close is a single track road with no pavement, however the road itself is signposted as a public footpath due to low traffic levels. There is an off-road cycle path approx 750m from the site. Pedestrian access should be provided along Vicars Close, where there is adequate space for a suitable footway.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
There would be several access points, but the main access will be off new roundabouts on Bedford Road and Ampthill Road. The former connects to the A421 junction just north of the site, providing easy access on road with no existing traffic issues. Given the scale of the proposed development, it may contribute to future traffic issues in the area, so further assessment will be required. There are no existing bus services near the site, however Kempston Hardwick rail station is near the middle of the site, providing a service between Bedford and Bletchly approx every 30 minutes in each direction. There are no pedestrian or cycle facilities at the main vehicular access points, however there is a cycle track just west of the site which could be accessed, and it is noted that the proposal includes a cycle/pedestrian connection to this existing track. Further assessment required to mitigate potential traffic issues due to the development. New junctions and a route across the rail ine will be required as per proposed access plans. A connection for pedestrians and cyclists to the existing cycle track with bridge over the A421 would be required. This would likely take the form of a shared path stretching from Kempton Harwick station for approx 700m along Manor road.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
site is between a rail line and a main road, significnat noise levels in area

Minerals & Waste
Northern part of site, part of old brickworks and clay pit complex.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Hotel

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
xx The proposal has the potential to cause very high harm (which may reach the level of substantial harm) to a heritage asset. Development with this level of impact will be removed from further consideration unless it can be demonstrated that the harm can be avoided, mitigated or outweighed by substantial public benefits.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site would be accessed from a new junction on St Neots Road.Traffic generation from this development would have a minimal impact on the local network. There is a footway on the opposite side of St Neots road - a crossing would be required. Nearest bus stop is approx 1km to the north. There is a waterside cycleway to the South of the site, however this is on the opposite side of the river. Potential for cycle provision along St Neots rd. The location of the proposed development performs poorly in terms of sustainable transport due the lack of accessible bus stops and a bus route due to its isolation. Crossing required to existing footway along east of ST Netos Rd. Also potential for cycle provision here.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
for hotel no objection as commercial use but housing would need noise consideration

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the east side of Colmworth Road, in the village of Little Staughton approximately 10 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Colmworth Road. There is already moderate traffic congestion to the north from High Street to Green End village. The closest bus stop is located 75m west of the site with no frequent service. There is nof ootway serving the frontage of the site but there is a 1.4m footway on the other side of the road. Cycling is possible on-road. A Transport Assessment would be required to identify the impact of traffic and satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Potential signalisation of High Street/Colmworth Road junction would need further investigation. Consider marking on-street cycle lanes and or providing a crossing facility to tie into existing footway.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access onto Church Lane which is a narrow single track road, however there is ample space for it to be widened at the point of access. Light traffic in the area. There is a bus stop approx 400m away with 4 services per day to Bedford. A pavement of approx 80-100m would need to be built along Church Lane to provide pedestrian accessibility. No specific cycle connectivity but there are several quiet roads and bike-friendly PRoWs in the area. Widening of Church Lane at access point of site and or passing place to prevent conflict. Construction of a pavement along Church Lane of approx 80- 100m to connect to the pavement on Spring Hill/High Street.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of A6, north of Mill Road and east of Templars Way, in the village of Sharnbrook, approximately 7.5 miles north of Bedford town centre. There are multiple access points to the site, from Templars Way on the northwest side of the site, A6 on the northeast of the site and Mill Road on the south side of the site. The highway network around the site experiences some traffic congestion. There are bus stops in the vicinity of the site, one on the north corner of the site near the Templars Way/A6 junction and one on the southwest corner of the site. There is no footway serving the site. However, both Templars Way and Mill Road have 1.5m footway on the other side of the road. There are no formal cycle track in the vicinity of the site but cycling is possible on-road. The size of the proposed development needs careful examination and further investigation for future construction. In this context, traffic modelling will need to be undertaken as part of the required Transport Assessment which will identify the impact. It should also include sustainable transport measures. A footway will be needed serving the site on some or all access routes (Templars Way and/or Mill Road) as well as pedestrian crossing facilities at the north corner of the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from rail line and A6

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
xx The proposal has the potential to cause very high harm (which may reach the level of substantial harm) to a heritage asset. Development with this level of impact will be removed from further consideration unless it can be demonstrated that the harm can be avoided, mitigated or outweighed by substantial public benefits.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located west of High Street in the village of Lower Dean approximately 15.5 miles north of Bedford town centre. No traffic data is available for the High Street however the proposal is unlikely to cause significant issues. The nearest bus stop is 150m south from the site, close to the junction of High Street and the unnamed local road to the south of the site. There are no footways or formal cycle lanes outside of the site. There are also no footways anywhere in the vicinity to provide connectivity. Cycling is possible only by using the local road surface south of the site. Pedestrian mitigation likely not feasible given the distance from any other footways and small scale of the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access onto Moor End Lane (E of the site), a narrow single track road which could present safety issues for a new access point. There is often moderate traffic on the road between the site and A6. Bus stops approx 500m from the site with 1 service per hour each direction (Rushden-Bedford). There are no footways along Moor End Lane, however a PRoW connects to the NW corner of the site and there are other public footpaths, bike-friendly PRoWs and quiet lanes in the vicinity. Careful attention will need to be made to the design of the proposed access point on Moor End Lane to ensure that it is safe. Enhance pedestrian and cycle connectivity to nearby PRoWs.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access onto Moor End Lane (N of the site), a narrow single track road which could present safety issues for a new access point. There is often moderate traffic on the road between the site and A6. Bus stops approx 500m from the site with 1 service per hour each direction (Rushden-Bedford). There is no specific footway connectivity but Moor End Lane is marked as part of a long distance footpath on maps, this then connects to other public foopaths, bikefriendly PRoWs and quiet lanes. Moor End Ln is signed as private north of the site, ownership and access should be investigated. Careful attention will need to be made to the design of the proposed access point on Moor End Lane to ensure that it is safe, passing places may be required and significant clearance of vegetation.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
? The site is within the impact risk zone of an SSSI / Natura 2000 site

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
xx Development would be in flood zones 3a or 3b.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Vehicular access could be provided from Kennell Hill. Additional pedestrian access could also be achieved to Mill Road. Low to moderate congestion patterns on Kennell Hill and all surrounding areas near Sharnbrook. Bus route 50 and VL11 are adjacent to the site, with service of >1 bus per hour. Narrow pavement cannot be widened, except for small stretches surrounding the site, but a footway or crossing could be implemented on the southern side of Kennel Hill fronting the site. Bus frequency on bus route 50 or VL11 stakeholder engagement.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
High risk allocation

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The Applicant claims that access to the public highway can be safely provided onto Luton Road with adequate forward visibility as demonstrated by a Road Safety Audit. Traffic congestion in the surrounding area is low/moderate. The closest bus stop is over 800m North of the site on Bedford Road. It serves bus routes 44 and 81, both with hourly services. There is no cycling infrastructure or routes in the area. Vehicle access appears to be feasible, but would require road works and removal of foliage. The site access is on a section of Luton Road that does not have any footway. This can be mitigated by providing one that would tie into the existing footpath just a few hundred metres north.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
A6 road noise

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Employment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of Bedford Road opposite the junction with High Street in the village of Roxton approximately 10 miles east of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Bedford Road which is an adopted and classified type C road of national speed limit which is 60mph for a single carriageway road. The nearest bus stops with bus shelter present are located on Bedford Road opposite the junction with Park Road approximately 650m from the site. There is a shared footway/cycleway outside the site along Bedford Road of approximately 1.6m in width with grass verges either side of the footway of varying widths between 1m – 1.7m. Reducing the current speed limit on Bedford Road from 60mph to 30mph through the process of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and for satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Adopted parking standards would need to be adhered to in order to provide appropriate levels of car parking on site. It appears that the visibility splays of 4.5m x 215m cannot be provided. However given the alignment of Bedford Road and assuming the approval of speed reduction to 30mph by BBC, the visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m can be achieved provided that the existing boundary hedges/vegetation are set back behind the visibility splays. The existing bus service should be extended nearer the site with provision of bus stops and bus shelters. A pedestrian crossing island is required on Park Road at the junction with Bedford Road.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
road noise

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
This housing development site is located on agricultural land North of Westfield Road on the outskirts of the village of Oakley. Access will be provided via Westfield Road, a single carriageway of about 4.5m width. There is a narrow foopath on the side of the development towards Oakley, but no footpath towards the West or on the other side of the road.There is no cycle path in the vicinity but Westfield Road carries very light traffic. The closest bus stop is 150m away from the site entrance, serving buses 50 and 828 to Rushden and Sharnbrook, about three times per day. Cycle connection improvements would be recommended as well as improvement of the pedestrian facilities, such as widening and improving the quality of the footpath. There may not be space for this on the highway and the amount of work might not be proporionate to the size of the developmentf Oakley. Access will be provided via Westfield Road, a single carriageway of about 4.5m width. There is a narrow foopath on the side of the development towards Oakley, but no footpath towards the West or on the other side of the road.There is no cycle path in the vicinity but Westfield Road carries very light traffic. The closest bus stop is 150m away from the site entrance, serving buses 50 and 828 to Rushden and Sharnbrook, about three times per day. Cycle connection improvements would be recommended as well as improvement of the pedestrian facilities, such as widening and improving the quality of the footpath. There may not be space for this on the highway and the amount of work might not be proporionate to the size of the development

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of Ravensden Road in Renhold village approximately 3.5 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible via Ravensden Road, which is a 30mph speed limit road. Roads around the site do not experience traffic congestion. The closest bus stop is located 350m south of the site. There is an existing footway on Hookhams Lane and opposite the site on Ravensden Road. Cycling is possible on-road. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic and satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. The proposal will require a road to adoptable standards in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards in terms of accommodating the carriageway/footway widths and the required radius kerbs.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
backs near to large school though there is aprt of golf course between, and school or employment planned on site would need to be considered as noise sources

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Does not pose risk

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access via eithier Green Lane or Carriage Drive. Northern part of Green Lane where site access point would be is very narrow and would require significant work to safely install a new junction. Carriage Drive is wider but is a private road and still ultimatly connects to Green Lane. Some moderate traffic in the area but the biggest capacity problem would be on the section of Green Lane by the development site - any new junction would need to include widening of this part of the road to prevent traffic conflicts on the single carriageway section. 2 bus services per hour (of the same service) approx 800m from the site. There is a pavement on Green Ln south of the Green Ln/Carriage Dr junction. Extending this along Green Ln to a site entrance there would not be possible, but there could be space on Carriage Dr. This is however a private road so might be difficult to achieve. No cycle connectivity however there is a bike-friendly public PRoW approx 800m away connecting to a quiet lane and on to Bromham. Widening of road at point of access on Green Lane. Installation of a pavement on Carriage Drive to connect the site to the pavement of Green Lane south of the Green Ln/Carriage Dr junction.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

15e. Connect highway without constraint?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located west of Memorial Lane in the village of Felmersham approximately 7 miles northwest of Bedford town centre and just south of the Great Ouse river. Access point to the site is feasible from Memorial Lane. No significant traffic issues in the vicinity and a development of this size is unlikely to cause significant impacts. However, Memorial Lane is likely too narrow to provide vehicle access to this number of homes. Access would likely need to be directly off Radwell Road. The closest bus stop located 350m east of the site. There is a footway along the Radwell Rd frontage of the site. Cycling is possible only by using Pavenham Road. Potential increase in the width of Memorial Lane or provision of access directly onto Radwell Road. Improve footway along Radwell Rd and consider designating a shared pedestrian/cycle path.

Contaminated Land
Likely to require contaminated land assessment and remediation if required.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
Entire site falls within the boundary of a MSA.

a) What is the primary use you propose for the site? Housing

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement
X The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or a defined settlement policy area, or within the built form of a small settlement

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
x Protected species could be affected.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
No answers chosen.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
No answers chosen.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings?
x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
No answers chosen.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
No answers chosen.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?
x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?
x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?
+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).