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
? 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?
+ 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 Church Lane in the village of Riseley, approximately 10.0 miles north of Bedford town centre. There are two possible access point, the first one west of Kings Close and the second one north of Dag Lane. The closest bus stop is located 500m south of the site on High Street. There is a 1.5m footway on the other side of the Kings Close but none serving the site. Dag Lane also has a footway of approx 2.0m. Cycling is feasible onroad. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic on Kings Close, Dag Lane and on King Close/Church Lane and Dag Lane/Gold Street/Rotten Row junctions. The proposal will require a road constructed to adopted standards in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards. This includes accommodating the carriageway/footway widths and the required radius kerbs. Introduction of a footway and/or a more formal crossing to tie into existing footway provision.

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?
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
A new access would have to be created onto the A6 however the proposed access location is fine. No significant traffic congestion in the area, and the development is unlikely to have more than a moderate impact. There are bus stops within 200m where the number 50 bus provides a roughly hourly service between Bedford and Rushden. Both proposed access points (A6 and Marsh Lane) have direct access to a suitable pavement. There is no specific cycle connectivity however there are several quiet roads in the area which could be used for cycling, or alternatively the existing pavement along the A6 could be widened using the verge and converted into a shared cycle path. Ensure that there is a pedestrian and cycle connection to Marsh Lane even if it is not used for vehicular access as this is a far more attractive option for pedestrians and cyclists. Investigate potential for a shared cycle path along the site frontage.

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?
? 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 north of Church End in the village of Renhold approximately 4 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. Access could be obtained from Church End to the south of the site. The development could contribute to moderate existing traffic problems in Church End. The closest bus stop is approximately 200m west of the site. The frontage of the site on Church End has a footway of 1m and cycling is possible only by using the road. The existing access from Church End would require improvement. Improve footways provision along site frontage for pedestrians and consider marking on-street cycle lanes along Church End.

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?
+ No access constraints

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

Highway comments
The site is located in Kempston Rural approximately 4.5 miles south-west of Bedford town centre. The proposed development will be accessed via West End Road which is currently subject of national speed limit. Box End Road is a single carriageway road without any footways. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 100m from the site. The site lacks footways along West End Road and although Box End Road has a footway on the east side, it is less than the standard 1.8m in most sections. Cycling is possible by using the road surface. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and implement positives measures for the provision of and/or improve facilities for public transport, cyclists and pedestrians including footways/cycleway with crossing facilities as well as extension of the bus service routes. 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. The speed limit on West End Road is currently subject to 60mph and for any residential development to be considered, this speed limit needs to be reduced to 30mph through the process of a permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The site and the surrounding road network lacks provision of footways, hence given the scale of development to increase pedestrian and traffic movement then satisfactory footways should be provided so that the accessibility to the site for pedestrians is improved and pedestrian crossing points need to be identified.

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?
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?
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 is onto Roxton Road in the middle of the frontage. Some moderate traffic in the area however the size of this development is not likely to make this significantly worse. The main village bus stops are within 500m of the site where the 905 bus provides a half hourly service between Bedford and Cambridge. There is a pavement along the frontage with Roxton Rd however it is fairly narrow (approx 1m wide). There is a shared cycle/pedestrian path on the opposite side of the road, however this could do with widening/improving. The pavement directly outside the site could be widened to better accommodate all users. The shared cycle/pedestrian pavement on the opposite side of Roxton Road should also be widened/improved.

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 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?
? 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
The site is located on the east side of Odell Road, in the village of Sharnbrook approximately 8.8 miles north of Bedford town centre. Congestion in the vicinity is limited to school start and finish times. There is a bus stop in the vicinity of the site near the Odell Road/School Approach roundabout. There are no footways serving the site. However, north of the Odell Road/School Approach roundabout there is a 1.6m footway on the other side of Odell Road. There are no specific provisions made for cyclists although they can use the carriageway. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic on Odell Road as well at the Odell Road/School Approach roundabout. The proposal will require a road to adopted 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
noise from school and Santa Pod

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
High risk allocation

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?
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?
No answers chosen.

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 south side of Butler Street and Thurleigh Road in the west of Revensden village approximately 3.5 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible via Butler St off Ravensden Road, which is a 30mph speed limit road. There is no significant traffic congestion in the area. There are no footways serving the site, nor cycle acess. Cycling is feasible on-road. The site enjoys immediate and adequate access onto the public highway. It is proposed that the existing access arrangements will be retained. Consider cycle improvements along Butler Street to the direction of Oldways Road and implementation of a footway to tie into existing provision on Butler St.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
agricultural noise and contamination issues exisit for the site

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?
+ 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 southwest side of Ravensden Road in the village of Ravensden approximately 3.8 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible directly from Ravensden Road. There is no traffic congestion on Ravensden road. The closest bus stop is located approximately 350m south of the site. There are no footways serving the site, nor formal cycle connections. Cycling is feasible on-road. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic and satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Provide connection to footways 150m to the south along Ravensden 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
+ 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 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?
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 from B645 Road frontage. Various bus services run to Savile's Close stop some 650m east of the site. The site has a shared footway/cycleway along its frontage on the northern side of the B645, this forms part of route 12/51 on the National Cycle Network. Implementing a crossing to the existing shared footway on the north side of the B645. Proximity to existing A1 slip junction may require moving the site access further west along B645.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from A1

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Low 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 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?
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 from Bushmead Road on the site's southern frontage, level difference and bridge to the east over the A1 may prevent mitigation works to construct a new access and provide footway on the north side of Bushmead. Bus stops are available to the east under 400m although these currently have poor service frequency, stops within 1km have twice hourly services on the Great North Rd. Bushmead Rd forms part of National Cycle Network and provides a low traffic route into Eaton Socon. Implement footway on Bushmead Rd and or a crossing to tie into existing footway over the bridge to the east. Footway would also have to be implemented further east of the bridge to tie into the existing footway adjacent to Monarch Rd. Footway on bridge to be widened.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from the A1

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
Low 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 within the impact risk zone of an SSSI / Natura 2000 site

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 western side of Odell Road and School Approach, in the village of Sharnbrook approximately 9 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access points are located on School Approach and Odell Road. Congestion in the vicinity is limited to school start and finish times. The nearest bus stop facilities are located approximately 700m east of the site on Odell Road. There is no footway serving the site. There are no specific provisions made for cyclists although they can use the carriageway. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic on Odell Road as well as the Odell Road/School Approach roundabout. The proposal will require a road to adopted standards in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards in terms of accommodating the carriageway/footway widths and the required radius kerbs. A 2m footway would be necessary serving the site. At the north side of the site the Odell Road speed limit could be reduced. Consideration of a bus stop and or route entering the site in order to make any dwellings at the extreme end of the site boundary more accessible to the bus service.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from santa pod

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
+ 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?
? 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 as existing onto Grange Lane. Some traffic in the area but unlikely to be affected by a development of this size. There is a bus stop directly outside the site with the 74 bus connecting to Bedford once an hour. There is a perfectly adequate pavement directly outside the site, however it does change sides of the road just a few metres down with no pedestrian crossing to assist. There is no specific cycle connectivity however cycling towards the A421 via Cardington connects to a traffic-free cycle route on the edge of Bedford taking you towards the centre. Improve the ability for pedestrians to cross the road where the pavement changes the side it is on. This could be a full pedestrian crossing, or just a pedestrian refuge, speed humps etc.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns, supplanting grange farm

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
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?
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 west of Oakley Road and Church Lane north of Bromham area approximately 4 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Oakley Road, which is a 40mph road along the frontage of the site. Oakley Road and the junction with Park Road/Church Lane/Oakley Road experience some moderate congestion and this scale of development could exacerbate any issues. The closest bus stop is located approximately 400m south of the site. There are no footways or formal cycle lanes outside of the site. A Transport Asssessment would be needed to assess the impact of the development on the highway network, especially on Oakley Road and on the Park Road/Church Lane/Oakley Road junction, and recommend satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Given the number of homes proposed, it is likely that more than one access point will be necessary off Oakley Road. The proposal will require roads 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. Potential signalisation of the junction of Park Road/Church Lane/Oakley Road would be necessary to mitigate the traffic increase. Potential reduction of the speed limit of Oakley Road along the frontage of the site to 30mph.

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?
? 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
Two existing accesses present along Church End. There is some moderate congestion along Church End during peak hours and lunchtimes, and additional traffic generation from this development may have some impact on the local network. The nearest bus stop is adjacent to the existing access opposite 12-14 Church End. This bus stop serves number 27 which operates <1 bus per hour daily loop. No cycle connectivity is provided in the area. It is proposed to potentially provide a pedestrian crossing to the footway on the opposite side of the carriageway- this existing footway should also be upgraded and widened if possible. Potential for on-street non-segregated cycle connectivity. 27 bus service in the area would benefit from increased frequency.

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?
? 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?
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?
? 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 onto Pavenham Rd is well suited and more visible than the old access point. Little to no traffic in the area. There is a bus stop 50m from the proposed access point but it only has 4-5 services per day. There is a pavement along the site frontage which connects to the nearby bus stops and Pavenham village to the west. The footpath is paved and smooth but is narrow, about 1m wide. There is no specific cycle connectivity but the road is generally quiet. Provide a connection to the existing pavement along the frontage of the site. Consider reducing the speed limit on Pavenham Rd between the site and Pavenham from 40 to 30mph to better facilitate cycling.

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?
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 Rd. Very light traffic in the area and the proposed access point seems suitable. There is a bus stop on Church Rd outside the site with approx 4 services per day. The stop is not visible though so could be incorporated into the frontage of the site to improve visibility of it. Pedestrian access could be achieved by connecting to pavement ending at the village hall in the NE corner of the site. No cycle connectivity but quiet roads allow reasonable cycle access to St Neots. Accommodate existing bus stop into frontage of the site. Connect into footway in the NE and widen if possible.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
whilst activity from farm yard to south may be significant, development still possible

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 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?
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?
+ 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 north side of Pavenham Road in the village of Pavenham approximately 5 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Pavenham Road, which is a 40mph road with no significant traffic congestion. The proposal would cause minor traffic problems in the network. The nearest bus stop is located 400m from the site access point. There is a footway of 1.8m serving access point on Pavenham Road. The access point of the site would need widening to handle the increased traffic. Speed restrictions on Pavenham Rd could be investigated. Improved bus transport services.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no information on proposed types, employment may introduce noise to the area

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?
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 answers chosen.

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
No answers chosen.

Highway comments
No answer given.

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
+ 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
x Serious capacity constraint

Highway comments
The site is located south of Honeydon Road in the village of Colmworth approximately 7.5 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible via Honeydon Road. Given the narrow width of Honeydon Road, the proposal would likely cause congestion issues. The nearest bus stop is 160m northwest of the site in Little Staughton Road. There are no footways or formal cycle lanes outside of the site. Cycling is possible only by using the road surface. Increase of the Honeydon Road width as well as footways in both sides of the road would be necessary for the development, however this is unlikely to be feasible given obstructions on both side of the road to the west of the site, and the likely high cost.

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 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?
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
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The potential access point of the site is via Woburn Road. The closest bus stop located 700m from the site. The footway on Woburn Road is 1.5m 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. Re-design or potential convert to signalise junction of the roundabout Woburn Road/Wolseley Road suggested to mitigate the increase of traffic in the area.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
only noise concerns would be police station itself

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?
xx The site is within 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?
+ All or a majority of the site is 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
Primary access on Greyfriars is very close to a junction which could create a safety problem if large numbers of vehicles are using it. Secondary access is on Priory Street which is very narrow so also wouldn't be suitable for large numbers of cars. Most roads in the area show moderate traffic throughout the day with the potential for this to easily become heavy traffic if more vehicles are added. As the site is an old police station there are several good pedestrian access points to the site and good pedestrian infrastructure connecting to the bus station opposite, which has several bus services with 4+ services per hour for each. An on-road non-segregated cycle lane is directly outside the site. Vehicle access and road capacity is generally poor but due to the location opposite the bus station and with good walking and cycling links, it would be reasonable to limit car usage. Car parking should be limited to a very small number (i.e. disabled parking only) and should mainly use the Greyfriars access to the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from roundabout road traffic, bus depot and nearby commercial sources

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 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 development proposes to build residential houses and old people homes on currently residential garden land, just East of the built-up area of Wymington. Access will be provided via Wymington Lane, a single carriageway with a footpath on the southern (development-facing) side of the road and no cycle path in the vicinity. Wymington Lane normally carries light traffic but some congestion occurs in the morning peak on most days and in the evening peak on some days of the week, however is unlikely to be made significantly worse by this scale of development. The footpath outside the site is wide and appears newly surfaced. The closest bus stop is 150m away serving buses 25 and 50, at less than an hour frequency. Bus 50 seems to be not currently in service. Cycle connection improvements would be recommended, either via shared path or on-street markings.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise and odour goosey lodge 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? 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?
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
The site located north of Markham Rise approximately 4.2 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. The access to the site would be via existing developments off the Markham Rise and Appledine Way. Existing traffic along Norse Road and at the Norse Road/Markham Rise roundabout appears light, however the impact of this further development would need to be assessed. The closest bus stop is on Norse Road approximately 450m from the site. There are 2m footways on Markham Rise, but the area is under development and its not clear how the entrance of the site would look. Cycling is possible via shared pedestrian/cycle paths along Norse Road. Given the significant scale of proposals, roads to adoptable standards are required in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standard. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic and provision of satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists and public transport. A connection from the proposed development to existing shared footway/cycle paths on Norse Road would be expected.

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
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?
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?
? 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
Access to the site is feasible from Green Lane. The site will be intensified in use and the traffic generated by the development may cause traffic levels over the level of railway crossing to increase greatly. The nearest rail stop is "Stewartby", 600m from the site. A shared footway/cycleway of approximately 3m in width on the east side of Green Lane is present from Kimberley College and continuing up to the level railway crossing, however does not connect to the site itself. A public footpath is also present on the east side of Green Lane. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to set out the traffic generation and identify mitigation measures as well as improvements to sustainable modes of transport including walking, cycling and the use of public transport. This will include extending pedestrian and cycle connectivity along Green Lane to the site access and/or providing a crossing to the footpath on the west side of Green Lane.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
Consideration to be given to stewartby brickworks development and any impact of the employement on NSP devlopment

Minerals & Waste
Proposed use located within the office / weighbridge area of landfill site and encompasses existing permanent hazardous waste transfer operation operated by a different company.

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 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?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

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

Highway comments
The site is located on land west side of Rushden Road in the village of Wymington approximately 15 miles north of Bedford town centre. The site abuts onto Rushden Road opposite the existing junction with Manor Lane. Access will be provided to Rushden Road, an adopted and classified road comprising of a single carriageway with grass verge outside the site but footway on the opposite side, subject of 30mph. Rushden Road normally carries light traffic but some congestion occurs in the peak hours. The footpath on the other side of the road is narrow and not of the best quality.There is no cycle path in the vicinity and the closest bus stop is 120m away from the site entrance, serving buses 25 and 50, at less than an hour frequency. Bus 50 seems to be not currently in service. A Transport Assessment would be required to ascertain the impact of the development on the local road network. Cycle connection improvements would be recommended as well as improvement of the pedestrian facilities, such as widening and improving the quality of the footpath, but at the least providing safe crossing from the development.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
rail noise to be considered

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? 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?
N/A in UAB

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?
x The majority of the site is within flood zone 2.

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

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

Highway comments
Access will be from Wilstead Rd at the south of the site, where the existing access is, as well as off the Wilstead Rd exit of the A6 roundabout in the NE of the site. Proposals also appear to include potential provision of a link road from the B530, across the rail line to the west of the site. Roads in the area, particularly the A6 and A421 show little if any traffic, however the scale of the site may contribute to future traffic issues. The 81 bus passes along Wilstead Rd serving Luton and Bedford once an hour, however it does not currently stop nearby. There is an existing, wide shared pedestrian and cycle path running along Wilstead Rd, however it is on the opposite side of the road from the development. Futher assessment may be required of suitability of future potential accesses and the impact on future traffic congestion, considering the scale of the development. New link road proposed as part of the development. Install a bus stop near the site entrance for the existing bus service which passes through to be able to serve the site. Install pedestrian crossings to allow access from the site to the existing pedestrian and cycle path on Wilstead Rd.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
proposal is retail and should not be insurmountable for any nearby NSP depending on use class

Minerals & Waste
On site of former quarry and lakes. Discussions have been taking place with landowner for filling of void with inert waste. Planning application expected sometime in 2021.

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 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 already exists off Church End Road. There are 3 bus services per hour 600m from the site and a shared pedestrian/cycle path 250m from the site. Existing access does not link to a footway but there is space to construct a footway to connect the site to an existing footway 70m away.

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
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?
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
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
Access onto unnamed road on the north frontage of the site. No traffic in the area. There is a bus stop within 200m with 4 services per day to Bedford, however there is currently no pedestrian access to this stop. The existing pavement along the unnamed road north of the site will need to be extended approx 50m to provide pedestrian access. No specific cycle connectivity but there are several quiet roads and bike-friendly PRoWs in the area. Pedestrian access will need to be provided by extending the existing pavement on the unnamed road north of the site approx 50m to connect the site. The speed limit changes from 30 to 40mph along the frontage of the site, it would be advisable for the location of the change down to 30mph to be moved so that the whole frontage is within a 30mph zone.

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
? 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?
x The majority of the site is within flood zone 2.

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

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

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of A1, which is a trunk road, in the village of Wyboston approximately 10 miles north-east of Bedford town centre. The curent access on the site is unsuitable and it requires improvement. The proposal could cause moderate problems in the traffic/highway capacity of A1 road and The Lane. The nearest bus stop is approximately 320m from the southern access to the site. An existing foot/cycleway extends from Lakes Autos along the eastern site boundary and crosses under the A1 into the Eaton Socon Industrial Estate. From the A1 underpass, there are footpath routes to the west to Northfield Road and Wyboston to the southwest. Two new access points are proposed via the no. 48 south entrance, where an existing dwelling is proposed to be demolished, and direct off the A1 via a new junction. However, The Lane is due to be stopped up under the HE proposals and hence there will be no direct access onto the A1 here. A replacement access road will be constructed to the west of the residential properties. The other proposed access (from the curved slip road) is not considered suitable for an access point.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise from A1 would affect housing all other uses would affect existing premises in wyboston

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
? 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?
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 using two access points onto Thurleigh Road, one existing and another which will be new. There is some moderate traffic in the area but the proposed development is unlikely to impact significantly. There is an hourly bus service to/from Bedford within 400m of the site. There is a pavement in the SW corner of the site which will need to be extended along the frontage of the site, and is also narrow at approximately 1m wide. Twinwood Rd nearby provides a quiet cycle route to Clapham which is the nearest place with facilities such as food shops. Pedestrian access on Thurleigh Rd is narrow but there is no scope for widening due to a large wall. The pavement on Thurleigh Rd would need to be extended along the frontage of the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
twinwoods business park may be a source of 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? Retail

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
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
Access would be from Goldington Road. This is a dual carriageway and the size of this development would not warrant a new junction so an on/off slip on the westbound carriageway would be required. There is some moderate traffic congestion in the area. There are bus stops 300m away where the number 5 bus provides five services per hour to/from Bedford Town Centre and the 905 provides a half hourly Bedford-Cambridge service. There is currently no pedestrian or cycle access. Due to the dual carriageway, this is only likely to be achieved by building a footpath between the site and the entrance road to Lidl, south of the shop, where it can then connect to the existing pavement. If that is in place, then there is a pedestrian crossing and a shared path on the north side of Goldington Road. Significant work would be needed on Goldington Rd to construct an on/off slip on the westbound carriageway. Pedestrian and cycle access will be needed, which is most feasible by constructing a path between the site and the existing pavement on the Lidl access road.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
cannot identify Goldington Meadows

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?
No answers chosen.

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 on the north side of Pavenham Road in the village of Pavenham approximately 5.5 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Pavenham Road, which has a 30mph speed limit to th front of the site with no significant traffic congestion. The closest bus stop is located 450m west of the site on High Street. There is 2m footway serving the access point on Pavenham Road. Cycling is possible on-road. Pedestrian access improvements and changes to the existing site access depending on scale of employment and vehicle types expected.

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?
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
x Serious capacity constraint

Highway comments
There are two access points proposed: The Slade and Green Lane. Both are narrow roads which could be quite seriously adversly affected by additional traffic from a site of this size. There is some moderate traffic in the area which would almost certainly be made worse by this size development. Via The Slade access to the site there is a bus stop 160m away where the number 51 bus provides a half-hourly service between Bedford and Oakley. Both proposed access points have adequate pavements which could easily be connected to by this new development. There is no specific cycle connectivity however there are several paved PRoWs in the area which would be suitable for cycling. The proposed vehicular accesses would need to be looked at in greater depth as both currently seem like they connect to roads which would not be able to handle the traffic from 500 new homes. A Transport Assessment should be produced to assess the significant impact this and neighbouring developments will have on local networks.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns for housing but if other uses were considered the may affect existing residential

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?
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 would be onto Twinwood Road, where there is plenty of space for a sufficient new access point to be created. There is some moderate traffic in the area and the size of this site will likely increase local levels of congestion. There are bus stops within 300m where the 50 bus provides an hourly service between Bedford and Rushden. There is a pedestrian footway on the opposite side of Twinwood Road and no specific cycle connectivity. A Transport Assessment should be produced to assess the significant impact this and nearby large developments will have on local networks. A safe pedestrian crossing will be needed on Twinwood Road to connect to the existing path. This could be redesignated as shared with cycles. Due to the size of the development and the potential for speeding on the road, a Toucan crossing or similar would be required.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns for housing but if other uses were considered the may affect existing residential

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
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?
? 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
x Serious capacity constraint

Highway comments
NOTE: This is a large site proposal for a new settlement with complex traffic and transport requirements. Further assessment of the transport impacts has been carried out and published as a supporting document found here www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040. The site is located west of Roxton Road in the area of Honeydon, Begwary and Colmworth approximately 9 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. There are multiple accesses on the site including Roxton Road and Colesden Road. The very large scale of the development would cause significant pressures on the surrounding highway network and further assessment will be required. The nearest bus stop to one of the entrances is in Roxton Road located 200m east of the site. There are no footways outside of the site, however given this is a garden vilage development, new footways and cycleways would be expected to be included as part of the overall design. There is no specific cycle connectivity however the existing road surface could be used for cycling, and further routes should be incorporated into the design. The size of the proposed development needs careful examination and further investigation prior to agreement. A full Transport Assessment encompassing the impacts of the entire site is necessary in the area, including proposed sustainable transport measures and highway mitigation as required. This should include provision of footways and cycle routes throughout the development and extension of nearby bus routes into the proposed Garden Village.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No noise concerns, site distant from noise sources

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
High opportunity allocation

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?
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
+ No capacity issues

Highway comments
The site is located west of Woodfield Lane in the village of Renhold approximately 4.8 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. Vehicle access to the site is feasible from Woodfield Lane. Given the scale of the development it would likely not cause significant issues on Woodfield Lane or at the junction between Green End/Woodfield Lane. The closest bus stop is 280m south at the junction of Green End/Woodfield Lane. There are no pedestrian or cycle facilities at the main vehicular access points. Footways would need to be extended along Woodfield Lane and this could be cost prohibitive given the small scale of the development. Consider marking on-street cycle lanes along Woodfield Lane.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
industrial activity to the north east

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?
x Serious access constraint wider impacts

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

Highway comments
The proposed access is onto Woodfield Lane, however this is very narrow and would be inadequate for a development of this size. A connection directly from the A421 roundabout is suggested and would be a better option, however this would be dependent on site 761 proceeding and require significant highway works. No significant traffic congestion in the area. There are bus stops within 150m where the 27 bus provides approx. 4 services to Bedford per day. There is no pavement on Woodfield Lane or any other pedestrian connectivity, so pedestrian access will need to be provided via the A421 roundabout access. There is no cycle access however the pavement on St Neots Road from the A421 roundabout could be upgraded to a shared path to provide a direct cycle link to Bedford. Access via the A421 roundabout would provide the best option, however this is dependent on approval of site 761 to proceed. Access via Woodfield Lane would not be suitable for a development of this size. The A421 roundabout access would also be necessary for pedestrian and cycle access. The pavement on St Neots Rd from the A421 roundabout towards Bedford could be upgraded to a shared path to provide a direct cycle link to Bedford.

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?
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?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

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

Highway comments
Access from road to the West of the site. There is very little traffic, including at peak times, in the surrounding area and on the A428 Northampton Road. The closest bus stop is 2km East of the site. The access road is a typical country road, quite narrow and with ditches on either side. No pedestrain footways or cycle access. The access road is signed as unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. The site is relatively quite remote, with one neighbouring property. Therefore any public transport or cycling measures would be unlikely to be feasible.

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 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?
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?
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
Borders site 874. See comments on site 874 for details. E boundary, Williamson Road. High frequency bus (1) stopping next to site. Segregated cycle trail next to site. Access by way of joint proposal with land to the east adjoining Williamson Rd. Access for pedestrians could be improved by widening the footway adjacent to Williamson Road.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
noise levels from the school nearby should be considered

Minerals & Waste
No answer given.

Natural England Risks Opportunities
No answers chosen.

Mineral Safeguarding Area
No answers chosen.

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?
+ 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
There are three existing vehicle access points. The two access points into the site from Church Lane to the south west are considered suitable for the existing agricultural use of the site but would require minor improvement to serve future development. The third access on High Street provides direct pedestrian access to the closest bus stop just 200m south on High Street, serving hourly services for routes 41 and 830. The footways are present on either side of High Street and outside the site on Church Lane. No significant congestion in the vicinity of the nearby A422, however data for Church Lane is not available. There are no designated bicycle lanes or cycling friendly roads in the site's proximity, however cycling is possible using the road surface. 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 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?
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?
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?
? 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 from Bushmead Road or Staploe Road, level difference and bridge to the east over the A1 may prevent mitigation works to construct a new access and provide footways on Bushmead and Staploe. Bus stops are available to the east under 400m although these currently have poor service frequency, stops within 1km have twice hourly services on the Great North Rd. Bushmead Rd forms part of National Cycle Network and provides a low traffic route into Eaton Socon. (As per site 931) Implement footway on Bushmead Rd and or a crossing to tie into existing footway over the bridge to the east. Footway would also have to be implemented further east of the bridge to tie into the existing footway adjacent to Monarch Rd. Footway on bridge to be widened (As per site 931)

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
predominantly noise from A1 but commercial noise on proposed devlopment could affect proposed and existing

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?
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
Access onto Westfield Road. Oakley has moderate traffic most of the time but the size of this development is unlikely to worsen it. Number 51 bus runs to Bedford every 30 minutes approx 600m from the site. It is 500m to the nearest pavement further east along Westfield Rd and there is not space to extend this to the site. There is no pedestrian or cycle activity however Westfield Road only serves a handful of homes, the nearest footway is 500m to the east Consider wider cycle improvements around Oakley (e.g. upgrading some pavements to cycle/pedestrian paths) to potentially relieve congestion.

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?
? 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 site is located on the south side of Mill Road in the village of Sharnbrook, approximately 7.6 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Mill Road, which is a 30mph speed limit road. Mill Road can be mildly congested, however the potential development would not have a significant impact. A bus stop is located adjacent to the site. There is no footway immediately fronting the site, but there is a 1.8m footway on the other side of the road. There are no formal cycle tracks and cycling is possible only by using the road surface. Consider marking on-street cycle lanes. Crossing facilities for pedestrians to reach the opposite footway required.

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
Entire site falls 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?
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?
+ 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 located at the south side of Highfield Road and adjacent to the east side of property no. 8 Highfield Road, in village of Oakley approximately 5 miles north-west of Bedford town centre. The site fronts onto Highfield Road at the most northern tip of the site and on the west side of the existing roundabout junction with A6 and also the A6 link road between the roundabout junction and the A6 dual carriageway on the east side. Access would be provided via Highfield Road, a single carriageway with 30mph speed limit and a footpath on the side of the development. The footpath is rather narrow and only extends to the West. There are no cycle paths in the vicinity. Neither Highfield Road or the A6 are normally congested, however, Station Road just to the West often is. Depending on the level of traffic generated, this might cause an issue. The closest bus stop is about 280m from the site, serving buses 50 and 51 to Bedford and Rushden, at 2 times per hour frequency. TA should be developed to assess the impact of the development on the road network. Cycle connection improvements would be recommended as well as improvement of the pedestrian facilities, such as improving the quality / width of the footpath on Highfield Road. It's unclear where the exact access point will be on Highfield Road but it would be good if the pedestrian access wasn't directly onto the roundabout, for safety reasons.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns for employment 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 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?
+ No access constraints

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

Highway comments
The site is located on the west side of The Bury Road in the village of Pavenham approximately 6 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from The Bury Road, which experiences no significant traffic congestion. The closest bus stop is located 450m southwest of the site on High Street. No mitigation recommended given the small scale of 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
? The site is within the impact risk zone of an SSSI / Natura 2000 site , 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?
+ 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?
? Potential access requiring mitigation

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

Highway comments
NOTE: This is a large site proposal for a new settlement with complex traffic and transport requirements. Further assessment of the transport impacts has been carried out and published as a supporting document found here www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040. The site is located southwest of Souldrop village approximately 9 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from multiple locations, such as Colworth Road and other local roads. The closest bus stop located 250m east of the site on High Street Road. In Colworth Road there is footway of 2m on the other side of the road, but there are no footways serving the access point. Cycling is possible on-road. The size of the proposed development needs careful examination and further investigation for future construction. Traffic modelling will need to be undertaken as part of the required Transport Assessment which will identify the impact and will include sustainable transport measures.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
railway noise and noise from racing in santa pod potentially

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 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?
N/A in UAB

9a. On previously developed land?
+ All or a majority of the site is 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?
x The majority of the site is within flood zone 2.

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

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

Highway comments
Access is proposed off Ford End Road (primary) and Havelock Street (secondary). Both are suitable locations and there is an existing access on Ford End Road which could be used, however a suitable new access point on Havelock Street would need to be identified. Moderate traffic congestion in the area. There are bus stops approx 50m from the Ford End Road access where the number 8 bus provides a half-hourly service between Bedford Town Centre and Great Denham. There is adequate pedestrian access at the Ford End Road access to the site. The beginning of the Bedford-Sandy off-road cycle path is approx 250m from the site. This also connects to Bedford Town Centre. A Transport Assessment would be required to determine the impact this large development may have on the surrounding transport networks. A suitable vehicular access point on Havelock St will need to be identified, ideally this should include a secondary pedestrian access as well.

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

Environmental Health
concerns have already been detailed for this site re rail line and brewery

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?
? 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
THIS SITE REQUIRES MORE DETAILED REVIEW DUE TO ITS SCALE AND POSITVE/NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDINGS. Main vehicular access proposed from a new roundabout off the A6 to the east of the site. Emergency access from Bedford Road to the north. Pedestrian access – various points. All accessibility considerations are thoroughly described in the Transport Assessment. The A6 would require investment in order to be provide for improved pedestrian and/or cycle access. There are bus stops on Luton Rd, less than 400m from the site. Stakeholder discussion with bus providers to provide new routes or extensions to serve the site. Wixams has a small cycle infrastructure network, which could potentially be expanded.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
road noise from the 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? 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?
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 can be reached by either Great North Road (from the north or the south) or the site can be accessed via Bedford Road or A421 from the west. There appear to be no bus stop facilities in the near vicinity of the site. There appears to be no Public Right of Way (PRoW) crossing the site. However, PRoWs are present off the north side of the roundabout namely public footpath FP36 which link with FP8 to the north and there is no provision for cyclists. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic on the highway as well as mitigations measures. Highways England have issued the DCO for a new three tier junction at this location as part of the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Improvement scheme. Only a service access is shown for this land (which belongs to the Borough Council). To gain full access to this site, the applicant will have to demonstrate that a new junction will work – local access roads will be on the middle tier of the junction. Given the scale of development, the consideration for satisfactory facilities for cyclists should be given and identified in the TA. These can be in the form of on/off road cycle lanes.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
no noise concerns for employment use

Minerals & Waste
Area of mineral working about to be restored consists of lakes and lower land areas adjacent to river.

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?
? 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?
+ 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 located on the north side of High Street in the village of Pavenham approximately 6 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible via High Street. There is no significant traffic congestion on High Street. The closest bus stop is located 950m east of the site on Weavers Lane. There is no footway serving the site. Cycling is possible on-road. A footway serving the site would require significant work, which is unlikley warranted by the scale of 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
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?
+ 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 Pavenham Road in the village of Pavenham approximately 5 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Pavenham Road, which is a 40mph road with no significant traffic congestion. The nearest bus stop is located 200m from the site access point. There is a footway of 1.8m serving the access point on Pavenham Road. Cycling is possible on-road. 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
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?
+ 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
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
pproximately 7.8 miles north of Bedford town centre. The site will be accessed via a priority junction from Kennell Hill. There is moderate traffic congestion on Kennell Hill outside of the site entrance, and the potential development would have an impact. The closest bus stop is located to the south of the site on Kennell Hill and Templars Way. There is a 1.8m footway in the frontage of the site on Kennell Hill. There are no formal cycle tracks and cycling is possible only by using the road surface. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic on Kennell Hill as well as the Templars Way/Kennell Hill/Mill Road junction. The location of the proposed access required is to be specified. 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. Consider marking on road cycle lanes and improving frequency of bus services.

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
? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments
The site is located north of Northampton Road west of Bromham area approximately 4 miles west of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Northampton Road, which is a 40mph road along the frontage of the site. Northampton Road does not appear to have any significant traffic congestion issues, however a development of this size could cause some moderate issues. The closest bus stop is located approximately 450m south of the site. There are no footways or formal cycle lane outside of the site. A Transport Asssessment would be needed to assess the impact of the development on the highway network and recommend satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists, likely comprising a shared pedestrian/cycle path. Given the number of homes proposed, it is likely that more than one access point will be necessary off Northampton Road. The proposal will require roads 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. Potential reduction of the speed limit of Oakley Road in the frontage of the site to 30mph.

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? 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?
? 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?
+ 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 north side of High Street in the village of Pavenham approximately 6 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible via High Street. There is no significant traffic congestion on High Street. The closest bus stop is located 700m east of the site on Weavers Lane. There is no footway serving the site. Cycling is possible on-road. A footway serving the site would be necessary. A bus stop closer to the site would be a beneficial sustainable transport measure. Consider marking on-street cycle lanes. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
proximity to egg farm may result in odour amenity 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
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?
+ 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
Site included in site 1009. The site is located on the north side of Kennell Hill in the village of Sharnbrook, approximately 7.8 miles north of Bedford town centre. The site will be accessed via a priority junction from Kennell Hill. There is moderate traffic congestion on Kennell Hill outside of the site entrance, and the potential development would have an impact. The closest bus stop is located to the south of the site on Kennell Hill and Templars Way. There is a 1.8m footway in the frontage of the site on Kennell Hill. There are no formal cycle tracks and cycling is possible only by using the road surface. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic on Kennell Hill as well as the Templars Way/Kennell Hill/Mill Road junction. The location of the proposed access required is to be specified. 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. Consider marking on road cycle lanes and improving frequency of bus services.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No answer given.

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?
? 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 on the east side of Newton Lane in the village of Turney approximately 7.9 miles west of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is proposed from a simple priority junction taken from Newton Lane. The access is proposed to be located within the 30mph speed limit and positioned equidistant between Tandy’s Close and Bakers Close junctions. There is moderate traffic congestion in the area.. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 300m south of the site on High Street. There is no formal footway serving the site. Cycling is feasible on-road. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic from the proposed development. 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. Reduction of the speed limit to 30mph along the whole frontage of the site should be investigated as an option. Development of footways in order to connect to the PROW network. A new looped pedestrian route could be created.

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?
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?
? 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 is an existing access point onto High Street which will need to be widened and improved. Some moderate traffic in the area however will not be impacted given the scale of the development. There are bus stops within 150m where the 27 bus provides approx 4 services per day to Bedford. The main village bus stops are approx 1km away where the 905 bus provides a half hourly service between Bedford and Cambridge. There is an adequate pavement running along the frontage of the site. No specific cycle connectivity however the road in front of the site is a cycle friendly route and connects to the national cycle network about 300m away, providing off-road and quiet road cycle connections to Bedford and St Neots. Ensure a connection to the existing pavement on High Street from the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No answer given.

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?
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 could be from several points along the frontage on Willington Road. Willington Rd sometimes has moderate traffic. There is a bus stop directly outside the site providing 4 services per day to Bedford, however there is another stop within 300m with the 73 bus providing a service to Bedford approx. every 30 minutes. There is a pavement along the frontage of the site, however it is very narrow. There is no specific cycle connectivity however cycling towards the A421 via Cardington connects to a traffic-free cycle route on the edge of Bedford taking you towards the centre. Consider using the development as an opportunity to widen the existing narrow pavement along the frontage of the site.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
surrounding home farm may need to consider agricultural noise

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?
? 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
See site 658 - Access from Cranfield Rd. No footways serve the site but land to the east is under development and could provide infrastructure to tie into providing pedestrian links north into Wootton. Bus stops in close proximity to the south providing an hourly C1 service Mon-Fri and less frequent at weekends. Some congestion within Wootton, development would need junction impact assessments. NCN 51 runs on Cranfield Road. Tie into new infrastructure east of the site to provide links to infrastructure and facilities in Wootton.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
No answer given.

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 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?
x Serious access constraint wider impacts

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

Highway comments
The site located on both sides of Paula Radcliffe Way-A6, west of Bromham area approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Bedford town centre. Access to the site would be feasible from Paula Radcliffe Way-A6, which is a motorway or from the bridge of Lower Farm Road which is incomplete. The nearest bus stop located 950m southeast of the site. There are no footways or formal cycle lanes outside of the site or nearby which would make mitigation difficult. Depending on the scale of the development proposed, a Transport Assessment may be required to assess the impact of surrounding networks. Potential access to the site from the bridge of Lower Farm Road, however Lower Farm Road will likely not provide sufficient access for a site of this size. Otherwise, a new junction with the A6 would need to be constructed which may not be feasible depending on the development scale. No pedestrian or cycle connectivity anywhere nearby and unlikely mitigation would be feasible.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
only noise concerns are the proximity to rail line and potenital station

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

11a. At risk of flooding?
x The majority of the site is within flood zone 2.

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 achievable directly onto the roundabout between Fields Road and Woburn Road (C94). Secondary / emergency access points could be delivered onto Woburn Road or Manor Road. Given the scale of the proposed development, it may contribute to future traffic issues in the area, so further assessment will be required. The closest rail stop "Kempston Hardwick" is 100m from the site. There are no pedestrian or cycle facilities at the main vehicular access points. Shared pedestrian/cycle links could be provided along Manor Road to link to the network of existing cycle trails on the west side of Woburn Road to the northwest of the site. Similarly, footways which are currently present on Fields Road where it crosses the A421 should be extended to the site access on Fields Road roundabout to provide a pedestrian link to Wootton.

Contaminated Land
No answers chosen.

Environmental Health
railway and road noise

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
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?
x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.