Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 1044

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Agent

If you are not the landowner of the site you are submitting, do you have permission to submit?

Yes

Address of site

Bedford North Station Opportunity, Lower Farm Road, Bromham

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Former LA rubbish tip - vacant

Adjoining use to the north

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Commercial

Adjoining use to the west

rail line

Has the site been developed previously?

Yes

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Housing , Employment , All other types

Number of dwellings proposed

TBC

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

30 dph

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied , Affordable Housing - Affordable rent , Affordable Housing - Shared ownership

Other tenures proposed

No answer given

Permanent or transit?

No answer given

Site privately owned?

Nothing chosen

Number of plots proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of employment

No answer given

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of retail

No answer given

Net floorspace proposed

No answer given

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Number of hotel rooms proposed

No answer given

Amount of development proposed

TBC

Description

Railway station

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

Suitable access is achievable

Where will the site’s access point(s) be?

Access will be provided off the A6 Paula Radcliffe Way as indicated on the Site Location Plan.

Is the site available for development now?

Yes

Is the site currently subject to a planning application?

Is the site currently being marketed?

Are you aware of any issues that might affect the viability of developing the site?

1-5 years (2024/25-2028/29)

No answer given

6-10 years (2029/30-2033/34)

No answer given

11-15 years (2034/35-2039/40)

TBC

16+ years (2040 onwards)

No answer given

What year, post adoption of the plan, would you expect development to start on site?

2034-2038

The council has declared a climate emergency. How the proposal will respond to climate change

The proposed scheme will address climate change through appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures in the design. Where possible the dwellings will utilise low carbon building materials. The dwellings will be energy efficient and will be designed for comfort by balancing passive cooling design strategies which maximise comfort and minimise energy use during the warmer summers, with adequate levels of insulation for the warmer winters. The dwellings will be constructed so they are weather tight, robust enough to withstand extreme weather, and with foundations which are appropriate for their lifetime. The design will also include measures for water efficiency and effective drainage.

Attachments

File: Proposed Parkway Station Layout.pdf

Site size (ha)

21.47

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site not in accordance with the emerging development strategy

Stage1 conclusion

Exclude from further assessment

Stage 2 Assessment of suitability, availability & achievability

Nothing chosen

Stage 2 conclusion

Nothing chosen

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

1b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 minutes’ walk.

1d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer

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?

+ The site is within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and able to enhance the network.

2e. Likely to impact on an area currently providing ecosystem services.

+ Opportunity area for 3 or more ecosystem services covers less than 25% of the site.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?

0 No renewable energy generation scheme included and efficiency standards that meet normal standards.

3b. Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the 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

3c. Accessible on foot to a food store?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 minutes’ walk.

3e. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer.

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings? For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

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?

+ Proposal includes permanent economic and employment opportunities.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?

0 Proposal does not include a main town centre use.

7a. Within 400m of an existing open space or proposing open space within it?

x The proposal does not include and is not within 400m walking distance of a publicly accessible open space.

7b. Within 800m of a sports facility or proposing a sports facility within it?

x The proposal does not include and is not within 800m of a publicly accessible sports facility

8a. Likely to have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape?

? It is uncertain what effect the proposal is likely to have on the landscape / more information is required.

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.

12a. Likely to provide a mix of housing, including affordable housing?

+ The site is likely to provide a mix of housing and include affordable housing.

12b. Able to address a particular housing need?

x The development will not meet identified needs eg elderly, care, travellers.

13a. Within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed?

x The site is not within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed.

14a. Likely to encourage social cohesion?

0 Neutral.

14b. Likely to help make the area safer? +

+ The development is likely to increase public surveillance or increase activity.

15a. Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the 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

15b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk

15d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

x Serious access constraint wider impacts

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

x Serious capacity constraint

Highway comments. For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

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

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

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

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

The site has been excluded from further assessment at Stage 1 because its location is not in accordance with the development strategy.

Supporting documents

File: Covering letter redacted