Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 1267

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Please contact agent: Frazer Hickling

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

Yes

Address of site

Land At Church End Willington, MK44 3PX 0.51 ha

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Amenity land adjacent the church

Adjoining use to the north

Field

Adjoining use to the south

Fields

Adjoining use to the east

Church, Residential

Adjoining use to the west

Residential

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

25 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

No answer given

Description

No answer given

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 lane to the north west of the site as shown on the 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)

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

No answer given

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

No answer given

16+ years (2040 onwards)

No answer given

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

2015

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

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

0.50

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?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

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

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday 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

+ 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?

+ 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.

xx Opportunity area for 3 or more ecosystem services covers more than 50% 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?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

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

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday 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

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?

0 Proposal is not employment related.

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?

0 The proposal is likely to have a neutral effect on the landscape.

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).

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?

+ The site is 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 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk

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

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday to a major employer.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

x Serious access constraint wider impacts

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

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

Same as site 726. The proposed site is located between St Lawrence’s Church and Manor Farm off Church End approximately 4.5 miles east from Bedford town centre. The access to the site is through a private drive of approximate width of 5.0m. Traffic generation from this development would have a moderate impact on the local network but intensify the use of the site and access. There are bus stops located on Church Road either side of the junction with Churchill Place. The proposed access is approximately 570m walking distance from the bus stops. Church Road and Church End do not benefit from a footway in either direction however; the road is lightly trafficked and semi-rural in nature and is classified as a cycle friendly route. The proposal would require a suitable access road for adoption. Expanding the width of the existing access to accommodate additional traffic is likely not feasible for the scale of development proposed.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

no noise concerns

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