Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 1332

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

Land to the east of Manor Farm, High Road, Cotton End, Bedford, Bedfordshire. MK45 3AA

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the north

Cardington Hangers

Adjoining use to the south

Manor Farm / urban area

Adjoining use to the east

Open files

Adjoining use to the west

A600

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Employment , All other types

Number of dwellings proposed

930

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes , Older people housing

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

35dph based on 50% gross to net developable land.

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied , Market housing - Private rented housing , Affordable Housing - Affordable rent

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

It is anticipated that the employment uses would provide offices to support the existing employment areas including Cardington Hangers

Gross floorspace proposed

In terms of land use, approximately 2.5 hectares of land has been allocated to employment uses / 7,500sq.m of office space.

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

In terms of land use, approximately 1 hectare has been allocated to mixed use. The type of use that is provided will be determined by the needs of the local community. This may be a small convenience shop, village hall or sports hall.

Description

The final use will be determined by the requirements of the existing and proposed communities to ensure that their needs are met.

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

Suitable access is achievable

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

It is anticipated that two access points will be formed onto the A600. A third site access could be located through the existing farm access or from the existing access onto Wood Lane.

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)

500

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

350

16+ years (2040 onwards)

No answer given

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

This site could start as soon as the Local Plan is adopted and the relevant planning permissions have been achieved however we have assumed a slightly longer timeframe for delivery based on the smaller site also submitted on behalf of this landowner.

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

This site would accommodate development in a sustainable location, within close proximity to existing services and facilities as well as a major employment area. The mixed use development would promote sustainable living and offer suitable employment opportunities within the residential area. The site would ensure that housing needs are met in areas outside the more vulnerable areas of Bedfordshire including those at risk of flooding and those in sensitive environmental landscapes and habitats. There is significant scope for a truly landscape approach to the development which would enable access to green infrastructure including landscape enhancements and publicly accessible open space, community gardens and SUDs as advocated by paragraph 150 of the NPPF as mitigation against climate change. A mix of house types and tenures would be provided to ensure variety in housing provision to suit the local need, this would include properties with gardens, flats / maisonettes and bungalows. The size of the site and its location in relation to the existing built form of Cotton End would enable additional day-to-day facilities to be provided on site, reducing the need for travel. Furthermore, the development could be constructed using sustainable construction methods where appropriate as well as being designed to accommodate sustainable design principles such as housing orientation.

Attachments

File: Heritage Impact Assmt

Site size (ha)

56.47

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

? The site is within or adjoining 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?

+ The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with a regular bus service (at least hourly) which enables travel 8am-6pm Monday to Friday to a major employer or it is possible to walk to a major employer within 10 minutes.

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?

0 The site is not within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network or the impact of the proposal is neutral.

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?

++ 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?

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?

+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?

x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?

+ The site is not on best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?

+ 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.

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?

+ The development will meet identified housing 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?

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

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. , x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 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?

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

+ No capacity issues

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

The proposal is for two access points to be formed onto the A600 High Road. Both would be in locations where the road is suitably wide, and visibility is good. There is No significant traffic congestion in the area, however detailed analysis of the traffic impact would be needed due to the large size. There are bus stops within 150m of the site where the 9A and 9B services combined provide a half-hourly service between Bedford and Hitchin. There is a wide and well-surfaced shared pedestrian/cycle path directly outside the development on High Road. Due to the large size of development, a signalised junction may be needed to manage the flow of traffic to/from the development. There is potential to site new bus stops on High Road near the access point, providing even better public transport access for new residents.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

main noise sources will be road traffic and Cardington Sheds, non insurmountable as permitted housing closer to source but will need to be considered

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Part of the site falls 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. This is not a preferred location for an employment site as it does not relate well to existing settlements and it would be intrusive.

Supporting documents

File: Covering letter redacted