Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 1354

Interest in land

Land owner

Specify 'other' land interest

No answer given

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

Yes

Address of site

Land At Top Farm (Incorporating Chawston Lake & Morris Walk)

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultiral / fishery

Adjoining use to the north

The Lane / Residential

Adjoining use to the south

Fields

Adjoining use to the east

Residential

Adjoining use to the west

Roxton Road with fields beyond

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Housing , All other types

Number of dwellings proposed

Up to 450

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

Recreation and leisure - fishery

Description

The site has the benefit of extant permission for a leisure facility that has not yet been implemented. The land owner continues to seek to progress this scheme and this could be included as part of the strategic Wyboston Garden Village proposal or a smaller scheme for just the village if the strategic allocation is not selected.

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

Suitable access is achievable

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

The site will provide four access points as indicated on the Site Location Plan. Two are off The Lane to the north of the site, one off Roxton Road, to the west, and the other off Roxton Road to the south.

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)

100

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

350

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?

2027

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)

35.38

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?

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

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

xx A site accessibility score of 0 is recorded where 0 is more than 30 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?

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?

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?

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

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

xx A site accessibility score of 0 is recorded where 0 is more than 30 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?

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?

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?

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?

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

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

xx A site accessibility score of 0 is recorded where 0 is more than 30 minutes’ walk.

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

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

? Potential access requiring mitigation

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

Note that the site incorporates the development area of site 661. The site is located in the currently agricultoral area between The Lane and Roxton Road in the village of Wyboston approximately 10 miles north-east of Bedford town centre. It is to be converted to mainly residential properties as part of the development. Access is provided at 4 points, two via The Lane, an adopted and unclassified single carriageway and much of it is 30mph in speed limit and two via Roxton Road, where the speed limit is 60mph. The carriageway width of The Lane varies but is generally between 5.0m to 6.5m while the width of Roxton Road is in the order of 5.4m. There is no footway outside the site on either road. There is no dedicated cycle route in the vicinity, but Roxton Road is showing as a bicycle-friendly route. There are 4 bus stops right next to the site with 112 Ivel Sprinter stopping twice a day heading to St Neots / Biggleswade. A Transport Asssessment would be needed to assess the impact of a development of this scale on the local highway network. Consider the safety implications of egress to Roxton Road - such as traffic light controls at the access point. Improvement of pedestrian access would be needed - provision of a footpath and a dedicated cycle lane.

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