Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 238

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?

N/A

Address of site

Trinity College Farm - North and West Off Roxton Road Roxton Bedfordshire

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the north

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the south

A421 Dual carriageway

Adjoining use to the east

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the west

Agricultural

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

200

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

17.7 per ha

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?

Please see plan dated 24/02/2014 - sent separately

Is the site available for development now?

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?

Yes

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

No answer given

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

200 dwellings

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?

2029

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

The site is divided into two portions and development is assumed to provide landscaping within the development area. The owner could devote a significant portion of the development site, or even one of the two portions, to solar reflective panels that would provide a large part of the energy requirements for all other homes developed. The owner will ensure that all current building regulations and all energy efficiency standards set by The Council are met.

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

7.83

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

+ 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?

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

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?

? 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?

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?

x The site is unlikely to provide a mix of housing and/or is unlikely to 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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 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 is currently a greenfield area, adjacent to A421, covering two separate areas. The one in the north does not have access indicated, while the one on the south has access indicated on its northern edge. There are no roads facing the development other than the A421 to the East. As such, the development would need to include new roads to connect to the existing network. The A421 is a dual carriageway with no pedestrian or cycle provision. The closest bus stop is approximately 100m from the development as the crow flies, connecting to Bedford and Cambridge at 2-3 buses per hour frequency, however, accessing it would require crossing facilities across the A421. The second closest is about 600m away as the crow flies, but only running twice per day. There is a segregated cycle path on the other side of the A421, approximately 100-150m from the development. Connection currently would be circuitous via Roxton Road. The proposal for 200 dwellings will have a significant impact on highway network.The development only proposes residential use. New roads would need to be built to connect the site to the road network. A TA is needed to assess the impact on the road network. Connection across the A421 to Bedford Road would potentially be useful.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

road noise

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.