Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 510

Land owner

No answer given

N/A

Land East of Vicars Close, Biddenham

Map 1233
Show full map

Paddock

Residential

Agricultural (with planning permission) and Residential

Agricultural

Residential

No

Housing

Nothing chosen

5 dwellings

Family houses

Housing Mix to reflect Local Planning Authority's Requirements

Approx 10-12 dwellings per hectare

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

No answer given

No answer given

Nothing chosen

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

Suitable access is achievable

Access from Vicars Close

Yes

No

No

No

5 dwellings

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

2024/25

The owners of the site understand and agree with the importance of responding positively to the climate emergency. The proposed development site lies within an existing community with all relevant employment and services (e.g. schooling, leisure activities etc.) accessible by foot, bicycle or public transport. Any development will - as a minimum - comply with all relevant building controls in relation to water and energy efficiency and in practice it is expected that these standards will be exceeded when detailed plans and specifications are drawn up.

0.53

Below - exclude at stage 1

None

Exclude from further assessment

Nothing chosen

Nothing chosen

+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

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

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

+ 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.

+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

? Uncertain or insufficient information

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

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

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

+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area.

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

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

+ 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.

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.

0 Proposal is not employment related.

0 Proposal does not include a main town centre use.

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

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

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

N/A in UAB

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

? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

+ 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).

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

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

+ The site is within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed.

0 Neutral.

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

+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area.

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

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

+ 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.

+ No access constraints

? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Access will be onto Vicars Close, a single track road. There is often moderate traffic on Main Road (which Vicars Close joins), however the size of this development is unlikely to make either of these problems worse. There are bus stops within 400m where the 41 bus provides an hourly service between Northampton and Bedford. Vicars Close is a single track road with no pavement, however the road itself is signposted as a public footpath due to low traffic levels. There is an off-road cycle path approx 750m from the site. Pedestrian access should be provided along Vicars Close, where there is adequate space for a suitable footway.

Nothing chosen

no noise concerns

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

The site is within the urban area in a location on the edge of Biddenham where, given the character and density of surrounding development, it is unlikely that five dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated. Five dwellings is the lower threshold for allocations in the local plan. An alternative way forward would be for this site to be progressed through the pre-app / planning application process. The site is not proposed for allocation.