Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 529

Land owner

No answer given

N/A

Glebe Farm Solar Park, Podington

Map 1233
Show full map

Solar farm

Agricultural

Agricultural

Agricultural

Agricultural

Yes

Housing

Housing , Employment , Retail , Hotel

Up to 600 dwellings - not proposed to be fully developed - view in context of Sharnbrook Garden Village if this comes forward.

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

No answer given

15-25 dph

Market housing - Owner occupied , Market housing - Private rented housing

No answer given

No answer given

Nothing chosen

No answer given

TBC

TBC

No answer given

No answer given

No answer given

TBC

No answer given

No answer given

The current access is unsuitable/requires improvement

The site is accessed at present via the network of roads on The Estate. It is immediately north of Forty Foot Lane, which is included as a proposed access to the Garden Village. Therefore, development of the land, which is only submitted within the context of the adjacent proposals, could be served by any new and upgraded highways.

Don't know

No

No

No

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

Subject to wider Garden Village

Any development proposals would be designed in accordance with best practice.

25.78

Above

Site not in accordance with the emerging development strategy

Exclude from further assessment

Nothing chosen

Nothing chosen

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

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

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

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer

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

x The site is 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.

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

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

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

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer.

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.

+ Proposal includes permanent economic and employment opportunities.

x Proposal includes a main town centre use in an out of centre location.

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.

xx The site is more than 0.5 miles from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

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

x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

+ 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).

x The site is unlikely to provide a mix of housing and/or is unlikely to include affordable housing.

+ The development will meet identified housing needs eg elderly, care, travellers.

x The site is not within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed.

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

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

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

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

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

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer.

x Serious access constraint wider impacts

x Serious capacity constraint

The land could accommodate up to 600 dwellings although it is not proposed that it should be fully developed and should be viewed in the context of the proposed Sharnbrook Garden Village if this comes forward. In isolation the site scores poorly on all fronts. The site is 1.8 miles from Podington, where there is the closest access to public transport (bus stop). The site is far from any infrastructure and the access roads are not fully paved.

Nothing chosen

rail noise and santa pod noise would affect

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

The site has been excluded from further assessment at Stage 1 because its location is not in accordance with the development strategy.