Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 532

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

Land to the north west of Forty Foot Lane, Podington

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the north

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the south

Santa Pod Raceway/former airfield

Adjoining use to the east

Woodland

Adjoining use to the west

Commercial/industrial

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Housing , Employment , Retail , Hotel

Number of dwellings proposed

800 + dwellings - not proposed should be fully developed -should be viewed in context of Sharnbrook Garden Village if this comes forward

Type of housing proposed

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

Other type of housing

Affordable housing in accordance with policy.

Density proposed

15-25 dph

Proposed tenures

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

Other tenures proposed

TBC

Permanent or transit?

No answer given

Site privately owned?

Nothing chosen

Number of plots proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of employment

TBC

Gross floorspace proposed

TBC

Proposed type of retail

No answer given

Net floorspace proposed

No answer given

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Number of hotel rooms proposed

TBC

Amount of development proposed

No answer given

Description

No answer given

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

The current access is unsuitable/requires improvement

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

The site is accessed at present via Forty Foot Lane. The road infrastructure proposed for the Sharnbrook Garden Village appears to include an upgraded access route which would connect directly with the site. 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.

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)

TBC

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

TBC

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

TBC

16+ years (2040 onwards)

TBC

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

Subject to wider Garden Village

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

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

Attachments

File: Covering letter redacted

Site size (ha)

34.78

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?

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

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

x The site is 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?

+ The site is within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and able to enhance the network.

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

xx The site is more than 0.5 miles 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?

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

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?

+ 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?

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?

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

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

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

? Potential access requiring mitigation

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 located west of Airfield Road in the village of Sharnbrook approximately 9 miles north of Bedford town centre. Access to the site at present is via Forty Foot Lane, however access to the proposed development would be achievable via neighbouring proposed Sharnbrook Garden Village (see site 1002). Detailed assessment would be required of the impact of this scale of development and Sharnbrook Garden Village on the neighbouring highway network. There are no bus stops within a radius of 1.2km from the site entrance. There are no footway or cycleways outside the site at present. The size of the proposed development needs careful examination and further investigation for future construction. In this context traffic, modelling will need to be undertaken as part of the required Transport Assessment which will identify the impact and it will include sustainable transport measures. Given the number of homes proposed, it is likely that more than one access point will be necessary.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

santa pod and rail line noise sources

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.