Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 637

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 174 High Street, Elstow

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Disused horticultural nursery

Adjoining use to the north

Housing/car park/scrub

Adjoining use to the south

Housing/car park/scrub

Adjoining use to the east

Housing/car park/scrub

Adjoining use to the west

Housing/car park/scrub

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

20 dph

Density proposed

No answer given

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?

The access will be at the side of 174 High Street. See accompanying highway report.

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)

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

No answer given

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?

2025

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

At this stage we have no detailed proposals but at the time of any planning application the scheme would comply with whatever current regulations and best practice mitigation measures are available to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

Attachments

File: Proposed Vehicular Access - Waterman Report.pdf

File: Covering letter redacted

Site size (ha)

0.78

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

None

Stage1 conclusion

Include in next stage of assessment

Stage 2 Assessment of suitability, availability & achievability

Site is available

Stage 2 conclusion

Include in next stage of assessment

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement

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

1b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

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

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

1d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday 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?

x The site is within a green infrastructure opportunity network but is likely to compromise the network.

2e. Likely to impact on an area currently providing ecosystem services.

xx Opportunity area for 3 or more ecosystem services covers more than 50% 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?

+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area.

3c. Accessible on foot to a food store?

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

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk

3e. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday 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?

Nothing chosen

7b. Within 800m of a sports facility or proposing a sports facility within it?

+ The proposal includes or is 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?

N/A in UAB

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 site is not on 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?

+ The site is likely to provide a mix of housing and 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?

+ 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?

+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area.

15b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

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

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk

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

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday 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

Several potential access points have been proposed for this site as part of a vehicular access report submitted by the applicant. This specific proposal envisages up to 15 dwellings served by the existing narrow access at 174 High St. However as a private drive, this is not likely to be sufficient for this scale of development, and the other potential access points (Red Lion Pub, Pilgrims Way, Dahl Close) should be investigated instead. Visibility splays are also limited and fire engines and refuse vehicles would not be able to access the site via this location. 2 buses per hour. High St is relatively congested. Footway approx 1 m in width. Investigate alternative vehicular access points prior to submitting application, as proposed access at 174 High St is not considered acceptable. Access point at 174 High St could provide pedestrian access and footways should be improved where this joins the High St.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

No noise concerns unless noise sensitive premises closer to PH than proposed.

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

The site is designated as urban open space and development of it would compromise the reason for designation which is Criterion 10 – the site provides a wildlife corridor and links in with open space to the north and south of the site to form a continuous green corridor from Mile Road through to Romsey Way. Development in this space would compromise the GI network. In addition the proposed access is unsuitable for this scale of development due to below standard visibility splays. The site is not proposed for allocation.