Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 645

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Client

If you are not the landowner of the site you are submitting, do you have permission to submit?

Yes

Address of site

Willoughby Park - Land north of Roxton Road, Great Barford

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the north

A421 bypass

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Residential

Adjoining use to the west

Residential/community use

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Housing , All other types

Number of dwellings proposed

500

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

up to 40 dpha

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

34.62 ha including 24 ha of land for a Countryside Park

Description

Countryside Park and other habitat enhancements, Community Facilities, Recreation provision including a MUGA, Cycle/Pedestrians Links, Play Areas, Planting, Attenuation

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

Suitable access is achievable

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

Suitable highway access can be achieved on to and from Roxton Road. Emergency access can be achieved off Birchfield Road. Pedestrian access off Penwrights Lane

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)

180

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

300

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

16+ years (2040 onwards)

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

2024

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

As part of the scheme being brought forward, means of mitigating climate change in accordance with Policy 51S will be thoroughly considered and where viable can be implemented as part of the proposals. Great Barford is a key rural growth settlement identified for development which can accommodate, sustainably, a strategic scale of development which will contribute to meeting local housing requirements. The site is located within close proximity to local services and facilities which are easily accessible by foot and cycle. The enhancement and creation of additional foot and cycle paths within the scheme design further improves the permeability of the site and connections to the surrounding area including the village hall which is located on the site’s south western boundary. Facilities provided on-site will enhance the range of recreational facilities found within the village. As part of the development proposals a Countryside Park totalling 29 ha is proposed, which will both enhance the setting of the settlement overall but also makes provision for informal green/amenity space, green corridors, retention of existing features, wildlife ponds, key landscape feature, existing and proposed pedestrian footpaths as well as open land for informal recreation. A detailed Drainage Assessment has been undertaken for the site which identifies that surface water run-off from the site will be accommodated in on-site attenuation basins and discharged back into the system at greenfield run-off rate. This ensures that flood risk will not be increased elsewhere and meets the tests of paragraph 163 of the NPPF. New landscaping and planting will be introduced as part of the development, to enhance biodiversity and the site’s environmental context. The development in line with Policy 51S will seek to explore the use of renewable energy sources and the proposals will also minimise the use of water in line with Policy 52.

Attachments

File: Covering letter redacted

Site size (ha)

43.4

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

? The site is within or adjoining 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 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

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

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

+ 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.

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?

? The site is within or adjoining 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 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

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

3e. Accessible on foot or by bus 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?

+ The proposal includes or is within 400m walking distance of a publicly accessible open space that includes an equipped children’s play area of at least 200m2 .

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?

0 The proposal is likely to have a neutral effect on the landscape.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

+ The site adjoins 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?

x The majority of the site is within flood zone 2.

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?

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?

+ The site is 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?

+ The proposal is for or includes a community use or is likely to promote community collaboration and social interaction eg cultural, social, leisure and sporting uses.

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 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 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

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

15d. Accessible on foot or by bus 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

Includes parts of site 355 and 604. Vehicular access is proposed onto Roxton Road at two locations, whilst pedestrian access is proposed via Penwrights Lane. Pedestrian access should also be provided onto Roxton Road with the vehicular access, connecting to the existing pavement on Roxton Road. Penwrights Lane is currently an unpaved track so will need to be paved for adequate pedestrian access. Due to the size of the development, a signalised junction may be required. There is moderate traffic in Great Barford and the large size of this development would likely worsen this. The main village bus stops are within 200m where the 905 bus provides a half hourly service between Bedford and Cambridge. Roxton Road provides an existing adequate pavement and is only a short walk from the centre of the village. Penwrights Lane could provide a good 2nd pedestrian access but would need to be surfaced. There is no specific cycle connectivity however the national cycle network joins Roxton Road about 500m NE providing off-road or quiet-road connections to Bedford and St Neots. Pedestrian access should be provided alongside the vehicular access onto Roxton Road. Penwrights Lane will also need to be paved to be adequate for pedestrian access. There may be a need for a signalised junction due to the size of the development. Consider redesignating/upgrading the pavement on Roxton Road to a shared cycle/pedestrian path to link to the existing shared path further up Roxton Road.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

only concern is noise from the bypass

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.