Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 773

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

PLease contact the Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

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

Yes

Address of site

Land at High Barns Farm, Roxton, MK44 3ET 6.1 ha

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural storage and commercial (Use Class B1, B2 and B8)

Adjoining use to the north

Agricultural Land

Adjoining use to the south

Agricultural Land

Adjoining use to the east

Agricultural Land

Adjoining use to the west

Agricultural Land

Has the site been developed previously?

Yes

Proposed primary use

Employment

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

No answer given

Type of housing proposed

Nothing chosen

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

No answer given

Proposed tenures

Nothing chosen

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

B1 (a-c), high calibre employment site. B2/B8 uses appropriate to the scale of the site and surrounding area

Gross floorspace proposed

TBC - Commensurate to 6.1ha gross site area

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?

Access is via Woodend Lane, located to the south of the site. The access point has sufficient visibility splays onto the public highway.

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)

No answer given

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

B Uses

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?

2027/28 Timeframe based on a three-year period for marketing, establishing occupier requirements and formal planning stages.

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

The site, historically, was used for a mix of livestock and arable farming. Over the last 15 years however, a number of the buildings have become unsuitable for agricultural uses and redundant, and instead have become used for a range of commercial/employment purposes.

Attachments

File: Covering letter redacted

Site size (ha)

6.18

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

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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 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

+ 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 fewer than 3 ecosystem services.

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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 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?

+ 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. , 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?

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?

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?

+ All or a majority of the site is 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?

+ 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?

0 Residential development not proposed.

12b. Able to address a particular housing need?

0 Residential development not proposed.

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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 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

+ No capacity issues

Highway comments. For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

Access via Woodend Road, a single track road serving this development only. As the road does not serve anywhere other than the development site, it is likely that a single track road will be sufficient, however some additional passing places are likely to be required. No other traffic problems in the area. The nearest public transport is a bus stop in the village of Roxton over 1.8km away. Woodend Road does not have any pedestrian connectivity - there is space for a footway to be constructed to connect to the footway on Bedford Road, however this is 1km so is likely not feasible. For cycle connectivity there is a shared path on Bedford Road 1km away and Woodend Lane will likely be fine to cycle along as it only serves this development. The nearest public transport is nearly 2km away and there is no pedestrian connectivity to get there. There is a shared cycle/pedestrian path on Bedford Road however this is over 1km from the site, all of which has no pedestrian infrastructure. The size of this development is unlikely to make mitigation of this scale feasible.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

current agricultural and commercial use new proposed use is employment and there is no nearby NSP

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

This site is an isolated rural location and not prominently visible or easily accessible from the strategic highway network. It is therefore not a preferred location for an employment site.