Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 820

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Agent

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

Yes

Address of site

Land North of 51 and 53 Bedford Road, Roxton

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Derelict

Adjoining use to the north

Open land

Adjoining use to the south

Scaffold

Adjoining use to the east

Pasture

Adjoining use to the west

A421

Has the site been developed previously?

Yes

Proposed primary use

Employment

Other uses proposed

Hotel

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

B2, B8

Gross floorspace proposed

2000 sqm

Proposed type of retail

No answer given

Net floorspace proposed

No answer given

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Number of hotel rooms proposed

To be developed and share facilities/rooms with Football Club on Matchdays

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 as existing. Shown on plan

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)

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?

1-2

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

The proposal has the opportunity to provide for energy efficiency features in design and to give consideration to renewables.

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

2.10

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?

++ 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?

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?

++ 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?

+ 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?

+ 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?

? It is uncertain what effect the proposal is likely to have on the landscape / more information is required.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

x The site is separated 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?

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?

+ 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?

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?

++ 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?

+ No access constraints

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

The site is located on the west side of Bedford Road opposite the junction with High Street in the village of Roxton approximately 10 miles east of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible from Bedford Road which is an adopted and classified type C road of national speed limit which is 60mph for a single carriageway road. The nearest bus stops with bus shelter present are located on Bedford Road opposite the junction with Park Road approximately 650m from the site. There is a shared footway/cycleway outside the site along Bedford Road of approximately 1.6m in width with grass verges either side of the footway of varying widths between 1m – 1.7m. Reducing the current speed limit on Bedford Road from 60mph to 30mph through the process of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and for satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Adopted parking standards would need to be adhered to in order to provide appropriate levels of car parking on site. It appears that the visibility splays of 4.5m x 215m cannot be provided. However given the alignment of Bedford Road and assuming the approval of speed reduction to 30mph by BBC, the visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m can be achieved provided that the existing boundary hedges/vegetation are set back behind the visibility splays. The existing bus service should be extended nearer the site with provision of bus stops and bus shelters. A pedestrian crossing island is required on Park Road at the junction with Bedford Road.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

road noise

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

This is not a preferred location for an employment site as it would be intrusive and impact on Roxton village.