Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 852

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Please contact the agent: Andrew Parry, 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 Rushden Road Milton Ernest 1.39 ha

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Employment

Adjoining use to the north

Highway/Commercial Uses

Adjoining use to the south

Open Space and Residential Use

Adjoining use to the east

Residential Use

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, B2 and B8

Gross floorspace proposed

B1, B2 and B8 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

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?

Existing access off Rushden Road

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)

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

The site lies immediately adjacent to the Milton Ernest Settlement Boundary and is therefore well located to the village’s services and facilities which includes a public house and primary school. The Queens Head bus stop, which is within walking distance of the site, provides a regular service to and from Bedford. Development of this site would have particular regard to the environment and biodiversity within it and through suitable mitigation measures would ensure the site is future proofed (Policy 30). Additionally, proposals would incorporate landscaping and open spaces, including suitable tree planting and through design, layout and orientation maximise the principles of sustainable design. Land at Rushden Road primarily comprises previously developed land, the National Planning Policy Framework encourages the effective use of such land for redevelopment. Overall, it is considered that any future proposal would meet the Councils policy standards for new sustainable development.

Attachments

File: Covering letter redacted

Site size (ha)

1.10

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 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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?

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?

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 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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?

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?

+ 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?

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?

++ The site is within 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?

+ 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 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 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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?

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?

+ No access constraints

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 as existing onto the A6. No significant traffic congestion in the area. Nearest bus stops are 500m away where the number 50 bus provides a roughly hourly service between Bedford and Rushden. There is no current pedestrian access however there is a pavement 50m from the site at Butterfield Court and a large grass verge between there and the site for an extended pavement. There is no specific cycle connectivity however there are several quiet roads in the area that could be used for cycling. Extend the existing pavement from Butterfield Court to the site entrance. There is a large grass kerb in place currently so this shouldn't be a problem.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

need to ensure that noise from employment use did not impact nearby residential prmeises

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.