Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 910

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Please contact the agent: Andrew Parry, DLP Planning

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/ Marsh Lane Milton Ernest 5 ha

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the north

No answer given

Adjoining use to the south

Adjoining use to the east

No answer given

Adjoining use to the west

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

No answer given

Density proposed

15-20 dwellings per net ha

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?

Access can be achieved via Rushden Road (A6) and Marsh 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)

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?

During 2024/25 based on the following indicative timeframe: - Submission and determination of application – Q1 2025 - Sale of Site - Q3 2024 - Reserved Matters Application – Q4 2024/25 - Commencement Q2 2025/26 Development timeframe assumes full build out by 2026/27 (c.25-30 completions per annum) This timetable assumes no further progress with site assessment at potential allocation through the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan.

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. The site offers the opportunity to improve residential amenity and highway safety along its frontage with the A6 Rushden Road. 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. Additionally, proposals would incorporate landscaping and open spaces, including suitable tree planting and through design, layout and orientation maximise the principles of sustainable design. Assumptions for net developable area take account of substantial allowances for landscape along the north and eastern site boundary.

Attachments

File: Covering letter redacted

Site size (ha)

5.04

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site not in accordance with the emerging development strategy , Site already allocated in development plan

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?

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

x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?

x Protected species could be affected.

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?

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?

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 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?

+ 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?

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.

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 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?

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

A new access would have to be created onto the A6 however the proposed access location is fine. No significant traffic congestion in the area, and the development is unlikely to have more than a moderate impact. There are bus stops within 200m where the number 50 bus provides a roughly hourly service between Bedford and Rushden. Both proposed access points (A6 and Marsh Lane) have direct access to a suitable pavement. There is no specific cycle connectivity however there are several quiet roads in the area which could be used for cycling, or alternatively the existing pavement along the A6 could be widened using the verge and converted into a shared cycle path. Ensure that there is a pedestrian and cycle connection to Marsh Lane even if it is not used for vehicular access as this is a far more attractive option for pedestrians and cyclists. Investigate potential for a shared cycle path along the site frontage.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

no noise concerns

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. Part of the site is allocated for residential development in the Milton Ernest Neighbourhood Plan (Policy ME H1). The remainder of the site is not in a location which is in accordance with the development strategy.