[This section replaces the site assessment section of the Sustainability Appraisal technical note circulated for the 16 May meeting, p44 onwards]

4.0 Strategic Site Assessment process

4.1 This section of the SA report sets out the process for the selection of strategic sites, to be allocated through the Development Strategy. The assessment criteria have been developed based upon the requirements of the draft Development Strategy together with a series of sustainability factors.

4.2 The initial first step was to identify the realistic alternatives to assess. Inevitably there will be a huge number of possible alternatives but only the realistic alternatives need to be considered. The focus of the Development Strategy will be on allocating strategic-scale sites and a first step was to identify what a strategic site might be. Whether a housing or mixed-use site is strategic will depend on a range of factors, primarily site size or number of dwellings but also taking into account the context and location of a site.

4.3 A threshold of 500 dwellings (or 20 hectares where the number of dwellings has not been specified) was used as an initial indication of whether a site might be strategic in the context of the overall Development Strategy requirements.

4.4 A site to the West of was right on the limit of being strategic and may well have fallen below the threshold, depending on the scheme taken forward. However, given the previous level of interest in the site expressed through the Joint Core Strategy process and a planning application it was felt prudent in the interests of transparency to include it for consideration. As with the area to the east of Luton, this site falls outside of Central .

4.5 For the north of a different approach was needed. The recently adopted Core Strategy and Site Allocations documents have left a legacy of well-located, suitable housing and mixed use sites that will continue to meet local housing needs for many years to come. The vast majority of the unmet housing need is considered to be in the south of Central Bedfordshire (see the housing technical paper for further details) and therefore the focus for new sites should also be in the south.

4.6 Given Green Belt constraints in the south it was necessary to consider some development options in the north, acknowledging that such provision would be likely to lead to residents having to relocate – effectively “leapfrogging” the Green Belt. However, it was only felt appropriate to consider very large development options under this scenario, options that could act as a replacement for the large urban extensions being considered in the south. It would be a considerable strategic decision not to meet housing need where it arises but instead relocate residents further north and this should only be done on a large scale and not by “pepperpotting” a large number of smaller sites across the north of Central Bedfordshire.

4.7 On this basis a higher threshold of 2,000 dwellings or 70 hectares was used to identify strategic sites in the north. Two sites at Sandy were considered jointly as a larger extension to Sandy. Despite falling below the threshold, a further site at was also identified for further consideration as it forms part of a larger extension to the Wixams identified through the previous round of plan-making. There are local considerations that make this proposal worthy of further consideration and hence this site was also taken forward for further consideration.

4.8 A total of 19 sites were taken forward for more detailed consideration as set out in Tables 1 and 2.

Site assessment methodology

4.9 In order to apply a rigorous assessment process to select the most suitable and sustainable sites each strategic site option was assessed under a number of different criteria, as explained further below. In order to be able to rank the sites against one another, the following rating system has been used:

 Dark Green (DG) – No concerns, with positive impacts identified;  Light Green (LG) – No significant concerns identified, with some possible positive impacts;  Yellow (Y) – No overall effect or unknown effect (further information required to make an evaluation);  Amber (A) – Some concerns and/ or constraints identified;  Red (R) – Some significant impacts and concerns identified

(1) Environmental Constraints 4.10 Primary constraints are considered immoveable such as physical matters and national designations. These constraints considerably restrict development on the site and include: Flooding; Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Heritage Assets and Landscape Sensitivity.

A - Flooding Contains Flood zone 2 Contains Flood zone 3a Contains Flood zone 3b B - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty No AONB Adjoins/borders Within AONB Part of site contains AONB C - Sites of Special Scientific Interest No SSSI Adjoins/borders Within SSSI Part of site contains SSSI D - Heritage Asset No Heritage Asset Adjoins/borders Within Heritage Asset Part of site contains Heritage Asset E - Landscape Sensitivity High Moderate Low

4.11 Secondary constraints are considered to be more localised constraints. They are considered to have an impact on development but would constrict development less than primary constraints. These include: Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Area of Great Landscape Value, Agricultural Land Designations and County Wildlife Sites.

F - Conservation Areas No conservation area Adjoins/borders Within a conservation area Part of site contains a CA G - Listed Buildings No listed buildings Adjoins Contains a listed building H - Area of Great Landscape Value No AGLV Adjoins/borders Within an AGLV Part of site contains AGLV I - Agricultural Designations The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into subgrades 3a and 3b. The ‘best and most versatile land’ is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a. J - County Wildlife Sites No CWS Adjoins/borders Contains CWS

(2) Measuring Green Belt and coalescence impacts 4.12 This criterion is in addition to general landscape considerations and assesses impacts of land which falls within the designated Green Belt areas as well as looking at issues concerning coalescence. It seeks to identify whether the land in and around the development site meets any of the Green Belt objectives, as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This criterion will be linked to the Green Belt Review work being undertaken.

4.13 Scoring and ranking system (with comments) are required:

1) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. 2) To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. 3) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 4) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. 5) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.14 2 points each are to be given if the Green Belt meets criterion 1, 2 or 3. 1 point each is to be given if the Green Belt meets criterion 4 or 5 with a maximum score of 8 allowed.

(3) ‘Deliverability’ 4.15 This criterion gives an indication if the site is being actively promoted by the land owners or agent. This provides an indication of the viability of the site and when the site will come forward for development using the following questions:

A - Can the site be divided into deliverable parcels? B - Is the site able to ‘merge’ with others to create a large site for development? C - Willingness of landowners to bring forward land D - Level of co-operation with multiple ownership E - Likelihood of site progressing at the required rate F - Viability of development to provide key infrastructure G - Capacity of development

(4) ‘Suitability’ 4.16 This criterion determines whether the development site is suitable for development and meets the primary objectives of the draft Development Strategy (DS). It will also determine whether it is consistent with the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) objectives.

Criteria on ‘Suitability’ Relevant SA and DS objectives A - Protection and enhancement of SA objectives 1+3 and DS objective environmental and cultural assets and 4 the provision of strategic green infrastructure B - Ensuring that there is an efficient SA objective 2 use of land such as developing on previously developed land, securing appropriate densities of development and not developing on high quality agricultural land C - Reduce Pollution SA objective 4 D - Reduce risk of flooding SA objective 5 E - Adapting to and mitigating against SA objective 6 and DS objectives the impact of climate change and 5+7 increasing resource efficiency F - Promote sustainable waste SA objective 7 management G - Securing high standards of design SA objective 8 and DS objective 7 and protecting the character of the built environment H - Providing a mix of good quality SA objective 9 and DS objectives housing for all through delivering 1+2 various sizes, tenures to meet the local housing need I - Achieving economic growth through SA objective 10 and DS objective 3 the provision of a range of commercial premises and securing local employment opportunities J - Encourage healthier lifestyles and SA objective 11 and DS objective 5 reduce adverse health impacts of new development. K - Ensuring that the development SA objective 12 and DS objective 8 contributes to the provision of infrastructure, services and facilities L - Provision of sustainable integrated SA objective 13 and DS objective 8 transport systems to encourage more sustainable modes of transport and improved access and mobility M - Contribution to the regeneration A non SA objective and DS and vitality of the town centres objective 6 N - Ensuring that the development site A non SA and DS objective is well connected to the existing settlement

(5) Transport/ accessibility 4.17 In terms of transport/accessibility, the assessment had four parts:  A measure of the relative proximity of railway stations, taking into account the level of service on each line;  The potential for development sites to contribute towards new bus provision, based largely on the size of the development.  A measure of the relative access to services and facilities. Given that the majority of sites are large enough to provide their own facilities and services, the emphasis in this section was on access to higher level services in town centres.  A measure of the possible impact on the transport network. This assessment was based on initial modelling work by the Council’s consultants AECOM using the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Transport Model (CBLTM). The modelling work displays the traffic volume/capacity ratio for the main network links within the area at 2009 and 2031, based on current committed development only. This provides an indication of where there is current or forecast stress on the network that can then be related to individual proposals. The assessment provides a score between 1 and 5 (the higher the score the better the site) as to its likely impact on the network. This has been done on the basis of a site coming forward in isolation. These two scenarios do not take into consideration the implications for combinations of sites coming forward. This will feature in further modelling work which will be reported in due course.

(6) Overall Commentary 4.18 Present overall findings and recommendations of sites/locations for inclusion or reasons for rejecting them, as appropriate.

4.19 Table 1 below shows the colour grading system explained above for each aspect of the assessment for each site. This table allows for an easy reference and visual summary of the findings to date. Table 2 provides further detail on how the individual scores have been arrived at.

Towards a distribution strategy

4.20 Having appraised the various sites and options available it was necessary to determine which should be taken forward as “strategic allocations” through the Development Strategy. There were more options assessed than are required to meet needs and the site assessment process provides a steer in selecting the most appropriate options. However, it is not always possible to reflect each and every issue through the site assessment process and there will inevitably be an element of judgement to be made on which site is most suitable. While the site assessment process provides a helpful steer, other factors need to be taken into account.

4.21 One critical area not covered by the site assessment process is in relation to housing need. The local population and household projections provide an indication of the overall level of housing need across Central Bedfordshire. These projections are split down into the north and south of Central Bedfordshire, based on the old Mid Beds and South Beds administrative areas. The projections indicate that a larger proportion of the growth might be expected in the north of Central Bedfordshire compared to the south. The Housing technical paper sets out the limitations of the projections insofar as they simply project forward past trends. While the overall quantum of household growth for Central Bedfordshire is considered to be realistic, the Council considers there to be a much more even spread of household growth between the north and south of Central Bedfordshire.

4.22 The Housing technical paper also compares the level of household growth that might be expected in each area, based on current population levels, with the scale of new housing currently committed. This suggests where there might be a relative “oversupply” or “undersupply” of homes compared with new households. Based on the currently committed development, this work shows that there are more households than homes predicted in the south of Central Bedfordshire whereas in the north the reverse is true. This comes as no surprise given recent planning activity and the large number of new sites recently allocated in the north. Planning policy work in the south of the area has not advanced to the same stage and hence there is a need for new sites here.

4.23 In addition, the influence of migration patterns needs to be considered. The largest single net migration movement is from Luton, with an annual average of around 1,250 people moving from Luton to Central Bedfordshire every year. The causes of this migration are numerous and varied but one of the main causes is likely to be related to housing supply. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2010) sets out the supply of dwellings across Bedfordshire and illustrates that there is a relative shortage of family homes in Luton. This, combined with the environmental attractiveness of Central Bedfordshire, is likely to be a main factor in households moving from Luton to Central Bedfordshire.

4.24 However, Luton remains an important employment centre with commuting from Central Bedfordshire into Luton a notable feature. The migration of households into Central Bedfordshire places more pressure on an already heavily-used transport system as people commute back to Luton to work.

4.25 These factors combine to make a strong case for more development in and around the Luton// conurbation – a case which the Council considers would represent the “exceptional circumstances” needed to trigger a review of the Green Belt in this location. Providing an attractive mix of housing, particularly family housing, close to the conurbation and with good transport links will not only help meet housing needs within the southern part of Central Bedfordshire but will also help the needs of those currently migrating from Luton to other parts of Central Bedfordshire.

4.26 Of the alternatives to this strategy, the site assessment process showed that the Marston Vale has some merit as a potential location for growth. However, given the current distribution of housing need within Central Bedfordshire and the supply of sites coming forward, the Council considers that a package of sites around the conurbation will perform better at this stage than a large-scale northward relocation of residents. 4.27 The land south east of would largely be addressing housing needs arising in Milton Keynes rather than Central Bedfordshire. The Milton Keynes Core Strategy does not propose any development on the Milton Keynes side of the boundary and it is therefore considered inappropriate to provide for development within Central Bedfordshire.

4.28 A further factor to consider as part of this process is the relationship between development and infrastructure – not only where development can be accommodated within existing infrastructure but also where development can be used to bring about new or improvements to existing infrastructure. A number of the mixed-use strategic sites are all of a size and in a location that can enable infrastructure improvements that will benefit existing residents as well as the new development. This is particularly the case for the land north of Houghton Regis proposal, which is facilitating the development of the A5/M1 link road and the Woodside connection. These pieces of new strategic infrastructure are critical to the future success of Dunstable and Houghton Regis and the fact that the development site will help their delivery weighs significantly in favour of the proposal.

4.29 The proposal for land north of Luton will also enable the delivery of a link road between the M1 and A6. While of a lesser importance than the A5/M1 link road it will provide a useful connection between main roads and ease movement in the northern part of Luton. This development also has the potential to enhance access to the countryside for new and existing residents and provide a more appropriate urban edge.

4.30 Land east of Leighton Linslade will also help to deliver benefits to the town, including a link road between Heath Road and Stanbridge Road and new accessible greenspace around Shenley Hill and Clipstone Brook.

4.31 Having established the need for development in the south of the area it was then necessary to consider which of the possible sites in this area are most suitable. The site assessment process showed that the sites north of Houghton Regis, north of Luton and east of Leighton Linslade had more strengths and less weaknesses than the alternative sites at North West Dunstable, West Linslade, West Luton and East Luton. The site to the east of Luton is within North Hertfordshire district and would therefore fall to be considered as part of the plan-making activities of North Hertfordshire District Council. While the site assessment process has identified certain constraints to development, these constraints are not considered to be fundamental and Central Bedfordshire Council will play a positive and cooperative role in helping North Hertfordshire District Council, in discussions with Luton Borough Council, to consider potential growth this area. Table 1 – Summary of findings for assessment of each individual sites

Key: Dark Green (DG) No concerns, with positive impacts identified Light Green (LG) No significant concerns identified, with some possible positive impacts Yellow (Y) No or unknown effect (further information required to make an evaluation) Amber (A) Some concerns and/ or constraints identified Red (R) Some significant impacts and concerns identified

Site Proposal

y y e / t s t t i i t t c y l

l l t l i i n n n e i l i s l b b e e i a B e i a

a r c b r s u r m t e n s a s s e t s v e e m i e l s v n e i i o O u c a l r o c c S e o G C c A D

1. Aspley Guise 330 hectares located to the South East of Milton Keynes in CBC: A A A A LG A Triangle area - 6,000 dwellings and 15ha employment? - community facilities - any other uses required as part of MK growth 2. East of Greenfield development primarily comprising: LG A LG LG Y LG Leighton Linslade -2,500 new homes -16ha employment land - mixed uses

3. East of Luton Mixed-use development located in Hertfordshire comprising: A R Y LG LG A - between 3,000 and 5,000 new homes; - associated infrastructure 4. Marston Vale 200ha. (approx.) comprising: LG LG DG LG LG LG Comprehensive - up to 5,000 dwellings Mixed Use Area - community/ leisure facilities - retail - employment land 70ha (approx.) - mixed use - 30% woodland plantation 5. North An urban extension comprising: LG A LG LG LG LG Houghton Regis - 7,000 new homes - Associated infrastructure - 40ha employment land 6. North of Luton Urban extension comprising: Y R LG LG LG LG - community facilities - 4,000 new homes - 20 ha employment - contributions to the North Luton Bypass 7. North West - 650 new homes A A LG A Y A Dunstable - Employment space - Open space

8. Sundon RFI Proposed capacity approximately 55 ha in area. The RFI will be LG R LG LG Y LG approximately 5 ha in size and provision for 40 ha (approx.) of employment land. Approximately 7 ha to the north could be developed as a potential minerals distribution depot 9. West of Development comprising: A DG Y Y Y Y Leighton Linslade - 250-500 new homes - employment land - open space - associated infrastructure 10. West of Luton Mixed use development comprising: A R Y A Y A - 5,500 new homes - 27.6ha employment land - mixed use 11. Land to the An extension to current site allocation MA3: DG DG DG DG LG DG South of the 500 dwellings (35% affordable) Wixams Southern - Primary School, community facilities Expansion Land - Country Park (to act as southern buffer for Wixams) - 3.5 hectares of Employment land (B1/2/8) - Mixed use local centre - Energy centre 12. North of Mixed use development (325.9 ha) comprising: A R Y Y A A Leighton Linslade -residential -employment -hotel and conference centre -schools -open space (both informal and formal) -caravan park Site Proposal

y y e / t s t t i i t t c y l

l l t l i i n n n e i l i s l b b e e i a B e i a

a r c b r s u r m t e n s a s s e t s v e e m i e l s v n e i i o O u c a l r o c c S e o G C c A D

13. North of Wing Development (unknown size of site) comprising: Y A DG Y Y Y Road, Leighton -residential Linslade -open space

14. North of Mixed use development (74.54 ha) comprising: LG A DG Y A Y Higham Road, -527 dwellings Barton-le-Clay -4.22 ha of employment land -hotel -school -open space -extension of village centre 15. Crowbush Mixed use development (23.37ha) comprising: Y A LG Y A A Farm, Toddington -residential -leisure -recreation 16. North West of Development (44.62ha) comprising: R A DG A A A -800 dwellings

17 Land West of Mixed use development (71ha) comprising: A A A A Y A Midland Mainline, -unknown amount of residential Harlington

18. Land West of Mixed use Development (466ha – includes land both in MK and CB) A LG Y A Y Y Salford comprising: -8,150 dwellings (40% of which will be in CBC) -local centre on 18ha -employment on 16ha -education on 30ha -roads and open space on 168ha 19. Land North Mixed use Development (80ha) comprising: Y DG LG Y Y Y and East of -2000 dwellings Sandy -open space -employment land -local centre Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 1. Aspley Triangle 330 (hectares) 90% of the site is in Green Belt to south of Site under option to a -This site would provide The links between M1 Score: Amber area comprising: grade 3 (good) and the railway line. This developer. a large mixed use junction 13 and Milton Proposed allocation in the -mixed use remainder is in grade 4 scored 7 out of 8 in extension to the south- Keynes are shown to Development Strategy: No -community facilities (poor) land. terms of meeting the 5-10 years to east of Milton Keynes be congested at 2009 -residential objectives set out in commence -MK has reduced its and to get generally  This site would provide -employment The site has some the NPPF. development and then growth due to the worse by 2031 even a large mixed use -any other uses required environmental 10 -15 years to recession. For this without further extension to the south- as part of MK growth constraints and the There is a complete. reason the Aspley development on this east of Milton Keynes, majority of these are considerable risk of Triangle is considered site (85-95%  the Aspley Triangle is south of the railway the development Deliverable in the Plan to be an isolated volume/capacity ratio at considered to be an line. causing coalescence period up to 2031, but development, not 2031). Further isolated development, with surrounding occur more in the sufficiently connected development here not sufficiently Part of site near villages such as second half. to MK. would worsen this connected to Milton junction 13 of the M1 is Aspley Guise. -Any housing or congestion, which Keynes in flood zone 2 & 3. infrastructure delivered could have a wider  Risk of coalescence with Due to the size of the will be directed impact on the operation surrounding villages There are important site it will have a towards, and be of of J13 and the  Housing and biodiversity habitats in significant impact on benefit to, MK and not surrounding areas that infrastructure would the area including Hula the area especially the CB. In addition, a large rely on this junction. benefit Milton Keynes Meadow and small rural villages scale development in Further assessment not CBC, this is Braystone CWS to the within in the Green this location would work would be needed, unnecessary as Milton area north of the Belt. have a considerable jointly with Milton Keynes can provide railway line. impact in an area which Keynes Council, to sufficient land to meet is predominantly rural understand in more its own requirements The Greensand Ridge with attractive villages detail the traffic  Part of the site is in flood is a highly sensitive of distinctive character. implications for Milton zones 2 &3 landscape. Any Keynes.  Development would development in this -For these reasons, the fragment and possibly area would have a site may not be suitable Very good access to destroy important significant impact on for development. Aspley Guise and biodiversity habitats the landscape. The  Negative impact on area south of the stations. However greenbelt and have an railway line is in an these are not on the adverse impact upon the area of high landscape mainline. visual environment sensitivity formerly AGLV Significant Adjoins the development that could conservation area to support a number of the south of Aspley new bus routes Guise. Relatively close to Milton Keynes town centre

1 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 2. East of Leighton Greenfield development The site has some Scored 5 of 8 in items Although the -This site is considered There are two key Score: Light Green Linslade to the east of Leighton environmental of meeting the landownership is to be suitable for areas of congestion of Proposed allocation in the Linslade primarily constraints. objectives set out in complex, they are development. relevance to this site – Development Strategy: Yes comprising; the NPPF represented by the proposed and -2,500 new homes Site currently located in developers. development will Linslade town centres  The scale of the -16ha employment land green belt. address the housing and around the A5 at proposed development -mixed uses The Green Belt has Delivery and phasing and employment needs . Congestion will address the housing The area around helped protect the will be constrained by of Leighton Linslade, at both of these areas and employment needs Clipstone Brook is in countryside from the the mineral extraction and contribute to the is predicted to worsen of Leighton Linslade, the an area at risk of growth of Leighton works and the delivery overall need for CB by 2031. Further overall need for Central flooding. Linslade. of the Eastern Link -It will provide social, development around Bedfordshire Road. community, open Leighton Linslade has  provides social, In terms of landscape The Green Belt has space and leisure the potential to worsen community, open space sensitivity, most of the prevented the growth The developers are facilities which will this congestion and and leisure facilities site is moderately and encroachment of confident that the site serve both the existing mitigation measures which will serve both the sensitive although Leighton Linslade can be delivered in the residents of Leighton will be needed. The existing and new there are areas of high eastwards where plan period. Linslade and new proposed eastern residents of Leighton sensitivity owing to the Commencement residents of the distributor road could Linslade remains of a medieval There are villages - but expected within 3 development. potentially remove these are considered  the site is well settlement. years. -The site is well some existing traffic connected to the to be a significant connected to the from the town centre distance from the existing settlement and existing settlement and and ease access to the the development of the urban edge. Has the development of the A505, potentially encouraged the Eastern Distributor Road Eastern Distributor providing and through the site will recycling of Brownfield Road through the site alternative route to the land. contribute to easing will contribute to easing A5 other than via congestion in Leighton congestion in Leighton Hockliffe. The site is Linslade Linslade. relatively close to the -Development will need town centre and to be carefully planned sustainable modes of to respect the transport are viable landscape and areas of high biodiversity and Very good access to archaeological value. Aspley Guise and Woburn Sands stations. However these are not on the mainline

Significant development that could support a number of new bus routes

Relatively close to Milton Keynes town centre

2 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 3. East of Luton Mixed-use development The area has a The proposed Site is managed by a -This site is considered There are existing Score: Amber to the east of Luton distinctive landscape development is consortium and is to be suitable for congestion issues Proposed allocation in the located in Hertfordshire character forming a located in the green available for development. around the East Luton Development Strategy: No comprising: rural context to the belt. development. -The scale of Corridor. Development - 3,000-5,000 homes villages, a wooded development provides on the eastern edge of  the scale of - associated setting to the eastern Development here The construction of the the opportunity to Luton could worsen this development proposed infrastructure edge of Luton and the would contribute link road might impact deliver affordable congestion. However, would provide the setting of Lilley Valley. towards to upon phasing of the housing, key provision of an eastern opportunity to deliver coalescence of the development. infrastructure and will link road between the affordable housing, key Constraints to villages to the east of contribute to the A505 and Airport Way infrastructure and would development relate to Luton with Luton and The site is also located regeneration of central could help address contribute to the the rural character of the development. outside Central Luton. these existing issues. regeneration of central the landscape and Bedfordshire and given -The site is well The impact on the Luton, development beyond it is in another authority connected to the A505 at Hitchin would  the site is located the ridge line and in area delivery of the site existing urban area of need further outside Central Lilley Valley is not can not be guaranteed. Luton, but is dependant consideration. The site Bedfordshire and recommended. on the provision of the is relatively close to the delivery can not be proposed Luton town centre and guaranteed. Area located in green Eastern Bypass from sustainable modes of  there are distinctive belt. the Airport to the A505, transport are viable. landscapes forming a which may affect its rural context to the Area adjoins AONB in deliverability in the Relatively close to villages in the area and the north. short to medium term. Luton Parkway station development beyond the -The site would provide ridgeline and Lilley strategically placed Significant Bottom is not employment land in development that could recommended close proximity to Luton support a number of  development is Airport. new bus routes dependent on the -The site is in an area delivery of the A505 link of high landscape and The site is relatively road which will not be biodiversity value, and close to Luton town delivered in the short the development would centre term need to be carefully designed to respect this.

3 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 4. Marston Vale Series of small new or Score: Light Green Comprehensive expanded settlements, Proposed allocation in the Mixed Use Area as detailed (a) – (d) Development Strategy: No below The Marston Vale has some merit as a potential location for growth. The current distribution of housing need within Central Bedfordshire and the supply of sites coming forward suggests a focus on alternative options around the conurbation would be better at this stage. (a) Land situated 200ha. (approx.) Part of the northern No Green Belt or Site owned by -The proposal is a The recently completed between the A421 (to comprising: area of the site is within AONB developer. substantial A421 dual carriageway the west) and the up to 5,000 dwellings both 2 & 3 zones development, creating provides suitable - (35% affordable) This development may No known constraints up to 3 new capacity to 2031 to Railway line (to the -community/ leisure Part of the site (near have the potential to declared on the settlements with deal with existing east), to the north of facilities ) contains a join up Marston delivery of phasing of c.2,000 populations commitments and is and to -retail SAM and it surrounds Moretaine, Lidlington, land -This could provide the likely to be able to cope the south of Marston -employment land 40ha one near Brogborough. Brogborough and necessary extra with additional Moretaine for B1/2/8 Millbrook into one 5-10 years to housing and development. There -mixed use large urban are but the commence employment growth are existing congestion -30% woodland CWS at Brogborough proposals state that development and then required in Central issues on the south plantation Lake the development 10 -15 years to Bedfordshire. western edge of would consist of a complete. -The development is Bedford, around Landscape small number of well placed to utilise , on the A507 consideration - high separate settlements Deliverable in the Plan the recently dualled and around J13. A due to the site being on or neighbourhoods period up to 2031, but A421. development of this raised ground in the and would not detract occur more in the - Attention would need size could impact on West. The site will from the separate second half. to be paid to creating these areas. dominate the identities of existing by sustainable transport Marston Moretaine landscape. using strategic patterns, given the provides existing low landscape treatments. relatively small size of level services. Walking Hedgerows and areas the new settlements and cycling to larger of woodland across the and the lack of any centres (Bedford and site. SSS/Ancient higher level services. Milton Keynes) would Woodland at Marston -The development not be a realistic option Thrift could deliver new so public transport links facilities for the existing will be important. The communities of sustainability of this Lidlington, Marston development would rely Moretaine and on creating new Brogborough. settlements linked by -Masterplanning for the high quality public area will need to transport. While this is

4 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues ensure the existing not impossible, current communities of travel patterns and Marston Moretaine, behaviour indicate the Lidlington and potential difficulty in Brogborough are achieving this. protected from coalescence within the Very good access to new settlement. , Lidlington (b) South of Woburn 18.35 (hectares) of which The whole site is in No Green Belt or 1 main landowner. This site is located on and Millbrook stations. Road 10.95ha will be used for grade 5 (very poor) AONB the edge of Marston However these are not 350 dwellings at Marston land. 0-5 years to commence Moretaine. There are on the mainline Moretaine the rest of the The site is of poor development and then limited environment site will be allocated for Part of southern area agricultural land with 5-10 years to complete. constraints and will Significant development woodland and open of the site is in zone little distinctive provide for 7ha of new that could support a space. 2+3 landscape features. planned woodland and number of new bus The proposed open space to enhance routes Adjoins a SAM woodland and open the local environment Hedgerows on site space will enhance the and that of the Relatively poor access edges and along landscape. Community Forest. to Milton Keynes and railway cutting Bedford.

(c) Brogborough Lake 100 dwellings and leisure Landscape No Green Belt or Site owned by the The proposal is (East) consideration – high AONB developer intended to enhance due to the site being the lake as a water woodland and this The site is in the open 0-5 years to commence sports location. having to be cut down countryside and complete for development development

Part of the site is a Deliverable in the plan CWS as is the period adjoining lake.

(d) Brogborough Lake Employment and Eastern part of the site No Green Belt or Site owned by the The proposal is (North) woodland is in Flood Zones 2+3 AONB developer dependant on the larger application Borders a CWS The site is in the open 0-5 years to commence obtaining planning (Brogborough Lake) countryside but could development permission. As the site provide for a useful 5-10 years to complete is in the open Landscape landscape buffer for the development countryside. Consideration – low the landfill site. due to poor landscape It will provide vital jobs and landfill site and has excellent adjacent. Site will transport links improved the landscape significantly

5 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 5. North Houghton An urban extension to Areas of flood risk in Scored 5 out of 8 in The site is in multiple -This site is considered This development is Score: Light Green Regis the north of Houghton parts of the site. terms of meeting the ownership, but to be suitable for intrinsically linked to Proposed allocation in the Regis, comprising: objectives set out in managed by a development. the A5/M1 link and new Development Strategy: Yes  7,000 new homes Site adjoins SSSI and the NPPF consortium. -The scale of the M1 junction 11a, which  Associated SAM development will will drastically change Whilst the development will infrastructure The phasing and scale contribute to local the current travel extend into the green belt,  40 ha employment The land is currently The development will of the development will housing needs, patterns in the area to the proposed A5-M1 Link land designated as Green be an extension of be dependent on the promote economic the north of the Road will act as a new Belt. Houghton Regis into timing of the delivery of growth, and deliver conurbation. The new defensible boundary. This the Green Belt. The the A5-M1 Link Road. green infrastructure junction and link road site has been selected for Sewage Treatment proposed A5-M1 Link This might have an and transport could significantly allocation in the works in north west of Road will act as a impact on delivery of infrastructure in the reduce traffic Development Strategy site. defensible northern housing in the medium area. congestion on the A5 because: boundary. This will term. -The development through Dunstable, as prevent coalescence Some new dwellings could also aid the wider well as opening up  the scale of with villages such as can be provided regeneration of accessibility to development will Toddington and without the link road for Dunstable and Houghton Regis. The contribute significantly to Charlton. the existing road Houghton Regis, such area is also well linked local housing needs, network. as through increased to the Luton Dunstable promote economic Green belt has helped support for town centre Busway. growth, and deliver with the recycling of services. green infrastructure and Brownfield land in - The site is well Harlington and transport infrastructure Houghton Regis and connected to the stations are in the area. Dunstable. existing urban area relatively difficult to  The development could It has prevented the -The site is relatively access also aid local growth of Dunstable unconstrained in terms regeneration and Houghton Regis of landscape and Significant  The site is well northwards thus environmental development that could connected to the protecting the designations, but support a number of existing urban area and countryside from mitigation measures new bus routes will provide a natural encroachment. will be required in extension to Houghton areas of sensitivity. The site is close to Regis. -The site is reliant on Dunstable and  The site is relatively the delivery of the A5- Houghton Regis town unconstrained in terms M1 Link Road which centres of landscape and could impact on the environmental delivery of the site in designations the short to medium  Constraints arising can term. be mitigated

6 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 6. North of Luton Urban extension The site has some Scored 7 out of 8 in Site is managed by a -The site is considered As with the area north Score: Light Green extending northwards environmental terms of meeting the consortium. to be suitable for of Houghton Regis Proposed allocation in the from Luton, comprising: constraints. objectives set out in development. travel patterns in this Development Strategy: Yes -mixed use the NPPF This development is -The development will area would be changed -community facilities Landscape sensitivity dependent on the contribute to local by a proposed link road Whist the development -4,000 new homes varies across the site. The development will housing needs, between the M1 and would extend into the green be an extension of construction of the -20 ha employment Luton Northern Bypass promote economic A6. There is existing belt the proposed North -contributions to the Site is located in Green Luton into the Green growth and provide the congestion on the A6 Luton Bypass would act as a Belt. The proposed and Junction 11A on North Luton Bypass Belt. the M1. opportunity for the and further defensible boundary to North Luton Bypass provision of key development here prevent further growth. This The site adjoins AONB will act as a defensible This will affect housing infrastructure. could worsen this site has been selected for with Chiltern views and northern boundary. delivery in the medium -The site would provide congestion. This impact allocation in the features. This will prevent and long term strategically placed would need further Development Strategy coalescence with employment land investigation and because the site: Drays Ditches SAM villages such as Considered that the around the new mitigation. The M1/A6 Sundon and Streatley. site can be delivered in Junction 11a. link road could help  will contribute to local the plan period. -The development also ease existing housing needs, promote Green belt has provides opportunities congestion and provide economic growth, and prevented the growth for the regeneration of better access to the provides the opportunity of Luton northwards Marsh farm. M1. for the provision of key thus protecting the -The site is well infrastructure. countryside from connected to the Relatively close  would provide encroachment and existing urban area of proximity to Leagrave strategically placed facilitated the recycling Luton, but is however station employment land of Brownfield land. dependant on Junction around the new Junction 11a and the Luton Large development that 11a. It has also prevented Northern Bypass, both could support some Luton merging with the  provides opportunities of which could impact new bus routes for local regeneration. villages to the north of on the delivery of this the town.  is well connected to the site in the short and Relatively close to existing urban area of medium term. Luton town centre Luton

7 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 7. North West - 650 new homes Maiden Bower SAM Although located in the The site is being -The site will provide This scheme is much Score: Amber Dunstable Green Belt, it will not promoted by a housing to contribute smaller than many of Proposed allocation in the - Employment space Green Belt result in coalescence developer on behalf of towards meeting local the sites assessed and Development Strategy: No with neighbouring the landowner. housing need and the transport impact will - Open space Sensitive landscape villages. providing limited on-site therefore be more  the site would provide resulting from SAM. The site would be infrastructure. localised. Conditions housing to contribute deliverable in the plan - It will provide little would be made easier towards meeting local period. contribution to through the provision of housing need infrastructure in the the A5/M1 link reducing  It will provide little wider area and will also traffic on the A5. This contribution to impact on the local development would not infrastructure in the road network, be of a sufficient size to wider area particularly increasing provide any meaningful  Increase congestion congestion on the A5, new infrastructure.  Negative impact on and does not offer landscape and significant opportunities Poor access to Luton archaeological features to improve this except and Leagrave stations and the Maiden Bower for financial Heritage Asset contributions to The development improve local traffic would not be of management sufficient size measures. -The Maiden Bower Close to Dunstable Heritage Asset located town centre in the development site is highly sensitive to development and any development will have an impact on its setting. -Overall this proposed development is considered unsuitable for development.

8 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 8. Sundon Rail 40ha employment land Provides an Score 8 out of 8 in Sundon RFI is reliant -The site overall is As with North Luton Score: Light Green Freight interchange associated with the rail opportunity to enhance terms of meeting the on the construction of suitable for this type of and North Houghton Proposed allocation in the freight interchange (5ha), and maintain the SSSI objectives set out in the Luton Northern development. Regis above, this Development Strategy: Yes potential for an additional and CWS to the east of the NPPF Bypass and Junction -The railway line and scheme is reliant on 7ha for employment land RFI. 11A for access to the it’s proximity to the M1 the new M1 junction.  This site will contribute (minerals distribution M1, both of which are provide the opportunity Once this is in place, it to the economic growth depot) to the north of the The Green Belt has dependent on the North for the location of a Rail would be well located of the area by providing site. prevented growth Luton Mixed-Use Freight Interchange, to the strategic road much needed north of Luton thus development coming and complementary B8 and rail networks. employment protecting the forward as this floorspace. opportunities to countryside from development is -The site will contribute Relatively good access complement the growth development. expected to contribute to the economic growth to Harlington Station North of Luton and to the funding of this of the area by providing Houghton Regis. The green belt has infrastructure, as well much needed The development is not  offer the opportunity for also prevented the as Sundon RFI. employment residential. However enhancement of the villages from merging opportunities to there is potential for a CWS and SSSI, and with each other and complement the growth sustainable transport provide contributions to preserved the setting North of Luton and link to the site. the Luton Northern of Sundon Manor. Houghton Regis. Bypass. -The development of Relatively close to the site will also offer Luton town centre the opportunity for enhancement of the CWS and SSSI, and provide contributions to the Luton Northern Bypass. -The site is not directly connected to the urban area but would be connected to the North Luton development, should it proceed. -The site is however dependant on Junction 11a and the Luton Northern Bypass, both of which could impact on the delivery of this site in the short and medium term.

9 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 9. West of Leighton Mixed use development The site is located on The site is not located The site is being - The scale of the Congestion is predicted Score: Yellow Linslade comprising: landscape on Green Belt and promoted by a proposed development to increase on the Proposed allocation in the - 250-500 new homes characterised by high there are no villages in developer on behalf of has been reduced and A4146 and A418 that Development Strategy: No - employment land landscape value, close proximity to the the landowner. the developed area is provide access to this - open space particularly on the west of Leighton to be on lower ground area. Development of  The site is constrained - associated upper ridges in the Linslade. The fact that The site would be to minimise the this site would worsen in terms of landscape infrastructure west of the site. the site is not Green deliverable in the plan landscape impact this congestion. The sensitivity Belt is largely for period. although this will still proposal would not be  is located within a The views into the site administrative, rather have a negative effect of sufficient size to neighbouring Local are rural. than strategic on the landscape. bring forward any Authority planning, reasons -The provision of the meaningful new  is not of a strategic size There is limited access Country Park in areas infrastructure. The site and nature to support into the site. of high landscape is relatively close to the the aims and objectives sensitivity would be a town centre and of the Development benefit to the local sustainable modes of Strategy community providing transport are viable. accessible open space. -The site is not within Good access to CB so delivery Leighton Buzzard depends on Aylesbury station Vale DC. The development would not be of sufficient size

Relatively close to Leighton Buzzard town centre

10 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 10. West of Luton Mixed use development Site located on green Scored 7 out of 8 in The land is promoted -The scale of the There are existing Score: Amber comprising: belt. terms of meeting the by a Consortium, who development means congestion issues in Proposed allocation in the -5,500 new homes objectives set out in has undertaken various the site will contribute the vicinity of this sites, Development Strategy: No -27.6ha employment land 2 CWS in site and site the NPPF studies to support the to the affordable such as along the M1 -mixed use adjoins AONB. development on their housing needs of the (J10-11), around  the site could contribute site. area and deliver a Hatters Way and to the affordable Landscape character - The site is located significant number of between Luton and housing needs of the The northern area is within the green belt Delivery is expected facilities and services. Caddington. area and deliver a part of a wider AONB and it is considered within the plan period -The site could also aid Development on this significant number of escarpment and Blows that development here and no major the regeneration of scale could facilities and services Down area and is would contribute to the infrastructure is Luton and increase the considerably worsen  the M1 and lack of largely inaccessible coalescence between proposed. level of support for these congestion access across it means agricultural land with a Luton and the villages Luton Town Centre, to issues. There are also the development is not mix of arable and located near the Concern over the which it is in relatively likely to be issues connected to the woodland providing an proposed suitability of the close proximity. around M1 junction existing settlement of important rural setting development. location as a major - The M1 and lack of 10a, both in terms of Luton or Dunstable and to the Luton and employment area given access across it means getting to the junction will become an isolated Dunstable conurbation. transport connectivity the development is not and the capacity of the development. issues. connected to the junction itself. The site  Concerns about Due to the open and existing settlement of is relatively close to commercial exposed landscape Luton or Dunstable and Luton town centre and attractiveness of any development will become an isolated sustainable modes of proposed employment would have the development. transport are viable but land. potential to be highly -There are concerns at are likely to need to be  the site is located within visible particularly the the commercial of exceptional quality to the green belt and would ridge top connection attractiveness of mitigate the possible put the villages of with the scarp has a employment land increase in congestion. Caddington and Slip higher visual sensitivity proposed given the End at significant risk of as development would strategic road links and Relatively poor access coalescence. be visible across much particularly lack of to Luton station  There are concerns of Dunstable and direct access to the M1 relating to noise issues create the impression Junction 10/10A. Significant from the of a greatly extended -The villages of development that could and Luton Airport. urban area. Caddington and Slip support a number of  There is concern over End would be at new bus routes the viability of the The area around significant risk of development and Caddington has coalescence. Relatively close Luton particularly whether the significant archaeology -There are also town centre large scale recreational features. concerns relating to facilities proposed can noise issues from the be delivered. M1 motorway and Luton Airport. For these reasons the site may not be suitable for development.

11 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 11. Land to the An extension to current The lowest ‘C’ good No Green Belt or No known constraints -This site is considered There are existing Score: Dark Green South of the Wixams site allocation MA3: grade of agricultural AONB declared on the to be suitable for congestion issues in Proposed allocation in the Southern Expansion 500 dwellings (35% land. delivery of phasing of development. and around Development Strategy: Yes Land affordable) Landscape buffer land -The site is a natural that might be indirectly -Primary School, Flood zone 2 is would be required extension to the affected by this  The site is a natural community facilities adjacent to the West along the southern 3 landowners and the Wixams and will deliver proposal. The extension to the Wixams -Country Park (to act as boundary with the boundary and this is site is under option to a a Country Park to the sustainability of this and will deliver a southern buffer for B530. proposed to be developer south, creating a proposal will depend on Country Park to the Wixams) provided as a Country permanent green buffer the linkages with the south -3.5 hectares of Park 5-10 years to between the Wixams Wixams town centre.  Additional housing, Employment land commence and Houghton community facilities and (B1/2/8) development and then Conquest. Excellent access to the services will be provided -Mixed use local centre complete in 10-15 -This Country Park will new Wixams mainline in a location which Energy centre years also extend and station. benefits from support the Marston considerable investment Deliverable in the Plan Vale Community in strategic highway period up to 2031, but Forest. The development in infrastructure, public occur more in the -Additional housing, itself would not be of transport provision and second half. community facilities sufficient size although a new railway station, and services will be when combined with scheduled to open in Comprehensive provided in a location the rest of the wider 2015. strategic infrastructure which benefits from development there is  The site is free from (transport, education, considerable potential to support environmental green infrastructure) investment in strategic new bus routes. constraints and could has/will be delivered as highway infrastructure, add to the landscape part of the main public transport Relatively close to value of the area Wixams development provision and a new Bedford town centre and MA3. railway station, scheduled to open in ‘Village’ approach’ to 2015. phasing in line with the - The site is not in an rest of Wixams. area of landscape of biodiversity sensitivity.

12 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 12. North of Leighton Mixed use development The water bodies in the The site is located The site is being -The site suffers from There is existing Score: Amber Linslade (325.9 ha) comprising: north of the site are within the Green Belt. promoted by a considerable congestion around the Proposed allocation in the -residential within both flood zone This area has planning consultant on environmental A5 at Hockliffe and Development Strategy: No -employment 2+3 previously prevented behalf of one land constraints that need to further development -hotel and conference urban sprawl to the owner. be mitigated. north of Leighton This site has not been centre There are two North which could The site is deliverable -It lies in an area where Linslade has the selected for allocation in the -schools SSSIs/CWS one in the connect Leighton in the plan period. The mineral extraction potential to worsen this Development Strategy -open space (both north and the other in Linslade with Heath consultant estimates it takes place and it is congestion. Congestion because: informal and formal) the south of the site. and Reach. will take 5-10years for unclear from the could also increase in -caravan park Another SSSI adjoins development to proposals exactly how Leighton Buzzard and  The site suffers from the site. An AGLV The proposal for a commence with development would Linslade town centres. considerable adjoins the Northern country park/open another 10-15years impact upon this. It is not clear what type environmental and Eastern boarders. space on the for the site to be -The delivery of the site of development is constraints development could completed. This would is dependent on proposed at this stage  Largely detached from The vast majority of the encourage improved be competition at the delivery of East and therefore what Leighton Linslade but site is in grade 4 (poor) access and mobility end of the plan period. Leighton Linslade, as mitigation measures not large enough to be a while a small portion is through the provision without this additional might be possible. A self contained in grade 3 (good) of cycle and walking development to the development of this settlement agricultural land routes through the south, it would scale is unlikely to be  Poor existing public site. effectively be an well self-contained in transport links The size of the site will unsustainable transport terms and mean the landscape extension to Heath and existing public transport will be affected from Reach with poor links are not well development, although connectivity to Leighton developed. the majority of the site Linslade. is or has been used for -Should this proposal Leighton Buzzard mineral extraction. take place in addition to station is relatively East Leighton Linslade, difficult to access it is considered that this would represent an Development could over concentration of support a new bus new development in route this area. Relatively poor access to Leighton Linslade town centre

13 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 13. North of Wing Development (unknown There is a The site is located The site is being -The site is closely Congestion is predicted Score: Yellow Road, Leighton size of site) comprising: Conservation Area in within the Green Belt. promoted by a related to the West to increase on the Proposed allocation in the Linslade -residential the East of the site The site boundary is developer on behalf of Linslade proposal and A4146 and A418 that Development Strategy: No -open space around the stud farm contained by the new the owner. suffers from the same provide access to this buildings. bypass in the West constraints in what is a area. Development of  The site is in an area of and the existing urban The site is deliverable highly sensitive this site would worsen high landscape quality The whole site is in an area in the East. in the plan period. The landscape. this congestion. The  The site would not AGLV. developer estimates it -The site would not proposal is unlikely to contribute to local The proposal for an will take 0-5years for contribute to be of sufficient size to employment needs The majority of the site open space on the site development to employment needs. bring forward any  Well located in terms of is in grade 3 (good) could encourage commence with -It is well located in meaningful new its proximity to Leighton with a small portion of improved access and another 5-10years for terms of its proximity to infrastructure. The site Linslade town centre. grade 5 (very poor) mobility through the the site to be Leighton Linslade town is relatively close to the  Part of the site falls agricultural land. provision of cycle and completed. This would centre. town centre and outside the boundary of walking routes through be competition at the -Development in this sustainable modes of Central Bedfordshire A CWS adjoins the the site. anywhere from the area would contribute transport are viable. northern boarder. middle to the end of the to the housing needs of plan period. Central Bedfordshire Good access to The site is contained and Aylesbury Vale. Leighton Buzzard train by the urban area and station the recently built bypass. The site is Development could however relatively flat support a new bus open countryside. route

Close to Leighton Linslade town centre

14. North of Higham Mixed use development The northern part of The site is located The site is being -This site would provide The existing congestion Score: Yellow Road, Barton-le-Clay (74.54 ha) comprising: the site is in flood zone within the Green Belt. promoted by a planning a large mixed use on the A6 to the north Proposed allocation in the -527 dwellings 2+3. The site is located in consultant on behalf of extension to the village and south of this site Development Strategy: No -4.22 ha of employment the open countryside the two owners. of Barton. would be worsened by land The majority of the site north of the existing -The scale of the this development. Whilst, this site has not been -hotel is in grade 3 (good) settlement. The site is deliverable proposed development Sustainable transport selected for allocation within -school and a small portion is in the plan period. The will contribute to the access to larger the Development Strategy -open space in grade 2 (very good) The proposal for an developer estimates it housing needs of centres (mainly Luton) because: -extension of village agricultural land. open space on the site will take 0-10years for Central Bedfordshire,. is unlikely to represent centre could encourage development to -Barton is categorised a realistic option so  This site could The site is in the open improved access and commence with as a minor service residents would be contribute to the housing countryside although mobility through the another 5-10years for centre, and the reliant on the existing needs of Central there are no physical provision of cycle and the site to be proposed development low level services Bedfordshire, and could environmental walking routes through completed. This would does not reflect the provided in Barton-le- deliver some facilities constraints which the site. be competition at the current scale and Clay. and services cannot be incorporated anywhere from the character of the village  the proposed into the plan of the site middle to the end of the and is not considered Harlington station is development does not e.g. the flood zone. On plan period. appropriate. relatively close reflect the current scale the proposed master - Development here

14 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues plan this area will be would appear The development and character of the used for open space somewhat detached would not be of village and is not and woodland. from the main part of sufficient size to considered appropriate. Barton-le-Clay. support additional bus services

Relatively poor access to a variety of locations 15. Crowbush Farm, Mixed use development The whole of the site is The site is located The site is being -This site would provide There are existing Score: Amber Toddington (23.37ha) comprising: in grade 3 (good) within the Green Belt. promoted by a a mixed use extension congestion issues on Proposed allocation in the -residential agricultural land. The site is located in developer on behalf of to the village of the A5120 going into Development Strategy: No -leisure the open countryside two owners. These two Toddington. Houghton Regis and -recreation The site is in the open south of the existing owners have a -The scale of the this is likely to be  the site would contribute countryside that settlement. development proposed development worsened by this to the housing needs of borders the southern agreement in place. will contribute to the development. Central Bedfordshire boundary of The site proposes housing needs of Sustainable transport  The proposed Toddington. Concern leisure and The site is deliverable Central Bedfordshire, access to larger development does not about prominence of recreational uses in the plan period. The and is likely to deliver centres (mainly reflect the current scale the development. although it doesn’t go developer estimates it facilities and services. Houghton Regis and and character of the into detail what this will will take 5-10years for -Toddington is Dunstable) is unlikely village and is not be, e.g. country park. development to categorised as a minor to represent a realistic considered appropriate. commence with service centre, and the option so residents another 5-10years for proposed development would be reliant on the the site to be does not reflect the existing low level completed. This would current scale and services provided in be competition at the character of the village Toddington. end of the plan period. and is not considered appropriate. Toddington is relatively close to Harlington Train Station

The development would not be of sufficient size to support additional bus services

Relatively poor access to Houghton Regis/Dunstable/Luton. Some services within Toddington itself.

15 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 16. North West of Development (44.62ha) Two thirds of the site is The site is located The site is being -This site would provide There are existing Score: Amber Caddington comprising: in both an AONB and within the Green Belt. promoted by a a housing only congestion issues Proposed allocation in the -800 dwellings AGLV. Folly Wood in The site is located in developer on behalf of extension to the village between Luton and Development Strategy: No the east of the site is a the open countryside the landowner. of Caddington. Caddington, which CWS. north west of the -The scale of the development of this  the proposed existing settlement. The site is deliverable proposed development scale could worsen. development does not The whole site is in in the plan period. The will contribute to the Caddington is relatively reflect the current scale grade 3 (good) The plan makes no developer estimates it housing needs of close to Luton and and character of the agricultural land. allocation for any other will take 0-5years for Central Bedfordshire, sustainable transport village and is not uses other than development to - no facilities or options are available, considered appropriate. The site is in the open housing commence with services are proposed. although these are  there are concerns countryside separated another 0-5years for - Caddington is likely to be of limited regarding impact on the from the existing the site to be categorised as a minor attractiveness. There landscape in this area. settlement. The site completed. This would service centre, and the are existing low level  Existing infrastructure has a high visibility be competition at the proposed development services provided in and services would not across the landscape beginning to middle of does not reflect the Caddington. be able to support which is locally an the plan period. current scale and development at the important part of the character of the village Relatively poor access scale proposed and no open countryside. Folly and is not considered to Luton station new facilities are Wood is a well known appropriate. proposed. CWS. Development will -There are concerns The development adversely affect all of regarding impact on the would not be of these features. landscape in this area sufficient size and particularly the The area around impact on the AONB. Relatively close to Caddington has Luton town centre significant archaeology features. 17 Land West of Mixed use development The western part of the The site is located The site is being -This site would provide Excellent access to Score: Amber Midland Mainline, (71ha) comprising: site is in both flood within the Green Belt. promoted by a planning a large mixed use Harlington mainline Proposed allocation in the Harlington -unknown amount of zone 2+3 and a CWS. The site is located in consultant on behalf of extension to the village station. Development Strategy: No residential the open countryside the landowner. of Harlington. 90% of the site is in west of the existing -The scale of the Development could  The site has a number grade 3 (good) and the settlement. The site is not proposed development support a new bus of landscape constraints remainder is in grade 2 deliverable in the plan will contribute to the route  The site is not well (good) agricultural The plan indicates it period. The developer housing needs of connected land. will be a mixed use estimates it will take Central Bedfordshire,  The development does development although 10-15years for and is likely to deliver not reflect the current The site is the other it doesn’t go into detail development to significant facilities and scale and character of side of the railway to on the matter. commence with services. the village and is not the settlement of another 10-15years for -The site is separated considered appropriate. Harlington. It is the site to be from the main village  The site is not surrounded on three completed. This would by the Midland deliverable within the sides by open be competition after the Mainline, and is plan period countryside, the site is plan period. therefore not well not flat with different connected. gradients which will -Harlington is have a drastic effect on categorised as a large

16 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues the local countryside village, and the and views. proposed development does not reflect the current scale and character of the village and is not considered appropriate.

18. Land West of Mixed use Development Part of the site is in The site is not in the The site is being -This site would provide Relatively poor access Score: Yellow Salford (466ha – includes land flood zone 2+3. Green Belt promoted by a planning a large mixed use to a number of stations Proposed allocation in the both in MK and CB) consultant on behalf of extension to the east of Development Strategy: No comprising: There is a CWS in the The plan makes a group of landowners. Milton Keynes. Development could -8,150 dwellings (40% of north of the site. allocation for -The proposal states support a new bus  the site may contribute which will be in CBC) employment, The site is deliverable that the development route to the housing and -local centre on 18ha 60% of the site is in education, open space in the plan period. The will contribute to the employment needs of -employment on 16ha grade 3 (good) and the and a local centre. developer estimates it housing and Relatively close to both Central -education on 30ha remainder is in grade 2 will take 5-10years for employment needs of Milton Keynes town Bedfordshire and Milton -roads and open space (good) agriculture land. development to both Central centre Keynes on 168ha commence with Bedfordshire and  neither this site nor the The site is of another 10-15years for Milton Keynes. land to the West of the considerable size of a the site to be -Neither this site nor M1 has been identified rural part of Central completed. This would the land to the West of as a location for growth Bedfordshire. The site be competition at the the M1 has been in the Milton Keynes lies in the flat valley end of the plan period. identified as a location Core Strategy. and will have a for growth in the Milton  The site would be an significant effect on the Keynes Core Strategy. isolated development, surrounding -The proposed site not sufficiently countryside as it will would therefore be an connected to Milton allow the development isolated development, Keynes. of Milton Keynes not sufficiently  development in this across the M1. connected to Milton location would have a Keynes. considerable impact in a -In addition, a large predominantly rural scale development in area, and may result in this location would coalescence with the have a considerable adjacent village of impact in a Salford predominantly rural  concerns about whether area, and may result in existing transport coalescence with the infrastructure can adjacent village of support further Salford. development -The site will not be suitable for development.

17 Table 2 – Site Assessment summaries

Site Proposal Constraints Green Belt/ Deliverability Suitability Accessibility Conclusion coalescence issues 19. Land North and Mixed use Development On the eastern site a These sites are not These sites are being -The sites in Sandy train station is Score: Yellow East of Sandy (80ha) comprising: CWS borders south of located in the Green promoted by a combination would relatively close Proposed allocation in the -2000 dwellings the site, while there are Belt. developer on behalf of provide a large Development Strategy: No -open space 2 CWS one to the the landowner. extension to the north Development could -employment land North and the other to The plan makes and east of Sandy. support a new bus Whilst this site has not been -local centre the East. There is also allocation for The site is deliverable -The scale of the route selected for allocation within a AGLV to the south of employment land, in the plan period. The proposed development the Development Strategy the site. open space and a developer estimates it would make a Close to Sandy town because: local centre. will take 0-5years for significant contribution centre 40% of the site is in development to to meeting the housing  the scale of the grade 2 (very good) commence with needs of Central proposed development with the rest split another 0-5years for Bedfordshire, and could make a significant between 1 (excellent) 3 the site to be deliver a significant contribution to meeting (good), 4 (poor) and 5 completed. This would number of facilities and the housing needs of (very poor) agricultural be competition at the services. Central Bedfordshire, land. beginning to middle of -Both sites would be a and deliver a significant the plan period. considerable distance number of facilities and The Northern is in the from the main facilities services open countryside but and services in Sandy.  the sites are a attached to northern -Land to the east of considerable distance part of Sandy and Sandy is separated from the main facilities constrained by the A1 from the town by the and services in Sandy. in the West. The site is railway line, and is  Land to the east of flat with little physical therefore not well Sandy is separated from constraints. connected. the town by the railway The Eastern site is line, and is therefore not more sensitive. The well connected. site borders a steep  Existing infrastructure slope over looking would be unable to Sandy and the rest of support such large scale the valley. development There are issues regarding the CWS on site and adjacent which need to be mitigated against. The Greensand ridge footpath crosses the site.

18 19

11

18 4

1

14

17

12 15 8 2 6 9 5 13

3 7 16 10

N Date: 31 May 2012 © Crown Copyright and database right. 2012 Development Strategy Ordnance Survey 100049029. W E Sites for Assessment Central Bedfordshire Council. Scale 1:150000 Cities Revealed aerial photography copyright S The GeoInformation Group, 2010