Large field comprising four titles, all in the same ownership. Topography may restrict developable area to the northern reaches of the site, however the 10 acre minimum appears achievable, albeit thought will need to be given to defensible boundaries. Unlike land to the east and west of the settlement the site should not raise issues of coalescence with Luton nor impact on the setting of the AONB. In the southern area of the site a line of overhead electricity wires cross in an west-east direction with pylons present within the site. In the central area of the site is a defined PROW running southwest to northeast, however only a faint desire line is visible on aerial images. Also note the proximity of the washed-over settlement of Aley Green to the south of the site. East of the settlement, a large site known as West of Luton / Bushwood has been promoted by Abbey Land, Gladman and its owners for a 4,600 unit site for future growth. However the Local Plan Inspector's have recommended the deletion of reference to this and other sites of the same status. Overall the subject site would be large relative to the size of the village, however its scale may contract, having regard to topography, avoidance of coalescence with Aley Green and creation of defensible boundaries. The case for its development would clearly improve if the West of Luton proposals failed to materialise.

Large site with sub-division likely to be necessary to achieve a sensible scale, and reduced Green Belt impact albeit the absence of internal physical features is not helpful in this regard. Need to understand the only cited concern in the SHLAA which is "impact on archaeology". Alternative sites in the village are in the control of developers or landowners pursuing allocations themselves, and these sites have been assessed as having a lesser Green Belt impact. Possibility that a development layout would need to have regard to impact on available views of the Grade I listed Church of Saint Marty to the east of the site.

The northern parcel within this overall site is proposed for housing in the emerging Local Plan. However the identified option has a 2011 expiry date and it has not been possible to identify supporting representations by an promoter to the Local Plan. On this basis it may be possible that the site is not in the hands of a developer. To its immediate south is a larger parcel (BD322858), highways access into which appears reliant upon being taken via HAS21 or via the the smaller Lower Wood farm parcel (BD288540) along the road frontage. Land to the immediate south of Lower Wood farm is owned by A&E Property Investments Limited and therefore may not be an access option. The case for the expansion of the HAS21 allocation is bolstered by the examination Inspectors' criticisms relating to the other proposed allocation in the settlement, HAS20 (See Exam69 paras 28-33). There, the Inspectors question the suitability of that site to provide the new primary school that would be generated by this 435 unit allocation, concluding the allocation to be unsound. It is not known at what point the need for such a school would be triggered, and hence it is possible that the identified expanded HAS21 site would generate a similar requirement. That being the case it does however appear that hypothetically if the subject site was to provide a new school site, then it would offer a less hazardous journey for pupils and parents than HAS20.

Single field abutting the north-westernmost limit of the settlement. Need to better understand highways access potential noting that the site appears elevated above Park Road, with the public footpath stopping short of the eastern boundary. In this regard it could be worthwhile in understanding whether Warren Close could offer a solution albeit this route would necessitate the acquisition of an existing dwelling. A defined PROW crosses the site, running in an north-west direction from the adjacent Wentworth Close. Opposite the northern boundary of the site is Toddington Manor Lodge which is Grade II listed. Investigation into whether the 1994 Laing option remains live may be sensible in due course however its age and an absence of promotion would indicate that it may have lapsed. Note that the address of the site owner is a farm lying south of the site which sits within a larger unregistered area, part of which is proposed housing allocation HAS50. Also note that from an inspection of various consultation documents it has been established that Arrow Planning has acted in relation to the proposed allocation on behalf of Denison Investments.

This site was assessed in the SHLAA as a "pass", however has not translated into an allocation. Our research has identified a representation to the 2018 SHLAA by a Mr Harry White of Howkins Harrison on behalf of the site owners, the Wood family. Note that the Green Belt assessment of the site shows the site to have a lesser impact in this regard than proposed housing allocation HAS50.

The suggested site forms the western area of a larger title area, utilising existing field boundary hedgerows. To the immediate north of the subject site, SHLAA site NLP138 (Discounted Site 13) was classed as a "pass" with a "low/moderate" Green Belt impact. However that site appears visually contained, and whilst it can only help in making a case for new development east of Luton Road, there would clearly be a need to make a strong landscape case for the subject site.

North-easternmost field within much wider title area. Would introduce development to the south of Wing Road however boundaries appear reasonable and development already exists to its north. Need to be aware of the conservation area some 150m north of the site and the Grade II listed buildings therein. The town's rail station is around a 1km walk from the site with bus stops immediately outside the site itself.

Single field lying immediately east of land controlled by BDW. A parcel containing the site and adjoining land to its east was discounted in the SHLAA on the following basis - "The site would adjoin the East Leighton Linslade urban extension once it is completed. The proposed site would however not form a logical extension as it would be separated from the wider urban extension by the Eastern Relief Road,and would result in coalescence between Eggington and Leighton Linslade once East Leighton Linslade is developed." Note that elsewhere within the wider consented masterplan area there are residential cells lying east of the relief road. Also note that the site's development should be possible without bringing development any nearer to Eggington than is proposed within the masterplan. That said, it is noted that the local landform around Charity Farm is such that development to the west of Eggington may not present issues of coalescence in the way that development to its north may.

Single field lying immediately east of land controlled by BDW. A parcel containing the site and adjoining land to its east was discounted in the SHLAA on the following basis - "The site would adjoin the East Leighton Linslade urban extension once it is completed. The proposed site would however not form a logical extension as it would be separated from the wider urban extension by the Eastern Relief Road,and would result in coalescence between Eggington and Leighton Linslade once East Leighton Linslade is developed." Note that elsewhere within the wider consented masterplan area there are residential cells lying east of the relief road. Also note that the site's development should be possible without bringing development any nearer to Eggington than is proposed within the masterplan. That said, it is noted that the local landform around Charity Farm is such that development to the west of Eggington may not present issues of coalescence in the way that development to its north may.

Large parcel with its eastern boundary defined by a watercourse and its north by a planting belt. Possibility that development of the site may be resisted by the LPA on the basis that Shenley Hill Road acts as a strong eastern limit to the town, and that housing here would have to "leapfrog" the planned formal recreation area within the Arnold White Estates "Stearn Land" scheme. Nevertheless the site is large, abuts the masterplan area and has good, defensible boundaries.

Total area of around 200 acres, potentially in two ownerships. At the western boundary of the site, the intervening land between the existing built-up area and the subject site is controlled by Arnold White Estates Limited. That land has been rejected in the SHLAA for reasons largely related to landscape impacts. The topography of the White land is evidently more challenging than that of the subject site, other than its northernmost field, and the LPA comments are understandable. However it is possible that there is a stronger planning case for the masterplanned development of the wider combined site with development focussed on the subject land but integrated with the town via the inclusion of the White land for recreation / country park use, with pockets of residential in its lower lying areas. The overall site is well-contained by the highway network, reads as a logical extension and in our view represents a viable alternative to the eastwards expansion of the major committed sites. At the west of the town the administrative boundary is largely tight to the built-up area, and where it is not, there are topographical constraints. At its south, the A505 acts as a strong defensible boundary. Possibility that the Arnold White options of 2009 and 2010 have expired or are due to expire (See Discounted sites 15 and 16), and that these areas could be secured by BDW. Note that a 2011 outline application for up to 241 units by Arnold White Estates on the land it controls was subsequently withdrawn.

The suggested site forms part of a wider title area, all of which was discounted as SHLAA site NLP306, ostensibly for reasons relating to impact on an adjacent scheduled monument. A smaller site is therefore suggested, contained by existing PROWs and accompanying hedgerows although from a desk-top exercise it is difficult to consider impacts with any certainty. Note that the PROW forming the northern boundary of the suggested site is simply a pedestrian desire line across a field. Highways access into the site appears possible via Council-owned land adjacent to the southern corner of the site. Also note that elsewhere within the adjacent housing estate the internal roads are owned by Abbey Homesteads Limited, and may not therefore offer an access opportunity. No evidence of professional promotion has been identified. In November 2011 an outline application for up to 650 units on land including the site by the owner and adjacent landowner (Trenport) was refused for a variety of reasons. Overall, the planning background may not be overly encouraging, however a combination of the major committed site to the north of the Houghton Regis and the AONB south of Dunstable severely limit available opportunities.