Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 766

Interest in land

Land owner

Specify 'other' land interest

No answer given

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

Yes

Address of site

Land at the rear of The Old Forge, 33 Top End, Renhold, Bedford MK41 0LR

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Pastureland/Paddock

Adjoining use to the north

Residential development

Adjoining use to the south

Agricultural land

Adjoining use to the east

Residential development

Adjoining use to the west

Residential development

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

15-20

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

A lower density of 10 dwellings per hectare has been assumed and takes into consideration he surrounding built form and character area of Renhold.

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied , Market housing - Private rented housing , 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?

As shown on the accompanying Site Location Plan – ‘Land to the Rear of The Old Forge, 33 Top End, Renhold, Bedfordshire’, appropriate access is achievable from Top End to the north of the site. The landowner retains complete control over the existing vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the site, as shown on the Plan and this access has adequate visibilities along both directions of Top End making it a suitably safe and viable option for accessing any proposed development.

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)

10-15

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?

It is anticipated that due to the fact there are no physical, legal, or environmental constraints at the site to hinder any proposed development, the site could come forward for development shortly after the adoption of the Plan. Given the size of the proposals the site and given that it is in a single ownership, development could be built out in a single phase or phased basis. Any proposal at the site will incorporate substantial separation between dwellings, not harming amenity and a strategic and local landscaping to enhance visual amenity and biodiversity opportunities of the site and wider area.

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

Any scheme at the site shall be accompanied by a sustainable urban drainage strategy to mitigate against any potential future flood risk and seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout both the construction and operational phases of the development. Renewable energy will be considered as part of the detailed design process of the proposed dwellings.

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

2.22

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site not in accordance with the emerging development strategy

Stage1 conclusion

Exclude from further assessment

Stage 2 Assessment of suitability, availability & achievability

Nothing chosen

Stage 2 conclusion

Nothing chosen

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement

? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 minutes’ walk.

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

1d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

x The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with an infrequent bus service (less frequent than hourly each day) which enables travel 8am6pm Monday to Friday to a major employer.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?

+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance

+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

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

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?

? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?

0 The site is not within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network or the impact of the proposal is neutral.

2e. Likely to impact on an area currently providing ecosystem services.

x Opportunity area for 3 or more ecosystem services covers 25-50% 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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 minutes’ walk

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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?

+ The proposal includes or is within 400m walking distance of a publicly accessible open space that includes an equipped children’s play area of at least 200m2 .

7b. Within 800m of a sports facility or proposing a sports facility within it?

x The proposal does not include and is not within 800m of a publicly accessible sports facility

8a. Likely to have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape?

x The proposal is likely to have a negative effect on the landscape.

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?

+ The development will meet identified housing needs eg elderly, care, travellers.

13a. Within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed?

x The site is not 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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 minutes’ walk.

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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?

? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

+ No capacity issues

Highway comments. For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

The proposed development is to be accessed off Top End via a private access. The traffic conditions on Top End are moderate, with mild lunchtime and PM peaks, however traffic generation from this development would have a minimal impact on the local network. The proposed access doesn’t contain a footway or cycleway access, however two footpaths run to the eastern and southern borders of the site which provide connectivity to the rest of the local rights of way network. There is also a footway on the opposite side of the road from the proposed access. No cycle connectivity is available. Given the proposal, a road to adoptable standards is required in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards, which may not be possible within the constraints of the site. The closest bus stop is just outside the site access point, serving line 27 with 1 bus per hour. An increased service frequency might be useful for Top End. The bus stop would also need to be moved to facilitate access to the site. Improve footway along the top end and provide on-street non-segregated cycle connectivity.

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 because its location is not in accordance with the development strategy.