Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 975

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Agent

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

Yes

Address of site

Land East of Clapham

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural and some agricultural buildings

Adjoining use to the north

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

residential and golf course

Adjoining use to the west

Agricultural

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Retail , All other types

Number of dwellings proposed

500

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes , Older people housing , Flats

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

30-40 dwellings per hectare

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied , Affordable Housing - Affordable rent , Affordable Housing - Shared ownership

Other tenures proposed

No answer given

Permanent or transit?

No answer given

Site privately owned?

Nothing chosen

Number of plots proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of employment

No answer given

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of retail

Local retail – part of a small mixed use hub

Net floorspace proposed

>250 sqm

Gross floorspace proposed

>300 sqm

Number of hotel rooms proposed

No answer given

Amount of development proposed

>250sqm

Description

Likely to form part of a small mixed use hub

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

Suitable access is achievable

Where will the site’s access point(s) be?

From Green Lane and the Slade via Highbury Grove

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)

150

6-10 years (2029/30-2033/34)

350

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?

2024

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

• Encourage sustainable transport choices by supporting improvements to bus services and improvements to walking and cycling links to Bedford Town Centre and Railway Station • Reinforce viability of existing facilities in Clapham • Provide opportunities for home working to reduce need to travel • Meet standards for energy efficiency, and greener energy use, anticipated through Future Homes Standards

Attachments

File: Land East of Clapham FINAL - 14 August 2020 LOW.pdf

Site size (ha)

33.53

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site not in accordance with the emerging development strategy

Stage1 conclusion

Exclude from further assessment

Stage 2 Assessment of suitability, availability & achievability

Nothing chosen

Stage 2 conclusion

Nothing chosen

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

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

1b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

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

+ The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with a regular bus service (at least hourly) which enables travel 8am-6pm Monday to Friday to a major employer or it is possible to walk to a major employer within 10 minutes.

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?

xx Protected species recorded on the site

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

? Uncertain or insufficient information

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

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

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

+ Opportunity area for 3 or more ecosystem services covers less than 25% of the site.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?

0 No renewable energy generation scheme included and efficiency standards that meet normal standards.

3b. Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement?

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

3c. Accessible on foot to a food store?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

3e. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings? For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?

+ Proposal includes permanent economic and employment opportunities.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?

x Proposal includes a main town centre use in an out of centre location.

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?

+ The proposal includes or is within 800m of a publicly accessible sports facility.

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

? It is uncertain what effect the proposal is likely to have on the landscape / more information is required.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?

x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?

x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?

0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

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?

+ The site is within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed.

14a. Likely to encourage social cohesion?

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

14b. Likely to help make the area safer? +

+ The development is likely to increase public surveillance or increase activity.

15a. Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement?

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

15b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk

15d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

x Serious capacity constraint

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

There are two access points proposed: The Slade and Green Lane. Both are narrow roads which could be quite seriously adversly affected by additional traffic from a site of this size. There is some moderate traffic in the area which would almost certainly be made worse by this size development. Via The Slade access to the site there is a bus stop 160m away where the number 51 bus provides a half-hourly service between Bedford and Oakley. Both proposed access points have adequate pavements which could easily be connected to by this new development. There is no specific cycle connectivity however there are several paved PRoWs in the area which would be suitable for cycling. The proposed vehicular accesses would need to be looked at in greater depth as both currently seem like they connect to roads which would not be able to handle the traffic from 500 new homes. A Transport Assessment should be produced to assess the significant impact this and neighbouring developments will have on local networks.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

no noise concerns for housing but if other uses were considered the may affect existing residential

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.