Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 979

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 east of Woodfield Lane, Renhold

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural land used for arable/cultivation purposes

Adjoining use to the north

Agriculture / Woodland

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Agriculture/Woodland

Adjoining use to the west

Residential

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

Approx 220

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

No answer given

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?

See drawing attached showing point of access from Woodfield Lane. It is also expected that the site could be access from the A421 roundabout in conjunction with other land.

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)

No answer given

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

100

11-15 years (2034/35-2039/40)

120

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 the land would form part of a larger development with land to the south which would come forward in stages over the plan period.

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. The site lies within walking distance of Bedford, utilising the existing public rights of way network.

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

13.78

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?

xx A site accessibility score of 0 is recorded where 0 is more than 30 minutes’ walk.

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

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

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

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access 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.

+ 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?

xx A site accessibility score of 0 is recorded where 0 is more than 30 minutes’ walk.

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

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

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

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer.

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

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

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

0 Proposal is not employment related.

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

0 Proposal does not include a main town centre use.

7a. Within 400m of an existing open space or proposing open space within it?

x The proposal does not include and is not within 400m walking distance of a publicly accessible open space.

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

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

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

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

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

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

9a. On previously developed land?

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

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

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

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?

+ The site is not located in a source protection zone.

11a. At risk of flooding?

+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

12a. Likely to provide a mix of housing, including affordable housing?

+ The site is likely to provide a mix of housing and include affordable housing.

12b. Able to address a particular housing need?

x The development will not meet identified needs eg elderly, care, travellers.

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

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

14a. Likely to encourage social cohesion?

0 Neutral.

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

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

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

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

15b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

xx A site accessibility score of 0 is recorded where 0 is more than 30 minutes’ walk.

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

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

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

xx There is no public transport within 10 minutes’ walk to enable access to a major employer.

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

x Serious access constraint wider impacts

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 access is onto Woodfield Lane, however this is very narrow and would be inadequate for a development of this size. A connection directly from the A421 roundabout is suggested and would be a better option, however this would be dependent on site 761 proceeding and require significant highway works. No significant traffic congestion in the area. There are bus stops within 150m where the 27 bus provides approx. 4 services to Bedford per day. There is no pavement on Woodfield Lane or any other pedestrian connectivity, so pedestrian access will need to be provided via the A421 roundabout access. There is no cycle access however the pavement on St Neots Road from the A421 roundabout could be upgraded to a shared path to provide a direct cycle link to Bedford. Access via the A421 roundabout would provide the best option, however this is dependent on approval of site 761 to proceed. Access via Woodfield Lane would not be suitable for a development of this size. The A421 roundabout access would also be necessary for pedestrian and cycle access. The pavement on St Neots Rd from the A421 roundabout towards Bedford could be upgraded to a shared path to provide a direct cycle link to Bedford.

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.