Call for Sites

Back to document

Search form responses

Results for Barratt David Wilson Developments Ltd search

New search

Form ID: 1059

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Please contact the developer: Becky Bonnett

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

Yes

Address of site

Land off Danegeld Avenue and Greenkeepers Road . 5.906 ha

Location plan

Current use of land

Grassland

Adjoining use to the north

Residential

Adjoining use to the south

Great Denham Country Park

Adjoining use to the east

Great Denham Country Park

Adjoining use to the west

Residential

Has the site been developed previously?

Yes

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

200

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

Approx. 33.5 dph

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied

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?

Please refer to covering letter. (The letter doesn't give any details.)

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)

200

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?

2027/28

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

Spatial planning is an important part of a successful response to climate change. In order to address this, Council’s should enable the delivery of homes in sustainable locations. The Site is located adjacent to Great Denham. The conclusions of the Settlement Hierarchy Paper (September 2018) confirmed that Bedford/Kempston Urban Area is the most accessible location in the Borough and the area with the most facilities available. Therefore, the Site is in a sustainable location which reduces the need for residents to travel and provides opportunities for residents to utilise sustainable modes of travel. In turn minimising Greenhouse Gas admissions. In terms of the built form David Wilson Homes fall under the Barratt Developments Plc who committed to sustainable developments and have set ambitious targets to become a net zero emissions business covering all of its direct operations by 2040.

Attachments

File: Covering letter redacted

File: SOCG

Site size (ha)

5.84

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site within flood zone 3a or 3b , Site already allocated in development plan

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 the urban area UAB.

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 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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

x The site is 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?

+ The site is within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and able to enhance the network.

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

++ Opportunity area for fewer than 3 ecosystem services.

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 the urban area.

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

0 The proposal appears to have no impact on heritage assets and their significance.

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?

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

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

N/A in UAB

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?

? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

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?

xx Development would be in flood zones 3a or 3b.

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

x The site is unlikely to provide a mix of housing and/or is unlikely to 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 the urban area.

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?

+ No access constraints

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 location of the site is in Great Denham approximately 1.8 miles southeast of Bedford town centre. There are multiple access points in the field from Greenkeepers Road to the north and Woden Gardens, Wortham Close and Queen Eleanor Drive to the west. The proposal would cause moderate traffic problems in the majority of the roads and at the A6/King Alfred Way junction. The nearest bus stop located on Greenkeepers Road 100m from the site on the north. In Greenkeepers Road, the footway is 2.6m and there is potential for footways in Woden Gardens, Wortham Close and Queen Eleanor Drive to the west. There is cycle connectivity in the vicinity of the site. A new entrance on the site could be developed from King Alfred Way to the south. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and for satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists.

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

Excluded at stage 1 as within flood risk zone 3b (with climate change). This site falls within the development area of Policy H6 of the 2002 Local Plan policy for Biddenham Loop.

Form ID: 1062

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Please contact the developer: Becky Bonnett, Barratt David Wilson Developments Ltd.

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

Yes

Address of site

Land west of Mercia Road 1.158 ha

Location plan

Current use of land

Vacant site within Great Denham

Adjoining use to the north

Residential/School

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Residential

Adjoining use to the west

Residential/ School

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

Appox. 57 dph

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied

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?

Please refer to covering letter. (The covering letter doesn't specify detailed access points).

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)

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?

2025/26

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

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

1.41

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site already allocated in development plan

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 the urban area UAB.

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?

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 fewer than 3 ecosystem services.

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 the urban area.

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

0 The proposal appears to have no impact on heritage assets and their significance.

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?

0 The proposal is likely to have a neutral effect on the landscape.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

x The site is separated from 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?

? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

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?

x The site is unlikely to provide a mix of housing and/or is unlikely to 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. , 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 the urban area.

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?

+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

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

Access to the site is feasible from Mercia Road and Greenkeepers Road. There are two bus stops close to the site. One is in the south, outside of the site and the other is 300m on the east of the site. There is shared pedestrians and cycle route in the vicinity of the site. The junction design of Mercia Road/Greenkeepers Road would need changing to accommodate the needs of the new development. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and for satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

only concern is school to the north

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

This site falls within the development area of Policy H6 of the 2002 Local Plan policy for Biddenham Loop. Following the adoption of the plan, planning permission was granted under 02/00078/OUT. This site is already counted as a commitment on the Council's trajectory. A further planning application is currently pending decision. This site is not proposed for allocation.

Form ID: 1071

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

PLease contact the developer: Becky Bonnett, Barratt David Wilson Developments Ltd

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 Mercia Road 1.354 ha

Location plan

Current use of land

Vacant site within Great Denham

Adjoining use to the north

Residential/School

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Residential

Adjoining use to the west

Residential/ School

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

Appox. 44 dph

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied

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?

Please refer to covering letter.

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)

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?

2025/26

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

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

1.33

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

None

Stage1 conclusion

Include in next stage of assessment

Stage 2 Assessment of suitability, availability & achievability

Site is available , Site is likely to be achievable

Stage 2 conclusion

Include in next stage of assessment

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

+ The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.

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?

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 fewer than 3 ecosystem services.

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 the urban area.

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

0 The proposal appears to have no impact on heritage assets and their significance.

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?

0 The proposal is likely to have a neutral effect on the landscape.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

x The site is separated from 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?

? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

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?

x The site is unlikely to provide a mix of housing and/or is unlikely to 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 the urban area.

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?

+ No access constraints

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

+ No capacity issues

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

Access to the site is feasible from Mercia Road and Saxon Way. The proposal would have a moderate impact on the highway network. There are two bus stops close to the site. One is in the west, close to the site and the other is 350m on the northeast of the site. There are 8m footways in Saxon Way and 3- 5m in Mercia Road and a cycle route in the vicinity of the site with Mercia Road and Saxon Way. No suggested mitigation measures.

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

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.