Call for Sites

Back to document

Search form responses

Results for The Harpur Trust search

New search

Form ID: 1371

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 north of Beverley Crescent, Bedford

Location plan

Current use of land

Playing Fields and Vacant

Adjoining use to the north

No answer given

Adjoining use to the south

Housing

Adjoining use to the east

Railway

Adjoining use to the west

Housing (new)/playing fields

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Nothing chosen

Number of dwellings proposed

200

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes , Flats

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

Other tenures proposed

Starter Homes

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 the submitted Illustrative Layout Plan. A new access is being provided from the development site to the west - Ref. 01/02199/EIA and undeveloped land to the east (former playing fields) (Ref. 16/03265/FUL). Link Road granted permission via planning appeal reference: Reference: APP/K0235/W/18/3208526

Is the site available for development now?

Don't know

Is the site currently subject to a planning application?

Is the site currently being marketed?

Don't know

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?

No answer given

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

Any development proposals would be designed in accordance with best practice.

Attachments

File: Land Ownership.pdf

File: Call for Sites - Indicative layout.pdf

Site size (ha)

6.98

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 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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?

x The site is 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?

x Protected species could be affected.

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 the urban area.

3c. Accessible on foot to a food store?

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

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?

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 site is not on 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?

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 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 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

Primary access via a new link road to King George Ave (already with planning permission), secondary access via existing link to Beverley Crescent south of the site. There is little traffic in the area except for some during the morning peaks on Bromham Rd. Approximatly 450m from the site, on Biddenham Turn, the 41 bus provides an hourly service between Northampton and Bedford. Both proposed access points have well-paved, wide pavements on both sides of the road. The access onto King George Ave connects directly to a shared pedestrian/cycle path. The development should encourage use of sustainable means of transport to prevent a worsening of the congestion on Bromham Rd during the morning peak. The site has excellent walking and cycling connections so the best way of achieving this would be to ensure that good walking and cycling infrastructure is continued within the site as well.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

predominant noise concerns will be rail traffic and noise from supermarkets across the rail line

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

The site is already allocated in the development plan for residential and, if required, educational use. LP2030 Policy 21.

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