Call for Sites

Back to document

Search form responses

Results for Peter David Homes Limited search

New search

Form ID: 875

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 at Teazels, Green Lane, Renhold. (Option 1 of 2: for 8 dwellings)

Location plan

Current use of land

Grass/grazing land

Adjoining use to the north

Residential

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Agricultural

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

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

16 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?

The site would be accessed from Green Lane via Brook Lane as shown on the accompanying indicative plan

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?

2024

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

Please see accompanying statement

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

0.49

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

x The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or 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 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.

++ 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?

x The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or 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 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?

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?

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?

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

11a. At risk of flooding?

? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

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?

x The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or 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 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 access includes an existing gate and fence line providing access to the field, from Green Lane via Brook Lane. Traffic generation from this development would have little impact on the local network. Could provide footway connection to existing footway on Ravensden Road, however this also needs improvement. No dedicated cycleways in the vicinity, however north section of Ravensden Road is considered a quiet road and the area is lightly trafficked which makes it conducive for cyclists. The nearest bus stop is within a 100m walk from the proposed access and serves the number 27 bus which operates <1 bus per hour. Provide connectivity to footway on Ravenden Road. The 27 bus service in the area would benefit from increased frequency.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

No answer given

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.

Form ID: 3417

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 at Teazels, Green Lane, Renhold. (option 2: for 34 dwellings)

Location plan

Current use of land

Grass / Grazing Land

Adjoining use to the north

Residential

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the west

Residential

Has the site been developed previously?

Nothing chosen

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

20 dph

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

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?

The site would be accessed from Green Lane via Brook Lane as shown on the accompanying indicative plan

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?

2024

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

Please see accompanying statement ('Supporting Statement 8 Houses' in attachments).

Attachments

File: Supporting Statement 8 Houses.pdf

Site size (ha)

1.98

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

x The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or 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 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.

++ 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?

x The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or 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 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

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?

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?

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

11a. At risk of flooding?

? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.

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?

x The site is not within or adjoining the urban area or 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 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

Includes site 875. Access would be via narrow Green Lane onto Brook Lane, which then connects to Ravensden Road. Green Lane is too narrow to acccomodate access to the site within the current red line boundary, so access may depend on ownership of land to the west to facilitate expansion. There is very little traffic congestion in the area and the size of this development would likely make no material impact. There is a bus stop within 100m where the 27 bus provides four daily services between Great Barford and Bedford. There is a pavement going both direction on Ravensden Road but not on Brook Lane, however there is space to extend the pavement to the site, which is only 40m away. Cycling along Hookhams Lane is feasible and connects to a shared path approx 1km from the site.Confirm if widening of access via Green Lane will be possible. Extend the pavement from Ravensden Road along Brook Lane to connect to the site entrance on Green Lane - approximately 40m in total.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

No answer given

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.

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