Call for Sites

Back to document

Search form responses

Results for R and J Harrison search

New search

Form ID: 515

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?

N/A

Address of site

Land to the east of Ravensden Church End, Bedford

Location plan

Current use of land

Agriculture

Adjoining use to the north

Agriculture

Adjoining use to the south

Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Agriculture

Adjoining use to the west

Residential

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Housing , Retail , All other types

Number of dwellings proposed

Type of housing proposed

Family houses , Self-build/Custom build homes

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

30 dph net, 15 dph gross

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

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of retail

Convenience store

Net floorspace proposed

150 sq. m.

Gross floorspace proposed

300 sq. m. - convenience store with ancillary storage.

Number of hotel rooms proposed

No answer given

Amount of development proposed

3 hectares of parkland and leisure uses

Description

Parkland, play area, sports pitches

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

The current access is unsuitable/requires improvement

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

There is a existing access from Church End as well as from farmland at Crowhill Farm. It would be proposed to upgrade the existing site access off Church End.

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)

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?

Year 5 (2028)

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

The proposed development would assist in the response to climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed dwellings would be energy and water efficient and well insulated. They would have means of generating renewable energy and would be fitted with EV charging points. The site would have a SuDS and address climate change. The development would deliver significant net gains in biodiversity, far exceeding 10%, through provision of parkland and landscaping. The development would assist in enhancing services and facilities, and provide a village store at Ravensden Church End, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the local community.

Attachments

File: Masterplan.pdf

Site size (ha)

6.32

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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 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?

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?

? 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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 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?

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?

+ 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?

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?

+ 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?

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

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

? Uncertain or insufficient information.

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?

x A site accessibility score of 4 is recorded where 4 is 21 – 30 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?

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

? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

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

The site is located on the east side of Church End in the village of Ravensden approximately 4.5 miles northeast of Bedford town centre. Access to the site is feasible via Church End. Church Lane experiences moderate traffic congestion. The nearest bus stop is located 50m from the site access point. There are footways on both sides of Church lane and cycling is possible on-road. A Transport Assessment will be required to identify the impact of traffic and satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Another access point on the south east corner of the site should be considerated for the proposal of that size. The proposal will require roads to adoptable standards in accordance with Bedford Borough Council's highway standards in terms of accommodating the carriageway/footway widths and the required radius kerbs.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

no residential noise concerns but retail or employment likely to harm amenity

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.