Site Assessment Pro Formas

Object

Representation ID: 6696

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Peter David Homes Limited

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Sites 875 & 3417 – Land at Teazels, Green Lane, Renhold

As the Council is aware two options were presented in the call for sites submission for the land at Teazels. Site 875 was a smaller portion of the site, approximately 8 new homes and 3417 included the balance of the site with a total of 34 units.

The following comments are made in response to the summary site assessment sheets included within the Call for Site Proforma Document.

Criteria 1a & 8b Urban Area, Settlement Boundary, Settlement Form
1. The proforma notes that the site does not fall within the defined Bedford Urban Area, does not lie within or directly adjoin any Settlement Policy Area (SPA) boundary, nor is it within the built form of a small settlement.

2. It is agreed that the site does not lie within or directly adjoining the Bedford Urban Area. It is also agreed that the site does not lie within another (in this case the Renhold) SPA.

3. However, it is respectfully submitted that the site does lie very close to the Renhold SPA (outlined in blue on the image below). The site is only separated from it by Ravensden Road, approximately 10 metres.


[Site context map inserted.]

4. In addition to the defined SPA it is also highlighted that site relates well and should be considered to form part of the of this small settlement and groups of existing development.

5. Whilst the SPA as shown lies to the south / south west, there are residential groupings which form part of the settlement of Renhold to the north / north west and also east as shown yellow and orange on the image.

6. In summary, whilst the site does not physically adjoin an SPA boundary it is clearly closely related to it and development in this location would appear as a logical expansion of the village. This would include (as outlined in the call for sites submission) the potential to deliver a village open / play space or green for general public use which would provide a central focal point for the village.

Criteria 2a, b, c and d - Ecology
7. The assessment correctly notes that the site does not lie within or adjoining any sites of nature conservation importance but queries whether there may be some potential that development could impact ecological habitat / protected species at the site itself.

8. As noted in the original submission the site is well maintained grassland generally recognised as being of limited ecological value. The site boundaries and the southern portion of the site which lies within the floodplain (and so not proposed for development) would be enhanced as part of any proposal and so would overall offer a biodiversity next gain.

Criterion 4a - Heritage
9. Criterion 4a of the assessment notes that the development of the site has some potential to harm designated or non-designated heritage assets ranging from low to high impact. It is noted from discussions with Policy officers that this is a fairly generic statement which has been applied to most sites submitted and does not suggest that the site should not be developed, rather that further review of the matter is required.

10. The site does not lie within a Conservation Area. There are three listed building within approximately 40 – 60 metres of the site frontage. However, given the strong treeline along Ravensden Road and landscaping and boundary treatments surrounding the listed building there is little or no intervisibility between the site and these assets.

11. Development at the site would not be readily visible from and would not adversely impact the setting of these buildings. (Please see site analysis plan and document provided with the Call for Sites submission).

Criteria 9b - Agricultural Land
12. The site is small scale and not part of a viable agricultural holding. The general agricultural land classification maps show the area as Grade 3 i.e. not grade 1 or 2 (best and most versatile). This aspect is clearly not a constraint to an allocation of the land.

Criteria 11a - Flooding
13. The proforma notes that the southern portion of the land is partly located in Flood Zone 2 but also correctly highlights that the area where development is proposed is in Flood Zone 1. Flooding is not therefore a constraint to the development of the land.

Criteria 15 e and f Access
14. Under 15f the assessment notes and confirms that there are no access capacity constraints to the development of the land. 15e notes some access mitigation would be required in terms of provision of a new / wider access from Green Lane. This is of course correct and all land required to facilitate the access improvements lies within the promoters control and / or the public highway.

Conclusions
15. The promoted site is well related to existing the existing built form of Renhold with residential development wrapping around it on all sides and the assessment process carried out by the Council has confirmed that there are no material constraints to the development of the site.

16. The site remains available for consideration and readily deliverable upon allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6697

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Peter David Homes Limited

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Sites 875 & 3417 – Land at Teazels, Green Lane, Renhold

As the Council is aware two options were presented in the call for sites submission for the land at Teazels. Site 875 was a smaller portion of the site, approximately 8 new homes and 3417 included the balance of the site with a total of 34 units.

The following comments are made in response to the summary site assessment sheets included within the Call for Site Proforma Document.

Criteria 1a & 8b Urban Area, Settlement Boundary, Settlement Form
1. The proforma notes that the site does not fall within the defined Bedford Urban Area, does not lie within or directly adjoin any Settlement Policy Area (SPA) boundary, nor is it within the built form of a small settlement.

2. It is agreed that the site does not lie within or directly adjoining the Bedford Urban Area. It is also agreed that the site does not lie within another (in this case the Renhold) SPA.

3. However, it is respectfully submitted that the site does lie very close to the Renhold SPA (outlined in blue on the image below). The site is only separated from it by Ravensden Road, approximately 10 metres.


[Site context map inserted.]

4. In addition to the defined SPA it is also highlighted that site relates well and should be considered to form part of the of this small settlement and groups of existing development.

5. Whilst the SPA as shown lies to the south / south west, there are residential groupings which form part of the settlement of Renhold to the north / north west and also east as shown yellow and orange on the image.

6. In summary, whilst the site does not physically adjoin an SPA boundary it is clearly closely related to it and development in this location would appear as a logical expansion of the village. This would include (as outlined in the call for sites submission) the potential to deliver a village open / play space or green for general public use which would provide a central focal point for the village.

Criteria 2a, b, c and d - Ecology
7. The assessment correctly notes that the site does not lie within or adjoining any sites of nature conservation importance but queries whether there may be some potential that development could impact ecological habitat / protected species at the site itself.

8. As noted in the original submission the site is well maintained grassland generally recognised as being of limited ecological value. The site boundaries and the southern portion of the site which lies within the floodplain (and so not proposed for development) would be enhanced as part of any proposal and so would overall offer a biodiversity next gain.

Criterion 4a - Heritage
9. Criterion 4a of the assessment notes that the development of the site has some potential to harm designated or non-designated heritage assets ranging from low to high impact. It is noted from discussions with Policy officers that this is a fairly generic statement which has been applied to most sites submitted and does not suggest that the site should not be developed, rather that further review of the matter is required.

10. The site does not lie within a Conservation Area. There are three listed building within approximately 40 – 60 metres of the site frontage. However, given the strong treeline along Ravensden Road and landscaping and boundary treatments surrounding the listed building there is little or no intervisibility between the site and these assets.

11. Development at the site would not be readily visible from and would not adversely impact the setting of these buildings. (Please see site analysis plan and document provided with the Call for Sites submission).

Criteria 9b - Agricultural Land
12. The site is small scale and not part of a viable agricultural holding. The general agricultural land classification maps show the area as Grade 3 i.e. not grade 1 or 2 (best and most versatile). This aspect is clearly not a constraint to an allocation of the land.

Criteria 11a - Flooding
13. The proforma notes that the southern portion of the land is partly located in Flood Zone 2 but also correctly highlights that the area where development is proposed is in Flood Zone 1. Flooding is not therefore a constraint to the development of the land.

Criteria 15 e and f Access
14. Under 15f the assessment notes and confirms that there are no access capacity constraints to the development of the land. 15e notes some access mitigation would be required in terms of provision of a new / wider access from Green Lane. This is of course correct and all land required to facilitate the access improvements lies within the promoters control and / or the public highway.

Conclusions
15. The promoted site is well related to existing the existing built form of Renhold with residential development wrapping around it on all sides and the assessment process carried out by the Council has confirmed that there are no material constraints to the development of the site.

16. The site remains available for consideration and readily deliverable upon allocation.