Decision over controversial housing project at Luton social club site deferred

Borough councillors want more reassurance around some of the ecological issues, which prompted “a strong objection” from the local authority’s arboricultural officer and opposition from CPRE Bedfordshire.

Applicants Stonebond Properties (St Albans) Limited and Co-operative Group Limited want to build 63 homes, with access, parking and landscaping, on the five-and-a-half-acre site off Stockingstone Road in Round Green.

This would involve demolishing the sports and social club and disused tennis courts, although the Co-operative Luton Bowls Club indoor and outdoor facilities would remain, according to a report to the council’s development management committee.

But aspects of the development, including access to parking spaces and the proximity of six houses, are a concern for the bowls club, which is currently negotiating new terms with the council.

Principal planner for LBC David Hall told the committee: “This delivers an appropriate housing mix which is aligned to the identified housing need in Luton.

“That demand is for family-size accommodation, particularly two-bed, three-bedroom and four-bed properties as provided by this application. The council doesn’t have a five-year housing land supply compounded by its failure of the housing delivery test.

“The principle of development is acceptable, with the caveat the bowls facility is retained. The requirement is that development within the settlement should be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.

“The parking availability includes 62 spaces for the use of the bowling club, with a management plan to monitor effectively their use for its members. Visitor spaces are allocated throughout the site, as are those for residential occupiers.

“The ecology consultant’s response raised no objection to the development on those grounds. If the matters raised in a Bioscan report were agreed, the developer would have to pay more in biodiversity net gain credits.

“An application to list the social club as an asset of community value has been refused since the committee report was written. There’s no right of appeal against that decision, other than by judicial review.

“It’s considered the weight to the benefits of the application substantially outweighs the loss of the social club and of some trees on the site.”

Liberal Democrat Vauxhall councillor Lee Bridgen referred to the strong objection from the arboricultural officer and the lack of an officer-led visit to the site, saying the scheme should be deferred.

LBC’s interim head of planning Clive Inwards replied: “We’re unlikely to get this officer’s support as the application involves the loss of a significant amount of trees.

“We’ve attributed more weight to the housing benefits, while recognising the tree officer’s objection.”

Operations manager for arboriculture, landscape and nature conservation for the council Robert Widd “strongly objects” to the application “because of the volume of vegetation and trees being cited for removal”.

CPRE Bedfordshire opposes the plans because of “the loss of a community facility and an area of green space”, as well as “the resulting damage to habitats and ecological networks”.

After a unanimous vote, Labour Farley councillor Dave Taylor, who chairs the committee, said: “This item will be deferred for a site visit by members, and will return at November’s meeting.”