Row over controversial plans for Luton social club site - as decision deferred

Meanwhile, a report on the plans “omits information about the huge number of Co-op club locally inclusive activities, its role as a community hub and its employees”, councillors were told.

The indoor and outdoor bowling facility off Stockingstone Road shares a site with the Co-op Sports and Social Club, which would be demolished under a proposed housing project.

Full plans of applicants Stonebond Properties (St Albans) Limited and Co-operative Group Limited for 63 houses with an access, parking and landscaping were deferred by the borough council’s development management committee.

A 1,376-signature petition has been submitted and an attempt made for community asset recognition, which was rejected.

Bowls clubs member Peter Hill told the committee: “The bowls clubs have been unable to develop properly because of the uncertainty around the site.

“The residents on plots 58 to 63 would have no quality of life because of the comings and goings of club members until 10.30pm for some social events,” he warned. “Removing those plots would enable the clubs to have a contained parking area.

“There should be a specific condition allowing continued use on reasonable and agreed terms before any development begins.The Local Plan requires the bowls clubs to remain on sustainable terms.

“To date, no agreement has been reached. The current lease secured on the bowls clubs expires next April. The significant aspect is that there’s no security of tenure whatever happens, despite some months of talks between the applicants and the clubs.

“There might be some questions about whether it can be agreed on reasonable terms, without a well-drafted and tight condition on any planning consent.”

Speaking on behalf of residents and the Co-op club members, Ruth Shield said: “The report omits information about the huge number of Co-op club locally inclusive activities, its role as a community hub and its employees.

“These include live bands, darts and snooker leagues, weddings, funerals and religious group worship. No plan is in place for these or the staff losing their jobs.

“The woodland meets the criteria of a high priority statutory habitat of principal importance. The Bioscan report says the biodiversity net gain is incorrect on all four of the metrics under the applicant’s documents.

“The Environment Agency has just opened a critical incident case on this site. This report would be fundamentally vulnerable in a judicial review.”

Liberal Democrat Round Green councillor Gillian Fry explained: “I’d ask for a deferral and for the council to re-enter talks with the developer to hopefully address the concerns raised by our community.

“Referring to the social club as ‘former’ or implying it’s closed is erroneous. It fails to meet accessibility needs. I find that abhorrent.

“The site is officially allocated for 56 homes within the Local Plan, yet the developer is aggressively pushing for 63. This excess pressure will break our local infrastructure, swallow up parking and overwhelm our environmental assets.

“We can’t afford to lose valuable wildlife, such as the bats. This isn’t a travesty, it’s murder. Compounding this ecological tragedy is the developer’s failure to show any credible biodiversity net gain.”

The applicants’ representative said: “We acknowledge the northern woodland loss, but new planting would provide partial mitigation, with off-site habitat compensation required.

“Our tree consultants confirm their assessment follows a relevant British standard. Appropriate protection and supervision can safeguard the retained trees and the preservation orders are supported for three of the trees.

“There’s a clear limitation on the Bioscan report. Its consultants didn’t visit the site, challenging the habitat classification without having inspected those areas themselves.”

A decision on the plans was deferred for a site visit – and will return to the November meeting.