Agenda item

Agenda item

Planning Application No. CB/18/01651/RM (Toddington)


Address:       Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington

(nearest postcode LU5 6LD).


Reserved Matters following Outline Approval CB/14/02348/OUT Redevelopment up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision. Demolition of existing bungalow.


Applicant:     W E Black Ltd





The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/01651/RM, a reserved matters application following Outline Approval CB/14/02348/OUT for the redevelopment of up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision and the demolition of the existing bungalow at Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington.


Members were aware that the application had originally been submitted for consideration to the Committee on 6 February 2019 but this had been deferred for one cycle (minute DM/18/130 refers).


In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses as set out in the Late Sheet.


(Note: Councillor Berry re-entered the Chamber during the officer’s introduction to this item.  Being unable to participate in the related discussion and decision, he left the Chamber).


In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Parish Councillor Mary Walsh of Harlington Parish Council (which objected to the application) and the applicant’s agent, William Macleod.


The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:


·         The plans included in the original, and approved, Outline application were indicative only and showed a potential layout for the site.  The applicants had subsequently altered this and, by doing so, had generated benefits by pulling the development away from the conservation area.  In addition the resulting openness facilitated views of the conservation area from Station Road.

·         The Parish Council had been consulted when the application was originally received and its concerns noted.

·         The existing surrounding homes were two storey houses and the proposed new dwellings were three storey flats.  At outline stage they were shown as relatively large blocks, two and a half storeys high.  The proposed increase in height to three stories was not considered detrimental to the wider character of the area.

·         To mitigate overlooking of the existing two storey dwellings, four balconies had been removed from Block B and replaced by Juliet balconies.  Block A would have privacy screens on the balconies closest to the properties in Park Leys.

·         A large band of trees separated the site from neighbouring properties, mostly those in Christian Close, Prudence Close and Pilgrims Close.

·         The development faced towards the flank elevations of the existing properties.  The windows in the elevations were mainly secondary or obscure glazed so the overlooking was not considered so detrimental as to justify refusal.

·         The number of affordable homes (five) was negotiated at outline stage.


A ward Member commented that the application site had been deserted for eight years, having been a transport site prior to that.  It was a brownfield site which met the necessary criteria for development and how development of such sites was preferable.  He was grateful that the applicant had rearranged the layout to accommodate the conservation area although, historically, large lorries had turned in and out on that land.  His only concern related to overlooking Park Leys and, in particular, Prudence Close but the offset distance at that point was significant and the relative landscape heights were more acceptable on that southern end of the development.  He felt the developer had done as much as was possible to meet the objections whilst not straying too far from the outline permission.  It was also necessary to be aware of viability.


The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:


·         There was a strong body of opinion that wanted brownfield sites to be developed first.  There are few such sites in Central Bedfordshire.

·         The Council was bound by government policy and although it was not yet part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) there had been lengthy discussion on allowing ‘permission in principle’ for brownfield sites.

·         The current application was sympathetic to the band of trees and adjacent conservation area.


On being put to the vote 11 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.




that Planning Application No. CB/18/01651/RM relating to Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.




Supporting documents: