150-home outline scheme at Land Rear of 2 To 44, Crawley Road, Cranfield

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 150 homes, access from Crawley Road, green infrastructure, play areas and related works.

“APPLICATION NUMBERCB/24/03618/OUT LOCATIONLand Rear of 2 To 44, Crawley Road, Cranfield PROPOSALOutline Application: up to 150 dwellings, site access and highway works, green infrastructure including sustainable drainage, ecological habitats, children's play areas and amenity green space, and ancillary works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was paddock land north of Cranfield, between Crawley Road and Bourne End Road, outside the settlement envelope and near open countryside.

“Central Bedfordshire’s 5-year housing land supply position has been updated since Members considered the item. The Council now has a 4.83 year supply of deliverable housing sites (as of 1 st April 2026), previously it was 4.85 years. The updated position was published in May 2026. This change is reflected in the main body of the report and does not alter the original recommendation for approval.”

“The southern boundary of the site is adjoined by residential dwellings in Crawley Road, Birch Close and Bourne End Road. Residential dwellings are also sited to the east on the opposite side of Bourne End Road. Cranfield United Football Club is sited to the west of the site on the opposite side of Crawley Road, with Cranfield Airport beyond that. To the north and north-west is open countryside. Hedgerow planting largely defines the perimeter of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for 198 and 222 homes were refused, and an appeal was dismissed because of harm to the area’s character and appearance.

“An appeal was lodged against the second refusal but was dismissed on the basis that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Summary of Planning History: In terms of key planning history, previous planning applications ref. CB/16/02039/OUT and CB/17/00976/OUT sought residential development at the site.”

“1)Urbanisation of the open countryside outside of the Settlement Envelopment; scale and form of the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and result in unacceptable extension to Cranfield. The scale of development would generate substantial traffic movement on rural roads. 2)Development in conjunction with other development in Cranfield would result in unreasonable demand on infrastructure.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended approval because housing benefits would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the identified harm, subject to obligations and conditions.

“13.2When the item was presented to Members on 8 April 2026 the Council had 4.85 years supply of deliverable housing sites. This has been updated and is now 4.83 years. It remains therefore that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land (currently 4.83 years) and as such, Policy SP7 is deemed out of date and the 'tilted balance' is engaged.”

“As set out in the foregoing appraisal it is considered that any adverse impacts identified with the proposals would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivering housing on the site to a degree that would warrant the refusal of planning permission. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a S106 agreement to secure the planning obligations identified, and subject to the conditions set out.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a parish councillor, an objector, two ward members and the applicant’s agent.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for harm to the area’s character, an unsustainable form of development and the absence of a signed legal agreement.

“That the application be REFUSED subject to referral to the Secretary of State for the following reasons; 1. Impact on the character of the area; 2. Unsustainable form of development leading to reliance on the private car and impact on local services 3. Absence of signed S106 Agreement.”

“On being put to the vote, 8 Members voted to refuse the application, 0 members voted against approval 0 members abstained.”

Minutes