A Government Inspector has granted planning permission for the proposed Abbotts Park development on the former gasworks site adjoining the Ring Road.
Abbotts Park is the 5.5-acre derelict former gas works site on Abbotts Lane, just outside the city centre. It is planned to provide 710 homes with a mix of three-bedroom townhouses and one and two-bedroom apartments with the new Radford Brook Linear Park as the centrepiece to the development. The scheme includes 244 car parking spaces and 20% affordable housing.
The Coventry Society supported the development proposals as did the Council Planning Officers when the application was reported to committee in November 2022.
West Midlands Mayor Andy Street supported the proposal and the West Midlands Combined Authority provided £6 million for remediation and the creation of the linear park through the site. Without that money this scheme would have been unviable.
However, the Council’s Planning Committee, made up of councillors, overruled its officers and refused the application. The following month the developer, Complex Development Projects Ltd., appealed the decision. A public enquiry was held in June 2023 and a decision reached this month.
The main objections by the Council to the development were:
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
- The impact of the scheme on traffic and air quality;
- The housing mix proposed;
- The amount of affordable housing; and
- The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing residents.
In a carefully detailed examination of the arguments the Inspector, Paul Griffiths, refuted all of the Council’s claims and found in favour of the developer.
He felt that the design was of high quality and would bring a significant improvement to the environment of the area. The scheme was in keeping with the local area and its heritage buildings and would not have a significant impact on the living conditions of existing residents.
He felt that the housing mix needs to be considered on a city level and was acceptable for this scheme. The economics of the scheme did not justify the requirement of 25% affordable housing, but the developer’s agreement to provide 20% affordable housing, supported by the West Midlands Combined Authority, although defined differently, was acceptable.
The council’s claims about the impact of the scheme on traffic and air quality left them with embarrassing contradictions. The Council ended up by objecting to the excessive amount of car parking in the scheme, in full contradiction to what the local residents were objecting to.
Although he approved the scheme, it was clear that the Inspector did not support the level of car parking included in the final scheme (increased from the previous scheme). He said “the site seems to me to be an ideal candidate for a ‘car free’ development that provides the absolute minimum amount of car parking.”
In an interesting discourse on the Section 106 contributions required of the scheme, the Inspector implied that he would not have required the large contributions to education and healthcare that have been required. However, as the developer had already agreed them, he would not change this. He felt that with a scheme like this, where a derelict site was being restored for the benefit of the city, at considerable risk to the developer, it was not reasonable to load them with such extra costs.
Planning legislation permits the awarding of costs where one of the parties in an appeal has behaved unreasonably, and this has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. In this appeal both the appellants, Complex Development Projects, and the Council applied for costs. The developers claimed that in respect of each of the Council’s objections they had not behaved reasonably. This was agreed by the inspector who granted costs against the Council. It is believed that the costs might be in the region of £300, 000.
In a cheeky move, the Council counter-claimed that they had incurred extra expense as a result of having to refute the developer’s claim for costs. This was given short shrift by the Inspector!
Lessons to be learned
The Council has long claimed that it has a “brownfield first” policy. This claim has recently been dented by the decisions to refuse this application and to approve the development of its own greenfield land in the Coundon Wedge. At least one of these mistakes has now been put right.
The whole episode is a complete embarrassment for the elected councillors and one that should not go unaddressed.
The Inspector’s decision on Abbotts Park has many lessons for the council:
- When Council officers recommend the approval of a planning application and the Planning Committee disagree, the committee needs to have sound reasons to overrule the recommendation. Political considerations are not an acceptable planning reason for refusing an application. Planning Committee is unique in local government in that it has to be free of politics.
- The Planning Committee members need to understand the Coventry Local Plan and the Council’s other planning policies. It is clear that in this case they did not! There is a need for a training programme for the councillors on Planning Committee, to avoid making further policy errors.
- We believe that Planning Committee should be led by a councillor who is qualified in planning or has had full training in planning matters.
- It is clear that there has been a significant cost to the people of Coventry as a result of the Council’s approach to this decision and appeal. There needs to be proper accountability for these mistakes. We believe that the Council’s Scrutiny Committees should independently look into this matter and identify the mistakes made and identify actions to avoid problems in the future.
We commend Complex Project Developments for its diligence in pursuing this difficult development and we wish them the best in its implementation.