A CONTROVERSIAL planning application for up to 690 flats for land off Abbotts Lane and Upper Hill Street is set to go to appeal with a hearing earmarked for June 6.
The developer, Complex Development Projects, has appealed the decision made by Coventry City Council’s planning committee to reject the hybrid application.
The inquiry is programmed to have eight sitting days.
A previous application for outline permission for 731 residential units was refused on the site in January 2021.
Two petitions were presented at November’s planning committee meeting which were both sponsored by Coun Gavin Lloyd.
Arguments included the development potentially increasing crime and anti-social behaviour, greater air pollution from increased traffic in an air quality management area and road safety fears from additional traffic and on-street parking.
The petitions also argued while development on-site was supported, it was allocated for 100 homes in the Coventry Local Plan as opposed to almost 700 flats.
However, the agent for the proposal, claimed this was incorrect and the allocation was in line with government policy which encouraged the best use of land.
She added national guidance dictated housing numbers should be seen as a minimum.
Nicola Rynott, the headteacher at nearby St Osburg’s Catholic Primary School, said she believed the development could negatively affect the safety, wellbeing and quality of life for pupils, the school community and the neighbourhood.
The Coventry Society supported the development with vice-chair Paul Maddocks saying it felt this was the future, adding no one was going to want to drive cars in an ideal future.
Coun David Welsh, who also supported the application, said the city had a housing need including a variety of different housing types, adding he felt there was a genuine alternative to using the car with this scheme.
“This scheme is unviable for affordable homes but it does make contributions to Section 106 and they do have an agreement that can’t be considered through planning means around introducing affordable housing as part of the scheme.”
Reasons for refusal included the committee deciding the proposal was an over-development of the site and was considered unacceptable in terms of scale, massing, height and impact on air quality.
The committee also felt the proposed 239 parking spaces were ‘insufficient’ and the housing mix was described as ‘unsuitable’ with no family housing with gardens.
The committee was unpersuaded it was acceptable for the site to have no affordable housing.
