Proposed Housing Development in Coventry City Voted Down by Councillors
Image Credit Frankie Fajardo
A proposed housing development has been put on hold by Coventry City Council’s planning committee. The proposed development, off Abbotts Lane and Upper Hill Street, failed to convince councillors of its benefit to the community.
But proposals were met with criticism from both the planning committee and residents with councillors deciding against the application.
The motion to allow the development was blocked with 4 voting against and one in favour. One abstained.
Cllr. Gavin Lloyd who raised the lack of parking spaces said, “you’d struggle to get a fag paper between the cars”. The issue of parking was raised by several councillors as a potential problem. But those in favour stressed the benefit of public transport. Paul Maddox, chair of the Coventry Society, extolled the virtues of public transport and recounted his journey to the chamber that day, by bus.
The development would provide 371 new homes. But said detractors only accounts for 239 parking spaces, however, according to a submission made by a member of the public, of these proposed spaces, only 3 are disabled bays. 22% of UK residents have a disability meaning that although disabled people are marginally less likely to drive, those who do, will require extra provision when parking.
The Department for Transport guidelines recommend at least 6% of all parking be specifically for the disabled, this would require the number of parking spaces to be at least 14, 11 fewer than the figure would account for. This would mean that unless the number of disabled residents were to be five times lower than the average, parking provisions would be insufficient to meet both government guidance and the needs of the residents.
Councillors, however, stressed the appeal to young professionals. But with 21% of the working-age population having a disability, and with 42% of these being physical disabilities, even if the development attracted a younger demographic the provisions would be practically and likely not meet the needs of residents. This was not closely interrogated by councillors or members of the public, who focused on the overall lack of parking.
Those in favour pointed to the success of pre-existing housing developments in the city with little to no parking facilities. It went unremarked that the accommodation cited as examples, CODE, being but one, are student accommodation consisting of shared flats and studios. These comprise bedroom-kitchen and En-suite. That this was not directly comparable to 1,2 and 3 bed homes was not mentioned.
Cllr. Stuart Walsh, in favour of the redevelopment of the site, pointed to the six-thousand families in Coventry currently searching for housing on the platform Homefinder. The benefit of the development to families seeking accommodation would be minimal, as, stressed those also in favour of the development, it is aimed at young professionals.
Cllr. Walsh also failed to mention that those searching for homes on the Homefinder platform would be unlikely to benefit from the development as Homefinder is the platform for social renting, in old money, that’s council houses and housing associations.
According to statistics from Coventry City Council an average of 284 bids are made for each 3-bedroom council property throughout Coventry.
Proponents of the development pivoted between the benefit to families seeking homes, when criticised for the scale of the development and the need for accommodation for young people, when limited parking was raised. A consistent argument was not raised by those in favour, instead deflecting in a game of housing ping pong.
Cllr. Simpson spoke of his experience of struggling to find a one to two-bed flat in Coventry. However, at time of writing, popular housing site, Right Move, lists 46, 1–2-bedroom flats in the city centre alone. Comparatively, 3–4-bedroom homes were numbered at only 3 in the same area.
From preliminary research alone, it is clear that Coventry requires family accommodation, not further investment in single or double occupancy housing.
Catherine Bentham, planning director at Stantec, said that young people would likely move away from the development in order to start families. She went on to praise the development, saying it would provide housing for “straight and LGBT couples”. Despite her raising of the acronym “LGBT”, no specific commitment has been made by the property developer, Complex Development Projects, to any protected characteristic and they have no documented commitment to advancing equality, or to taking government guidance on accessibility. Ms Bentham went on to describe the development as particularly appealing to young people, “yet to start a family, who are less likely to drive” and live what she called an “eco lifestyle”.
Cllr. Nazir, meanwhile, spoke of the impact of young people’s shopping habits, citing a reliance on deliveries would have an adverse effect on both traffic and air quality. Arguing this could have a detrimental impact in a cul-de-sac with little air circulation and that the overall non-resident traffic hadn’t been considered by the developers.
CDP, which initially proposed (but was denied) 731 homes, has failed to present an up-to-date health impact report, one was conducted but is now three years out of date. An air quality report still yet to be presented.
Concern has also been raised by West Midlands Police as the location and exits could create a Rendez-vous point for criminal acts, adding to the already high crime rate, 34% higher than the average in England and Wales.
Speaking to the committee, Nicola Rynott, headmistress of St Osburgs Catholic Primary School, opposite the proposed site spoke of her concerns. Citing the “impact on the surrounding roads and community” to be extensive, with the proposed exits for the development bringing heavy traffic directly opposite the gates of the school.
Developers plans she said, showed no bollards or roadblocks would be in place to ensure the safety of pupils.
Councillors spoke of the impact of poor housing developments on the community, claiming poorly planned housing developments increase the risk of crime, while statements from concerned residents were read in absentia by the court clerk, including one from a grandmother concerned that the height of the proposed 21 story flat block would overlook the school playground, leaving the children open to voyeurism.
Councillors queried the lack of proposed affordable housing. With developers claiming the viability assessment, conducted by Highgate Land and Development showed that any provision would make the project “unviable”. This was they said, as it would decrease profit.
Notably, the developers, CDP, have promised financial contributions to the Highways, with Highways officers threatening to object if the promise financial contributions are not met.
Cllr. Gavin Lloyd thanked developers for reducing the size of the proposed development saying it was, “leaps and bounds better” but went on to say the proposals put forward, although significantly scaled back remained wrong for the area.
A desire to develop the disused “brown-field” meant that although councillors disapproved of the plans, wholesale condemnation of development was not on the cards.
Fierce criticism was however made by Cllr. Randhir Aluck who questioned public money being used for a private venture that will provide no affordable housing and instead cater for a demographic already catered for within the Coventry housing market.
Support for the proposals was not cut across party lines.
Arguably, as stated by Cllr Ryan Simpson, this was an issue of particular concern to the lives and futures of young people, particularly young working professionals.
Building on brownfield sites is less controversial than building on the greenbelt still likely to cause local disputes as to whether the benefits outweigh the negatives.
According to the Campaign To Protect Rural England, brownfield sites are complex, having been pre-used the ecology and biodiversity of the areas can be of benefit to the local community, particularly regarding pollination.