Developer primed to appeal rejection of Rugby homes plan

Agent Debbie Farrington of Cedra Planning, representing the developer, slammed Rugby Borough Council’s planning professionals in her address to the committee of elected councillors tasked with making the final decision on plans for land to the north of Rounds Gardens, Rugby.

Submitted in February 2024, they would have seen disused football and tennis facilities and sports pavilion make way for a mix of one-to-four-bed homes. More than 300 objections have come forward over time and officers – the council’s employed professionals – listed six reasons for the plans to be thrown out.

It was said that the applicants had not adequately demonstrated mitigation for flood risk and highway safety and capacity, while the the loss of protected trees and the sports facilities – despite being disused it was deemed there remains a need for them in Rugby – was deemed unacceptable.

Design was also a problem, including the argument that the land would not be densely populated enough in comparison to neighbouring town centre developments.

Ms Farrington said the developer had been “disappointed” by the report, arguing the case was being heard too soon and that most problems could be resolved “in a very short timescale”.

She said issues with the method of flood testing were “never raised by officers” and that “since finding out this is a reason for refusal, we have instructed a sequential test to address this”.

On the sports provision, she said the developer’s view that it was a “lapsed” site had been “agreed with officers prior to submission”, while they would have been content with a further road safety audit and were awaiting feedback from highways authority Warwickshire County Council on junction modelling that they “do not anticipate an objection to”.

She added that 159 replacement trees are proposed with most of the protected trees to be retained and claimed that “officers have refused to engage with us to understand the constraints” in relation to design, implying that greater density would affect rules on garden sizes, separation distances and parking, the latter being a key concern for objectors.

“The application is being brought to committee prematurely,” said Ms Farrington.

“Advice has been sought and the applicant is prepared to appeal against refusal on the strength of the advice received.

“We encourage members to support this application. Failing that, we ask that the decision be deferred to allow time for the outstanding highways and flood risk matters to be resolved.”

When asked, council planning officer Ella Casey said: “There has been engagement throughout the whole of the past year, also prior engagement with pre-application processes.”

Fielding a further question on design rules, Ms Casey confirmed Rugby doesn’t have its own design code but was “looking to introduce one as part of the new local plan”, stating this application had been judged against national standards.

Councillor Toby Lawrence (Con, Bilton) was convinced by the agent’s plea for more time, seeing the benefits of developing the site at a time when higher housing targets look likely to result in fresh encroachment into Rugby's green belt.

“We have this land that has been derelict for as long as I can remember, so I don’t find the argument strong in terms of sports pitches,” he said.

“I find the sustainability of the location and the need to build there very strong. Layout and design, from the pictures I saw it looked okay, there is no design code being applied and it can always be made better. That could have been a conversation, to help the developers make it look better.

“I never like trees being chopped down but then I get told we are going to build on green belt.”

Adding that a lack of definitive answers on flooding and highways would make a proper decision impossible, he argued: “We need to build in this place because of the strain we have on housing demand. I can understand the reasons for objections but I think some of those can be removed.”

His thinking did not gain much support, though, with rejection backed by eight votes to two.

Councillor Neil Sandison (Lib Dem, Eastlands) said: “There has been ample time to resolve most of the matters raised.

“I am not sure whether deferring it would be prolonging the agony for the applicant. It doesn’t meet our design statement criteria, there are concerns regarding highways and the loss of mature trees is significant because every mature tree can hold about 40 gallons of water at a time.

“On balance, I think the officer has proven beyond reasonable doubt that this application should be refused – the applicant has the right to appeal, the residents don’t.”