Objectors applaud as £90 million shopping centre plans are rejected

The proposals for the £90 million, 21,500sqm, Clarendon Arcade in the town centre, to be built on the site of the Chandos Street car park, were first conceived in 2007 and had been the subject of much review and consultation.

They were led by Warwick District Council’s development partner Wilson Bowden and promoted as a project which would protect and enhance the vitality and economic well-being of the town centre.

But the council’s planning committee went against the recommendation of the authority’s own planning officers, who in a report recommending approval had cited Government announcements in favour of ‘sustainable’ development and economic growth.

More than 100 respondents had objected to the plans including Leamington Town Council, for whom Cllr Simon Lytton (Lib Dem, Crown) said: “It’s the sheer size and bulk of this property that forms the basis or our objections but we’re also concerned about the detrimental and visual impact of other properties in the conservation area.

“It’s of great concern to the town council that the identity of Leamington is not lost or harmed by excessive developments, we don’t want to become an identikit town centre and we want to preserve what makes Leamington special both locally and nationally.”

The reasons committee members gave for the refusal were based mainly on the size of the development and the effect it would have on those living nearby, particularly residents of Clarendon Avenue.

Cllr Elizabeth Higgins (Con, Warwick West) described the proposal as a “red brick monstrosity” while Cllr John Barrott (Lab, Leamington Willes) said he was “flabbergasted” at the scale of the application.

Most councillors agreed regeneration is needed in the town centre but questioned the viability of a new shopping centre during the current economic climate, with some members suggesting that more shops would be detrimental to other businesses in the town centre and could draw trade away from the south of the town.

There was also concern at the current number of empty shops.

Cllr Ann Blacklock (Lib Dem, Kenilworth Abbey) said: “Leamington needs new investment if it is to remain attractive to shoppers and visitors and I do want it to be a strong sub-regional shopping centre.

“I also accept there’s a strong need for a large anchor store to fill a gap in the need.

“But I’m not sure there is a need for the other units that are being offered in this scheme and they could be equally likely to undermine the viability of the town centre as a whole.”

David Ward, planning director for Wilson Bowden, had warned that the plan could be the difference between the town centre thriving or declining and this suggestion was supported by Cllr Alan Rhead (Con, Budbrooke) who said: “Leamington is either going to thrive or die and I’d rather it survives.

“The situation with the economy is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy and if we keep talking it down it won’t improve.

“The Leamington Chamber of Trade is very much in favour of this, they represent all business both large and small, and I think we need to listen to them.”

Cllr George Illingworth (Con, Kenilworth Abbey), the committee’s chairman, said the outcome had proven to be a “sad evening” for the town.

He added: “All this effort has gone into something which would be wonderful for the town if it were a scheme which would improve things and would be welcomed.

“Instead of that it seemed to have drawn so much objection.”

DEVELOPER Wilson Bowden has responded to the planning committee’s decision.

David Ward, planning director, said: “Following over four years’ work in developing this scheme as the preferred development partner, we are profoundly disappointed with the decision, especially as the site was identified by the council to meet existing retail need and to help the town resist the ever present threat of further out of centre development.

“In light of the evidence base that supports the additional retail requirement alongside the great care taken in respect of the scheme’s design, it remains our strong belief that these proposals are not only needed but are appropriate in terms of scale and their effects on the amenity of nearby residents.

“Importantly, the professional officers of the council endorsed such conclusions in their own report to members.

“We are seeking to hold further discussions with the council prior to deciding on any future course of action with regards to this unique and valuable project.”