Suspicions lead councillors to delay planning call for Kenilworth site allocated for 550 homes

Applicants Stantec want to build 144 homes on a site that has outline approval – in-principle permission – at Thickthorn, Kenilworth, but the detailed proposals are not in line with what councillors were expecting.

This latest phase is the second of three on a site allocated for 550 homes, employment land, a local centre and a primary school.

Work on the 98 homes in phase one is already underway.

Read more: Have your say on possible university expansion and student accommodation in Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth

The biggest concern is over the spine road that would serve the wider development.

During his presentation, planning officer Dan Charles said: “This application no longer proposes the spine road in full because there are issues with the alignment from a highways perspective.

“In order to get that right, it was easier to omit it from this scheme and engage with highways at a later date for the next phase, which is likely to follow off the back of this phase.

“The spine road itself is required by condition to be delivered prior to the construction of 475 dwellings and/or 55 per cent of the employment land.

"We are currently within that 475.”

Much was made of that by objectors, including district and town councillors representing Kenilworth , who argued the knock-on effect on local roads would be significant.

Councillor Bill Gifford (Lib, Leamington Milverton) said: “I am always told we need to treat each individual planning application on its own merits.

“Here we are being asked to look at an individual application on the merits of a potential future planning application.”

He also addressed the affordable housing mix, which the council’s report acknowledged would have been a reason to object were it not for consideration of potential future applications.

“We don’t yet know what the further applications [are going to look like],” added Cllr Gifford.

“It is one of the problems of having different parcels of application for this one site.

"It is very difficult to come to a sensible conclusion for a site when it is being decided by different planning applications and treated as one site when it suits.”

Mr Charles admitted the housing mix would have been a “significant concern” for a standalone application and, when pressed, said it would be possible to refuse the next phase if it does not address those matters.

Cllr Gifford then came back in.

“Yes, but if we refused it, quite legitimately, then the spine road would not be built,” he continued.

“That would put pressure on us to approve something, this is the real problem of having the applications in parcels rather than a full application for the entire site, which is what you would expect.

“The spine road is clearly a major issue.

"It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to ask for the spine road to be built before any houses are occupied.

"Essentially we are asking for what the supplementary planning document was expecting.”

Legal advisor Sue Mullins was later asked by Councillor James Kennedy (Green, Kenilworth Park Hill) whether a decision to refuse based on failure to complete the spine road now would stand up.

“I think the difficulty you have is you are bound by the conditions on the outline permission, which will have taken into account that development brief,” she replied.

“The additional difficulty you have is that the county council is quite happy with a trigger (475 homes) that is not the same as in the development brief.

"I haven’t heard any evidence to support anything other than the county council’s (position).

“If you are concerned about the provision of that spine road then I really do think you need to hear from the county council before you make that decision.”

Cllr Kennedy added: “I think all of us have expressed great concern about this spine road and the lack of access.

“My proposal would be that we have representation from the county’s highways department before we determine this.”

His proposal was unanimously accepted with councillors also keen to see the location of the multi-use games area moved on safety grounds and a report from an environmental health officer on air quality and noise concerns from the nearby A46.