Key questions remain as Rugby councillors vote through controversial Cawston housing plan

The application was voted through 8-4 by members of Rugby Borough Council’s planning committee at its meeting last week, despite Cawston parish councillor Richard Bishop and borough councillor Michael Moran (Lab, Admirals and Cawston) attending the meeting to voice opposition on behalf of the community.

The site in question sits alongside Heritage Close, the access road to the Cawston shops.

It was originally intended for further community use such as a GP surgery or pub – an obligation that lapsed in 2008 – and the meeting heard Cllr Bishop say how many people bought their houses on the basis that is what it would be used for.

In his address to the committee he said while some changes had been made to the homes plan under consideration, a number of concerns remained and the community still wanted it to be considered for a community use.

The Advertiser reported last week that the applicant Poonah Investments Ltd, which developed the existing shops, has current County Cllr Kam Kaur (Con, Bilton and Hillside) as a director.

Cllr Bishop said while recognising the sale, purchase and planning application had followed due process, ‘the optics’ of it did not look good.

He asked the committee to consider the speed of the deal and the involvement of a sitting county councillor: “Does this look like a deal conducted behind closed doors and waved through?”

He urged the committee to reject the application and for Poonah to have further discussions with the community.

The council’s legal officer swiftly reminded committee members that Cllr Kaur’s involvement was irrelevant to the consideration of the planning application.

But while that ruled out further discussion of how it looked when a county councillor was involved in an application to a borough council controlled by the same party, there was further intrigue around the issue Cllr Bishop raised about the timings.

In the previous article from the Advertiser we reported how the land had been sold last year.

A statement from the owners Hallam Land Management said: “Part of the consent included a small area for a local centre which now includes a convenience store and car park, but no further interest for retail.

"It was therefore decided in 2021 to undertake a pre-application discussion with the council with a view to selling the site, unconditionally, pre-consent, for a residential scheme capable of delivering up to nine, two and three bed dwellings.

"With a positive council response, HLM began sales negotiations with Poonah Investments Ltd who purchased the site, unconditionally in April 2022 for £500,000.”

With the planning application being registered with the borough council on April 27, there was clear evidence of things happening at speed.

But when Poonah’s agent Richard Cooke addressed the meeting he gave a different version of the timings.

He told the committee: “They bought the application site in 2019 and went on to explore different options to expand the neighbourhood centre which was their preference.”

He then described how they had approached pub operators and others without success.

After the meeting, the Advertiser put the issue of the discrepancy over the timing of Poonah’s purchase of the land to Mr Cooke.

He said: “The applicant has liaised with the estate developer since 2019 and purchased the application site from them in 2022.

"Since 2019, they have explored all options to expand the Neighbourhood Centre as a preference, despite the S106 obligation to market for these uses having lapsed.”

Cllr Moran’s address then followed and he said: “Every household in Cawston was told when they purchased their properties that this subject field was earmarked for community use.

“That’s its position in the original planning documents for the estate and for over 20 years until this planning application landed nobody knew otherwise.

"This site was never included in the Local Plan. The applicant did not take part in any pre-app consultation.

"Residents had no involvement in the site’s designation, nor has the parish council. That is a democratic deficit.”

He went on to criticise the effectiveness of what is known as a sunset clause, the device used to give the site initial priority for community use.

Cllr Moran said these clauses were no longer used. He said the owner had to market the site at open market value and with a residential site in the centre of Cawston likely to achieve a higher value than any community use, a private company looking to get best value for shareholders was not likely to accept a lower offer.

But he added in this case he didn’t know what had happened.

He said: “I formally requested the documents to see proof the council received of marketing and I’ve been told that they don’t exist. I don’t think that’s right. How can I represent my residents or you discharge your democratic duties if there’s an absence of proof that consultation or marketing ever took place?”

With the plan being for ten houses on the site, he went on to criticise the density of the proposal and said the borough was meeting its requirement to have a five-year supply of land for housing.

He added: “When is enough enough? When do we consider the amenity of local residents?”

He urged the committee to reject the plan.

The vote went through – though in the discussion there was a recognition that if Cawston had a neighbourhood development plan, a different approach might have been possible.

A number – but not all – of the parishes in the borough have them as a way to define how they want their area to develop.