We reported on “the battle for Pinkett’s Booth” back in June.
You will recall that on the very last day of the public inquiry into the Coventry Local Plan, developers put forward a scheme to create employment land in the Green Belt west of Brickhill Lane in Allesley.
After we raised out concerns, there has been a mass of objection to the proposed revision of the local plan, including a petition on the council website, interventions by ward councillors and many responses to the local plan consultation.
The rest of this blog shows the Coventry Society’s submitted objection to the proposal.
Coventry Local Plan 2024-42 Proposed Main Modification MM27
The Coventry Society objects to the proposed inclusion of policy JE2.9 ( a local employment site North of the A45 and West of Brickhill Lane) in the final Local Plan
Notwithstanding the shortage of local employment land, as accepted by the planning inspectors (Main Modification 6) there are four substantive reasons why proposed policy JE2.9 (and policy map changes PMC 10f and PMC 11f) for this proposed employment site (gross 20 ha, net 11.8ha) should not be added into the Local Plan.
1 Inclusion of the site, at the very last stage of a two year process of preparing the Local Plan, subverts the local plan preparation process. The site was proposed by a developer at the final Inquiry hearing on 9 June 2026. This therefore precluded proper discussion of such a proposal at earlier stages of the production of the Local Plan and excluded interests at and near the site, including local land and property owners, the two Parish Councils of Allesley and Meriden, the three Coventry ward councillors for Bablake ward, and the adjacent Solihull MBC. Even though there has now been a six week consultation period for the inclusion of this proposal in the Local Plan its inclusion at the very end of the Plan making process is unacceptable. An important issue of procedural fairness is at stake. Meaningful engagement requires the public to have sufficient information, adequate time and a genuine opportunity to influence. It is manifestly anti-democratic to permit developers to ‘chance their arm’ by adding in their proposals at the final stage of the plan preparation process when other, local, interests may be unaware of such proposals.
2 The Inquiry accepted that the Plan leaves an immediate shortfall of local employment land. This is now assessed as 57.23 ha. (3.13 of the Main Modifications). In response the City Council has indicated that it ”will continue to work proactively with neighbouring councils to ensure that the appropriate provision is made elsewhere”. In part-acccepting this, Policy 3.14 (in MM6) suggests a policy of ‘monitor and manage’ through an Annual Monitoring report including assessing windfall sites in Coventry and sites from FEMA authorities. The Coventry Society supports such an approach, rather than making last minute additions to the Plan which are incursions into the Green Belt.
3 The proposed policy JE2.9 site is in the Coventry Green belt, and forms part of the Meriden Gap. It has long been part of regional and local planning policy in the West Midlands to protect open land in this ‘Gap’ so as to avoid the coalescence of Coventry Solihull, and Birmingham. The City Council, in drafting its Local Plan sought not to make incursions into the Green belt in this area. Locally, the A45 has performed a strategic function in acting as a defensible boundary against the encroachment of development to its north. If proposed policy JE2.9 were to be accepted then this creates the potential for incremental erosion of the Meriden Gap. In regard to the NPPF, there have been no ‘exceptional circumstances’ put forward to justify the removal of the site from the Green Belt.
4 If the Inspectors maintain that the policy site JE2.9 can be used for employment then, in the context of an agreed shortage of local employment land, this could be regarded as a precedent for developers and landowners with green belt sites to come forward with proposals which may be additional to or alternatives for brownfield employment sites in Coventry. This would fundamentally undermine the integrity of the Local Plan, and the processes by which it has been developed.
It seems to the Coventry Society that all these objections have such significant merit that the proposed policy JE2.9 ( local employment site North of the A45 and West of Brickhill Lane) should not be included in the final Coventry Local Plan 2024-41.
Trevor Cornfoot MRTPI (Ret)
Coventry Society
We await the Inspector’s report with trepidation.