Dudley Council facing tough questions over why it rejected Kingswinford retirement home plan

A public inquiry is under way into the authority’s decision in January 2025 to throw out a plan by Churchill Living Ltd to demolish a vacant youth centre on High Street to build 49 apartments.

Churchill appealed to the government Planning Inspectorate which is holding the inquiry to hear four days of evidence from both sides.

The council says the proposed four-storey building would be excessive and unduly prominent in what a council officer told the hearing was a suburban setting.

The authority is also concerned about the loss of playing fields at the rear of the centre, which has been vacant for a decade.

Planners say a new multi-use games area proposed as part of the development would be too close to residential properties and the new building would not provide enough parking.

At the hearing on Monday (October 13), Dudley Council urban design officer Peter Chan gave evidence on behalf of the authority about the council concluding the building would be too big.

When he was asked to describe the area, Mr Chan said: “It feels quite suburban, quite leafy, the area functions as a community, it has pubs, a school, a local centre – it has its own identity.”

He went on to describe the location as "special" and with a "historical aspect".

The claims brought an intervention from Churchill’s barrister, Sasha White KC, who said new evidence was being presented.

Mr White said: “There is nothing in the papers that says anything about it being special and nowhere does he raise any issue that there is some historic interest in the character of the area.”

Mr Chan conceded he was not saying there was a special interest in the area.

Planning inspector Richard Aston told Mr Chan: “Your evidence says to me there is a mixed character, it doesn’t tell me of any special distinctiveness.

“I would say the character of an area is how a place feels, I struggle a little bit with you saying there is a local distinctiveness.”

The discussion moved on to the size of the proposed development which Mr Chan described as "towering and dominating the street scene".

In papers submitted as part of its appeal, Churchill said: “The council’s design criticism set is limited to its height and scale at four storeys being out of character with the High Street but acknowledges the presence of set piece buildings of a larger scale and height in the area.

“The council do not identify any aspects of the site or the area that are locally distinctive or that any landmark or view is harmed.”

During cross-examination Mr White quizzed Mr Chan about the council’s submissions to the inquiry and returned to his point about evidence presented at the hearing that was not part of the original objections.

He said: “The concerns articulated by the Urban Design Team in November 2024 are completely different from the case being put now.”

The public inquiry is set to conclude on Friday (October 17).