Decision to block new retirement homes on site of former Kingswinford youth centre overturned by inspector
A decision to block new retirement homes on the site of a former youth centre by Dudley Council has been overturned.
A planning inspector ruled proposals for 49 retirement living apartments in Kingswinford can go ahead following demolition of the youth centre on High Street.
Get the latest headlines delivered straight to your inbox with the Express & Star’s free newsletter
Council planners had refused permission for the project saying the proposed four-storey building would be excessive, unduly prominent in a suburban setting and likely to cause parking problems.
The Planning Inspectorate held a public enquiry in autumn 2025 after an appeal by Churchill Living Ltd against the council’s decision.
In upholding the appeal, planning inspector Richard Aston said: “Overall, the proposal would be well related to its surroundings and would result in an improvement to the site, adding another layer to this area by delivering a sufficiently balanced architectural and design solution for this vacant and underused site that appropriately balances visual interest, modernity, and contextual references.”
The inspector also concluded overspill parking from the retirement homes and sporting facilities at the rear of the new building could be accommodated within the surrounding road network when required.
Mr Aston also gave consideration to concerns about the impact of the proposal, which includes the construction of a multi-use games area (MUGA), on land at the back of the apartment building.
He said: “I have found that there would be no loss of the pitches as a result of the proposal, subject to condition equivalent re-provision would be secured.
“Sufficient parking provision would still be in a suitable location within accessible distance for users.
“There is an existing play area but this would be relocated closer to residential properties in Windermere Drive, with an improved MUGA facility and play facility proposed in proximity to the western boundary of the recreation ground.”
There was better news for the council after the inspector threw out a claim from Churchill Living Ltd for costs.
The developer argued the plan should never have been refused and the council failed to produce credible evidence for refusal and its opposition to the appeal was ‘completely unsupported by any objective analysis’.
Mr Aston said: “Whilst I appreciate that the applicant disagrees with the council’s consideration of the development, this is not a clear case of preventing development which should clearly be permitted.”
