Plans to demolish Coventry Stadium for housing have been thrown out by a planning inspector – and the reasons provide a huge boost for motorsport campaigners.

Inspector Helen Hockenhull’s written decision landed today (Friday, January 19) following a lengthy inquiry that began in September, got adjourned and was concluded in late November.

Developers and landowners Brandon Estates launched the appeal against Rugby Borough Council’s refusal of planning permission for 124 homes, a 3G football pitch and pavilion at the derelict home of the Coventry Bees speedway team and stock car racing.

Inquiries are the most formal procedure by which planning appeals are decided with legal representatives cross-examining parties and expert witnesses on the main bones of contention.

The main issues considered by Ms Hockenhull were whether the housing would have a greater harm on the green belt than what was already there, whether the stadium should be deemed as surplus to requirements, the financial viability of restoring the stadium, whether there was a need for the 3G pitch, whether the inclusion of the pitch would outweigh the loss of the stadium, plus consideration of other benefits of the plan such as the extra housing for the area.

The decision to refuse planning permission itself was pivotal – if Brandon Estates had received the green light, the bulldozers could have swung straight into action – but the precedent set by Ms Hockenhull’s verdict also limits the options available to the developers.

She was “not persuaded that there is a clear case that the site is surplus to requirements or is no longer needed”, adding: “Whilst speedway has declined to the extent that it is now a minority sport, I do not consider it is dying. The same is true for stock car racing.

“There is demand for Coventry Stadium demonstrated by SCS and supporters in the racing community. Should the stadium reopen, speedway and stock car racing events could increase, expanding the current sporting calendars.”

That fed into the main argument and sole reason for the initial refusal given by Rugby Borough Council.

It was based on paragraph 103 – paragraph 99 at the time the inquiry started – of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the national set of rules that provide the basis for all local planning policies.

It states that “existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use”.

Backing of this central argument means that any attempt by Brandon Estates to come back with a new plan for housing with some sports provision, which they are entitled to try to do, would be judged against this ruling.

Whether they intend to do that or in light of the nature of this decision have a change of heart over negotiating a deal with SCS remains to be seen.

Another key win for SCS was Ms Hockenhull’s call that the need for the stadium should be considered separately to the viability of restoring the stadium.

Wildly different figures were put forward – less than £1 million by SCS and £13.7 million by Brandon Estates – for getting the stadium back operational, although the cheaper alternative did not include rebuilding or renovating the grandstand in the first instance.

Ms Hockenhull conceded that she was “not persuaded that reinstatement of the site is viable” but noted the phased approach being advocated by the SCS, similar to the one that saw Oxford return to the sport in 2022, could not be dismissed out of hand.

“Based on the support for the reopening of Coventry from the racing community and the governing bodies, it is reasonable to assume that once reopened events would be supported, receive sponsorship and generate broadcaster interest,” she wrote.

“It is also clear from the SCS evidence that there is financial backing for the scheme, parties have expressed interest in establishing a consortium if required and there is general support from (Rugby Borough) Council and the Mayor of West Midlands (Andy Street).

“On this basis, I take the view that there is a realistic prospect of viability being improved.”

Despite being convinced that the 3G pitch “would be of significant local benefit”, Ms Hockenhull crucially ruled it should not be waved through at the expense of the stadium.

“Coventry Stadium was not just a local facility but a stadium hosting local, regional, national and international events,” she wrote.

“The value of a 3G pitch cannot compare to a facility of which there are relatively few in the country, which can hold events generating such wide interest, with the social and wellbeing benefits for those that attend.

“I therefore conclude that the benefits of the alternative provision do not outweigh the loss of Coventry Stadium. Accordingly, the appeal scheme fails to comply with paragraph 103c of the framework (NPPF) and policy HS4c of the Rugby Local Plan.”

An SCS statement “warmly welcomed” the verdict, and after thanking their legal representative Richard Humphreys KC, Rugby Borough Council’s representative Hugh Richards KC and backers who raised £20,000 to contribute to legal fees, attention turned to what happens next.

“Naturally there are a great number of matters arising from this decision for us to consider once the relevant paperwork has been reviewed, and we will update everyone further when we can,” it read.

“Our dream has always been to get speedway and stock car racing back to their rightful places at Brandon, and following this decision that dream is still very much alive.”