The final parts of the planning inquiry to decide the fate of Coventry Stadium have been pushed back further. 

It was paused so evidence could be prepared and heard over a disagreement between the NHS and Rugby Borough Council over whether developer Brandon Estates should make a contribution towards healthcare if plans to build homes on the site go ahead. 

The inquiry was due to resume for two days from Wednesday, November 8, but the council has since published new dates – Monday, November 27 and Tuesday, November 28. 

The original date was always provisional and subject to movement based on the availability of various parties.

Evidence will be heard over all aspects of section 106 funding – money that developers contribute to various services around new housing, including infrastructure, highways, recreational facilities, education and health.

The three legal representatives of Brandon Estates, the council and Save Coventry Speedway and Stox, the campaign group attempting to save the stadium, will then make closing statements, the final arguments that will inform planning inspector Helen Hockenhull’s decision. That verdict will arrive in writing, perhaps weeks after the inquiry closes. 

The derelict home of the Coventry Bees speedway team and stock car racing, a beacon of motorsport in the Midlands until it was closed in 2016, is the subject of plans from site owners Brandon Estates to replace it with 124 homes, a 3G football pitch and pavilion.

Planning permission was unanimously refused by Rugby Borough Council’s planning committee in November 2022 with the bulk of the appeal already heard.

 University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust has requested £133,754 to cater for the increased number of residents but Rugby Borough Council say the request does not comply with planning policies. 

Irrespective of whether Brandon Estates would be willing to pay, the council’s argument is that waving through funding that does not meet criteria could set a precedent for future housing proposals in the borough, potentially causing problems or even making them unviable. The NHS believes the request to be “necessary” and “directly related to the development”.

Inquiries are the most formal procedure by which planning appeals are decided with legal representatives cross-examining parties and expert witnesses to investigate evidence, which is what will now happen with the section 106 funding debate as the parties are unable to agree.

Ms Hockenhull will not hear new evidence on other matters when the inquiry resumes, only the section 106. The closing arguments will be an important part of informing the decision-making process with all matters in scope but none of the parties are able to introduce new information on matters that do not relate to the section 106 funding.