# 108-114 Red Lane, Coventry

- **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers
- **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011522
- **Application reference:** PL/2024/0002558/FULM
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition and erection of a two and three storey community centre, education facility and place of worship (sui generis)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR4, TR3
- **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan AC1, AC2, AC3, Appendix 5 parking standards
- **Main issues:** parking and highway safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, tr6-severe-test, parking, place-of-worship, community-facility, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
A replacement mosque, education and community building on Red Lane, Coventry, was dismissed on parking and highway safety. The site already runs over capacity. Friday worshippers park on footways and double yellow lines. The proposal would cut on-site spaces to 29 against a standard of 56, so the "severe adverse impacts" would continue (DL ¶11-13). The Framework was not consulted on because the relevant wording was "largely unchanged" (DL ¶3).

## What made the difference
Existing observed overspill onto footways and the unenforceable overflow-parking arrangement. A legal agreement securing the 82-space overflow car park would probably have changed the result (DL ¶12). This is the same inspector as PINS-6011097, applying the same TR3/TR4/TR6 formula to the opposite outcome. Neither letter engages S3 or S4.

## Policy findings
- **TR6(4): fail.** 29 spaces against 56 required; existing footway and yellow-line parking at peaks already causes "severe adverse" safety impacts; staggered Friday sessions and unenforceable overflow letter insufficient (DL 10-13)
- **TR4: fail.** pedestrian and mobility-impaired conflicts from footway parking (DL 11, 13)

## Key facts
- About 300 Friday attendees, to be staggered over three sessions of 100; 29 on-site spaces against 56 required (DL 10, 12)
- 82-space overflow at Coventry Resource Centre offered only by informal letter, given limited weight (DL 12)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011522
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ae87f3f-74ba-40e8-a287-5a56260e1fd2

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011522.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.