225-home mixed-use tower at 9 - 11 The Forum, Town Centre, Stevenage
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Stevenage Planning and Development Committee on 19 Feb 2025.
What was proposed
The application proposed demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a 21-storey building with 225 homes, flexible commercial space, amenity areas and cycle parking.
“The application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and re-development to provide new homes (Use Class C3), flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E), amenity space, landscaping, new cycle parking, and other associated works.”
“A new building covering the entire site at a height of up to 21 storeys. • The provision of 225 new homes across the site, which would be provided as a mix of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom Build to Rent homes (Class C3). • The provision of 1,323m² shared internal amenity space and external residential amenity space comprising a gym, lounges, dining spaces, co-working areas, roof terraces and balconies.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The 0.16-hectare site contained a two-storey retail unit on a pedestrianised town-centre connection, beside the former BHS site and Forum Shopping Centre.
“The site comprises a rectangular parcel of land extending to an area of approximately 0.16ha located on The Forum, which is a pedestrianised west-to-east connection through the town centre. The red line boundary also incorporates an area of the servicing yard to the rear of the building.”
“The site is designated within the Local Plan (2019) as falling within the town centre and the town centre shopping area, whilst the ground floor frontage onto Queensway is designated as a Primary Frontage. It is not located within nor adjacent to a Conservation Area, although the Town Square Conservation Area is located to the south. The site does not have any statutory designations relating to heritage.”
Officer report
Why officers supported it
Officers considered the housing, town-centre regeneration, commercial space and footfall benefits outweighed the building’s height, visual effects and some daylight reductions.
“The construction activity would provide a small boost to the local economy; however, the future occupiers would also add welcome footfall to the town centre enhancing its vitality and viability. Given the quantum of development, it is considered that these benefits would be substantial and therefore attract significant weight in favour of the proposal.”
“- 37 - 8.4 The proposed development would retain an active frontage to the Forum, providing 426m² of new flexible Class E floorspace at ground floor level. The applicant is committed to finding alternative premises for New Look in the town centre, however this is not a policy requirement.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Several consultees raised no objection, while Sport England and the flood authority initially objected; highway, water and other matters were subject to conditions or contributions.
“Notice is given under article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 that Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority does not wish to restrict the grant of permission subject to conditions.”
“The development is at risk of surface water flooding. • The proposed SuDS are likely to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. • The development is not in accordance with NPPF, PPG or Stevenage Borough Council local policies including: Policy FP2: Flood risk in Flood Zone 1 Policy FP3: Flood risk in Flood Zones 2 and 3; and, Policy SP12: Green infrastructure and the natural environment.”
Officer report
What members debated
Members discussed the building’s appearance, height, housing need, flood risk, safety, retail loss, sustainability, daylight, construction disruption and public contributions.
“A question was raised regarding concerns about the flood risk assessment and whether the developer was contributing to public realm improvements in the town centre. In response, Officers confirmed that the flood risk assessment was still under review by the lead local flood authority, with final comments expected soon. If concerns could not be resolved, the application would be brought back to the Committee for further consideration.”
“Concerns were raised about the building’s height, safety and access to lifts. The Interim Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that the Health and Safety Executive had reviewed the application and was satisfied that the design met all fire safety requirements, including access and escape routes.”
Minutes
The decision
Planning permission was granted subject to a legal agreement covering travel, education, affordable housing and employment contributions, with delegated details and safeguarding conditions.
“£6000 for monitoring of Approved Travel Plan • £11,250 Residential Travel Pack contribution • £313,960 Primary and/or Secondary Education • £924,629 off site Affordable Housing • Local Employment and Apprenticeships • Legal Agreement monitoring fee…”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“The Committee acknowledged that the scheme supported the town centre’s growth objections.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Stevenage Planning and Development Committee minutes, 19 February 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Stevenage's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Stevenage
- Date
- Wednesday 19 February 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Stevenage committee decisions →