Green belt could be reshaped as councillors agree future housing figures

Members of Warwick District Council lasy night (Thursday) voted unanimously to approve housebuilding strategy of around 550 homes a year between 2014 and 2028 - 8,250 in all.

The figure - more than twice the number the majority of residents voted for in a consultation last summer - is the first step towards producing the authority’s next local plan.

The plan will include rough housing numbers and sites for homes, offices, industry and schools over the 15 years from 2014 and will replace unpopular regional guidance begun under the last government but scrapped by the coalition.

More than half the residents surveyed supported the lowest option of 250 homes a year in a consultation, despite planners stresssing the need for development to pay for future services.

Cllr Les Caborn, who is leading work on the new plan, said evidence show a figure of around 550 homes would protect the council from having its plan rejected by an independent inspector, which would leave the authority with no recognised policy to control development.

And Cllr Caborn (Con, Lapworth) added growth needed to be shared around the district, with many councillors calling for areas of green belt to be reconsidered.

All political groups supported the statement, which also outlined when sites for development would be identified.

But some suggested more houses might be needed. Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Alan Boad said his group supported the figure as a “starting point” - but it was “almost certain” it would rise.

He reminded councillors that a market assessment called for between 595 and 715 homes per year, while a housing needs assessment has identified a shortfall of 698 affordable homes a year.

Cllr Boad (Leamington Crown) called for “firm” evidence to back up the plan, saying it would be “catastrophic” if it was found to be unsound.

The plan is due to come into effect in 2014, but Cllr Boad asked if the timetable could be brought forward. His views were echoed by planning committee member Cllr Anne Blacklock (Lib Dem, Kenilworth Abbey), who said the existing plan was “creaking”, and ever less relevant on subjects such as energy policy.

Speaking for the Labour group, Cllr John Barrott (Lab, Willes) supported the recommendation, and described the risk of an inspector rejecting the plan as a “reality check”.

He said: “We have to be clear in our minds that although growth has not been in the forefront of many residents’ responses it is necessary for us as councillors to thing of the district as a whole.

“We leave this local plan as a legacy for the next 15 years.”

Cllr Janice Dean (Lab, Leamington Clarendon) drew attention to the dwindling number of homes built in recent years. These have fallen from more than 400 to less than 200 and then 97 in recent years, with only one affordable home in the most recent year.

Independent group leader Cllr Bernard Kirton (Whitnash) said he hoped the Government would make it possible to insist on affordable housing.

He said: “What we and the people we represent might consider affordable to a developer means how much you can get for the particular properties on a particular site.”

He called for a “fair distribution” of development, not concentrating on land south of the River Leam.

Cllr Michael Coker (Con, Kenilworth Abbey) warned against “bolted-on” estates such as those that had grown up around Kenilworth, calling for the plan to leave space for schools, wide enough roads and new high-tech industries.

Cllr George Illington, who is chairman of the authority’s planning committee, drew attention to the lack of attention given to students, green belt and high speed rail.

He said although students were not always counted as residents, the authority needed a policy dealing with shared houses.

He welcomed making developing brownfield sites a priority and criticised the Government’s lack of clarity over the issue.

And he warned the proposed HS2 route could use up enough land for 4,500 dwellings, while making housing nearby effectively unsaleable.

Addressing one of the main controversies surrounding the Government’s planning reforms, Cllr Bertie Mackay (Ind, Stoneleigh) said the definition of ‘sustainable’ in the draft framework meant “ensuring better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations”, and that low carbon living was “essential” to this responsibility.

He called for the “rigid formula” of green belt to be looked at in a different light, citing a former garage site that had been almost impossible to redevelop.

And he added that fast and reliable broadband would be imperative if businesses were to grow in rural areas.

Following petitions and widespread opposition to proposals for thousands of homes south of Whitnash and Warwick Gates in 2010, the council’s consultation last summer drew only 469 responses, with a further 700 surveyed by the council.

Cllr Alan Rhead was “disappointed” at the response. He said: “We have to educate people that this is the most important decision we’re going to make in the next 15 years.”

Cllr Clare Sawdon said: “If we’re going to make this plan work we have to talk to our villages and take them on the journey.”

She said 29 per cent of consultation responses came from her ward, and all called for the lowest figure. She said: “The decision isn’t about not wanting growth, but about making it realisable for the next generation.”

She said localism gave villages the opportunity to shape development, suggesting new housing would make them more viable as communities.

Officials are due to draw up a list of suggested sites for development by March 2012, followed by eight weeks’ public consultation from April to June.