As another eco town is proposed for the region, the Government is determined to drive forward the largest increase in house building in decades, even if that means swallowing up some green belt, writes Public Affairs Correspondent Paul Dale.
Predictably enough, now that councils have been given a broad idea of the huge growth they will be expected to deliver, it’s all turning quite nasty.
From Nuneaton in the east to Worcester and the Malvern Hills in the west, from Lichfield in the north to Warwick and Leamington in the south, planners are plotting to see how they can do the Government’s bidding without upsetting local communities.
The exact number of new dwellings the West Midlands will be expected to produce between 2006 and 2026 is as yet unknown. Leaders of the region’s councils insist they will struggle to find enough suitable land for 365,000 homes, which in itself represents a 42 per cent increase on previous targets and is greater than anything achieved since the 1970s when there were major public sector house-building programmes.
A public inquiry into the Regional Spatial Strategy is recommending a target of 397,000 new homes, while the government is believed to consider about 450,000 are needed to meet demographic changes including sharp growth in the number of single-person households.
Ministers will make a decision next year, but it is already widely accepted that even the mid-way target of 397,000 is bound to involve building on some green belt and other sensitive greenfield sites. As for the infrastructure required to support the new homes – schools, hospitals, employment – the government is yet to spell out precisely how this is to be delivered, beyond vague hopes that the private sector will step up to the mark.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England estimates that 5,000 acres of green belt will disappear if the house-building target is set at 450,000.
And a report published by the panel of planning inspectors overseeing the spatial strategy public inquiry warned: “Greenfield sites, including land released from the green belt, are likely to need to be brought forward in some locations at an early date to complement the availability of previously developed sites in achieving the levels of housing increase sought.”
One of the most controversial aspects of the exercise involves councils attempting to off load their development responsibilities on to neighbouring authorities.
Coventry has agreed an indicative target of 33,500 new homes over the 20-year period, but one-fifth of those could be built over the border at Kerseley village in Nuneaton and Bedworth and in the Warwick District Council area to the south-west of the city boundary.
The proposal is proving acutely embarrassing for Mike O’Brien, the Labour MP for the marginal seat of North Warwickshire, whose Bedworth constituents are not taking kindly to having Coventry’s housing overspill foisted upon their green belt.
Mr O’Brien told a packed public meeting called to discuss the plans: “People need homes, but Coventry Council should not dump its excess housing in Bedworth destroying our green belt.
“Bogus claims that these are government proposals won’t wash.”
His assertion was somewhat dented this week, when Housing Minister John Healey announced plans for a 3,000-home eco-town on green belt land at Keresley, as part of Coventry Council’s spatial strategy target. But Mr Healey’s statement was challenged by the deputy leader of Coventry Council, Kevin Foster, who described the eco-town proposal as a “last resort”. The push for house-building on a level unprecedented since the 1950s is, of course, coming directly from the government. But local councils have a large amount of leeway over where exactly these dwelling should be built and are desperately negotiating with neighbouring authorities to spread the load.
Conservative-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth council, having at first not opposed the overspill arrangements proposed by Conservative colleagues running Coventry Council, is now furiously backpeddling after public anger.
Tories in Nuneaton and Bedworth, and across the region for that matter, are blaming the pressures that councils are now facing on “the Labour government” and “Labour’s regional assembly”. To be fair to the assembly, it has described the upper end of the government’s housing ambitions as unpalatable.
Coventry Council’s proposal to build 3,500 houses just across the city boundary in semi-rural Eastern Green, Gibbet Hill and Finham, near to Warwick University and within touching distance of millionaire’s-row homes on Kenilworth Road, has caused another storm.
Residents from Keresley, Finham, and Gibbet Hill, who have dubbed themselves the Greenfield Alliance, staged an angry demonstration before a Coventry Council meeting where a petition opposing the proposed development was handed in.
Sandra Camwell, vice-chairman of Keresley Parish Council, said: “We want the council to know the feelings of the people because the council is not listening.
“It’s just money, money, money to the council. We have fields of barley but the developers want fields of gold.”
In Stratford-on-Avon council, meanwhile, where proposals for an eco-town at Middle Quinton appear to have been abandoned, there is the threat of having to find space for an additional 3,000 homes on top of the 7,500 being proposed by the panel. A final decision will be taken when the results of a study to determine the sustainability of such a level of growth is known.
On the other side of the region, Worcestershire is struggling to deliver the 40,500 new homes recommended by the public inquiry.
Bromsgrove is earmarked for 4,000 dwellings, but that figure could be increased to 7,000 following a review into the potential for sustainable development.
Redditch must build at least 7,000 homes, and would like to put more than half of these across the border in Bromsgrove.
Similarly, Worcester City is expected to deliver 11,000 dwellings, but plans to build 3,500 of these to the west of the city boundary in Malvern Hills District.
Worcestershire County Council cabinet member for planning, Simon Geraghty, is stressing the difference between green belt land, which he says is unlikely to be built on, and green field land which is more likely to be released for housing.
Coun Geraghty said: “On one level, we are pleased the proposed housing levels are significantly lower than those originally being sought and that proposals such as extensions of the Birmingham conurbation into Worcestershire’s green belt, and the eco-town at Middle Quinton, have not been supported.
“However, it is extremely disappointing that the panel has made no recommendations on how the inevitable infrastructure funding issues facing Worcestershire can be addressed or how the strategy for the county can be taken forward in the absence of adequate levels of funding.”
The lengthy spatial strategy public inquiry was dominated by argument between house-builders and developers, who unsurprisingly think the West Midlands has sufficient sites to build at least 500,000 homes, and green campaigners who ideally would like to see fewer than 365,000.
The inquiry inspector admitted that any assessment of what the region could reasonably deliver was bound to be hypothetical. Areas recommended for significant development are: Hereford, Nuneaton & Bedworth, Rugby, Shrewsbury, Stafford, Telford, Warwick & Leamington and Worcester.
In its final report the inquiry panel concluded: “It is incontrovertible that development, wherever it occurs, has environmental impacts. It follows that for the Regional Spatial Strategy to be sustainable, it should not provide for more development or more damaging development than necessary.
“We do not consider that there is a danger of too many houses being built. To that extent we accept the West Midlands Regional Assembly case that too much provision, particularly away from the major urban areas, would adversely affect the strategy and the region.”
