Housing numbers don’t add up

If the Draft Local Plan for Warwick district goes through in its current form, it will allow an increase in population of 30,350 or 22 per cent within the next 15 years. High growth comes from the consequences of the underlying assumptions which are not made explicit in the actual plan document. The Draft Local Plan (2011-2029) assumes an extremely low figure for household density and a high figure for population growth. These two figures are key in setting the number of new homes required.

The recommended ONS household density figure is 2.36 persons per household (pph). Census data for the Warwick district population for 2011 gives a total of 137,648. ONS projection figures released in May 2014 predicts it rising by 15,352 or 11.1 per cent to 153,000 by 2029. To house 15,352 people at 2.36 per house requires 6,505 dwellings.

Inexplicably, the DLP has used a household density of 1.66 pph. It also uses a predicted population increase of 21,472 (15.6 per cent) to 2029. The growth rate was taken from studies done for the local region (JSHMA), whose growth data was flawed due to the failure to recognise it contained a temporary but significant jump in foreign student numbers at both universities. To house 21,472 persons at 1.66 pph requires 12,935 dwellings. Thus the DLP provides for 12,860 and up to 12,964 dwellings.

But if the Draft Local Plan permits 12,860 homes to be built, and they are occupied at the ONS rate of 2.36 per house, the population will increase by 30,350 or 22 per cent by 2029 in Warwick district. Half would meet local need; half would allow inward migration from Coventry, Birmingham, etc. That is equivalent to moving more than the population of Stratford-upon Avon to our district – with no guarantee of any extra healthcare provision. This can hardly be called ‘sustainable’.

The good news is that there is no need for 6,355 of the homes in the plan. Out of the 6505, by December 2013, including pre-2011 oversupply, 4,316 were already either built or had planning permission, and further brownfield sites were to be added. More have had permission this year. Over 1,000 homes in the district stand empty. Thus it is patently obvious that major greenfield developments are not required. Beyond 2029 the population may well fall. Our councillors and planners need to take notice and refuse to allow our countryside to be built on for the sake of two wrong numbers.

Dr Diana Taulbut, Protect Lillington Greenbelt