Housing Group PresentationAn Update of where we are Now

Changes to the Housing Stock Between 1991 and 2011

The number of houses increased by about 80 to a total of 1290. [ In addition there are 60 mobile homes ]

The number of 4 plus bedroom houses increased from 515 to 750

The number of smaller houses fell by 160 to 480

Since 1999 Planning permissions have been granted for:

• 55 new houses ( 23 were conversions of existing buildings – mainly farm buildings); and

• 40 new houses replacing existing homes; and

• 100-120 significant extensions to existing houses

Of the 55 new houses 20 were outside the main settlements

The survey threw up some interesting results about the Sort of Houses that should be built !

There were Positive views about Family homes Small/Starter homes Retirement housing

There were Negative views about Flats Affordable housing (including social housing) Large houses

There were also comments about the need for more affordable homes

Residents want to retain facilities such as shops and post offices, but these are at risk with an ageing and static population (Only 20% of the population in the age group 20-45, compared to 37% for the District)

The Green Belt means development must be constrained to limited infilling, brownfield sites and meeting local needs. So, the number of new homes that could be built is likely to be small.

We can’t do anything about high house prices, other than encourage affordable housing

Subject to green Belt policies, and where appropriate, new homes should be smaller making it easier for

a) Younger families to stay, or to move in.b) For older residents to down size and stay.

Chaddesley Corbett NDP, also in the Green Belt has such a policy for similar reasons

What does this look like in each of the three LSVs?

Planning permissions already for 21 houses (Cank Farm and Doctors Close) .

The new homes at Cank Farm should be more modest in size and include some affordable homes

Little scope elsewhere for infilling

So, fits with broad approach

Different from Tanworth and Earlswood. The community is almost wholly large houses with large gardens and any new development would need to fi in with that.

The only scope for development is infilling the odd gap in road frontages (and these will be large houses) – unless backland development is acceptable

One exception, where smaller housing might be appropriate, is the site behind the pub and bounded by the railway and Wood End Lane. This needs further examination

The village is mostly two long lines of ribbon development separated by the lakes and open land east of Springbrook Lane.

Only one significant possibility for limited infilling is a site towards the southern end of The Common. It is however Trust Land owned by the Parish council)

There has been some backland development behind Malthouse Lane and the NDP will need to have a view about further such development

Replacing smaller homes with new larger homes is likely to continue and the NDP could have policies about the scale of increases in the size of houses – to minimize further losses of smaller homes. This needs to be looked at further .

The Environment group are mapping the key elements of the existing character of the Parish which can form the basis of design policies to apply to new buildings

These can be extended to cover any future proposals for the conversion of farm buildings and brown field sites

Identify the pros and cons of defining built up area boundaries Review the site in Wood end Formulate a policy on backland development Review the site in The Common Discuss with the District Council and the Warwickshire Rural Community council

their views on whether there is a local need for affordable housing bearing in mind that Cank farm may have to include some

Policy on redevelopment of farm buildings