Controversial plans to build 83 homes near Warwickshire Police's headquarters in Leek Wootton have been condemned by councillors – but the decision is out of their hands.

Warwick District Council's (WDC) planning committee this week spent more than an hour-and-a-half discussing the proposals, which included speeches from objectors and parish and district councillors. 

The authority received 199 objections while running through responses from the public and key stakeholders.

However, applicant Cala Homes, which bought the plot on Woodcote Lane from Warwickshire Police in December 2021, exercised its right to go straight to the Planning Inspectorate – the national body that has the final say when applicants are unhappy with outcomes from councils – because its case was not heard within 13 weeks.

That left councillors limited to putting forward the decision they would have come to based on the latest information, framing the position the council takes when a planning inquiry, starting on Tuesday, July 25, and scheduled to last six days, settles the verdict. 

The biggest bone of contention surrounds a policy in WDC's local plan – DS22 – which details how up to 115 homes could be delivered at the site based on Warwickshire Police vacating its headquarters.

Since then, a shared services arrangement with West Mercia Police has been pulled apart and Warwickshire Police has rowed back on plans to leave Leek Wootton altogether.

On that basis, the land was taken out of the green belt and subsequently to the developer. Objectors argue that the force staying put is a material change in circumstances which requires reviewing. 

Addressing councillors, senior planning policy officer Tony Ward acknowledged that the police's change of heart did "ring a certain amount of alarm bells" and that he had been "very disappointed" having worked on a plan that factored in their departure. 

However, the position of officers at the council, supported by independent legal advice, is that "things change over time" and therefore, the principle of housing on the site should not be dismissed without due consideration.

"I felt there may have been circumstances to cause the total abandonment of this allocation (of land for housing)," said Mr Ward. 

"In the cold light of day, when you do the analysis of what we are seeking to achieve, you can see that we can bring forward some housing to meet the wider needs of the local plan, also to help provide homes for the future inhabitants of the village.

"The neighbourhood plan itself for Leek Wootton has identified that it would be good to have a certain amount of growth to invite younger people and new families to the village as well as catering for existing and expanding ones."

Councillors were not convinced by many elements of the application and advocated rejection on four grounds – "insufficient information" in relation to highway safety and flood risk concerns, "unacceptable" harm to protected species and the impact on heritage assets.

Cllr Bill Gifford said: "The only benefit of this application is that it adds an extra 83 houses to our five-year (housing land) supply.

"Why one needs a five-year supply is to stop an application coming forward to build, for example, in front of a listed building, near a dangerous road and in an area in danger of flooding.

"I don't think we should be granting an application that has so many problems and so many risks just because it provides a few extra houses."