The South Warwickshire Local Plan is to undergo 11th-hour changes after a planning inspector advised that plans around green issues, affordable housing and infrastructure could be ruled unviable.

The advice, given to Warwick District Council and Stratford-on-Avon District Council in May, prompted both authorities to propose a small delay to the final version that they put together to make tweaks.

Warwick District Council's meeting on Monday was a three-and-a-half-hour slog in which all councillors present had the chance to discuss each recommendation around the aim to "build in a short review period to allow a number of technical and other matters to be revised more thoroughly".

The key problems

The new plan is having to find ways to allocate land for rocketing government expectations on housing numbers.

Stratford-on-Avon District Council will be expected to deliver an average of 1,112 homes per year up to 2050. That figure for the district of Warwick is 1,085, totalling more than 55,000 homes.

Not all sites will deliver on time, particularly with councils being at the mercy of markets, and there is a general expectation – but not an outright rule – that sufficient extra numbers are factored into the plan to account for sites that may be delayed or fail.

The proposed plans builds in 6.8 per cent headroom in Stratford and only 1.4 per cent in Warwick, numbers that national planning inspector Jonathan Bore advises are "very small margins of comfort, especially as the plan relies on new settlements and strategic sites whose long lead-in times and impediments to delivery are well-documented".

Another factor is the standards being placed in the plan that could impact the viability of some sites.

Citing biodiversity net gain, affordable housing, net zero policies, highways and social infrastructure, Mr Bore argued it would "be necessary to reconsider what the plan is going to say about these requirements".

"A community's need for homes and for affordable housing is a very important material consideration," he wrote.

"Pursuing building performance and (biodiversity) standards in excess of national policy or statute, particularly if this is at the expense of affordable housing or overall housing delivery, will be very critically examined for soundness."

If an inspector deems that the plan is not sound, councils are forced into last-ditch changes or going back to the drawing board entirely, a process that could leave both authorities in limbo on planning for years.

The proposed solutions

One of the standouts is the proposed removal of "some of the worst performing sites" in Warwick District, totalling up to 2,000 homes while making up the shortfall and trying to boost headroom by increasing capacities on other sites.

It is noted by planning officers – the employed professionals at the councils – that such a strategy carries risks and "should be treated with caution" as it "undermines" independent work on how much of certain sites were deemed developable, particularly in relation to landscape and flooding.

Work on ensuring proposed sites are viable will undoubtedly influence that balancing act.

They will also seek to boost headroom by looking at including expected housing numbers from non-allocated sites that are currently gaining permission – some of those are coming forward because neither council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, meaning the clout behind local planning policies is diluted until that changes or a new plan is in place.

The long list of recommendations advocates both councils conveying that they are "highly sceptical" over the numbers of homes they are being asked to accommodate while also acknowledging of the importance of having a plan and meeting the government's deadline of the end of 2026 to submit it – they would have to work to new national planning rules if they missed the cut.

Councillor concerns

Ex-leader Cllr Andrew Day referenced his "scars" from the last local plan and highlighted the challenges of getting an inspector to agree with the council's position on adequate headroom. He also urged caution around how the 'worst performing' sites would be judged.

"We really need to remember that we not only represent our wards but the whole district," he said.

"We need to see things in the balance. While higher densities might work nicely in terms of numbers, we need to bear in mind the impact on our capacity to build new communities which is ultimately what a good district council does."

Cllr Judy Falp refused to back late omissions "because I have real concerns the risks are too great".

"As much as I want to take some sites out, I do not think it will be a sound plan by not being realistic about the sites we need in," she added.

Cllr Jonathan Chilvers offered the counter argument.

"This is difficult and not without risk but I think we absolutely have to turn over every stone over the next couple of weeks to get the most robust and lowest number of sites possible," he said.

"We owe it to the residents and our future generations in terms of protecting our countryside."

What now

Further recommendations that were accepted mapped out the path ahead with further meetings of the joint cabinet committee of both councils and then each individual full council to be arranged, probably for mid-July, to decide on the final version.

That is subject to the same recommendations being passed by Stratford-on-Avon District Council on Monday (June 8) but should that go through as expected – the ruling Liberal Democrat group there has an outright majority – work on the changes will ramp up over the next couple of weeks.

One element passed at Warwick was for the vote to move to the regulation 19 – final – consultation to be the last full council vote on the plan.

Concern was raised over this but the regulation 19 feedback is considered by the planning inspector with very limited scope for either council to reshape plans at that stage without creating a volume of work that would miss the December 31 deadline.

All bar one Warwick councillor present – Cllr Peter Phillips – voted in favour of this approach.

If the plan hits its end-of-year target and is deemed sound by a government-appointed national inspector, it is anticipated that it will be rolled out by March 31, 2028.