Fewer than 10,000 new homes have been built in Northampton since 2001
Hundreds of people took to the streets to protest against expansion plans in 2009.
FEWER than 1,000 new houses a year were built in Northampton over the past decade, new figures have revealed.
Documents published by the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (JPU) showed that between 2001 and 2011, only 16,356 new homes were built across Northampton, Daventry and Towcester, with only 9,339 of those in the county town.
The figures reflected the massive downturn in the housing market since the global economic crisis hit in 2006 and officials from the JPU said the west of Northamptonshire will have to build thousands more houses over the coming decade to keep up with the area’s housing needs.
The chairman of the JPU, South Northamptonshire Council leader, Councillor Mary Clarke (Con, Old Stratford) said: “All our research shows that west Northamptonshire needs around 50,000 new homes to be built between 2001 and 2026 in order to meet local needs.
“To date we’ve seen over 16,300 new houses built, which leaves nearly 33,800 still to be built.
“Sites for nearly 19,500 houses already have planning permission, leaving a further 14,300 to be identified.”
When the JPU last published housing expansion plans for the area in January 2011, they showed how seven large housing estates could be built around the edge of Northampton, on sites including Buckton Fields, near Whitehills, Dallington Heath, near Kings Heath, and land near Collingtree.
The proposals were met with immediate opposition from anti-expansion campaigners, who warned the new developments would become ‘the Grange Parks of the future’.
But others welcomed the fact the proposed number of new houses to be built had dropped from 62,125 in 2009 to 50,150.
The JPU’s latest documents did not identify specific sites where new houses could go.
Instead, they showed the results of an investigation of 886 potential development sites across the area. Of the sites, 103 were considered deliverable within five years, 204 had ‘constraints which could be overcome’ and the rest were rejected.
Councillor Clarke said: “The new report seeks to provide greater clarity to landowners, developers and local communities. The identification of a site does not necessarily mean that development will occur. It shows what land is technically available, and it will be up to councillors to determine which sites are brought forward for development.”
The documents are due to be considered by councillors in the summer.
Email to a friend
Print this page- BREAKING NEWS: Tributes paid to Niamh Curry as brave five-year-old loses battle against cancer
- BREAKING NEWS: Pensioner dies after collision at Northampton shopping centre
- Man tied to tree and beaten on Northampton Racecourse
- BREAKING NEWS: Woman’s body found after ‘suicide’ in Northampton hotel room
- BREAKING NEWS: Seven-year-old boy dies following house fire in Northamptonshire
- Northampton binmen at ‘breaking point’
- Staff strike at Northampton school over academy plans forces closure
- Saints’ stadium plans get support as long as traffic issues solved
- Eastern European pupils helping school standards across Northampton
- Exclusive: PM David Cameron says Northamptonshire Police Commissioner role is “a big job for a big local figure”
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Northampton
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 18 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 17 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
john wright
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 07:58 AMi dont know why you wont post the message that i agree with Tony Clark about the cost of all the planning quangoes, but pointed out Councillors love to on their committe, because they pay well, in WNDC case thousands of pounds for just 12 committee meetings a year. Its the new ful time well paid job for many Councillors?
Poly
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 01:28 PMHow about filling up all the empty houses in Northampton before building new ones?
boyracer
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 07:53 PMWhat's the point of all these new houses when you need jobs to pay for the mortgages on them?I don't see masses of jobs available unless I'm looking in the wrong place.
AbingtonAll
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 06:29 PMA difficult one. I'd agree with Tony Clarke about the need for council housing and clearly there is some local need for new housing in general. However, i'm not sure Northamptonshire should continue to generously give up its farmland for 'London overspill' (i.e. accommodate housing needs from elsewhere). If the new housing is brownfield regeneration, then that's all well and good. If it's badly designed sprawl like Grange Park, then please God no..
Common sense
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 04:58 PMThere's an opprtunity being missed here and that is the money Councils will make from developers helps all--existing and new residents-not just the few. The problems with poor infrastructure is that it won't get better of its own accord --and will only get worse without funding from one sourse or another--Councils and Government can't afford to do it so the developers will have to pay for it--including for the benefit of the existing people--not just the new people.
ladyblue
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 03:44 PMBiased headline. 'Fewer' than 1000 homes built p.a.? How about "Northampton infrastructure and amenities overwhelmed by 1000 new households each year."?
Joe Joyce
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 01:39 PMHow many new houses are planned for Old Stratford cllr Clarke?
john wright
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:56 PMNew Tory Planning Rules Stink! The Governments proposed changes to the planning rules intended to favour the developers and house builder against the tax paying public, stink to high heaven from what I have learned from the papers at the weekend. Firstly we learned that the draft rules were drawn up by a committee of 4 people that included three directors from house builders and developers, and these were adopted with little change by Planning Minster Greg Clark. Secondly we learned that property developers and house builders had paid £3.3million pound to the tory party over the last 3 years, alone. Thirdly, house builders currently have a land bank of 300,000 plots, but are not building on them because nobody is buying them, do to banks requiring massive deposits. The average age of a first time buyer is now 37? Fourthly, Minister Gregg Clark has stopped proposed mass housing building around Tonbridge Wells the town he is MP for because it would spoil the view. Hypocrite or what? I would like to know where our tory MPs stand on this issue, but when you dine with the devil you should use long spoon, because the house builders in their magazine’s cannot praise the Government enough for the proposals that will allow builders to build where they like.
john wright
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:49 PMPending Moderation
mack80
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:34 PMLady Muck should dig a trench round herhis castle and put a wind turbine on the turrets I still think this person is one of our local M.Ps in disguise if not the jargon is the same
Tony Clarke
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:13 PMThe scandal is that if you add up all the millions that have been spent on WNDC NNDC WNJPU NEL NEP etc etc over those years and then add in the actual build cost these 10,000 must have the highest build price anywhere in the country. If this money had been given to local authorities to build homes for rent, we would now not have a waiting list. Also has anyone ever stopped and thought how many of those houses would have been built anyway without all the above quangos being in situ? I said in the commons in 2004 that this would happen and I am not very happy at being proved right
Common sense
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 10:26 AMBouncer--its a question of choice--good properties in good areas sensibly priced will always sell. Overvalued properties in unloved locations with dated facilities won't sell. Funding that comes from developers will help many of the infrastructure required in the area. Councils and Government also have a financial role to play. These houses should create thousand of jobs and funding for our Councils who badly need the money to turn the lights back on and pay for PCSOs, schools, hospitals etc
bouncer
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 09:51 AMAs someone with a close connection with an Estate Agency i can confirm there is scarcely enough demand for the existing houses on the market - let alone more new ones.Newcomers to this area are frequently appalled at the lack of medical and educational facilities available' Give us a new,additional Hospital and some more quality schools-plus the road infrastructure FIRST...
john wright
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 09:40 AMwho says it needed for local needs, when the Planners are selling Nptonshire as Londonshire in the media and people can not get on the housing ladder because the large deposists now required so most people rent? I never understand why they keep giving planning consent for housing site that are at risk of land slip and high concentrations of RADON GAS which causes Cancer?
Chrispy1
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 09:08 AMYou know what? When I see WNDC confirm they are going to build us a new hospital, to replace the aged Victorian building (with lovely 1960's additions attached), then I might start to feel that putting 100,000 new people in town might be fair. However, as things stand, WNDC is a goverment quango that has been ordered to "deliver" 50,000 new houses (mostly in the village areas, not by regenerating old brownfield sites) and doesn't give a fig how that will impact on the current population. Our town center has beome almost a no-go area, the roads haven't been made bigger and the hospital would shame a second world country. Sort that lot out first, then the town might actually attract 100,000 new people.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.