Ambitious ideas being developed by the county council will see more houses could be built in Staffordshire.
The proposals are part of the county council’s forward-planning to ensure there is the right mix of housing in Staffordshire to meet the needs of residents and the growing economy. Plans will also consider infrastructure needs across the county, including new roads, schools, electricity, drainage and broadband supply.
Mark Winnington, Staffordshire County Council’s Cabinet member for Jobs and Growth, said: “It’s widely accepted the current system isn’t delivering enough houses, let alone the right mix of properties to meet the needs of residents, while supporting future economic growth.
“That means we risk prices rising faster than incomes, young people finding it harder to live where they want and a greater risk of skilled and highly-educated workers draining from the county.
“Ensuring a wide range of homes, where they’re needed, is essential for Staffordshire’s future happiness and prosperity.”
The eventual strategy could mean:
- Working with established house builders to deliver the right type of homes where needed;
- Ensuring job opportunities, schools, transport, green spaces and excellent digital connections are in place for developments;
- Increasing choice by encouraging self-build and more developments from smaller construction companies;
- The county council working with the private sector to build houses on land owned by the authority.
Mark Deaville, Staffordshire County Council’s Cabinet member for Commercial, said: “Staffordshire’s borough and districts are doing well in housing delivery, but we must find a way to support them to accelerate the rate that homes are being built where we want and to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place for those who are going to live there.
“If we don’t act there is a danger that the overspill from neighbouring urban areas, particularly Birmingham, could result in unplanned growth, affect house prices and put pressure on our existing infrastructure.”
The two cabinet members will tell the county council’s Prosperous Staffordshire all-party scrutiny committee meeting on September 20th that early research is already underway, with similar schemes in other parts of the country being assessed before firm plans are put forward next year.










2 comments
Steve Simpson
There are standard universal truths that we find hard to argue with one of which is “we need more affordable homes”. What we actually see is an industry building what provides them with the maximum profit for shareholders and directors while inflated land prices encourage the sale of as much green space as possible.
What is a failure is that the planning system no longer seems either able or allowed to look at the community planning and quality of life existing and new residents can expect. It is fine stating the universal truth we do need more homes but simply building more and more housing with out thought to environment, services and quality of life is a short term fix to a planned solution which should be looking at wide ranging considerations which effect the need for housing and the supply options.
I believe that the fact that the government and local authorities are myopic to the housing policy which is driven by the lobby of the housing developers and associated industries and it would be a brave voice indeed who stands up and says enough is enough and proposes a broader approach.
Yvonne Hawley
This is all very well, we know the country needs lots of new homes , but lets not plough up our green fields to deliver them. We need our countryside , Staffordshire has beautiful areas and we need to be regenerating brownfield sites before we ruin fields forever. It seems to me that developers agree to abide by planning regulations on old trees and hedges but once they start work that all goes by the by. The penalties are not hard enough . They are allowed to cram too many houses in, too close together, this is not what we should be doing. We have the abilities to build beautiful homes but sadly we don’t.