FEARS are growing that Worcester faces the prospect of unwanted homes being forced on residents - after a shock change in the city's status.

Your Worcester News can reveal how a significant planning quirk now means the city is suddenly vulnerable to vulture-like builders seizing on a housing "window" to build in controversial locations.

Under planning rules every council has to demonstrate it has a five-year supply of land for new properties, which is regularly updated to satisfy the Government.

Those without it face the ugly prospect of developers getting homes built in areas without consent of the council, by taking it to appeal before national inspectors.

Worcester City Council had an official land supply of more than eight years in March last year, but that is no longer the case.

The official housing 'need' for Worcester, as deemed by an independent Government inspector is 9,830 properties by 2020, but the city is 630 short taking into account current building, future expected permissions and the other bits of land forecast to be developed.

One big reason for the change is because in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP), the blueprint earmarking land for homes in Worcester, Malvern and Wychavon by 2030, inspector Roger Clews upped the requirement from 23,200 to 28,370 last year.

The city council, which has taken legal advice, has also now been told two controversial 'urban extensions', one south of the city between Kempsey and St Peter's and another next to Dines Green west of Worcester, are not allowed to form part of the latest five-year land supply calculations - despite both sites expecting to contribute more than 1,100 properties by 2020.

It means until the SWDP is signed off the council is in limbo and could be a potential target.

A new council report on the update warns there is a "strong likelihood that more planning applications and appeals" will now be lodged before the SWDP is finalised.

Councillor David Wilkinson, cabinet member for safer and stronger communities, said: "It is a concern, but if developers put through applications for unwanted schemes do we roll over and accept it, or refuse it and take that risk of an appeal and paying the costs?

"But it's not as if we haven't got identified land for houses, we've got (two) urban extensions, we just can't take them into account before the SWDP is adopted.

"At first sight it looks like we should be worried but it's not as bad as it may seem, it's a theoretical risk until the SWDP is adopted."

A council spokesman said: "The practical effect of this, in the period before the SWDP is adopted is that this council is unable to refer to the housing targets in the SWDP in its decisions on planning applications for new residential proposals.

"Nonetheless, the council will continue to use its powers to resist inappropriate development."

WHAT COULD BE AT RISK?

ALL the spotlight will inevitably fall on sites like Middle Battenhall Farm, a green beauty spot off Red Hill Lane in Battenhall which developers are trying to build 200 homes on.

The land is earmarked in the SWDP as protected green fields, but Miller Homes has submitted a planning application to develop it in the face of furious objections from more than 300 people.

The company, which insists the site is suitable for new property despite the anger.

A Miller Homes spokesman said: "A lot of technical matters have been discussed back and forth and we hope it will going to the planning committee soon."

The city council says the status of it is still "undecided" but has made it clear via the SWDP that it wants it protected - and yesterday told your Worcester News planning officers would be taking the matter to the planning committee soon.

A spokesman said: "The application is still under active consideration and is expected to be brought before the planning committee in the near future."

Under crucial Government rules known as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), without that five-year land supply inspectors are told that appeals "should be granted unless any adverse impacts outweigh the benefits".

That means developers applying to build houses on sites not in the SWDP have a potentially stronger case, providing they can successfully argue it will offer more positives than negatives.

The Local Government Association (LGA), the umbrella-body representing councils, yesterday said any authority without a five-year land supply like Worcester is "at risk".