THE housing secretary ruled out any changes to the formula for calculating council housing targets during a visit to Bournemouth.

Under new targets, BCP is expected to plan for 2,700 new homes per year.

It expects to fall short by a total of 5,500 under its new Local Plan unless it allows building on the green belt – even after allowing higher density developments and taller buildings.

Despite pleas from councillors for the government to use more up-to-date population data, Robert Jenrick said there were no plans to change the figures.

He acknowledged the “considerable constraints” a coastal council like BCP Council had when it came to housing but the government was “not considering” any alterations to its methodology.

Mr Jenrick was in Boscombe to learn more about the Towns Fund project which was awarded more than £21.7million by the government last year. He was shown around by Bournemouth East MP Tobias Ellwood and council representatives, including the leader, deputy leader and chief executive.

He said the project, which includes plans for more than 500 homes, was one of “a number of ways” in which the government was helping councils regenerate urban areas. But he said there were no plans to changes to the method by which housing requirements are set.

“As a government, we want to have a brownfield first approach when it comes to building homes,” he said.

“That is to protect our precious green areas from further development. Through schemes like the Towns Fund we are hoping councils come up with innovative ways of doing this and I was pleased to hear about BCP Council’s new urban regeneration company which will look at housing on key sites in the area.”

His comments followed appeals from councillors to revise down the target set for BCP Council after it was revealed it was likely to be thousands of homes short of meeting its goal.

Tobias Ellwood, whose Bournemouth East seat includes green belt sites which will now be included in the council’s Local Plan consultation, said: “We are the custodians of our green belt and if we concede those sites for development then we have failed in our duty.

“We do need to build more housing nationally but this can be done by using brownfield sites and increasing development in built-up areas.”

He said he had held discussions about the possibility of building a landmark “Shard-like” building in Boscombe but there was also scope to increase the scale of development in the area.

BCP Council’s deputy leader, Cllr Philip Broadhead, said: “We are very much going to push back and urge the government to look again at the way they have calculated the figures.

“In the meantime we’re doing cross party work through the Local Plan to make sure that the Local Plan work stream can protect as much green belt as possible and help to regenerate our towns because actually more people living in the urban centres is good for young people and good for the town centres.

“We are absolutely determined to protect as much of the green belt as possible and I do still think that is possible.”

He added: “We are extremely constrained with our green belt area in BCP with the sea on one side and a ring of green belt all the way around us on the other side, a lot of which are flood zones.”

He added: “I think we’ve got a really good case to be made that many if not most of the green belt zones that have been presented to us just won’t be able to be built on.”

Liberal Democrat Cllr Mike Brooke, who heads a working group on the Local Plan, said: “We have been looking through potential consultations and despite looking at increasing the height of buildings and the further increase of urban density, we just do not have enough land to meet the requirement the government has set on us.

“The impact would be horrendous. If we were to do it without building on the green belt, the density that would be created in the towns would be unreasonable and we’d be looking at potential loss of space within the urban area which would be bad for health and well-being as well as the environment and biodiversity.”

He said the government’s formula “doesn’t take into account the number of empty houses that already exist or the permitted development rights which allow offices to be turned into dwellings”.

He added: “There are so many ways that housing can be built that will meet our need but it won’t reach the target. Any other town has 360-degree hinterland. We don’t have that.

“We are being given numbers for a housing need of a town with a 360-degree hinterland and we can’t build at sea so it’s a totally impossible and unrealistic situation.”