In response to the Government’s new housing strategy [1], Neil Sinden, Director of Policy and Campaigns for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says:

“We welcome today’s announcement, which acknowledges that it is not the planning system that has been constraining house building, but a lack of finance. Now that the Government has recognised this fact, we hope it will feed into the review of their proposed planning reforms. This should result in reforms that allow the planning system to deliver both truly sustainable new housing, and better protections for the ordinary countryside that is currently under threat.

“This strategy is the first step in rethinking our approach to housing, and in particular considering how we can get more out of the existing stock as well as increasing the supply of affordable homes. CPRE awaits with interest further detail on the Government's proposals for 'locally planned large scale development'. This idea must not be allowed to turn into another eco-towns disaster, with the environment and communities set to lose out as central Government and developers force through projects in poorly thought out locations.

“The potential of the planning system to support local communities in identifying sites for sustainable housing development must be harnessed. This means treating reuse of previously-developed land, of which there is enough to deliver 1.5m new homes, as an absolute priority. Equally crucial in delivering a planning system fit for the 21st century is ensuring that new housing development includes integration with and improvement of existing sustainable transport networks, efficient use of resources, and delivering the best quality design possible.”

End

Notes to Editors
[1] Department for Communities and Local Government, New strategy to deliver homes and strengthen the economy, 21 November 2011 http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/2033731

While CPRE recognises the need to streamline national planning policy we have serious concerns about the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  In its current form it represents a major threat to the countryside. This document sets out why the NPPF must recognise the intrinsic value of unprotected countryside; define 'sustainable development'; encourage the re-use of brownfield sites and promote affordable rural housing in the right place.

Developers continue to rely on many of the arguments made in the 2004 Treasury-sponsored Barker Review in their arguments for loosening planning controls in the countryside, to which this report provides a comprehensive rebuttal. We present evidence that there is no overall shortage of housing for sale and a massive boost in output would create needless environmental damage. Our report also looks at the factors which have been fuelling demand and what measures could be introduced to counter this.

1. The future of the South West region will soon be clearer.  The Panel’s report on the Examination in Public (EiP) of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South West of England is expected to be published on Thursday 10 January.  CPRE [1] sets out below what it will be looking for in the Panel’s recommendations for the final RSS.

2. The South West [2] is already the fastest developing of the English regions, with over 20,000 new homes currently planned each year across the area, placing huge pressures on the environment. Achieving more sustainable development is a major challenge for the region.

3. The RSS will replace the existing Regional Plan (RPG10) and County Structure Plans. It will set housing levels for all the districts in the South West for the next 20 years and other regional policies to inform local plans (Local Development Frameworks) and planning decisions.

4. CPRE was the only non-governmental organisation and environmental body invited to all the sessions of the 10-week EiP of the draft RSS, which ran between April and July 2007. Our team included over 20 volunteer members from our branches and regional group.

WHAT WILL CPRE BE LOOKING FOR?

Priority for affordable homes
5. CPRE wants to see a significant increase in the proportion of affordable homes delivered in the region in the future with no overall increase in new housing allocation. Well under 25% of new homes currently provided in the region are affordable. Our analysis for the EiP indicated that providing excessive amounts of open market housing will not deliver significantly more affordable homes or help first-time buyers. Public funding is the major limiting factor – and increased funding, promised this autumn, would still deliver less than the proposed draft RSS target of at least 7,500 new affordable homes per annum. 

6.  CPRE’s consultants showed at the EiP that the increases of over 28,000 new houses overall per annum being advocated by some is based on ‘top of the range’ statistical and economic assumptions. We argued that a more cautious approach is required to respect environmental limits.

Urban renaissance with good neighbourhood design
7. CPRE supports the draft RSS proposal that the focus of new development should be on the region’s main cities and towns – there would still be plenty of housing allocated to rural districts – but we raised concern at the pace and scale of development proposed. We proposed that the final RSS should have more guidance to ensure an orderly approach to development to prevent ‘cherry picking’ of greenfield sites, with increased emphasis on regeneration and more efficient use of brownfield sites and vacant buildings to minimise the need for urban extension.

8. We suggested that policy on higher density housing should be linked more closely to that on design to ensure that new neighbourhoods are good places to live: good community, employment and social facilities; opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport; better energy and waste efficiency; provision of green space; and protection of the historic environment and surrounding landscape.

Strong protection for Green Belt
9. CPRE wants to see proposals for housing in the Green Belt around Bournemouth, Poole and Bath rejected completely. These Green Belt areas, as part of their role in preventing urban sprawl, are essential to safeguard internationally important conservation assets. Elsewhere the exceptional circumstances for any proposals to change Green Belt boundaries should be set out, including consideration of all the alternatives. We also advocated improvements to the draft RSS to ensure positive management of Green Belt land and other urban fringes for conservation and recreation.

Reducing our environmental footprint
10. We welcomed the sustainability aims in the draft RSS but at the EiP highlighted inconsistencies in a number of policy areas.  For example, the draft policies on airport development and encouraging individual road schemes would increase carbon emissions and exacerbate climate change. The top priority for transport should be improvement in public transport provision and measures to encourage walking and cycling. CPRE reminded the Panel that a shortfall in primary aggregates is forecast in parts of the region and asked for full exploration of the use of secondary and recycled materials.

Protecting our countryside
11. We want to see a specific aim to protect the rural and coastal character of the region. CPRE presented evidence [3] that showed the rapid decline in both tranquillity and dark skies across the South West in recent decades. Detailed landscape studies are still very patchy across the region. It is not simply the nationally designated landscapes that are important in the South West. Decisions on urban extensions and other developments need to be made with full consideration of the ‘eco-systems services’ that the countryside contributes to communities, such as provision of local foods, water supply and flood management, wildlife, and opportunities for recreation.

A more sustainable approach to prosperity 
12. We are seeking a ‘basket-of-measures’ approach to prosperity that recognises quality of life, places less reliance on built development and requires exploration of alternative economic options. The housing numbers proposed in the draft RSS are based on only one measure of economic success – GVA growth per annum. Our economic expert showed that around 25% of economic growth in the region is simply the result of net in-migration from other English regions. Improved productivity could be addressed through, for example, greater investment in skills and training and added value appropriate to local conditions. This would be a more sustainable route to achieving rural vitality than continued high levels of dispersed development.

Next steps
13. The public will be able to submit written comments in summer 2008 when the Government publishes Proposed Changes to the policy statement – a revised draft RSS based on the Panel’s recommendations. The Minister will then make a final decision on housing numbers and other policies before the completed RSS is published later in 2008.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. The South West of England is covered by our branches of Avonside, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire.

3. See our web site www.cpre.org.uk for our work on tranquillity and light pollution. Go to www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/planning/intrusion/national-and-regional-intrusion-maps/intrusion-map-south-west for maps of comparative noise and visual intrusion in the South West from 2007, the 1990s and 1960s. Our analysis shows the South West, once the English region least disturbed by noise and visual intrusion with only 15% of the area affected in the 1960s, is now over 40% affected. Go to http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity/national-and-regional-tranquillity-maps/south-west for a map of comparative tranquillity (published 2006). Go to www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/light-pollution/light-pollution-in-your-area for a map CPRE published in 2003 showing the decline in dark skies in the South West: on average, the light shining upwards at night from each square kilometre in the South West rose by 17% in less than a decade.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) [1] warned today (Wednesday) that the heavy hand of Government threatens to undermine urban regeneration and protection of the countryside. Rejecting the Regional Assembly’s proposal for 365,000 homes in the next 20-years, the Government is now seeking to increase that figure to up to 420,000 new dwellings.

Although it is not clear that such large numbers of houses will actually be needed or that infrastructure can be built to support them, the Government seems determined to press ahead.

It will appoint its own consultants, riding a coach and horses through the Assembly’s consultation process. This resulted in an unprecedented press release from the Assembly challenging the Government’s actions.

What is clear on the ground is that, despite the Government’s reassurances, the only way such high allocations can be achieved is for local authorities to allow even more building on greenfield land, and potentially Green Belt. This, in turn, could undermine development in our towns and cities, particularly of the higher quality homes needed to encourage balanced urban regeneration.

CPRE have argued that even the 365,000 homes proposed by the Assembly are too many. [2] A figure of 285,000 homes in the region would be better able to ensure we concentrate on proven need and on providing the right kind of housing in the right place. However, as the numbers increase beyond that the environmental compromises can grow dramatically. This latest hike demonstrates that the Government has given up on regeneration and is now simply playing a numbers game with little regard for consequences.

Gerald Kells, Regional Policy Officer from CPRE, said:

‘We are extremely concerned about this housing hike. The aim of concentrating on urban regeneration and not creating unsustainable new housing estates in the countryside is already at breaking point in the region. Bumping up the numbers will mean more badly located greenfield houses.  This will do little to provide the affordable homes we need or to reduce congestion and the other negative impacts of the current exodus from our cities.

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. CPRE press release West Midlands Assembly Must Resist Excessive Housing in the Countryside dated 6 June www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/401

Commenting on the publication of the Panel’s report of the Examination in Public (EiP) [1] of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy – a plan to shape the South West’s development for the next 20 years – Wendy Lutley, the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s [2] Regional Policy Officer for the South West said:

‘We are deeply concerned at the pace and scale of the development recommended by the Panel’s report, which includes increasing the housing allocation for the region to 28,000 new homes per annum, an increase of 40 per cent on provision in the current regional plan. The South West is already the fastest growing of the English regions and accelerated growth could threaten its special qualities.’

Wendy continued:

‘Although we welcome the report’s recommendation of increasing the target of affordable homes to 10,000 per annum [3], we are concerned that availability of funding in the foreseeable future would mean a shortfall in delivery. We also think a more cautious approach to built development is needed to respect the region’s special environment and rural character.

‘We are particularly concerned at the proposal to increase development levels substantially in some more rural and coastal districts. Our evidence at the EiP showed that the rural character of the region is already in rapid decline. The final regional plan should aim to manage change, not fuel growth. It should concentrate on making good use of and improving the skills of local people; and ensure that change benefits rather than harms local communities, our countryside and the environment.’

CPRE’s seven county branches in the South West will be looking closely at the detail of the Panel’s recommendations for their areas:

CPRE Avonside [4] spokesperson Georgie Bigg said:

‘The scale and pace of development proposed will have huge implications for infrastructure, such as sewage and drainage that is, in many places already inadequate. The first priority should be ensuring the city of Bristol has quality, well-designed sustainable accommodation to make urban living attractive. The continued integrity of the Green Belt will be critical and its value to both city and country dwellers should not be underestimated. The international heritage value of Bath and its nationally important landscape setting must be conserved. We will continue to oppose expansion of Bristol International Airport that is inappropriately situated in beautiful countryside adjacent to the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with no likelihood of rail connection.’

CPRE Cornwall spokesperson Chris Burton said:

‘The Panel’s recommendations for substantially higher housing levels for the rural districts of Cornwall cause us considerable concern. There is perpetual pressure for development along the coast. We were already concerned at the pace and scale of development proposed for Truro/Falmouth in the draft RSS. We said at the EiP into draft RSS that the priority for Cornwall should be affordable housing and regeneration appropriate to protecting Cornwall’s heritage. Overall housing levels should certainly not be higher than in the current Cornwall Structure Plan (the plan to guide future development democratically agreed by Cornwall County Council).’

CPRE Devon Vice-chairman, Geoffrey Sworder said:

‘The biggest issue for Devon is housing. We are concerned at the overall pace and scale of new development proposed, when the crucial need is to achieve a higher proportion of affordable homes. For Devon we will be looking carefully at what the Panel report says on this – and on development in smaller settlements and the countryside. The final wording of draft RSS will be critical to ensure sustainable development in our towns and villages and avoid inappropriate development in the wider countryside.’

CPRE Dorset Chairman, Howard Thomas said:

‘We will continue to campaign vigorously against any housing and road development in the Green Belt around Bournemouth and Poole and in Dorset's Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The main housing priority for Dorset must be affordable homes.’

CPRE Gloucestershire Vice-chairman, Richard Lloyd said:

‘We are pleased to see that the Panel has endorsed the focus of growth on Gloucester and Cheltenham to bring job creation and new housing more into line and to reduce dispersed development in the more rural parts of the county where the priority is for affordable housing for existing communities. Accommodating the higher housing numbers now envisaged will be a real challenge. While we accept there will be a need for urban extension, we are concerned that greenfield sites should not be released before more difficult urban regeneration challenges have been fully addressed and that the Panel has advised against any phasing of development. We are also disappointed that our case was not accepted for extensions to the Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl south of Gloucester and to the north of Bishops Cleeve.’

CPRE Somerset Chairman, Catherine le Grice-Mack said:

‘We will be looking carefully at what the Panel says about the priority for a second strategic road route through Somerset along with the A303. CPRE maintains that this is used more as a local and sub-regional route and enlarging its capacity would be contrary to the draft RSS aims of reducing carbon emissions and maintaining tranquillity. We support the main focus of development in Somerset being at Taunton – but are concerned at the pace and scale proposed. The final RSS must include clear guidance for local authorities to help them decide appropriate development levels for market towns and villages to ensure continued local identity and sense of place.’

CPRE Wiltshire Vice chairman Charmian Spickernell said:

‘In Wiltshire our particular concern is the pace and scale of development proposed for Swindon. It is essential that the town centre is regenerated first, including improvement to public transport. There are huge implications for infrastructure such as water and sewage that need to be addressed before further expansion. It will also be important to maintain the separate identity of nearby towns and villages. The main need across Wiltshire as a whole is to prioritise affordable homes.’

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. For a fuller overview of our input to the EiP and our advance briefing on the draft RSS Panel report for the South West see http://www.cpre.org.uk/news/view/465

2. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

3. This represents 35% of the new housing delivery target. Previously affordable housing represented less than 25% of the houses built – which equated to less than 5,000 houses a year.

4. Our branch covering Bristol, Bath and Weston-super-Mare.

1. Next month the Government is expected to announce its preferred list of eco-towns. It is understood that more than 50 bids have been submitted to the Government for consideration, although Ministers have so far declined to disclose information about bids received or the location of proposed schemes. Based on research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) [1], a map of possible locations is available from CPRE.

> View the interactive map using Google Maps

Background

2. Last May, Gordon Brown pledged to build up to 100,000 houses in five eco-towns. [2] Each eco-town would contain between 5,000-20,000 homes. Developments would be zero carbon, contain a range of facilities, including schools, shops and leisure facilities and be an exemplar in at least one environmental technology. At the Labour Party conference in September, Gordon Brown as Prime Minister announced a further five eco-towns would be built, at least one in each region, making a total of 10 altogether. [3]

CPRE’s approach to eco-towns

3. CPRE is sympathetic towards the eco-towns initiative. Whether we can support individual eco-town proposals will depend on where they are located, what form they take, and how they are developed. Schemes should genuinely secure a step-change in environmental standards. They should not be a smokescreen for making housebuilding appear more palatable. They should be exemplars of environmentally sustainable development. For ‘eco-towns’ to succeed they must be well integrated with existing settlements and agreed with, not imposed on, local communities. Provided the right approach is taken eco-towns are an opportunity for planners and developers, working with communities, to inspire and set standards for others to follow.

4. While CPRE welcomes the focus on the environmental implications of new housing, eco-towns represent less than 10% of the 3 million new homes the Government is seeking to build by 2020. Its commitment to making new homes zero-carbon by 2016 is a step forward but not enough. To keep the impacts of climate change within manageable parameters, we need to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions (on 1990 levels) by 2050. As a result urgent consideration should be given to improving the environmental performance of all development, new and existing. Since 70% of today’s homes will still be with us in 2050 the gains to be achieved from improving the environmental performance of existing housing are arguably greater.

5. In order to provide examples for others to follow it is vital that eco-towns are properly planned. A key issue is how decisions on eco-towns relate to existing local and regional plans. [4] These are subject to extensive public consultation and testing of evidence, and provide the basis for securing consent on the level and location of new development. The extent to which eco-towns will undergo public consultation, or be subject to full scrutiny and robust testing of evidence is unclear. Understandably, some communities feel sidelined since by inviting bids direct from developers the Government is circumventing normal planning processes whereby the need for a new settlement would be considered in preparing a local plan and the final scheme approved by the local council via a planning application. We understand that the Government may invoke New Towns Act procedures (or the equivalent) to designate and develop some eco-towns. This would be heavy-handed. To secure public support for eco-towns, the Government should not undermine the planning system and the considerable time, effort and expense communities have put into drawing up local and regional plans.

6. CPRE believes that decisions on eco-towns should take account of the wider development ‘shadow’ which extends far beyond the developed footprint of the site. This can be minimised where building occurs on urban brownfield sites and where infrastructure and public transport are already in place or can be provided relatively easily. The Government’s criteria for eco-towns currently requires them to be stand-alone new settlements. [5] Yet there is a compelling case for schemes to be developed based around urban renaissance, such as ‘eco extensions’ or ‘eco-quarters’, since most homes are in urban areas or will be built there.

7. Eco-towns should be subject to the same tests as any other new settlement proposal, as well as adding value by achieving better environmental standards. For the initiative to have credibility, schemes that are simply rejected development proposals that failed to win planning approval in the past, should only be considered where concerns that led to their being rejected in the first place have been satisfactorily addressed.

CPRE’s 10 tests

8. CPRE will be assessing shortlisted schemes against a series of tests along the following lines:

• the public and affected communities should be fully consulted on schemes, including the principle of whether or not to have an eco-town in their area;

• schemes should be tested through regional spatial strategies and local development framework reviews. These should ensure that decisions on eco-towns take full account of evidence on environmental effects, housing need and alternatives for meeting this;

• decisions on eco-towns should be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates a new settlement to be the most sustainable option for accommodating housing growth compared with other options, such as redeveloping an existing urban brownfield site or an urban extension;

• schemes should demonstrate efficient use of land, with densities capable of supporting public transport and a high priority given to recycling brownfield land and buildings;

• they should be genuinely carbon neutral, taking into account potential emissions from transport (domestic, public and commercial) and buildings (in construction and use);

• they should foster a strong sense of place and community, achieve CABE gold Building for Life Standards, with high quality public spaces, architecture and street layouts that give priority to pedestrians and non-motorised transport, including substantial car free areas;

• they should be subject to an independent landscape character appraisal, be sympathetic to their setting and clearly enhance the local landscape, built and natural heritage, including through the designation of new Green Belt where appropriate;

• they should include measures designed to conserve water and other natural resources, minimise soil, air, noise and light pollution and achieve zero-waste;

• they should be complete communities with homes (with at least 50% affordable), schools, workplaces, shops, recreation, community and health facilities and open space within walking distance and foster active, sustainable lifestyles and civic participation;

• they should be well connected to surroundings with high quality public transport providing good access to nearby settlements and local supply networks, with sourcing of local produce, such as food, fuel and replenishible building materials.

Notes for editors

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. In March last year, the then Housing Minister, Yvette Cooper MP, announced that the Government would consider plans for eco-towns put forward by local authorities as part of the New Growth Points scheme. As part of his leadership campaign, Gordon Brown pledged to build five ‘eco towns’, BBC interview 17 May, 2007.

3. At the Labour Party conference in October 2007, Gordon Brown, who was by then Prime Minister, told delegates ‘And for the first time in nearly half a century we will show the imagination to build new towns - eco-towns with low and zero carbon homes. And today because of the response we have received we are announcing that instead of just five new eco towns, we will now aim for ten eco towns ---- building thousands of new homes in every region of the country.’

4. Around 200,000 homes a year are currently planned for in regional plans – homes provided in eco-towns are expected to be additional to this. The Government is to announce a further round of New Growth Points shortly (there are 45 currently).

5. The Government’s criteria for eco-towns are set out in Eco-Towns Prospectus (CLG, July 2007) available from http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/ecotownsprospectus

A public survey [1] for countryside campaigners, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) [2], has found little appetite among the public for the Government’s housebuilding plans.

These results are being published today (Friday) to coincide with a national newspaper advertising campaign [3] questioning the Government’s approach to housing.

The survey, conducted by ICM, demonstrates the public oppose the Government’s policy of building 3 million new homes by 2020 (53%), believe that so many extra homes will have a negative impact on communities (46%), and think the biggest winners of Government house building plans are property developers and landowners (50%). 77% of respondents also believed the Government should prioritise bringing some of the country’s 700,000 empty properties back into use, and around half of people polled thought building on derelict, or brownfield sites, a priority. [4]

Kate Gordon, CPRE’s senior planner said:

‘This survey shows that the public would show more sympathy towards the Government’s proposals if housebuilding was accompanied by strong measures to tackle urban dereliction, and bring back into use empty properties.  Welcome progress has been made, with around three quarters of new homes now built on brownfield land, but more is needed.

‘We welcome the Government’s decision, announced this week, to set up a National Brownfield Forum. [5] To make further progress, we need to address the chronic shortage of regeneration skills. We must secure the commitment of Whitehall, communities, planners and developers, to making brownfield regeneration the priority when it comes to providing the housing we need.’

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. Public Attitudes to Housing Expansion poll: ICM interviewed a representative sample of 924 adults aged 18+ in England and Wales by telephone between 23 – 24 January 2008. Copies of the questions and findings are available from CPRE’s press office 020 7981 2880.

2. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

3. CPRE is placing advertisements in national newspapers on Friday 7 March. The advertisements are inviting people, concerned about the impact of the Government’s housing proposals, to email the Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, via CPRE’s website: www.cpre.org.uk. (This will be live on CPRE’s home page from 00.01 hours Friday 7 March.) Copies of the advertisement are available from CPRE’s press office 020 7981 2880.

4. Around half of those interviewed believe developers and landowners, rather than the public, stand to gain most from Government plans to build 3 million new homes.  Just 5% believe local communities will benefit and 13% believe the country as a whole would benefit. The survey found considerable appetite exists among the public for measures to secure urban renewal. More than three quarters of those interviewed believe priority should be given to bringing back into use empty properties. Around half called for more homes to be built on derelict land in urban areas. By contrast, building more homes in the countryside found support among less than 10% of those interviewed.

5. Securing the future supply of brownfield land: Government’s response to English Partnership’s recommendations on the National Brownfield Strategy, Communities and Local Government; Mind the Skills Gap and Draft Brownfield Skills Strategy, Academy for Sustainable Communities, English Partnerships, launched at English Partnership’s brownfield conference on Tuesday.

Countryside campaigners CPRE [1] expressed deep disappointment at the Government’s shortlist of proposed eco town schemes.

CPRE senior planner Kate Gordon said:

‘Our main worry is the proposed location of many of these schemes. We fully support the Government’s aspirations for achieving the highest standards in terms of sustainability and affordability. But achieving high environmental standards on site is not enough if the development is in the wrong place to begin with.'

‘For settlements to be genuinely "eco" they must be based around walking, cycling and public transport with a range of facilities available locally. They should enhance, not spoil, the surrounding area and landscape, and win the support of the local community. For this to happen, schemes must be agreed via the local planning process rather than attempt to circumvent this.'

CPRE is calling on the Government to rigorously assess and drop proposals which would not achieve these benefits in the light of our ten tests [2].

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. CPRE’s 10 tests

• the public and affected communities should be fully consulted on schemes, including the principle of whether or not to have an eco-town in their area;

• schemes should be tested through regional spatial strategies and local development framework reviews. These should ensure that decisions on eco-towns take full account of evidence on environmental effects, housing need and alternatives for meeting this;

• decisions on eco-towns should be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates a new settlement to be the most sustainable option for accommodating housing growth compared with other options, such as redeveloping an existing urban brownfield site or an urban extension;

• schemes should demonstrate efficient use of land, with densities capable of supporting public transport and a high priority given to recycling brownfield land and buildings;

• they should be genuinely carbon neutral, taking into account potential emissions from transport (domestic, public and commercial) and buildings (in construction and use);

• they should foster a strong sense of place and community, achieve CABE gold Building for Life Standards, with high quality public spaces, architecture and street layouts that give priority to pedestrians and non-motorised transport, including substantial car free areas;

• they should be subject to an independent landscape character appraisal, be sympathetic to their setting and clearly enhance the local landscape, built and natural heritage, including through the designation of new Green Belt where appropriate;

• they should include measures designed to conserve water and other natural resources, minimise soil, air, noise and light pollution and achieve zero-waste;

• they should be complete communities with homes (with at least 50% affordable), schools, workplaces, shops, recreation, community and health facilities and open space within walking distance and foster active, sustainable lifestyles and civic participation;

• they should be well connected to surroundings with high quality public transport providing good access to nearby settlements and local supply networks, with sourcing of local produce, such as food, fuel and replenishible building materials.

 

A new report from countryside campaigners CPRE [1] shows that the exodus of young families from our cities, in search of housing they can afford, is putting immense pressure on our countryside and polarising urban England.

Family Housing - The Power of Concentration also offers a solution: high-quality, higher-density housing which can reinvigorate urban communities.

'A whole section of our cities’ population – young families on moderate incomes – can neither buy unassisted at stratospheric market prices nor qualify for social rented accommodation’, said Steve Whitbread, Director of CPRE London.

‘They are forced to move out from town in search of housing they can afford, frequently splitting the city into neighbourhoods of the very rich and very poor. This puts even greater strain on the countryside (for new housing) on transport infrastructure (with so many having to commute into towns to work) and on family life. If we want to halt the continuing breakdown of urban communities, this has to stop.’

Family Housing – the Power of Concentration demonstrates that high quality, reasonably priced – perhaps shared ownership housing can be provided in urban areas at more than 50 dph (dwellings per hectare), with public transport within easy walking distance of every home. 

‘Densities at this level not only make public transport, services and local shops sustainable – they make the community viable,’ Steve continued.

‘Unfortunately, thanks mainly to problems with various infamous high-rise developments of the 1960s and 1970s, planners and, most importantly, the public remain to be convinced. The fact is that the problems of the past resulted mainly from mistakes in design, location and management. The density of these developments was no more than in the streets and squares they replaced. The potential desirability of higher-density housing is clearly demonstrated by the enduring popularity of Georgian and Victorian squares: which were typically built at densities of 80 dph.’

The Power of Concentration uses seven case studies from around the country to show that attractive family housing can be built at densities far greater than the traditional suburban norm of 30 dph or less. Most of the case-study developments – such as the strikingly attractive Iroko, near London’s Waterloo Station – have been selected in part because they have won awards for their design.

‘The report illustrates that the design expertise to build to high quality and at higher densities already exists,’ Steve concluded. ‘We must match this expertise with the political will to ensure our cities get the type of housing they need, where they need it and at a price people can afford. A large and vital section of England’s urban population depends on it.’

– END –
NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, campaigns for a sustainable future for the English countryside, a vital but undervalued environmental, economic and social asset to the nation. We highlight threats and promote positive solutions. Our in-depth research supports active campaigning, and through reasoned argument and lobbying we seek to influence public opinion and decision-makers at every level.

The continued existence and quality of so much of the English landscape is a testament to our 80 years of successful campaigning. CPRE led the campaign to create the town and country planning system, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and Green Belts. Even so, the countryside continues to face a multitude of threats. CPRE campaigns to protect and enhance our landscape heritage for the benefit of all.

2. Family Housing – The Power of Concentration is published on Thursday 8 May by CPRE London and CPRE Kent.