Countryside campaigners in the West Midlands say the Regional Assembly must not cave in to Government pressure to massively increase housing numbers.  An increase on this scale would fuel a greenfield housing bonanza which would wreck prospects for urban regeneration in the region and destroy many acres of countryside, including parts of the Green Belt [1].

Under pressure from the Government the Regional Assembly is proposing to increase housing numbers above levels it previously said were consistent with a strategy of concentrating development in urban areas. The Assembly is also considering further ways to increase housing numbers to meet inflated Government predictions of demand.

CPRE [3] warns that this will lead to is developers cherry picking greenfield sites in response to market demand, and not to the provision of much needed affordable housing. They also say long-term implications for the countryside, the environment, the Green Belt and for urban regeneration in the region could be catastrophic.

Experience in other parts of the country suggests that housebuilding in the countryside will not be adequately supported by new services and infrastructure, leading to less sustainable communities in the long run [4].

The proposals would go against the wishes of local communities. When the Regional Assembly consulted on housing options earlier this year, as part of their Regional Spatial Strategy review, local residents and many local authorities gave a massive thumbs-down to pushing the housing figures above 300,000. Many wanted much lower figures [5].

Peter Langley, Vice Chairman of CPRE West Midlands, said:
‘We support urban regeneration, but there is a tipping point. You reach a level where cities and towns cannot support additional housing and you are forced to release greenfield sites. The Regional Assembly should listen to local people and local authorities. They should send a strong message to Government that high housing numbers and unsustainable communities on green fields go together. Caving in to pressure to release too much housing land in unsuitable locations will not give them influence over Government decisions, it will further weaken their ability to resist the onward march of the bulldozer.’

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The Regional Assembly suggested three options for housing numbers for the region as part of their Options consultation on the Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Review earlier this year. They were then advocating a figure equivalent to 302,000 houses (net from 2006-2026) but it was expressed as 490,000 houses (gross from 2001-2026). This they said was consistent with preserving the urban and rural renaissance.

At the Regional Planning Partnership on 31 May officers asked to develop a preferred option using a figure of 340,000 houses (net from 2006-2026). In other words they want to increase housebuilding by 40,000.

The RPP was also told that they would be considering ways of reaching the Government’s target (based on 2004 household projections) of 380,000 (net from 2006-2026) although it was explained that this was only developing options and not finalised.

2. This is subject to measures to control the phasing of development so that urban brownfield sites take priority and the type of homes built responds to identified needs, in terms of size, type and affordability.

3. 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: Sir Max Hastings. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen.

4. For example, lack of infrastructure to support existing and new development is a major issue for the South East and East of England (see letter from the East of England Regional Assembly to the Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, 9 March 2007; and South East Regional Assembly news release, 26 March 2007).

5. During the consultation 49% of residents were in favour of Option 1, with only 28% against. Residents were opposed to Options 2 and 3 by margins of 49 to 12% and 48 to 13% respectively.  Local authorities were evenly divided on Option 1, favoured Option 2 by 25 to 13%, but were overwhelmingly against Option 3 (23 to 5%).