Post by Sherford on Jul 8, 2008 23:38:46 GMT
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/planning.housing
Time to talk about eco-towns
The Campaign to Protect Rural England knows something about housing and planning. The government should listen to us
All comments (20)
When the Government announced its eco-town programme, it would have been easy for the Campaign to Protect Rural England to oppose the idea out of hand. The proposals were bound to arouse strong opposition. We could have cashed in on this. However, we recognise that the country needs more housing, particularly affordable housing. And the prospect of building genuinely eco settlements, demonstrating how we can lead more sustainable lives, is exciting.
So instead of opposing the plans we set out 10 tests for judging the new eco-towns. The government's shortlist, announced in April, was deeply disappointing, not least because it excluded proposals strongly supported by our regional groups in the north west and north east. But we have carried on examining the proposals and trying to get more information about them – the whole process is clouded by "commercial confidentiality" – and we have even been able to give conditional support to the proposed Bordon-Whitehill eco-town in Hampshire.
In addition, we want Carrington, a brownfield site on the edge of Manchester that did not make the shortlist, reconsidered. It was rejected because it is not free-standing – but as Simon Jenkins has pointed out, big cities can be the true eco-towns. We also want more thought given to developing eco-quarters within existing settlements – not only big cities, but also market towns and villages. There is certainly a lot that can be done to make existing settlements more sustainable, socially as well as environmentally (see Becky Willis's research for CPRE on the proximity principle).
The consultation on eco-towns has now closed and we have urged the government to go back to the drawing board. Most of the proposed eco-towns go against local plans – in some cases, they are simply dusted-down schemes that have previously been rejected by democratic planning authorities. Because they are free-standing, those that lack rail links (the majority) risk becoming car-dependent housing estates, with non-drivers stranded. Even the energy-efficiency of the housing is being called into question: all that will now be required is a level three sustainability rating, which all new houses will have to meet in a couple of years' time anyway. Hardly groundbreaking.
We were told eco-towns would make good use of previously developed land. Again, this is not the case. It seems from details gleaned from developers that 12 of the proposed eco-towns will be built mostly on greenfield land, including green belt land in one case.
Our press release was greeted by a government spokesperson with a sneer about CPRE "reverting to type, opposing the housing that young families and first time buyers need". We are accused of "preferring to perpetuate myths rather than engaging in the debate about how we can build the houses we need".
But the government should know that we participated in its Affordable Rural Housing Commission; that we joined forces with the National Housing Federation under the banner "protect rural England: build an affordable home"; and that our branches across the country are engaged in developing local plans precisely to ensure that we are able to build the houses we need built. In some cases, such as in Elmswell, Suffolk, our branches team up with local housing associations.
Caroline Flint may not know this because, in spite of several requests, she has not met us. Nor, come to that, can we get a meeting with John Healey, who is responsible for the Planning Bill.
This is a pity. No NGO has a right to meet ministers, but we do know something about housing and planning. We are, for instance, the biggest third party participant in the planning system in England. Our regional groups and county branches work hard to influence regional and local plans, and our 2,000 volunteers look at more than 100,000 planning applications a year.
So however unpalatable some of our messages may be, we do have something to offer. The government has plenty of contact on housing and planning with the CBI, the house building industry and housing charities. It might get a more rounded view if it also listened to environmental organisations. I remember the Labour Listens campaign of the 1980s. It is time for the government to listen again.
Time to talk about eco-towns
The Campaign to Protect Rural England knows something about housing and planning. The government should listen to us
All comments (20)
When the Government announced its eco-town programme, it would have been easy for the Campaign to Protect Rural England to oppose the idea out of hand. The proposals were bound to arouse strong opposition. We could have cashed in on this. However, we recognise that the country needs more housing, particularly affordable housing. And the prospect of building genuinely eco settlements, demonstrating how we can lead more sustainable lives, is exciting.
So instead of opposing the plans we set out 10 tests for judging the new eco-towns. The government's shortlist, announced in April, was deeply disappointing, not least because it excluded proposals strongly supported by our regional groups in the north west and north east. But we have carried on examining the proposals and trying to get more information about them – the whole process is clouded by "commercial confidentiality" – and we have even been able to give conditional support to the proposed Bordon-Whitehill eco-town in Hampshire.
In addition, we want Carrington, a brownfield site on the edge of Manchester that did not make the shortlist, reconsidered. It was rejected because it is not free-standing – but as Simon Jenkins has pointed out, big cities can be the true eco-towns. We also want more thought given to developing eco-quarters within existing settlements – not only big cities, but also market towns and villages. There is certainly a lot that can be done to make existing settlements more sustainable, socially as well as environmentally (see Becky Willis's research for CPRE on the proximity principle).
The consultation on eco-towns has now closed and we have urged the government to go back to the drawing board. Most of the proposed eco-towns go against local plans – in some cases, they are simply dusted-down schemes that have previously been rejected by democratic planning authorities. Because they are free-standing, those that lack rail links (the majority) risk becoming car-dependent housing estates, with non-drivers stranded. Even the energy-efficiency of the housing is being called into question: all that will now be required is a level three sustainability rating, which all new houses will have to meet in a couple of years' time anyway. Hardly groundbreaking.
We were told eco-towns would make good use of previously developed land. Again, this is not the case. It seems from details gleaned from developers that 12 of the proposed eco-towns will be built mostly on greenfield land, including green belt land in one case.
Our press release was greeted by a government spokesperson with a sneer about CPRE "reverting to type, opposing the housing that young families and first time buyers need". We are accused of "preferring to perpetuate myths rather than engaging in the debate about how we can build the houses we need".
But the government should know that we participated in its Affordable Rural Housing Commission; that we joined forces with the National Housing Federation under the banner "protect rural England: build an affordable home"; and that our branches across the country are engaged in developing local plans precisely to ensure that we are able to build the houses we need built. In some cases, such as in Elmswell, Suffolk, our branches team up with local housing associations.
Caroline Flint may not know this because, in spite of several requests, she has not met us. Nor, come to that, can we get a meeting with John Healey, who is responsible for the Planning Bill.
This is a pity. No NGO has a right to meet ministers, but we do know something about housing and planning. We are, for instance, the biggest third party participant in the planning system in England. Our regional groups and county branches work hard to influence regional and local plans, and our 2,000 volunteers look at more than 100,000 planning applications a year.
So however unpalatable some of our messages may be, we do have something to offer. The government has plenty of contact on housing and planning with the CBI, the house building industry and housing charities. It might get a more rounded view if it also listened to environmental organisations. I remember the Labour Listens campaign of the 1980s. It is time for the government to listen again.