Archived press release

Survey shows growing alarm over county council housing figures

25 November 1997

One year after the Conservative Government launched a national debate on greenfield housing, most County Councils in England are deeply concerned about the environmental impact of the targets for building new houses that Labour has inherited [1]. A new survey of all 35 English County Councils by Friends of the Earth [2] reveals that:

* Twenty of the thirty five county councils (57%) have concerns about the environmental impact of meeting present or future housing figures;

* Eighteen of the twenty county councils (90%) in the South and East are concerned.These regions are expected to bear the brunt of the planned new housebuilding,Some are warning of “unacceptable” environmental consequences. The household projections for those regions (between 1991 and 2016) are as follows:

South East 807,000; South West 545,000; Eastern Region 582,000;

County councils in England are concerned that they will have to set aside large areas of countryside for new housing to meet the requirements of the 4.4 million new households forecast by 2016 [3]. Nick Raynsford MP, Construction Minister, acknowledged recently the “inevitable concern in various parts of the country that their housing allocations are too large”, but claimed that Labour “sees no case...for revising downwards the housing allocation figures”. (RTPI Conference. 11/06/97).

Dr Simon Festing, Housing Campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said:
“County Councils are rightly concerned about the impact of building millions of new homes, and losing vast swathes of countryside to urban sprawl.Labour cannot ignore this looming environmental disaster, and must review its housing policies now or face mounting public criticism”.

Later today Hertfordshire County Council will vote on a motion to reconsider 10,000 homes west of Stevenage.

... more follows
Furthermore, the latest British Social Attitudes survey, published last week (19/11/97),revealed that in 1996 70 per cent of those questioned believed that building new houses in country areas “should be stopped altogether“ or “discouraged”.

Counties in the Midlands and the North also expressed concern, for example:

Cheshire “household projections could... lead to loss of Green Belt or to pressures on environmentally constrained areas”.

Staffordshire “the original level of new housing provision would necessitate some use of greenfield sites and consequent loss of countryside”

North Yorks “Further increase in housing provision in the County could exacerbate unsustainable patterns of development and encourage commuting,contrary to Government objectives of reducing journey to work pressures and distances. It would also place further pressures on the County's environment and natural resources”.
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS:

[1] On 25th November, 1996, the then Environment Secretary, John Gummer launched a national debate on the location of new housing with the publication of a Green Paper “Household growth: where shall we live?”. It followed publication of new household projections in 1995, showing that 4.4 million new households will form by 2016 and proposed that 60% of the new housing should be built on previously used land. Labour has so far rejected this proposed 60% target.

Under planning law, every County Council in England must adopt a 'housing figure' for its structure plan, and must release enough land for new houses to be built to meet the figure. The housing figure comes from 'regional planning guidance' which is issued by the Government. The Government uses the'household projections' to formulate regional planning guidance.

Thus the number of new homes which each County must make land available for is effectively determined by the Government, which has overruled attempts in the past by Counties to reduce their housing figure.

[2] Friends of the Earth sent questionnaires to English counties in the Summer of 1997, and received a response from all of them. County planners were asked whether they could reasonably meet their current or future housing figures, and were asked to comment on the environmental implications.

Overall, 20 out of the 35 counties with structure plans raised concerns about the environmental implications of meeting present or future housing figures. Some of the county councils had made no assessment of their housing figures.

[3] Concerns from councils in South East, South West and Eastern Region attached.

---

SURVEY SHOWS GROWING ALARM OVER GREENFIELD HOUSING
Quotes from the concerned County Councils in the South East
Berkshire if “forecasts can be met they are likely to have unacceptable environmental consequences”.
Surrey “Allowing large-scale housebuilding in the countryside would mean the unacceptable loss of open space in Surrey over the next 20 years”;
W. Sussex “does not believe that the current housing requirement... can be met without unacceptable damage to both the urban and rural environments”;
East Sussex “does not believe that this level of implied development could be accommodated without environmental damage.”
Oxfordshire “There will be significant loss of greenfield sites”
Bucks [Future household projections] “would inevitably lead to the need to develop,predominantly greenfield land outside the limits of existing built-up areas on a very significant scale”.
Hampshire “We will try and do it [meet housing figures] without undue damage to the countryside, but if push comes to shove, we may have to”
Kent “The County Council was obliged to increase the housing provisions... in districts of particular environmental sensitivity”.

Quotes from the concerned County Councils in the South West
Cornwall said that... “it was unacceptable to increase [its housing figure] to that suggested by the most recent projections. This was for a variety of reasons,including the additional impact on the county's environment”.
Glouc'shire “Green field development, ...coupled with the increase in traffic on roads predicted ...means that some of the qualities that contribute to Gloucestershire's rurality will be eroded”.
Wiltshire “Greenfield sites will go”.
Somerset “The county is concerned at the amount of green sites lost”.
Dorset “By 2011 Dorset will have reached a form of ceiling as to non-damaging development...[and could take no more] “without a new settlement”

Quotes from the concerned County Councils in the Eastern Region
Suffolk “quite a large area of Suffolk's greenfield land will go under” if the County is forced to accept the Government's figures.
Essex “A significant upward revision of the existing provisions is likely to be difficult to accommodate without causing harm to some countryside interests”.
Bedfordshire “There will have to be further losses of greenfield sites”.
Cambs “The County Council does not believe that it can accommodate [future household projections] under existing housing policies and without undue damage to the countryside”.
Hertfordshire “If anything,... a dwelling requirement of 65,000 is too high”.

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust