You are not currently logged in.
Thursday, May 24 2012

CPRE fears 'open season' on Kent countryside

House building. Library picture

Campaigners fear green field sites will be built on

by political editor Paul Francis

Sweeping reforms of the planning system could see more homes being built on Kent’s countryside, campaigners have warned.

But Greg Clarke, the Kent MP and planning minister in charge of the shake-up, says the accusations are nonsense and the changes will protect the environment and put the brake on sprawling out-of-town development.

The government is consulting on far-reaching changes to planning rules which will mean that economic growth will be the key factor in determining whether applications should be granted.

Campaigners fear the changes will lead to developers targetting green field sites, which are generally easier and cheaper to build on.

Figures show that over the last ten years, nearly 38,000 homes in the county were built on previously-developed land - known as brownfield - with 17,320 built on greenfield sites.

Only Ashford and Swale saw more homes built on greenfield sites than other land over that period.

As part of the government’s changes, targets for building homes on previously developed land are to be scrapped.

Sean Spire, of the Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE), said: "Although they say protected landscapes, like Green Belts and AONBs, will still be protected, and that is to be welcomed, it seems it is open season for the rest of the countryside, including some of our finest agricultural land.

"But with their crude focus on economic growth and default ‘yes’ to development, ministers are storing up plenty of unintended consequences for the future."

Greg Clark insisted the reforms - the most radical for 50 years - would safeguard the countryside and would help address affordable housing shortages in rural areas.

"The CPRE is plain wrong. The suggestion that this will lead to urban sprawl is completely the opposite to what is proposed.

"We are maintaining the protection of the Green Belt which will stop that happening."

"Some people suggested that we relax the restraints on the green belt and that is important to Kent."

He added that the government was creating a new right for communities to designate sites in their areas as valued green space - meaning it would have the same protection as green belt land.

According to an analysis by Kent County Council, 73 per cent of all new homes built in 2009-10 were on brownfield sites - above the 60 per cent guideline set by the government.

But in Ashford, more homes were built on greenfield sites than anywhere else in the county, with 4,732 compared to 1,172 on brownfield.

And in a sign of the impact of the recession on the housing market, 4,086 homes were built last year in Kent - the fewest number since the previous recession in the mid 1990s.

You can read the consultation on the changes to the planning system here: http://bit.ly/qASSYR.

Monday, August 01 2011

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (3)

Post a Comment

  • Debsy wrote:

    OK, let's turn Kent into one sprawling estate of social housing, and just get it over with. Perhaps we could create a new town in Scotland for exiled Kent residents wishing to reclaim some green and pleasant land... oh, and maybe we could qualify for free prescriptions and free homes for the elderly while we're up there.

    01 Aug 2011 4:07 PM

    Report Abuse

  • Bonnie Lucas wrote:

    Sellindge, SE Kent under the North Downs in an area of beautiful countryside is being hit from all sides by a waste disposal plant at one end of the village, opposite a thriving cafe, a lorry park the other,( which would not cope with the amount of TIR's over 9000 that come through daily on the M20 )2 wind farms which will be a terrible blot on the landscape as well as being useless, over 1000 homes, and now a quarry . We have had a long hard battle, a petition of 98% of the 1045 residents, with absolutly no response from KCC dispite the fact that all the local councils opposed the plans. We had an Urban Consultants group that managed to get over £50,000 to tell us what we didn't want, what a waste of money. We want to stay a friendly village. We do not want to be urbanised. We have all the things we need in the village and it is ideal. Do not spoil it for future generations.

    01 Aug 2011 4:02 PM

    Report Abuse

  • samantha wrote:

    "Affordable housing" is the politicians' shallow excuse for allowing developers to build cheap houses on green sites. How can the economy benefit from low-cost properties in rural areas where there is no employment? Our councils and Government are in thrall to the building industry.

    01 Aug 2011 2:58 PM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.