Menu
Fri, 19 April 2024

Newsletter sign-up

Subscribe now
The House Live All
Environment
Environment
Ethical and sustainable conservation can’t be achieved with endangered animals in hunters’ cross-hairs Partner content
Environment
By Earl Russell
Environment
Environment
Press releases

Councils failing to protect countryside in growth plans

Campaign to Protect Rural England

5 min read Partner content

CPRE research finds Green Belt and AONB at risk from local authority growth ambitions.


The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) today shows that councils are failing to apply planning guidance that is designed to protect precious countryside.

Councils are expected by Government to establish and have a plan to meet an 'Objectively Assessed Need' (OAN) for housing in their area, which takes into account issues such as projected population growth and future employment opportunities. Yet planning rules also state that this number should take into account constraints such as protected countryside. 

CPRE research today shows that, since 2012, 24 councils out of the 62 local authorities for which there is clear data have heeded national policy and established housing targets in approved local plans lower than their OAN, with the majority reducing their targets due to environmental or countryside constraints. These include Chichester, Lewes and Wealden. Chichester reduced its target by 23% and Lewes by 30%. Other local authorities, such as Brighton, Watford, Hastings and Crawley, have reduced their targets by 50% or more (see Fig 1 below).

Other councils, however, have pursued the full OAN despite a high proportion of their land being protected countryside. In East Devon, the planning inspector accepted the local authority’s contention that OAN of 17,100 houses should be met in full because of high expected levels of job creation in the district. In Christchurch and East Dorset, where the local plan meets the objectively assessed need for 8,490 houses over 15 years in full, 84% of the area of the plan is covered by Green Belt, AONB and nature conservation land. 

CPRE finds that this approach is continuing elsewhere (see Fig 2 below). For example, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, part of which is covered by the Prime Minister's constituency, is pursuing their full OAN target of 14,000 houses over 20 years despite 84% of the land being Green Belt. In Mid Sussex, the planning inspector has been reported as forcing the council to accept a number even higher than their OAN of 876 houses per year  to help Crawley meet their 'unmet need'. Mid Sussex has significant areas of precious countryside, particularly the High Weald AONB. Neighbouring authorities, particularly Wealden which has a similar proportion of protected land, have been able to reduce their housing targets. Campaigners and local MPs have long fought a consortium of developers who have argued for a still higher housing target. 

CPRE's planning campaign manager Paul Miner comments:

"Government planning rules state that councils should reduce their numbers if faced with significant constraints. A number of councils around the country have done just this. One has to ask, therefore, why the Government is allowing councils to ignore national guidance in places such as Maidenhead. 

"We need to build more genuinely affordable homes. But current rules promote urban sprawl and cause the unnecessary loss of countryside. A more transparent and less damaging method of planning for housing is urgently needed."

Government ministers recently pledged to create a new method for councils to calculate their Objectively Assessed Need. The proposals were expected in early summer, but the General Election is believed to have delayed their release. CPRE is calling for a method that better reflects local need, protected countryside and current building rates.

CPRE's new research follows previous work by consultants Lichfields, who in 2016 found a further seven councils that reduced OAN due to constraints or adverse impacts (p. 15: link). Added to CPRE's work, this would total more than 30 councils that have reduced their housing targets, most often on environmental grounds. 

Figure 1: The top 15 local authorities who have set lower housing targets in adopted plans

Plan Area

Local Plan Status

Difference between annual Housing requirement and OAN (number)

Percentage change from OAN to housing target (%)

Brighton and Hove

Adopted

-846

-56

Chichester

Adopted

-133

-23

Crawley

Adopted

-335

-50

Derby

Adopted

-324

-33

Gravesham

Adopted

-102

-22

Hastings

Adopted

-204

-50

Hertsmere

Adopted

-85

-24

Hounslow

Adopted

-528

-39

Ipswich

Adopted

-189

-28

Kingston upon Thames

Adopted

-342

-48

Lewes

Adopted

-145

-30

Reigate and Banstead

Adopted

-163

-26

South Northamptonshire

Adopted

-334

-46

Watford

Adopted

-318

-55

Wealden

Adopted

-100

-18

Figure 2: 10 Local Authorities who have not reduced their housing targets in adopted and proposed plans despite high proportions of protected countryside.

Plan Area

Local Plan Status

Difference between annual Housing requirement and OAN (number)

Percentage change from OAN to housing target (%)

Percentage protected countryside

Bromsgrove

Adopted

37

11

91% Green Belt

Cannock Chase

Adopted

13

6

64% Green Belt and AONB

Christchurch and East Dorset

Adopted

0

0

84% Green Belt and AONB

East Devon

Adopted

0

0

59% landscape designations

Epping Forest

Published

4

1

93% Green Belt

Mid Sussex

Submitted

105

15

59% AONB

North Somerset

Adopted

124

13

55% Green Belt or AONB

South Bucks

Emerging

55

17

87% Green Belt

Windsor and Maidenhead

Emerging

3

0

83% Green Belt

Wyre Forest

Emerging

4

2

65% GB and other designations

 

Categories

Environment