How Much Land Is Your Local Council Wasting?

Wednesday 9 August

Countryside campaigners CPRE [1] today (Wednesday) name those councils whose planners – working with developers – are leading the way in breathing new life into our towns and cities and sparing our countryside from the bulldozer.

But we are also pointing the finger at those councils with the worst record in losing greenfield land. These are the ones which achieved only very low levels of using previously developed, brownfield land for new homes – or which allow developers to build homes at wastefully low densities.

Out of a total of more than 300 councils in England outside London [2], 43 have succeeded in having at least 90% of their new homes built on previously developed, brownfield land – as opposed to never developed greenfield land – according to the latest Government figures. [3]

Fifteen of these councils have achieved a land recycling level of at least 95%, which means less than one new home in every 20 was built on a greenfield site.

The land recycling heroes are: Adur (96%), Bournemouth (98%), Brentwood (98%), Dudley (99%), Elmbridge (98%), Epsom and Ewell (99%), Hertsmere (96%), Sandwell (97%), Spelthorne (98%), Surrey Heath (96%), Three Rivers (96%), Watford (an unbeatable 100%), Woking (98%) and Wolverhampton (95%).

And while most councils improved their overall performance on land recycling between 1997-2000 and 2001-2004, some did spectacularly well in raising their game.

The country’s top 11 improvers, all of which more than doubled their rate, are: Crawley (from 25 to 92%), Daventry (24 to 59%), Erewash (15 to 54%), Mansfield (16 to 52%), Redditch (17 to 48%), South Gloucestershire (18 to 45%), Swindon (11 to 32%), Telford and Wrekin (17 to 51%), Test Valley (19 to 53%), Tewkesbury (21 to 64%), and Worcester (15 to 81% – the top improver of all).

Henry Oliver, CPRE’s Head of Planning and Local Government, said: ‘We warmly congratulate these councils. We’re delighted that there has been such strong progress across the country by council planners and developers in raising the level of land recycling and getting away from wastefully low densities for new housing. [4]

‘Together, these improvements in land recycling and density have saved thousands of acres of countryside from being built on each year – even though the number of new homes being built has been growing.’ [5]

CPRE is currently campaigning hard to prevent proposed changes in Government planning guidance weakening the enlightened ‘brownfield-first’ approach of recent years which has brought about these improvements – helping to regenerate towns and cities and to protect the wider environment as well as saving countryside from development. [6]

But despite the strong overall progress, the figures show some councils were still performing very weakly.

Thirteen councils covering medium sized and larger towns (40,000 plus people) built less than one third – or 33.3% – of new homes on brownfield land. These were: Ashford (33%), Boston (28%), Corby (at 9%, England’s worst land recycler), East Riding (23%), Eastbourne (30%), Great Yarmouth (31%), Harlow (23%), Kingston upon Hull (33%), Milton Keynes (13%), North Lincolnshire (16%), Rugby (30%), Swindon (32%) and Waveney (25%). [7] This compares to the Government’s national target for at least 60 per cent of all new homes to be provided through building on brownfield land or by converting existing buildings. [8]

Ashford in Kent may actually be performing much more poorly than these Government figures suggest – which is particularly worrying since it is one of the Government’s growth areas in the Greater South East, earmarked for massive housing expansion. [9]

While most new homes are now being built at medium densities of greater than 30 homes per hectare – as called for by Government planning guidance – the figures show that more than 100 councils across England are still wasting land by granting planning permission for new homes at densities which average less than this. [10]

The 20 worst councils, who permitted new homes at average densities below 20 homes per hectare, were Alnwick (18), Brentwood (19), Bridgnorth (18), Castle Morpeth (16), Copeland (19), East Staffordshire (14), Elmbridge (16), Fenland (19) Kirklees (17), Maldon (15), Mole Valley (17), North Shropshire (19), Oswestry (13), Richmondshire (18), Ryedale (15), South Buckinghamshire (16), South Holland (18), South Kesteven (19), South Staffordshire (17), and Stafford (19). [11]

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country. 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.

2. London boroughs, especially those in inner London, achieve very high levels of land recycling – largely because land prices are so high and undeveloped land so scarce. We therefore excluded them from our analysis.

3. Source: Land Use Change in England: Residential Development to 2005 (LUCS 21), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006. These are the latest local authority level statistics available and cover the years 2001 to 2004. These percentages exclude new homes provided by converting existing buildings; if they were included the percentages would be slightly higher still. Note that local councils’ own estimates of their land recycling rates and average densities can and often do differ radically from the Government’s. The figures in LUCS 21 are based on surveying by Ordnance Survey, applied consistently across the county, whilst local councils collect different data and analyse it in different ways. We know, for example, that Cherwell District Council has expressed some doubt about the Government’s figures for its area. Because of this, CPRE relies on Government data for the national picture, even though – as the Government has itself recognised – the LUCS data and analysis need improvement. This is happening: see Research on Land Use Change Statistics, ODPM/Roger Tym & Partners, October 2004.

4. Across England as a whole, 74% of new homes in 2005 were supplied either by being built on previously developed brownfield sites or by converting existing buildings – Source: Land Use Change in England: Residential Development to 2005 (Update July 2006), Department for Communities and Local Government. So just over one quarter of new homes were built on greenfield sites. According to the same source, the average density of new homes built in 2005 was 41 per hectare.

5. There have been substantial improvements in both land recycling and density in recent years: in 2000, 63% of new homes were supplied by building on brownfield land or by conversions, and new homes were built at an overall average density of 25 dwellings per hectare. Source: Land Use Change in England: Residential Development to 2005 (Update July 2006). In 2000, 135,000 new homes were built in England and by 2005 output had risen to 159,000. But because of the increases in density and land recycling, even though 24,000 more homes were built last year, about 1,017 hectares less greenfield was built on – about four square miles. (Based on figures from sources above, with greenfield homes being built at 22 dwellings per hectare (dpha) in 2000 and 33 dpha in 2005).

6. These increases in density and land recycling are due to the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing (PPG3), published in 2000, which contains a strong ‘brownfield first’ approach. CPRE is concerned that the proposed Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which will replace PPG3 will weaken the brownfield first emphasis – a final version of PPS3 is expected later this year.

7. Swindon is on both good and bad performer lists. It has improved its land recycling dramatically, but still achieves less than 33%. Councils covering the most rural areas, with only small towns, generally have very little brownfield land to recycle. We therefore excluded these councils from our land recycling analysis.

8. This 60% target was actually met back in 1999. CPRE has long argued that it should be raised to 75% – a percentage which now appears within reach. CPRE has published a statement setting out our views on brownfield land. A copy is available from the press office or our website: www.cpre.org.uk/our-view/

9. Under the Best Value Performance Indicators for 2004/5, Ashford Borough Council reported that it had achieved a land recycling rate of only 13.6 per cent. See note 3 above concerning differences between Government and local authority figures.

10. PPG3 says new homes should be built in the density range of 30 of 50 dwellings per hectare (dpha), and at higher densities for sites which are well served by public transport and/or close to town centres. The minimum needed to support a viable bus service is around 40 dpha. The Victorians and Edwardians showed that large family homes with ample private gardens can be built in terraces at 50 dwellings per hectare and above. The source for the density figures is Land Use Change in England: Residential Development to 2005 (LUCS 21).

11. We excluded councils where fewer than 150 homes were built between 2001 and 2004 because we felt the sample size was too small to make a fair appraisal of their performance.

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.