How To Save Our Countryside: Answers On A Postcard

22 November 2006

The half million new homes planned for the East of England will place huge pressure on the environment and could be too many to match the jobs available.

These are the chief messages being given to Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP today (Wednesday) from thousands of local people as she considers proposed changes to the far-reaching East of England Plan [1].

Comments addressed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by residents of the East of England, collected by countryside campaigners CPRE [2], also show people want:

• improvements to public transport instead of new roads which carve up the countryside;
• Green Belts to be protected;
• new housing to be built mainly on brownfield sites.

Over 1,200 people signed CPRE’s petition [3] to say they believe that development in the region should respect environmental limits. They say the region’s needs should be met without wrecking its countryside and quality of life.

A further 800 people wrote messages to Ruth Kelly on postcards which CPRE is passing on to the Government. ‘Their comments reveal huge public concern that this Plan will allow developments that will irreversibly damage the environment,’ said CPRE’s East of England Region Chairman, Lawrence Wragg.

In the light of changes recommended by a Panel of Inspectors in June, CPRE is asking Ruth Kelly to:

• recognise that the housing target of 505,500 new homes [4] by 2021 is a huge challenge to the region’s countryside, its environment and its quality of life; any further increase would cause irrevocable environmental damage;
• invest in public transport and viable alternatives to the car as the only way to reduce congestion;
• accept the Panel’s recommendations to safeguard the environment, particularly water resources and the provision of green infrastructure.

‘Ruth Kelly has a great opportunity to prove her commitment to sustainable development. Her revised Plan could be the nightmare before Christmas or a great gift to start the festive season,’ said Mr Wragg.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The draft East of England Plan is the Regional Spatial Strategy which will determine the scale, shape and speed of development in the region to 2021. It was drawn up by the East of England Regional Assembly the designated Regional Planning Body, and covers the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. More than 21,000 people submitted comments during the consultation on the draft Plan. A Panel Report was written in response to the Examination-in-Public (EiP) of the draft Plan which ran from November 2005 to March 2006. It recommends modifications to the draft Plan and was sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government for consideration. Secretary of State, Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP, will publish any proposed revisions to the draft Plan in the middle of December. Another public consultation period will follow, and the final Plan is expected in spring 2007.

2. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. 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.

3. The text of the petition reads ‘I'm concerned about the East of England Plan. I believe that any development should respect environmental limits, so we can meet the region’s needs without wrecking its countryside and quality of life.’ This was an on-line petition and it was it was publicised this summer in the National Trust’s magazine, local and regional media and CPRE’s website.

4. Proposed housing figures per county by 2021 are:

Bedfordshire and Luton: 59,100
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: 98,300
Essex and unitaries: 124,500
Hertfordshire: 83,200
Norfolk: 78,700
Suffolk: 61,700

5. What people in your area have said to the Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, MP:

Bedfordshire

‘Take account of job provision and the environmental impact of the development, minimising distances travelled to work.’ (Barton, Bedford)

‘Ensure that housing is only built because it is necessary to support local employment and not commuters. Ensure that there is no Green Belt development in the whole region. I don’t want my grandchildren asking me why there is no countryside left.’ (Linslade)

Cambridgeshire & Hunts

‘Ensure infrastructure is in place before new homes are built. Protect our green spaces and the character of village communities. Brownfield sites must be used where possible.’ (Huntingdon)

‘Match housing development with environmental capacity and jobs, protect the Green Belt and focus on improved public transport instead of new roads.’ (Hadstock)

‘Focus more on brownfield sites and insist on better public transport before new development adds to the pressures.’ (Fulbourn, Cambridge)

Essex

‘…recognising the need for urban communities to have recreational access to tranquil open countryside without being hemmed in by motorways or being subjected to incessant aircraft noise and pollution.’ (Buckhursthill)

‘The number of houses the Government is proposing to impose upon Chelmsford is 50% more than we need. The majority of the occupants will commute to London, adding to our congested transport system. This will lead to new roads cutting across swathes of Green Belt.’ (Chelmsford)

‘The proposals in their current form will destroy large peaceful areas of Essex unnecessarily. There is also a huge question on the number of jobs foreseen. Where are they coming from?’ (Brentwood)

Hertfordshire

‘…focusing the plan on public transport and development must not take place until such public transport is in place. Damaging new roads must not be built. They are not a solution.’ (Harpenden)

‘Ensure that housing developments have first-rate public transport lines and each unit has alternative energy options. Most importantly, the landscape and especially the Green Belt must not be damaged. People will never forgive this Government if it does not protect the countryside.’ (Hitchin)

‘Ensure adherence to the Green Belt boundaries. This will ensure genuine commercial imperative to regenerate the inner city of London, rather than exporting its population outside the M25 only for them to commute back to London for work.’ (Bishops Stortford)

‘Maximise the use of brownfield sites and leave the Green Belt untouched – and this does not mean moving the Green Belt to Norfolk!’ (Hertford)

Norfolk

‘…encouraging the use of brownfield sites where possible and limiting the development of new roads. Greater incentives for more people to use public transport is also important.’ (Cromer)

‘Ensure a target of at least 75% new housing on brownfield sites. Transport should prioritise public needs by greater local controls and no more damaging road schemes favouring cars and lorries should be part of the plan. Imagination and flair, with political courage, could resolve East of England’s developmental problems.’ (Diss)

‘Please leave the Green Belt alone, this land can never be replaced and is priceless – build on brownfield sites. Please focus on more public transport and not new road schemes. Please ensure low cost housing for key workers and 1st time buyers.’ (Framingham Earl, Norwich)

Suffolk

‘…ensuring that we don’t have commuter dormitories in Suffolk. It is vital that the region’s Green Belts should be protected. Finally it is vital that the region’s infrastructure must be capable of handling all this extra building programme.’ (Aldringham)

‘Ensure that as many new homes as possible are built on brownfield sites. They should be developed in parallel with suitable local employment so that communities are sustainable and not commuter dormitories. An adequate proportion must be social housing. Developing relevant public transport solutions is also essential for sustainable development.’ (Bury St Edmunds)

‘Protect the North Green Belt of Ipswich from development. All brownfield sites must be used first – we may need all our greenfields for food one day.’ (Ipswich)

---

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.