South east plan: better regional strategy at last, but can the environment cope?

5 May 2009

Countryside campaigners, CPRE [1], expressed delight today (Wednesday) at the decision by Government to adopt a lower housing target for the region in the final version of the South East Plan [2]. This is a major decision for the Government which has taken a year longer than expected to respond to the consultation on proposed changes to the draft Plan.

Edward Dawson, CPRE’s South East Regional Director, said:

‘The strategy has finally taken account of many of the views of the people of the region. The Plan acknowledges the need to manage development and growth pressures in the region. It is also good news that as well as reducing the overall housing targets the Plan no longer refers to “minimum” housing figures.’

CPRE has spent four years campaigning on the Plan, drawing attention to its likely effect on the countryside of the region.

Edward Dawson said:

‘At last the Government has listened to stakeholders and we warmly welcome many aspects of their response. The final target remains ambitious since accommodating 654,000 new homes in the region by 2026 would have huge implications for the countryside. In light of the current economic situation we are also not sure this target will be achievable.’

‘We will work hard to ensure that homes are provided in a way that avoids harming our precious landscapes. There is scope to achieve significantly more than the Plan’s target of at least 60% of development on brownfield land.’

The South East [3] is a special case in spatial planning terms because of its proximity to London; it is also close to continental Europe; has had rapid rates of growth so far; with continued in-migration. Proposing a massive rise in housebuilding, however, was never going to solve the problems of the region, such as an acute lack of affordable housing, high house prices and continuing pockets of derivation.

CPRE recognises the need for new housing, but it has to be the right kind of housing in the right places. Developers have built too many flats in some towns, and not enough family housing. Affordable and social rented housing should be a priority, particularly in rural areas.

Edward Dawson concluded:

‘Pressure for housing and development in the South East is more intense than in any other region. We are pleased that the Government has recognised that without the necessary infrastructure, such as water and transport, development is unsustainable. This is a good day for the region.’

NOTES

1. 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 countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. The first draft strategy was published for public consultation in January 2005. An independent Examination in Public of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was held in 2006-07. The South East Plan is available at www.gos.gov.uk/gose/. It replaces the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9). It includes reviews of Regional Transport Strategy; Renewable Energy; Tourism; Minerals and Waste; Milton Keynes; and Ashford.

The draft Plan proposed a rate of 28,900 houses per year up to 2026. The independent Panel Report recommended a 10% increase to 32,000 houses a year. The Government’s proposed changes suggested 33,200 as the housing figure but the Government’s final Plan has set out 32,700 as the average annual rate of housing development.

3. The South East Region covers Kent, East and West Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. It is second only to London in terms of Gross Domestic Product per head, but lacking London’s large concentrations of poverty and deprivation it is, overall, the most prosperous and growth-pressurised region of England.

---

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.