Will eco-towns create a lasting legacy for the future or prove an expensive mistake?

13 July 2009

Ministers are expected to announce their preferred eco-town locations on Thursday.

Kate Gordon, CPRE Senior Planning Officer, said:

'We are urging the Government to scale back the eco-towns programme to just one or two genuinely exemplary schemes. We support the Government's aspirations for more sustainable, affordable housing, but for eco-towns to be truly sustainable, exemplar schemes they must be built and planned in the right way.'

'We also encourage Ministers to look to practical alternatives for providing homes and tackling climate change. These should include bringing into use empty buildings, moving to a low carbon economy and regenerating urban areas.'

CPRE believes alternative measures to provide environmentally sensitive housing include refurbishing and converting existing property, establishing a programme to bring back into use England's 800,000 empty homes and redeveloping vacant and derelict brownfield land.

While CPRE agrees with the Government that there is a need for more sustainable, affordable housing, it has a number of concerns regarding the eco-towns programme. These concerns include:

· the requirement for eco-towns to be freestanding new settlements could create a bias in favour of new towns over more sustainable alternatives such as redeveloping or extending existing towns and raising environmental standards in existing property;

· eco-town standards on zero carbon and transport are inadequate;

· the short-listed locations are mainly greenfield; and

· due to their poor location many schemes would be car dependent and residents may have to travel to other settlements for work and essential services.

CPRE has also raised concerns about the Government naming its preferred locations before planning applications are brought forward, as this undermines the plan-led system.

CPRE supports in principle the proposal to develop an eco-town at Bordon-Whitehill in Hampshire. We were disappointed that the site at Carrington, Cheshire did not make the provisional shortlist in April 2008.

Background

March 2007: Yvette Cooper refers to eco-towns as part of the new growth points initiative.

July 2007: Gordon Brown MP, as part of his leadership pledge, announces plans to build up to 100,000 homes in five eco-towns. Each town would contain between 5,000 – 20,000 homes. The Eco-town Prospectus is published which invites bids from interested parties.

September 2007: At the Labour Party conference Gordon Brown announces a further five eco-towns will be built so there will be 10 in total.

November 2007: Government announces 57 bids have been received from interested parties.

April 2008: The provisional shortlist is published as part of the 'Greener homes for the future' consultation.

Since 2007 four short listed schemes have been withdrawn. These have been at Curborough, Staffordshire; Manby, Lincolnshire; Marston Vale, Bedfordshire and Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire. The council-led bid at Manby was withdrawn in the face of strong public opposition. Gallaghers and O&H properties both withdrew their bids at Marston Vale. Tesco withdrew its bid to build an eco-town at Hanley Grange, near Cambridge declaring that the future of the site was best decided with local stakeholders through the regional planning process. Developers proposing a scheme at Curborough (Staffordshire) withdrew early in the programme, still propose to develop the site, but not as an eco-town.

The programme has been mired in legal controversy with three legal opinions issued by the Local Government Association, a threat to challenge the Government by Cherwell District Council should Weston Otmoor be listed in the final planning policy statement, BARD's legal challenge heard in January this year (they argued that consultation was flawed - the judge disagreed).

---

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.