Legal report - Eco-towns facing threat as opposition intensifies

Planning, 3 October 2008

It is not that the proposals themselves are comical but rather that, apart from on decisions to engage in military conflict, we have rarely seen such a reaction to government initiatives of late.

Eco-towns seem to be in danger of failing despite widespread concern about the underprovision of housing. The Conservatives have announced that they would scrap the programme and bring the focus back onto brownfield land and urban extensions - not that eco-towns would replace those in any event.

The new settlement versus urban extension debate is not new. Surely, say those who support an urban focus, it must be more sustainable to build homes in and on the edge of existing towns and cities because it puts those new communities in reach of services, jobs and transport.

Service provision remains key

On the other hand, this option requires retrofitting homes into existing services and does not necessarily lend itself to the best urban planning. The proponents of new settlements would argue that a blank canvas allows for better planning and more facilities relevant to the incoming community. The eco-town concept seeks to combine the best of both approaches and minimise the disadvantages of each.

Certainly, eco-towns will be new settlements. However, the aim of the programme must be to only approve schemes where there is true on-site provision of services and employment opportunities or, where they cannot be fully provided on-site, excellent public transport links. Nothing less should be tolerated.

With their built-in carbon neutrality, green credentials and a mixed range of housing types and tenures to ensure sufficient affordability, these communities could then answer their critics. But will we ever reach that point? The anti-eco-town lobby is vocal and well organised.

The strength of opposition must at times feel almost overwhelming to a government apparently uncertain or even confused about some key elements of a programme of this kind. Even the basic question of whether eco-towns will need planning permission seems to have challenged those in government charged with bringing forward the initiative.

This question now appears to have been answered in the affirmative. This will have come as no surprise to developers promoting the potential schemes. Even so, the apparent equivocation has further increased the concern that these new communities would be forced on people without proper process or consultation.

A key element in many of the objections to eco-towns has been that by bringing forward a planning policy statement (PPS) intended to be a material consideration sufficient to weigh against the lack of development plan support, the government is trying to use policy-making to circumvent the planning process or the legislation - or both.

Review raises question of bias

This was to some extent answered in this summer's progress report (Planning, 25 July, p1). In any case, opportunities already exist for developers to bring forward housing schemes that are not included in development plans. PPS3, evidence of underprovision or out-of-date plans can all win the day. But the impression has still been created that the government is either not being completely truthful or is riding roughshod over public opinion.

The latest piece of bad news for ministers is that permission to apply for a judicial review of the eco-town programme has been granted to the Better Accessible and Responsible Development campaign by the High Court (Planning, 19 September, p3). The decision flags up another interesting twist. If these schemes end up before the secretary of state, will bias be a bar to Hazel Blears being able to make a decision?

When the case will be heard is uncertain as yet. But the government aims to publish its draft PPS shortly and follow this up with further announcements on the shortlisted locations early next year. No doubt the postbag on the PPS consultation will be a full one.

The idea of eco-towns is an excellent one. They offer scope for further innovation in design, technology and planning. They would provide much-needed housing - albeit in reality only a small proportion of what is required - and could raise the bar in terms of our expectations and requirements for future developments. But we may never know.

- Beverley Firth is a partner at Mills & Reeve.