Fyson on ... eco-town plans

Anthony Fyson, Planning, 22 February 2008

So when the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) announced that it is "sympathetic towards the eco-towns initiative", hope blossoms like an early spring.

There could still be damaging frosts ahead, especially if the CPRE hierarchy fails to carry grass-roots members with it or imposes such stringent conditions on its support for schemes that none is ever offered. But the tacit recognition is indisputable - ecologically sound settlements have to be part of the future growth in UK housing stock. The pressure for housing is acknowledged, if only in the oddly negative assertion that eco-towns "should not be a smokescreen for making house building palatable".

Even in the context of a sympathetic statement on eco-towns, the campaign reiterates its preference for urban brownfield redevelopment. But it reserves most of its tests of acceptability for greenfield proposals. It has to be said that many of its stipulations make sense, especially those concerned with environmental planning and design standards.

Full public consultations are desirable, but not even the CPRE suggests that protesters should be granted a right of veto. Eco-town supporters by contrast tend not to demonstrate, despite prime minister Gordon Brown's belief that 50-odd applications indicate the policy's popularity. Someone should remind him of the long-standing public antagonism towards developers even as they build the housing, infrastructure and work opportunities that are so urgently needed.

The CPRE still thinks that it is practical for eco-town proposals to be required to justify themselves as the most sustainable option and to be tested through regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. It regards the New Town Act 1946's procedures as heavy-handed, being unaware, it seems, of potential modifications to make them more acceptable to modern participants. But these are matters for discussion, with give and take by pro and anti-development interests.

During such talks, it would be interesting to learn why an urban extension might be preferable to a new settlement in terms of countryside protection. The case might be strong on strict urban sustainability grounds, but it would still deprive existing inhabitants of their precious proximity to the countryside. The free-standing solution, by contrast, allows choice of appropriate sites and establishment of new green belts. Let the search for consensus begin.

- Anthony Fyson is a freelance writer on planning issues.