My last blog “Crying Wolf in the Countryside” obviously hit a raw nerve with the National Trust, because one of their Directors, Ben Cowell, has written a piece for their website objecting to my description of the Trust as “pretty clueless on housing.”
Describing me as “One of the National Trust’s fiercest critics in the debate over the NPPF” (I can live with that!) Ben argues that the Trust has a long and proud record of involvement in housing. He points out that Octavia Hill, the patron saint of housing management, was one of the National Trust’s founders and that the Trust has 2,000 tenants and is a housing developer in its own right.
I fully accept these points, although Ben omits to mention that the Trust has also built homes against fierce local opposition, notably when they developed an exclusive gated development of 200 homes at Cliveden in the green belt. What I should have said, of course, is that the Trust is “pretty clueless about housing numbers.”
Ben accepts that some homes will have to be built on greenfield land but as usual is evasive about how many should be built and where they should be built. The National Trust will not or cannot accept the fact that we will need to build at least 3 million homes on greenfield land over the next twenty years and it is this lack of honesty on the part of countryside campaigners that is the real problem with the NPPF debate.
Ben’s final point that building on only 1.3 percent of the unprotected countryside is too high a price to pay for meeting the country’s housing needs is where we part company. I think it’s a small price to pay, and well-planned developments would help us to protect and enhance the best landscapes.
His strange calculation that 3 million new homes in the countryside would require half as many roads as we have already makes no logical sense and rather proves my point about the Trust’s cluelessness. Given that we already have 22 million homes how would 3 million new homes increase the amount of land required for roads by 50 per cent?
Ben makes the valid point that Octavia Hill campaigned for open space to go alongside housing. That is why I believe a blanket brownfield-first policy is so misguided. When brownfield land becomes available in our towns and cities we need to analyse the costs and benefits of developing it. In some cases it may make more sense to return brownfield land to open space or to urban food production rather than cramming new homes onto every inch of our already dense cities. I’m sure Octavia Hill would approve of such an approach.
Steve Hilditch at the respected Red Brick blog has also joined the debate, pointing out that the NPPF contains no housing targets at regional and national level. I completely agree, and that is the greatest defect in the NPPF, but it is still a step in the right direction towards releasing the land that we need to address our housing crisis. He also makes the salient point that the National Trust is too close to the CPRE (“an organisation that does not in my view have progressive leanings”) and it is interesting to note that the NT and the CPRE have worked almost hand in glove on the anti-NPPF campaign, Of course the Trust’s Director General is a former head of the CPRE and I understand several senior CPRE staff came with her. But the Trust may come to regret this lack of independence as I sense a growing unease among some Trust members about the elitism and politicisation of their anti-NPPF campaign, as indicated by the comment from disillusioned Trust member Lorna underneath Ben’s blog.
In the meantime, we await the publication of the revised NPPF, due out very shortly. You can expect the debate to heat up considerably from publication day onwards.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Colin Wiles writes about
affordable rents,
Big Society,
Boris Johnson,
cih,
cpre,
David Lawrenson,
David Orr,
Ebenezer Howard,
Germany,
grant shapps,
house prices,
housebuilding,
housing crisis,
housing strategy,
housing supply,
Iain Duncan Smith,
kate barker,
London,
national trust,
NFU,
NPPF,
planning,
Policy Exchange,
Private rented sector,
riots
Readers' comments (15)
mrkfm | 20/02/2012 2:26 pm
I can't help thinking that most see this as a side issue.
It would be if you could respond to the comments raised in previous articles on this issue about the NPPF and the deep concerns some of us have as to what it will achieve as it has been noted in detail that the NPPF as it stands appears to allow anything and could lead do badly planned developments of any kind - many not even helping to solve the housing crisis.
What's needed is some critical analysis of the badly thought out plans so far developed by the government.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mrkfm | 20/02/2012 4:07 pm
Hi Colin
I've been trying to find a polite way of putting it up to now but if I'm honest the impression I'm getting from these articles about the National Trust is that you are desperate for any houses to be built and as a result aren't looking at the actual planning report and the concerns raised by many and instead focusing on the contradictory statements made by one charity.
If you look at this link to concerns raised by planning associations, local government workers etc you can clearly see that there are major concerns over the NPPF which you do not seem to be commenting on despite the fact that many see this planning document as a disaster that could cause far more problems than it solves:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1526/152606.htm
Perhaps someone else from Inside Housing can address these points?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ben Cowell | 20/02/2012 6:02 pm
Thanks for this reply Colin. You misunderstood my point about roads. 2.2% of the country is covered with them. So the effect of covering 1.3% of land with houses is equivalent to increasing the road network by a half. Eg not a small unnoticeable quantity at all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colin Wiles | 21/02/2012 11:07 am
Ben I understand your point now. My calculation of 1.3% refers to unprotected countryside. If you look at all countryside (i.e. 90% of England) then 3 million homes would require around 0.6% of one percent, and this would include residential roads. It's an obvious point, but roads are linear and connect virtually every house in the land, whereas new homes would be in compact settlements so the impact would be much less. I recommend everyone to get on Google earth to see how empty England is in reality.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mrkfm | 21/02/2012 11:29 am
Hi Colin
Can you not advise whether you will engage with the debate with regards to the fundamental flaws in the current NPPF?
It seems that you are ignoring all the evidence (to which I supplied you with a link) and instead continue to make superficial remarks such as "I recommend everyone to get on Google earth to see how empty England is in reality".
This isn't critical analysis and yet this is what is sorely needed from Inside Housing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21/02/2012 11:40 am
"I recommend everyone to get on Google earth to see how empty England is in reality." Where on earth do you imagine the food on your plate comes from? Please don't equate "greenfield" with "empty".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 21/02/2012 11:42 am
'I recommend everyone to get on Google earth to see how empty England is in reality.'
Relative to where else? Relative to Monaco or Iceland?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colin Wiles | 21/02/2012 12:34 pm
mrkfm - the NPPF does have flaws, in particular it optimistically imagines that homes will be built in the absence of national and regional targets. But it is a step in the right direction if it allows more land to be released for housing and the brownfield first policy is revised. Melvin and Anonymous - as I've said before, 10% of England is built upon - only 1.1% of it is covered by domestic buildings, so half as crowded as Holland. A considerable amount of agricultural land is unused or set aside, I haven't seen the latest figures but in 2007 nearly 5,000 sq km was vacant; we would need only 850 sq km to build 3 million homes. Traditionally, the EU has produced more food than we are able to consume - hence butter and beef mountains. Agriculture contributes less than 1% to GDP and is massively subsidised.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 21/02/2012 2:20 pm
Holland is an odd choice as most of their landmass is brand new having been reclaimed from the sea...Are you suggesting we do the same? Maybe in the Thames estuary?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 21/02/2012 2:55 pm
Careful Melvin - you'll risk bringing back Doggerland, reconnecting us to the continent, and risking apoplexy from the MigrationWatch Tendency.
I may be wrong (at the delight to some) but Holland may have a greater developed proportionate land area but a lower population per square kilometer than we do. Although there are many nations with higher populations per square kilometer that our own yet less land developed proportionately.
Myself, it always pleases me as I travel around this nation of ours, to see just how much countryside there is, even though it is one of the most man made landscapes of any nation on the planet. Did you know, you can get lost out there? I do wish some would!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jono | 21/02/2012 11:36 pm
I'm not opposed to new house building. The main issue will probably be producing enough power given there will be an emerging gap over this timeframe.
Welcome back Melvin. Where have you been?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 22/02/2012 2:27 pm
I've been to the Seychelles on my yacht.
I was most upset on my return that F451 has not cleaned the pool after spilling lentils in it again...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 22/02/2012 2:54 pm
Those were not lentils Gavin - I do hope you've not made soup with them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 22/02/2012 3:57 pm
Gavin? You obviousley have him on the brain...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 22/02/2012 4:05 pm
Not on the brain, but in double triplicate every time I express a view.
Apologies for any offence at being associated with such a personality.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment