INTRODUCTION

  1.  CPRE Kent is very pleased to be invited to give evidence to this committee. This submission outlines CPRE Kent's views on the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on housing and planning on 18 July 2002.

  2.  In line with the matters of interest set out by the committee, this submission addresses the following issues.

—  The Housing Targets and PPG3.

—  Affordable housing.

—  Kent growth points.

THE HOUSING TARGETS AND PPG3

  The statistic that the housing targets set two years ago have not been met, with a short fall of 10,000 houses may not be as catastrophic as it first appears. The causes of this short fall must be understood. It cannot be due to a lack of desire by the house builders to build new houses, nor a large shortage of skilled labour, larger numbers of houses were built in the few years previously and the work force would not have dispersed so quickly. It cannot be due to the very sensible policy of "plan, monitor and manage" set out in PPG3, there has not been sufficient time for this policy to be put to the test.

  However, certain other policies set out in PPG3 have probably given rise to the slow down in house building, and it cannot be regarded as anything other than a temporary phenomenon. PPG3 requires that 60% of housing be built on previously used land and while this has been achieved overall, it is 60% of a smaller total number of houses. We commend this policy and hope that it will be expanded to an even greater percentage of houses.

  Local authorities were exhorted to carry out surveys of previously used land in their areas which could be used for housing. At the same time Local Authorities were told that they should review all existing designated Greenfield sites in their local plans, with the very important aim of reducing the use of new Greenfield land and thus protect the countryside. The wish to protect the existing countryside is expressed several times in the statement and we applaud this aim.

  These requirements however have led to a reduction of available sites for housing in the short term, due to the time required by Local Authorities to compile urban capacity studies and to review their existing designated Greenfield sites. Thus a slowdown of the production of houses was inevitable due to the requirements of PPG3.

  We are however apprehensive of the attempts to coerce Local Authorities into producing more houses. We suppose that the government is serious in its stated aim not to tolerate urban sprawl and not to concrete over the south east and at the same time to set a new target to protect valuable countryside. A policy which was reiterated by the Deputy Prime Minister at the Urban Renaissance conference in Birmingham on 31 October and which we wholeheartedly support. Then it does require a complete change in mind-set in both the Local Authorities and the house builders. This cannot be achieved overnight and pressure from the government to increase the rate of house building will be counterproductive, only resulting in even more of the same urban sprawl which has been the norm for the past 20 years. The large housing estates which have been typical of the past have not been productive of sustainable communities.

  Road layouts have been such that race tracks have been produced, making walking and cycling very hazardous and the use of the car the only safe way for people to get to their destinations. The design and layout of estates have been very wasteful of land and the lack of any sense of place has meant that people have not felt part of a community. Density does have to be raised and there is an apprehension that this will mean further cramming and less open space. This does not have to be so and if the design is right people will not worry about the density.

  CPRE in partnership with the Princes Trust, English Partnerships and the DETR have therefore been promoting a new way of designing development briefs for large sites which involved a wide range of local stakeholders, the Local Authorities and the developers. This process is called Enquiry by Design and it has been enthusiastically taken up by Ashford Borough. So far three large sites designated in the Local Plan have been subjected to this process with great success. Enquiry by Design also speeds up the planning process since by the time a development brief reaches application stage it has been pretty well endorsed by anyone who might have had an objection to it. This Enquiry by Design process has been a very good way of educating every one concerned in the new way of thinking about the design of new sustainable estates.

  Therefore CPRE Kent welcome the attitude of the Government to new developments in that they reject the type of housing estates built in the 80's and 90's and now require developments which are places that people want to live in with all facilities in easy reach making for "lived in" communities, going back to the type of towns and villages that we all admire and feel comfortable in. However such places are the result of hundreds of years of organic growth. To produce such places in a hurry is not possible.

  Neither can designers and builders be forced to produced something which is so different from their "traditional" estates until they are convinced that they will be able to sell such places. Planners will often give permission for the old style estates because they are afraid that they will be taken to appeal and lose. They must be given the assurance that the Government will back them when they demand better design and refuse to allow badly designed out of date proposals.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

  The government is to be commended for its aspirations to provide decent affordable homes for people wherever they live and to ensure that new housing is provided in well designed sustainable communities. In this reply to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, we are assuming that the term "affordable housing" relates to housing which is for letting or housing association ownership, which is available to key workers and others who cannot afford to buy houses on the open market, and that this housing remains in perpetuity available at prices lower than on the open market. We believe that the shortage of "affordable" houses has arisen because of the steep rise in house prices, this rise has more to do with the availability of cheap mortgages and the reluctance of people with money to invest in the stock market then with an overall shortage of houses. This situation may not persist in the long term.

  The availability of affordable housing also depends on the house builders being willing to provide this type of housing which is not so profitable. Therefore direct funding for such housing from the Government is essential, as is the requirement for a proportion of affordable housing to provided on all large housing developments. It is important that such housing is not allowed to be put in a "getto" in an inaccessible area of the development but is "pepperpotted" thoughout the development.

  The issues of affordable housing in rural areas are different and require a different approach. These houses, which are usually for people who have lived in an area all their lives, cannot be part of a larger estate and must be provided in small groups within easy reach of village facilities and public transport. This requires planning policies which allow houses to be built on sites which would not be allowed for the open market. This way the costs of the sites are lower. However, strict monitoring of these houses is required to prevent them reverting to the general housing market.

GROWTH AREAS IN KENT

  Ashford and the Thames Gateway are proposed as growth areas in Kent in RPG9. We support the regeneration of the Thames Gateway provided it does not encroach on the green belt or the very important environmental areas surrounding it.

  Where Ashford is concerned, the recent review of Ashford's ability to expand has revealed that the area surrounding the town is severely constrained by flood plain to the south and east and by areas of landscape importance to the north and west. It is also constrained by a lack of infrastructure and amenities which a greatly expanded town would require. CPRE Kent is of the opinion that Ashford is not capable of the large amount of expansion which the Government wishes to impose on it. Any such expansion would be greatly to the detriment of existing residents and would certainly result in the destruction of many villages and their surrounding countryside. Which would be contrary to Government policy. Ashford will continue to grow, but it should be in an organic way and not by undue pressure from above.

CPRE Kent

November 2002