Councils in recycled land shame
Some councils are successfully building large numbers of new homes on previously developed land, benefiting the British countryside, said the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
"We warmly congratulate these councils," said Henry Oliver, CPRE's head of planning and local government. "We're delighted that there has been such strong progress across the country by council planners and developers in raising the level of land recycling and getting away from wastefully low densities for new housing."
Out of a total of more than 300 councils in England outside London, 43 have succeeded in having at least 90% of their new homes built on previously developed, brownfield land. Fifteen of these councils have achieved a land recycling level of at least 95%, which means less than one new home in every 20 was built on a greenfield site.
The land recycling heroes are: Adur (96%), Bournemouth (98%), Brentwood (98%), Dudley (99%), Elmbridge (98%), Epsom and Ewell (99%), Hertsmere (96%), Sandwell (97%), Spelthorne (98%), Surrey Heath (96%), Three Rivers (96%), Watford (an unbeatable 100%), Woking (98%) and Wolverhampton (95%).
Name and shame
However, the campaigners also name and shame brownfield under-achievers. The CPRE said 13 councils have allowed less than a third of new housing on previously used land.
Corby was England's worst recycler, with just 9% of homes built on brownfield and Milton Keynes and North Lincolnshire both built less than 20% - a far cry from the Government's national target for at least 60% of new homes to be built on brownfield land or by converting existing buildings.
Other poor performer were: Ashford (33%), Boston (28%), East Riding (23%), Eastbourne (30%), Great Yarmouth (31%), Harlow (23%), Kingston upon Hull (33%), Rugby (30%), Swindon (32%) and Waveney (25%).
Corby council angrily dismissed the CPRE's allegation saying an anomaly in the government's classification system meant that most of its new homes, which were built on a former quarry site, were not identified as brownfield development.
Some councils are successfully building large numbers of new homes on previously developed land, benefiting the British countryside, said the Campaign to Protect Rural England.
"We warmly congratulate these councils," said Henry Oliver, CPRE's head of planning and local government. "We're delighted that there has been such strong progress across the country by council planners and developers in raising the level of land recycling and getting away from wastefully low densities for new housing."
Out of a total of more than 300 councils in England outside London, 43 have succeeded in having at least 90% of their new homes built on previously developed, brownfield land. Fifteen of these councils have achieved a land recycling level of at least 95%, which means less than one new home in every 20 was built on a greenfield site.
The land recycling heroes are: Adur (96%), Bournemouth (98%), Brentwood (98%), Dudley (99%), Elmbridge (98%), Epsom and Ewell (99%), Hertsmere (96%), Sandwell (97%), Spelthorne (98%), Surrey Heath (96%), Three Rivers (96%), Watford (an unbeatable 100%), Woking (98%) and Wolverhampton (95%).
Name and shame
However, the campaigners also name and shame brownfield under-achievers. The CPRE said 13 councils have allowed less than a third of new housing on previously used land.
Corby was England's worst recycler, with just 9% of homes built on brownfield and Milton Keynes and North Lincolnshire both built less than 20% - a far cry from the Government's national target for at least 60% of new homes to be built on brownfield land or by converting existing buildings.
Other poor performer were: Ashford (33%), Boston (28%), East Riding (23%), Eastbourne (30%), Great Yarmouth (31%), Harlow (23%), Kingston upon Hull (33%), Rugby (30%), Swindon (32%) and Waveney (25%).
Corby council angrily dismissed the CPRE's allegation saying an anomaly in the government's classification system meant that most of its new homes, which were built on a former quarry site, were not identified as brownfield development.
posted by tony at 5:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home