In 1994 the Conservative Transport Secretary, John MacGregor, offended environmentalists by declaring that he didn’t understand the complaints about roadbuilding swallowing up the countryside because he had just taken a helicopter ride and had found motorways “incredibly hard to spot”. His Nelson moment – “I see no motorways” – was considered to be a political gaffe at the time, though it contained a truism that ought to be recognised in the current debate over Gordon Brown’s plan to increase housebuilding: that there is more of the English countryside left than we tend to think.
To listen to some of the critics of new housebuilding one might well come to the conclusion that the English countryside has been reduced to a small patch of grass somewhere between Chertsey and Woking, over which developers are already clashing in their JCBs. In fact, according to the Government’s Countryside Survey 2000, 2.3 million hectares of Britain were classified as “developed” when the survey was completed seven years ago – approximately 10 per cent of the land surface area. And of this only a small proportion was actually concreted over: the definition of developed land includes gardens, many of which are just as green and full of wildlife (in fact often more so) than the agricultural land that surrounds them.
Neither can it be said that the countryside is being swallowed up at an alarming rate: in the eight years before the survey the amount of developed land was found to have increased by 4 per cent. At the current rate of building it will take 200 years for the quantity of developed land in Britain to double.
Of course, these statistics are unlikely to pacify anyone who wakes up to find proposals for a large new housing estate on their doorstep. If the view from your living room is suddenly to be filled with a toytown of mass-produced houses, swirling cul-de-sacs and a drive-thru’ McDonald’s, you are not likely to find the concept of building more homes endearing. But then your objections will not be a function of the quantity of new housebuilding, but rather the depressing style and form of new housebuilding.
That the words “new” and “housing” strike such fear into the hearts of the average Englishman is, perversely, partly down to planning rules dreamt up to protect the countryside. In order to pacify opponents of housebuilding, local authorities have been ordered to build housing at ever-higher densities – up to 50 units per hectare. As the alleyways of auld Edinburgh demonstrate, it is possible to build housing at this kind of density and still provide aesthetic pleasure, but perhaps not in the age of the motorcar. The outcome of building at higher densities has been to make new housing developments far more urban, where virtually every inch of land is taken up either with the houses themselves or to provide hard standing for vehicles. Within developments there is precious little left for greenery.
Moreover, the rules requiring new housing to be built at high densities do not extend to commercial development – with the bizarre result that a few yards away from dense Prescott-era housing estates often lie vast supermarket car parks, drive thru’ burger bars and low-rise retail parks. It is a similar story with the target requiring 60 per cent of new homes to be built on previously developed land: there is no corresponding target for commercial development. The outcome is that houses are squashed on to the sites of old factories and offices – while the factories and offices are relocated to greenfield sites a few miles away.
If we want to preserve the British countryside, we would do better relaxing the rules on housing density and brownfield development. When done properly, and at not-too-high densities, the countryside can absorb large numbers of houses without losing its rural character. Indeed, the countryside always has contained homes for large numbers of residents: without them it would not be countryside, but wilderness.
Rather than the rules preventing any development in the countryside, we should have laws ensuring that new housing developed there does not subsume the rural character of the area. How about banning concrete and tarmac driveways from rural properties, and allowing only absorbent, gravelled surfaces? Not only would this prevent the spread of suburbia to the country, it would also reduce the amount of rainwater run-off – a growing factor in flooding.
One of the reasons that we react so strongly to the idea of fields being developed for housing is that we perceive it to be an irreversible process. But there is no reason why it should be. Rather than building on concrete footings, why aren’t we building on wooden piles?
If they are good enough for the palazzos of Venice, surely they are good enough for a cottage in Berkshire. Traditional building always did have a transitional effect in the environment: the countryside is dotted with the sites of long-demolished cottages whose earth floors, lime-plastered walls and thatched straw roofs have long since crumbled into the soil to leave virtually no trace.
That our planning system is a long way from taking into account the impact of building techniques on the environment is clear from the case of Tony Wrench and Jane Faith, who this week were ordered by the Pembrokeshire National Park Authority to demolish their single-roomed cottage. With its turf roof, straw insulation and reed-bed sewage system, the building blends into its surroundings as well as Jeremy Fisher’s hovel. But that is still not good enough for the authority, which complained that the building made no habitat provision for bats and dormice.
I am not sure I would quite want to live like Mr Wrench and Ms Faith, who have no fridge or washing machine, but I am quite sure that if building techniques were moved a little bit in the direction of their eco-home, opposition to new housebuilding in the countryside would weaken.
In fact, I suspect that neither John MacGregor nor any other frequent helicopter-flyer would notice, as they peered down on England’s lush pastures, that any houses had been built there at all.
No! Let's get immigration under control!
Richard, Kidderminster, England
When will you people learn that it's all about money? The furore over the Pembrokeshire cottage is juxtaposed against the go ahead for a large, environmentally unfriendly holiday park that will pay more money.
The only answer is to force planning auhthorities to publish everything, including taped proceedings of meetings, so that the public know what they are paying for and why. As long as governement and local officials can hide behind smokescreens they will continue to get away with it.
FULL freedom of information should start with the planning office and it should start now!
KR, Stockport,
I think every correspondent should state if they have a vested interest in the building process. I suspect some of those who have commented above are property developers, builders or architects, all of whom in my experience would gladly concrete over Britain in order to make themselves richer.
Although there is some good sense in Ross Clark's article - the need for new housing estates to be more attractive, for example - he gives himself away as a countryside-hater by useing the word 'wilderness' in a perjorative sense. The wilderness areas are of the world are where most of the wildlife and beauty of the world are situated. They are also areas of mystery, excitement ,and adventure which are - perhaps paradoxically - hugely popular with tourists. Britain has no wilderness areas.
Ross Clark states that countryside is only countryside if it has houses in it, which suggests that he wants all of Britain to look like a suburb of Swindon.
Steve, Lincoln, Lincolnshire
It's the potential of creeping urbanisation within England that is so depressing. Years ago, our forefathers, clever people with a sense of moral and public duty dreamed up the green belt & stringent planning rules. These have now been rubbished by New Labour - a new Klondike beckons as a free for all of building gathers pace. England - already the 4th most populated country in the world will be sunk in a sea of concrete..... Why can't we live within our means? What is wrong with an organic growth rather than the manic rush for cheap labour from abroad. The population growth in this country is falling, the need for 3 million more houses is fuelled by a South Sea bubble of a service sector peopled by migrant workers that produces no end product. As a citizen of this country I want a decent and sustainable quality of life.
Unlimited growth is simply unsustainable - sooner or later we will run out of land - & a cheap Burger & Fries 'to go' will be scant compensation.
Steve., Lancashire, England
Living standards for many people in this country are going backwards because of the shortage of houses and the few that are being built are very cramped.
What we need is more imagination from the planners - the english countryside is dotted with hundreds of deserted hamlets and villages. Why not build some new villages on these sites, so people can live in well appointed homes with large gardens. Rather the all too often practive of spoiling existing villages by ribbin development surrounded by miles of protected fields.
Jon Rowles, Twickenham, England
Watch out where to build, otherwise you end up like Belgium. Houses everuwhere, and not a patch of green to be found that is larger than a few hectares
J. Slagter, PM,
Trofim,
People making statements like "simply too many people" should lead by example and take a walk over Beachy Head: that way they would not sound like hypocrites, and the rest of us will not have to listen to their nihil-environmentalist rants.
Mr. Clark,
"we would do better relaxing the rules on housing density and brownfield development": I could not agree more.
"How about banning concrete and tarmac driveways from rural properties, and allowing only absorbent, gravelled surfaces": I could not disagree more.
You start well, by like all statist types, cannot resist banning something. The only planning document a builder should be forced to obtain is the title deed to the land!
Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK
In this village, approx 70 new houses have been built in the past decade. This has brought an influx of about 115 cars into the village. Virtually none of the occupants (mostly incomers) work in the neighbourhood but commute by car anything between 20 and 50 miles a day.
Build where the employment is.
Villager, Sussex,
"How about banning concrete and tarmac driveways from rural properties, and allowing only absorbent, gravelled surfaces? (This)would this prevent the spread of suburbia to the country.."
How would gravel drives prevent the spread of suburbia? You need to explain this.
Jack Thursby, Sheffield,
Tim,
Read it again, it says 4% over eight years, hence 200 years for it to double. Although if 4% is compounded onto each new year's figure it would be somewhat less than 200 years.
Joe,
UK population is rising, roughly 4% per year according to United Nations figures.
I note many replies question question the desirability of higher populations in the UK. It would appear to be a vote winner given the lavish child tax credits and £250 savings bond giveaway.
A Martin, Bromley, Kent
Kevin McCloud made a similar argument in the Sunday Times earlier this year. However, a devolved and - ergo - localised planning policy, which is implicitly promoted by this article, neglects the, very real, risks and consequences of corruption at local or county council levels when it comes to development. Very large amounts of money are at stake and sadly, there are plenty of stories that many of us can rattle off about the lack of probity, or just the incompetence, of local concillors put in charge of these decisions. Planning decisions are localised in the Republic of Ireland, with 'consideration for the environment' as a key criterion. Over the past 15 years of EIRE's economic boom, this has been seemingly ignored. - I have witnessed Co. Donegal's once unspoiled coastline being covered in fairly charmless holiday homes. I would bet that ex pat readers could also cite examples from some of the EU's property hot spots.
Oliver, London,
Unfortunately the countryside is not where the jobs are. Houses are needed in London and the south-east, and in the past wasteful suburban estates have been built, which are then filled by people who have to drive everywhere, leading to out-of-town supermarkets and retail parks. Build ten-storey blocks of flats with underground parking, and fill the bottom two floors filled with shops, offices, cafes etc. as they do in Spain and many other countries. You can squeeze many more people in and the quality of life is good in those countries as well.
dave, slough,
Its true you can build millions more houses but it is also true that evry rescource needed to sustain civilised western life is running out, oil, for which food production depends to feed this clearly overpopulated island is soon to be in deficit with gas and electric, we have just had wettest year for fifty years but dryest for fifty years will come around sometime and then some with global warming leaving these millions of houses with no sustainable water supply, on the social side it will not matter how many you build because under labour the entire third world is on the waiting list. It seems to me that if anyone wanted to do as much harm as they possibly could to this country it would be ready made in the policies of the labour party and how so many people can be cheerleaders in their own demise is a profound mystery.
robert, ashford, kent
Once again an article in the press that talks about Gordon Brown's plan for housing in ENGLAND (not Wales or Scotland, because housing matters there are devolved), and then mentions the amount of empty space in BRITAIN (which includes the vast empty spaces of the Scottish Highlands and Mid and North Wales)
Phil Chamberlain, London,
Its true you can build millions more houses but it is also true that evry rescource needed to sustain civilised western life is running out, oil, for which food production depends to feed this clearly overpopulated island is soon to be in deficit with gas and electric, we have just had wettest year for fifty years but dryest for fifty years will come around sometime and then some with global warming leaving these millions of houses with no sustainable water supply, on the social side it will not matter how many you build because under labour the entire third world is on the waiting list. It seems to me that if anyone wanted to do as much harm as they possibly could to this country it would be ready made in the policies of the labour party and how so many people can be cheerleaders in their own demise is a profound mystery.
robert, ashford, kent
Building within the Rural areas can easily by achived and controled. By using the grade 4 quality areas for buildinf. This quality of ground is unsuitable for efficent and quanity of farming that modern procedures demand. A substansial quanity of housing could be build with encroachment onto Green belt (Real Green belt) or quality farm land. Unfourtunatly this matter rests soly with the incompetent local Councils, who see the rules and demands by the Goverment authority as some thing that infringes, upon their local rules and rights to make discesions.
What we need is another Doomsday type of book to see what there is and available for what?
Then discessions can be made for the good of the nation and for the benifet of the future populace.
A. Winsley, London, Midlesex
If anyone has a look at the Britain on Google earth it's pretty clear to see how much 'Green' there is. In fact it's totally surprising! Yet i can bet everyone who disagrees with this journalist is already on the property ladder.......
Faye, Epping, Essex
Oh yes. But there is next to no public transport left in the country, so egress and ingress must be considered when building in the country. It takes an AGE to get anywhere from somewhere such as where I live, Frome in Somerset, and we do have a vague semblance of a train service from time to time, and the odd bus now and again - but go further into Somerset and forget about it.
Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State
Why is there this myth that the country needs more housing development land? Why is no-one calling the governments housing policy into question? We have a non-increasing populus and every estate agents office is full of unsold properties. There is no shortage of available housing so one must consider whether the Government are therefore trying to saturate the market with new builds to drive down prices. A flawed but laudable intention. Sustainable homes help but it is better to convert the existing stock than create new builds everywhere. Whether or not there is plenty of available land for building new units upon, we don't need them as there are millions of properties unsold on the market at any one time.
It's about time some of the armchair pundits started questioning rather than following and this article would have been better had the author considered whether or not the houses are actually needed!
Joe Jeffrey, Bristol, uk
Why is there this myth that the country needs more housing development land? Why is no-one calling the governments housing policy into question? We have a non-increasing populus and every estate agents office is full of unsold properties. There is no shortage of available housing so one must consider whether the Government are therefore trying to saturate the market with new builds to drive down prices. A flawed but laudable intention. Sustainable homes help but it is better to convert the existing stock than create new builds everywhere. Whether or not there is plenty of available land for building new units upon, we don't need them as there are millions of properties unsold on the market at any one time.
It's about time some of the armchair pundits started questioning rather than following and this article would have been better had the author considered whether or not the houses are actually needed!
Joe Jeffrey, Bristol, uk
Joe Jeffery thinks that because there are lots of houses on sale there is no housing shortage. That is a very silly argument. People who already own houses can afford to buy so they sell to others who have their homes to sell, that is how the market is working at the moment. Can you explain how a young professional can afford to buy even the smallest home? The price of any commodity is governed by the law of supply and demand. House prices have risen so much because the demand has exceeded the supply - this is undeniable. There are millions of people who a generation ago would have been able to buy a house on a mortgage who are now priced out. There are several causes for the shortage of supply and planning law is certainly one of them. Others include the number of second homes and the tax breaks given the rental market. To solve the problem we need to follow Ross Clark on planning, and also deter the purchase of second homes and buy to let.
Patrick Hadley, Burton,
Presumably written by an urban liver. As ever totally out of touch with people who wish to live a decent life outside of major conurbations.
There is no need to build additional houses as there is not a shortage. There is only a problem of too many people. If that was limited, there would be no need to destroy the countryside.
Neil, Glos,
Living in a country where planning is as lax as Mr. Ross would presumably like it to be In the U.K., I have seen the beautiful rural area I once lived in turned into a mass of cheap ugly homes. Our roads are choked with cars and the quality of life has dropped dramatically. The problem is that once it starts, there is a me-too effect and once one bit of country is ruined, people seem to more easily accept the despoiling of even larger areas. Do not even begin this downward spiral. Successive governments have done a wonderful job of preserving the glorious British countryside - keep on rejuvenating urban areas and filling in between exisiting development - build more apartments , even for families, as the rest of Europe does. Do not touch your countryside or you will end up with the sprawl we have.
Bill Atkins, Rehoboth Beach, USA
You mean 'subvert', not 'subsume'.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
Sensible stuff. I also found, driving around England, that much of the countryside lies within large, feudal estates, their stout walls keeping out all but the few people who live on them. I am sure they could give up quite a lot of their green and pleasant lands so that the other 99% of the English can have somewhere affordable and pleasant to live?
Phil Elmes, Sydney, Australia
I think you'll find that at 4% a year it'll be 20 years for it to double, not 200 years. 4% x 20 = 100%
Tim, London,
Absolute nonsense. Have you ever heard of the word 'infrastructure?' It's what must go with every house. From other 'experts' I read that Britain as an island should only sustain a population of 48 million. I believe it is now 62 million and rising, look out for your window Mr. Journalist and consider how many of these new house are to be plonked in the middle of 'deserted' McSporran country lots of jobs there Mc Mate.
victor cowen, Malaga, Spain
It is the danger that there will be a house in every field, so destroying the landscape, which is usually quoted by planners.
Underground dwellings, thermally insulated by the Earth, do not carry this objection so strongly.
Quietzapple, London, UK
The people who look at green space and see it merely as potential new suburbs are sadly a product of our post industrial age. Each one of us relies on the land for our food, for materials - even for the air we breathe. In the good times, we can rely on other people's land to grow our food and provide our materials. But humans have wars. Who is bravely to declare that shipping will never be interrupted in the future, and that those places which grow our food and provide our materials will always provide for us? We have to start thinking about our descendants. Our decisions today affect them. Britain is deeply unsustainable. We utilise about 14 times more land surface than we occupy. Even if the entire population adopted best ecological practice, we would *still* be living in a profoundly unsustainable way. An end to inexorable population growth. It's time we stopped taking more than our fair share of the planet.
James, London,
Dear Mr Clark:
Residential development is great if you do not displace wildlife species or decimate biodiversity and ecosystems. Make sure to plant trees when you build houses.
Brien Comerford, Glenview, United States
It's irrelevant whether or not there is more residential development land available in England and I'm surprised the author seems so ready to accept that this new housing is indeed required. Name me one person who has visited an Estate agents window and hasn't seen a window full of properties to sell. Our population isn't growing so where's the pressure coming from? The Government want more housing in an attempt to drive down prices with the tag that they want to help the environment by producing sustainable development. Nonsense - there is plenty of existing stock available and to create new homes can never be as sustainable as not building them. Resources should be directed to improving what stock there is - not creating new. The Kings clothes come to mind - If the Government say it's true - it must be! ??
Joe Jeffrey, Bristol, uk
This kind of simplistic argument is similiar to the pro smoking lobby of 30 years ago where they would bring out a 90 year old smoker and say "look, if he can smoke for 70 years and still be alive, smoking cannot be bad for you!" what they forgot to say was that 99 other smokers died for each one that survived. So, it is that todays enlightned thinkers understand that creating more surbia in English cities is not the answer to our housing problems. Lets think about addtional infrastructure costs: roads, schools, hospitals, supermarkets; and think about noise and light polution, flooding, increased carbon emissions from more traffic movements. The list is endless. More houses yes, but focussed on URBAN regeneration that ensures existing towns, cities and yes villages are redeveloped slowly but consistantly over time - making them more sustainable while keeping a clear distinction between urban and countryside.
David, Reading,
There's a house being built down the road from us in the next village. The house looks fantastic. Built it in character with the village, it looks new, but in a decade it'll have weathered in perfectly.
One house. On a vacant lot in the middle of the village. Apparently, it was "green belt", although frankly the only thing making it green were the nettles.
So apparently this planning argument has taken 8 years (the house has been actually built in a few weeks). In the same amount of time a builder has convinced the council to approve plans to build a whole new town of some 8000 houses on green belt land up the road.
The way the planning laws and the resulting arguments happening inherently leads to big grand schemes, because they're the only sensible option for housebuilding companies when even the smallest applications result in the same sort of friction.
Katie, Cambridge,
Unfortunately most rural developments are not appropriate or well planned. The large village I live in has just been blighted by a huge new development of rabbit-hutch houses with at most tiny yards and many without gardens altogether. The result is screaming children on the streets, car parking chaos and the destruction of the old village community.
sally marshall, near bristol,
Blatant mass house building in the countryside is not the answer this is just the kind of woolly ideas trumpeted by rich town dwellers. The beauty and tranquillity of the countryside must be protected from mass house building. Also the infrastructure in the country is woefully inadequate for mass house building and it will only lead to more traffic and the vast majority of the countryside has no reliable public transport that operates at time conducive with the working day (forget the 6am bus in the country they dont exist). Mass house building should be conducted in the mid and north of England where prosperity needs to be lifted more in line with the south.
Phillip Harris, London,
What we've got is one of the highest population densities in the world, and an inability to feed our population from our own resources. It's not a mass house program we need but a population containment and reduction program (mainly due to uncontrolled immigration - the elephant in the living room when it comes to housing demand it seems).
The figure for 10% developed is also misleading - much of our land is mountainous and unusable peat moorland, situated hundreds of miles from the area of peak demand in the south east.
paul, sheffield, uk
How can any grown up person want to keep building without any thought to the consequences, the future is known and it is one where oil is running out making food,electric. gas,unsustainable to these millions, we have just had the wettest for fifty years, the dryest for fifty years will also come around and then some with global warming giving unsastainable water supply, there is nowhere to bury the rubbish now and the infrastructure is not going to be there, It will not matter how many houses you build anyway the demand can never be met as under labour the entire third world is on the waiting list. It seems to me that if you set out to do as much damage as possible to this country the means to do so would be ready made in the policys of the Labour party. I finf it a profound mystery as to how many people can be cheerleaders to the demise of the country, of themselves, their familys and all who will come after us.
robert, ashford, kent
Why complain folks, you voted for these governmental parasites.
Steve, Chesterfield, UK
Unfortunatelt the idea of new developments in the Country (affordable housing or otherwise) is exactly as you describe: a toytown of mass-produced houses, swirling cul-de-sacs and a drive-thru’ McDonald’s.
Little attantion is given to quality, mixing in with the natural habitat, or reducing the needs for Cars. Develop near the Country Town Centres where these problems can be overcome with investment and modern design standards that match the Towns inherent design!
If the Town has a Railway Station - use that advantage also.
John Charlesworth, Kingswood, Surrey, UK
It depends what you mean by lots of countryside. Compared to Belarus and Oregon, same size roughly as Britain but 11 million and 3 million inhabitants respectively, we are roughly 6 and 20 times more crowded. And the office of national statistics tells me that by 2050, we shall have a population of 70 million, which means that we need to built 10 new Birminghams. But, of course, Mr Clark, the result will be barely noticeable. The truth is, that no matter how houses we built there will never be enough, no matter how many we build. But we who are able can make it easier by getting out of Britain now, and going somewhere where there is more space. And long before 2050 food will become too scare and expensive to import. There aren't too few houses Mr Clark, simply too many people.
Trofim, Birmingham, UK
I agree 100%, to fly from Gatwick you will see 1000s of acres of arable land without a whisper of a building, interspersed with the odd hamlet. Housing in the UK is a big problem, and it could be helped with a little, conscience, development.
Justin, Alford, UK
Residential development is good if it does not displace wildlife species or decimate nature's ecosystems and biodiversity. Plant five trees per house !
Brien Comerford, Glenview, United States
excellent article.
John, Oxford,
It makes little sense building out of town shopping centres with vast car parks that during the day are full and at night have very little utilisation, we need housing to be able to make use of this parking outside normal shopping hours. The analogy with the Mini car, makes sense - small size, but highest build quality , based on a standard design with individual customisations, so no house ever looks the same, with the ability to get people in larger houses to downsize to quality housing using locally sourced materials, with parking that during the day provides parking to the shop and at night to the commuting residents.
Adam Jarvis, Wales, UK
The problem with British planning is th effort is not spread around. I now live in germany and EVERY village gets an allotment of new housing. Not like the UK where in Swindon, 4000 houses are going to be built with all the infratsructure and traffic problems this will create.
Spread it around - all places must grow a bit - or become isolated places.
Richard, Plymouth,