The Campaign to Protect Rural England claimed in a new study that there was enough “brownfield land” to build 1.5million new homes.
This was enough for six years’ supply of housing at the rates the Government wants new homes have to be built, or a 10-year supply if building continues at 2009 rates.
Supply of brownfield sites outstrips demand, the report suggested, with only three out of every five suitable plots being used for housing between 2000 and 2009.
Even in the South East, where demand is highest, a quarter of suitable brownfield sites are unused, the CPRE said.
The CPRE is campaigning for change to the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which distils 1,300 pages of planning guidance into as few as 52. The Daily Telegraph has also launched a campaign called for changes.
Campaigners are worried that the NPPF includes a new “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, without defining clearly what it means.
The NPPF also drops from the rules an explicit “brownfield first” policy, which has since 1995 forced developers to build more on previously developed land.
Instead it uses the expression “land with the least environmental or amenity value where practical”, which campaigners fear is not properly defined.
The CPRE’s study – “Building in a Small Island – Why we still need the brownfield first approach” - found that “far from running out, the supply of brownfield land is dynamic and increasing”.
It said that more than 143 square miles of brownfield land had been developed since the mid-1990s, “safeguarding large areas of green belt and other countryside across England”.
It added: “If this had taken place on greenfield land, an area seven times the size of Southampton or over 52,647 football pitches, would have been lost to new development.”
The report said that under scenarios projected by the Government, the new NPPF could see the amount of greenfield land used for housing more than doubling.
Neil Sinden, director of policy and campaigns for CPRE, said: “Land is a finite resource, particularly on this small, crowded island of ours, and we should recycle it whenever possible.
“It can’t be right to dig up fields and hedgerows for housing when we have chain link fences around derelict sites blighting large areas in our towns and cities.
“CPRE recognises there is a need for more housing, but making it easier for developers to build on more profitable greenfield sites while suitable brownfield sites require regeneration will not lead to sustainable economic growth.”
The CPRE’s findings echo comments from Sir Simon Jenkins, the chairman of the National Trust, who has described the decision to drop the brownfield-first commitment as “incomprehensible” because there was so much of it left over from England’s industrial past with good links to utilities and roads and rail.
Yesterday Stewart Baseley, the chairman of the Home Builders Federation, accused the CPRE of using misleading figures to reach a “manufactured conclusion” and warned that readopting the ‘brownfield first’ plan was a flawed proposal.
He said house builders were currently “exceeding the specified brownfield targets and are currently building more than 70 per cent of new homes on brownfield land”.
A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government said: “The draft policy would require that councils’ plans should allocate land with the least environmental value.
“That means Brownfield sites would be prioritised for regeneration except - as in the case of urban nature reserves - where they have become ecologically valuable.”
