Government eco-town proposals receive fresh blow

The Government's flagship eco-town strategy has suffered another damaging blow after an independent report said one of the proposed towns was "unworkable".

By Patrick Sawer Last Updated: 11:00PM GMT 03 Jan 2009

The Pennbury plan for a 12,000 home development near Leicester is one of 12 shortlisted by ministers as part of their plans to build a string of environmentally sustainable new towns across the country.
But a leading consultancy on urban design and planning has damned the Pennbury scheme, submitted by the Co-operative supermarket and property group, as economically "unsustainable", "ambiguous" and "fundamentally weak".
The Halcrow Group, which was commissioned by four local authorities covering Leicester and the surrounding towns and villages to assess the Co-op's plans, said the new town was likely to produce fewer jobs than envisaged, would suffer from poor transport links and would be out of keeping in what is currently a rural setting.
The report's findings are another major setback for the Government's eco-town proposals, which have already been widely condemned by opponents as threatening the green field character of many sites for little if any environmental or economic benefit.
The strategy has been beset by problems since it was placed at the heart of Labour's policy agenda by Gordon Brown at his first party conference as leader in September 2007.
A shortlist of 15 was cut to 12 after developers dropped out and schemes were reconsidered. The final list of 10 is expected to be announced shortly.
The schemes will then go through the normal planning process. But there are growing doubts over the viability of several of the schemes in the wake of the worsening housing crash.
Eco-towns, which will contain between 5,000 and 20,000 homes, are intended to be carbon neutral and act as an "exemplar" for environmentally-friendly development.
Each must contain at least 30 per cent "affordable" housing, while properties must be on average only a 10-minute walk away from public transport and local services, such as doctors' surgeries and primary schools. At least one person in each household should be able to get to work without a car.
However, the Government admitted in November that only one of the 12 sites being considered is officially ranked as "generally suitable" for an eco-town.
Rackheath, in Norfolk, was judged to be Grade A because it was near Norwich and a working railway line.
The vast majority of the schemes, including Pennbury, were judged to be Grade B – which meant they "might be a suitable location subject to meeting specific planning and design objectives".
But the new report on Pennbury casts doubt on this.
It states: "The Co-op have at this stage in the planning process provided insufficient information to support the Pennbury proposal at this moment. We have serious reservations at this stage that neither the required transport infrastructure, nor the level of jobs required can actually be delivered.
"Both the economic strategy and transport proposals should therefore be substantially revised, as these are fundamental to the overall sustainability of the concept."
Dr Kevin Feltham, a Leicestershire county councillor and a campaigner against the scheme, said: "This report has left the Co-op's plans for Pennbury in tatters. The time is now ripe for them to withdraw their bid in the face of overwhelming evidence that the plans are unworkable."
The report's findings are a particular blow to the Pennbury scheme because Halcrow's consultants said it could have brought potential benefits to the region "in terms of new jobs, homes, community facilities and infrastructure, as well as pioneering new approaches to zero carbon living".
But it said the plans "are not matched by sufficiently detailed commitments and proposals to ensure that these objectives can actually be delivered."
It found:
* The Co-op had produced no convincing evidence to support the assumption that 60 per cent of residents would be able to work in the town.
* The planned location has poor transport links, making it unattractive for potential employers and businesses.
* It is unclear from population projections whether there is in fact a need for so many new homes in the area.
* There has been no survey of local environmental features such as ecology, landscape and cultural heritage.
However, the Co-operative Group defended its proposals, claiming the Halcrow report recognised the potential benefits of the Pennbury eco-town.
Ruairidh Jackson, its head of planning and property strategy, said: "We are in close discussions with Leicester Regeneration Company about the benefits our proposals offer and to improve the regeneration potential of the city as a whole. This story goes far wider than simply employment. It's about education and skills, about helping regeneration sites to come forward, about housing in the city, about unlocking public transport investment and, not least, about helping Leicester to market and promote itself to additional sources of investment.
"Our proposals are fully complementary to these objectives and we believe that we can help Leicester to be an even stronger and more successful city."
The four councils who commissioned the report - Harborough District, Oadby & Wigston Borough, Leicestershire County and Leicester City – are themselves split on the question of the eco-town. Leicestershire County opposes the scheme and has accused Leicester City, which backs it, of being "too easily bought" by the promise of £5 million from the Co-op to carry out a feasibility study into running a tram from Pennbury into Leicester city centre. Harborough and Oadby have yet to decide whether they support the plans.