Tories today charged the government with an “anarchic” attitude towards development in the green belt.
Opposition spokesman Simon Burns accused ministers in the Commons of pursuing a “field-by-field trench warfare” approach towards new housing in the countryside.
He called on them to raise the 60% target for projected building on previously used “brownfield” sites to 66%.
Opening a Conservative-led debate on housing and the green belt, Burns said: “We have maintained that as much building as possible should be on brownfield sites.
“Surely now is the time for the government to be bold and raise the 60% target to 66%, which would be more environmentally friendly.”
Burns dubbed proposed developments in the Green Belt in Hertfordshire, Sussex and in the North East near Newcastle as “monuments to the Governments anarchic approach to protecting our countryside”.
Accusing ministers of “bullying, destruction of the Green Belt and lacking any clear sense of direction”, he warned the current policy could not go on.
“If it continues at the current rate, an area the size of Suffolk will disappear under concrete by the time todays school-leavers reach retirement.”
But planning minister Richard Caborn dismissed the Tories claims the government was allowing large-scale development on green belt land as “opportunistic” and “hypocritical”.
He said under the previous Tory government, large areas of the Green Belt had been released for development and that the present governments aim was “urban renaissance” providing sustainable growth in rural and urban areas.
He told MPs the 60% target for housing to be built on recycled land was “realistic” and accused the opposition of quoting target figures without any idea how they could be met.
Tom Brake for the Liberal Democrats said the Tories record on housing was not one “to be proud of” – just over 40% of development took place on brownfield land under the Conservatives, he complained.
The Tories should be “saying sorry for desecrating our towns and countryside”, he insisted.
Brake welcomed Labours move from “predict and provide” to “plan, monitor and manage”.
There was now a higher figure for brownfield development, he said.
“But so far they are not indicating that they are willing to revise that figure upwards on the basis of the change in the household projections.”
Labours Peter Bradley (The Wrekin) attacked the Conservatives handling of the debate. He claimed the Tories were more interested in “bloodletting than housebuilding”.
Tory James Gray (Wiltshire N) called for ministers to protect the rural buffer zone between Swindon and his constituency.
He said 70,000 new homes had been proposed for Wiltshire, 26,000 of which are in and around Swindon.
“I want to be able to tell my constituents in North Wiltshire that they are safe from Swindon.”
Labours Alan Whitehead (Southampton Test) joked the Tories position had moved from DAFT – Develop Anything for Tesco – to TEPD – Try to Engage Parliamentary Debate – and now BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
Winding up for the Tories, Nigel Waterson said the government was guilty of “drift and inaction” in its approach to housing policy.
“Its difficult to avoid the sad fact that in this area, far from having joined-up government, we have a government that can only be described as dysfunctional,” he said, to Labour jeers.
Replying, junior environment minister Nick Raynsford accused the Opposition frontbench of creating “a lot of hot air” over the issue.
“Its plain fact that some new development must go on greenfield sites – indeed some greenfield development is essential to breathe new life into certain communities, particularly in rural areas.”
Some rural communities “will die without that provision”, Raynsford warned.
The opposition motion deploring “the governments failure to protect the countryside” was defeated by 288 votes to 113, government majority 175.
A governments amendment welcoming its “continued commitment to protecting the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance” was approved without a vote.
