Illustration: Folio Art

• Increase image
• View all images

An exclusive LGC survey reveals just two councils back proposals for controversial new eco-towns.

"Heavy handed", "undemocratic", and "a bit of a fraud". The comments of councils facing an eco-town in their area suggest the government's handling of its plan to alleviate the housing shortage has not proved popular.

LGC surveyed the leaders and elected mayors of the 15 districts or boroughs shortlisted for an eco-town and found the vast majority were concerned about the schemes. Six opposed the plans, and a further seven had not officially come out for or against their eco-town, but had significant concerns about the local proposals. Just two councils were in favour of their local eco-town, but this was unsurprising since both of these — East Lindsey and East Hampshire DCs — had put forward the schemes to government themselves.

Zero-carbon standards

Eco-towns, a concept unveiled in 2007, are new towns of at least 5,000 homes built to zero-carbon standards. Most of the councils backed the idea of greener homes but were deeply unhappy about the how the planning and consultation process is being handled.

The process for the eco-towns is different to the one a normal planning application goes through. The government has already announced a shortlist of 15 sites and is consulting until 30 June on the eco-towns concept and preliminary views on the locations. A sustainability assessment of the sites and a draft planning policy statement on eco-towns will be published in July for consultation. The final version of the planning policy statement will be published in October, including the final list of up to 10 potential eco-towns. Councils will have to consider the statement when they receive planning applications for the developments.

John Mitchell, chief executive of Uttlesford DC, which hosts the Elsenham site, said: "We think what is being proposed is undemocratic. It takes away the option not to have something in that place away from the local planning authority. The consultation exercise is a bit of a fraud." Many councils also felt they had not been given enough detail about their local proposal to conduct a meaningful consultation.

Concern over scrutiny

Some of the sites have either already been rejected or are not earmarked for housing in local or regional plans. If the sites are outside the local plan, they may have missed out on extensive and much-needed layer of scrutiny, say council leaders. The Pennbury site in Leicestershire, for example, was rejected from the regional spatial strategy (RSS) because of concern over its transport links. "At the RSS, the highways people said 'no way' [to the site]," recalled Graham Hart (Con), leader of Harborough DC.

Many authorities are also worried about the choice of site for their eco-town. Lack of transport infrastructure to support a new settlement is the most common concern. Government departments have made encouraging noises to some places about backing more road and rail infrastructure, but in other cases no such assurances have been given. The proposed site of the Ford eco-town in West Sussex is at the end of a single-track road and nearby Arundel is already going to have to wait until at least 2018 for a bypass to ease current congestion. The local bus company says it cannot justify creating a new route for 5,000 homes, according to Arun DC leader Gillian Brown (Con).

There are fears that it may be difficult to attract companies to set up shop in the new eco-towns and therefore residents will have to commute, generating congestion and pollution. "We need a significant amount of employment on the site to have a sustainable community," said Virginia Gay (Lib Dem), leader of North Norfolk DC, the authority for the Coltishall eco-town. "People driving 80 miles to work is not very sustainable."

These worries over the locations of the would-be eco-towns have led some campaigners to query why they were chosen at all. Several have put in requests under the Freedom of Information Act to get the criteria used by the government when selecting their site. Anti-Pennbury group Cascet found the site scored badly on transport although developer The Co-op said it had modified the proposal since that initial assessment and its rating had improved.

Better Accessible Responsible Development (BARD), which opposes the Middle Quinton scheme in Warwickshire, asked for information on the selection process and meetings between developers and the government but were told they could not have it until 30 June, the day the consultation closes. "It will be too late for inclusion in responses we or anyone else make," said the group's solicitor Simon Ricketts, a partner at SJ Berwin. Local MPs have also requested the correspondence between the Ford site developer and the government.

There have been dark mutterings that a couple of eco-town backers are also donors to the Labour Party, although no impropriety has been found. The Co-operative Group, for example, is proposing the Pennbury site while the Co-operative Party, another part of the Co-op movement, funds 29 Labour MPs. Several sites are former Ministry of Defence bases and some MPs have questioned what the government stands to gain from their redevelopment. Conservative MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said in Parliament the government stood to make a total of almost £1bn from the seven sites where it has a major interest if the proposals go through.

One group of campaigners has decided that it is time for the gloves to come off. BARD's solicitor has written to the government warning that it would issue judicial review proceedings this month to challenge the eco-towns consultation.

Meanwhile, many of the councils affected by eco-towns have formed a group in order to share information about the process. The Local Government Association is investigating the consultation's legality, passing information on to councils so they can decide whether to bring a legal challenge themselves.

But there are some councils that see the towns as an opportunity to regenerate rundown areas.

The redevelopment of Bordon was planned by East Hampshire DC several years before eco-towns were even a twinkle in the government's eye. The town's military training base is due to close in 2011 so the council plans to integrate the new homes into the town and create a town centre. "The idea of eco-towns fitted something we were planning to do anyway," said council leader Ferris Cowper (Cons).

"The town looks ugly, does not have the facilities people want and some housing is just dreadful so the chance to rebuild is a godsend."

East Lindsey DC, which has submitted two sites it thinks suitable for an eco-town, believes the plan could bring jobs to the area. Restormel BC, which did not make its area's bid and has some concerns about the planning process, also said the eco-town
could generate employment.

Housing minister Caroline Flint, who also has an eco-town proposed in her Don Valley constituency, has attempted to quell the disquiet over the concept. She said she does not want to see developments built that would harm rural communities or lack infrastructure. She insisted councils were appropriately involved in the process and that eco-towns did not bypass local plans. Ms Flint said: "Let's be absolutely clear, eco-towns will go through the planning process — otherwise we wouldn't need to put in place a planning policy statement. Suggestions otherwise are wrong."

But Ms Flint's assurances do not seem to have won over many of the doubters. Unless the next rounds of consultation bring news that eases local government's worries, the housing minister looks set to have a fight on her hands.

Locations of proposed eco-towns

• Bordon, Hampshire 

• Coltishall, Norfolk 

• Curborough, Staffordshire 

• Elsenham, Essex 

• Ford, West Sussex 

• Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire 

• Imerys, Cornwall 

• Leeds city region (four possible sites) 

• Manby, Lincolnshire 

• Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire 

• Middle Quinton, Warwickshire 

• Pennbury, Leicestershire 

• Rossington, South Yorkshire 

• Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire 

• Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire

Survey results

• In favour of their eco-town

• East Hampshire DC

• East Lindsey DC

Against their eco-town

• Selby DC

• Rushcliffe BC

• Uttlesford DC

• South Cambridgeshire DC

• Stratford-on-Avon DC*

• Cherwell DC*

Undecided, but have serious concerns

• Restormel BC

• North Norfolk DC

• Harborough DC

• Lichfield DC

• Arun DC

• Doncaster MBC

• Mid Bedfordshire BC*

* Did not reply to survey, but had previously released statements indicating their position.