How green is my party

Despite pressure for new homes, the countryside is safe with Labour, assures John Prescott

WHEN I was a young lad, at the Grange Secondary Modern School in Ellesmere Port, I was invited by the teacher of rural studies to join a youth-hostelling trip to the Lake District. I was not particularly enthusiastic. What I expected was farmland, all rolling hills and careful cultivation. What I saw when I got there took my breath away with a force I still remember now - a beautiful, dramatic landscape of craggy fells, green valleys and magnificent lakes - and, yes, even a host of golden daffodils.

What I didn't appreciate at the time was that I, and millions of people like me then and since, owed the preservation of this extraordinary, wonderful landscape to both the ceaseless vigilance and care of country people and to the planning policies enacted by Clement Attlee and the post-war Labour government. That government laid the foundation of the modern planning system, including national parks and the green belt. We recognise and value that. We are committed to its continuance. When I talk about traditional values in a modern setting, there couldn't be a better example.

Last week, I agreed to the establishment of a new green belt around the historic centre of Durham with its great cathedral: a green belt 80 times the size of Hyde Park. In Herefordshire, whilst I allowed some housing development in the green belt alongside the A1 near Stevenage in order to make best use of the transport corridor, I also endorsed an increase of that green belt five times greater than the area to be built on. In Dorset, I have accepted local people's plans for fewer houses.

All these cases are controversial; but these and other decisions since we came to office will add around 15 times more green-belt land than any which has been lost through very exceptional adjustments.

When I say that this government will look after our environment, I mean it. Our countryside is important to all of us. An unending joy to city and country people alike. Tomorrow I will be presenting the Government's new policy on planning for the communities of the future. I want to bring some sense and honesty to the recent debate about where the growing number of households should be located. So far, much of that debate has been riddled with abused statistics, crude figures, false claims and special pleading.

The Opposition are coming up with a series of new housing "targets" for building on brown-field or derelict land. Their targets are like a fairground shooting stall - they keep moving: 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 75, then back to 66, all within one year. But they've yet to come up with the semblance of a policy which would actually make any of their moving targets credible.

We understand the dilemma about housing. We know it is about how to accommodate a growing number of households and at the same time protect our precious countryside - without seeing rents, land and house prices or homelessness spiralling. But we don't just understand it. The difference with this government is that we're going to do something about it.

Let's look at the basic facts. The best figures available suggest that an extra 175,000 households will be formed each year in the 25 years from 1991 to 2016. That's not because of a big increase in population. It's mainly due to social and demographic changes, such as people living longer and couples separating more frequently. Four-fifths of the new households will be people living alone - young and old.

You can argue about these projections, but two key facts are clear: how many households there are going to be will be determined by the decisions of individuals and families about their own lives, not by the Government; and the consequences of household growth can't be ignored or wished away.

But the debate is not just about numbers. It is about the quality of life: how to provide decent homes in thriving communities, while ensuring a good-quality environment for people. In the country - and in the town too.

We must reclaim our city centres for people. Most of us in Britain want to live in cities, for reasons of work, family, and amenities. But many people have been put off by a mixture of rundown public services, poor transport, dilapidated streets, the fear of crime, and poor standards in schools.

We've seen previous attempts to improve our cities fail. There's no doubt that the slum clearance and reconstruction over the past 50 years was vital to wipe away some of the worst ghetto housing. In my childhood, I lived in the old slum houses, with the toilet in the yard and the gas- mantle lighters. I had a happy childhood, but I need no convincing of the need for good-quality housing.

Some of our estates built to replace the slums brought problems of their own. Some suffered from cut-price construction - high-rise slums replaced terrace slums. Others saw architectural optimism defeated by social deprivation and disaffection. Even decent housing can't prevent vandalism where the young feel completely alienated.

I'm not just talking about problems on council estates, either. I recently visited areas in Manchester and in some of our former coalfield communities, where private landlords have bought up swaths of housing - and then let them go to ruin.

So we must find a new approach. Firstly, just as we have done over road- building, we will get away from a simplistic "predict and provide" approach on housing. Just because particular patterns of housing have applied in the past doesn't mean that they're fixed templates for the future. That means we'll allow for greater flexibility in adjusting local plans - looking at the merits of individual cases, such as Dorset, and not simply imposing rigid figures.

We also want to give more responsibility to regions to decide how best to meet their own housing needs. Whitehall doesn't know best on this - we need to decentralise decision-making, bring it much closer to people.

We are committed to protecting our countryside and to revitalising our cities. These objectives are two sides of the same coin. By making our towns and cities more attractive places to live and work in, we will be relieving the pressure on the countryside.

To do that we will need a whole range of linked measures. It is not just a matter of housing, or even of planning. It is about dealing with a whole range of factors affecting the quality of life - about crime, about education, about transport, about health.

Last week I unveiled the winner of the Millennium Village competition - a key blueprint for the future. This is a flagship scheme, providing almost 1,400 homes on a large brown-field site at Greenwich in London. The development will be built to the highest quality of architectural design. It will be mixed housing, with provision for jobs, shops, public transport, health and schooling within its boundaries, and integrated into the wider community in Greenwich. Car dependency will be low - half the national average, minimising environmental damage. Energy efficiency will be high - 80 per cent better than average.

I am already looking for four or five other sites around Britain for new urban villages such as this, pointing the way for urban regeneration in the future. This is the sort of initiative that will make it possible to meet a higher proportion of future housing need on already used land in our towns and cities, rather than in unspoiled countryside.

This government is committed to protecting both the green belt and the wider countryside. I understand the concerns about the countryside. But they shouldn't obscure what this government is already doing for people, in the countryside and the cities - better schools, better hospitals, better job opportunities.

We will respond to people's needs. For housing for local people in rural areas. For green spaces in our cities, rejecting pressure to build on urban parks and on our playing fields - which were being sold off under the last administration. We will bring in a system that is more accountable, more responsive to what people want, and better able both to revitalise our towns and cities and protect our countryside.

Decent homes for people are vital. So is a healthy environment, in both town and country. I believe our new approach will achieve those objectives in a new, flexible and responsive way. We will ensure we hand on our green and pleasant land for future generations to enjoy and cherish as I first learned to do as a small boy: and hope we always will.

John Prescott is Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions