So why are there so many planning  applications where the focus is on these market value homes and a promise to build a small percentage of affordable homes is tagged on to the application as an after thought or a tool to obtain planning permission? 

Surely it's the wrong way round?  Surely developers should be applying to build affordable homes to address the shortage and adding the luxury homes on the back as the small percentage they promise to build?

And do remember, our extensive campaigning experience shows that on too many occasions, once planning permission has been granted, developers go back to the planners

complaining that they can’t afford to build out the affordable quota or "it's not viable" to do so. 

The principle of building on these sites has already been established so, they usually get their way.

At no point have CPRE ever suggested that we do not need affordable homes in this country.  

Instead this organisation has argued that we do not need, nor do we have a shortage of larger homes classed by real estate developers as "executive homes”.

Little by little, bit by bit our countryside is being chipped away at by those who wish to build larger homes and IGNORE the housing problem within this country.  

Each one of these "superior developments" is usually sold with descriptions such as:

 "a premium collection of luxury new 3, 4 and 5 bedroom homes amidst spectacular open countryside within the sought-after village of ......"  or "outstanding views"  

Then, the developers add insult to injury by naming the roads within these "collections of premium, luxury homes as The Elms, The Oaks, The Meadows etc., in memorium to the landscape and trees destroyed to build their premium luxury properties AND selling these luxury properties with 'spectacular open countryside views

'- yes that's the very same open countryside they are hell bent on degrading bit by bit to create these luxury homes!

Instead of stating housing shortage we should be clearly stating affordable and social housing shortage.  

We love Rebecca Pullinger's response in the Daily Telegraph to a criticism of CPRE.

SIR – Robert Colvile criticises our organisation in his article.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England was fundamental to the introduction of green belt policy in 1955.

This policy was designed to limit urban sprawl, prevent neighbouring towns from merging, protect the character of historic settlements, encourage urban regeneration and safeguard our countryside.

Far from being outdated, it is more relevant than ever today.

The green belt is the countryside next door for 30 million people. It provides health and wellbeing benefits, and easy access to nature.

We’re all in agreement that we need more housing, and we are open to small-scale, affordable housing developments to meet locally identified need,

as well as development on suitable brownfield sites within the green belt.

However, developers seem to favour three- and four-bedroom detached homes. These do nothing to solve the housing crisis, which is to do with affordability.

Rebecca Pullinger