New housing planned for greenfield sites covers an area bigger than Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton combined, according to the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

Kate Gordon, the council's national planning officer, said the development of greenfield sites contravened government guidelines designed to give priority to development of brownfield sites.

Forum Response: Woodland Trust

A spokesman for the Woodland Trust told ePolitix.com: "These findings are certainly worrying for the future of our countryside. We agree with CPRE that the percentage of new build on brownfield land should be ambitiously increased to ensure that valuable greenfield land is not lost.

"Much greenfield land contains areas of ancient woodland which are sites that have been continually wooded for over 400 years and are our richest habitat for wildlife. Currently we are aware of well over 200 ancient woodland sites under threat from development, and we fear this is only the tip of the iceberg.

"A huge number of local plans provide no or very little protection for this habitat. If we see house building on greenfield sites on the scale proposed these threats will only increase. It is vital that our irreplaceable habitats be protected from development and this means a much higher proportion of new build should be on previously developed sites."

Forum Response: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

A spokesman for CABE told ePolitix.com: "The notion that scarce land resource is being squandered is a myth. It is estimated that the urban area of England will increase from just 10.6 percent in 1991 to 11.9 percent in 2016.

"This means that urban expansion takes 0.05 percent of England's land area each year or one percent for 20 years. Typically housing accounts for about seven tenths of land in urban uses.

"As Mrs Gordon acknowledges, at least 60 percent of development is expected to take place on brownfield land and this target is being exceeded; even if 166 square miles of undeveloped land is earmarked for housing. We should not overlook that fact that new housing provision on brownfield land will provide essential new additional green spaces in urban areas.

"That we need more housing is not negotiable if we are to provide enough affordable homes to meets demand and housing of sufficient variety and of the type that people want."

Forum Response: Construction Products Association

Allan Wilén, economics director at the CPA, told ePolitix.com: "There is a desperate shortage of affordable housing in the south east where the highest degree of housing demand remains. Empty housing in other areas of the country will not solve the areas housing problems.

"The government is currently building fewer houses per year than at any time since 1945 and these new developments sadly are long overdue. We therefore welcome the government's commitment to new affordable housing and its efforts to put in place legislation to facilitate this."

Forum Response: Countryside Alliance

A spokesman for the Countryside Alliance told ePolitix.com: "The Alliance is disappointed that a number of local authorities are planning to further develop greenfield sites through the building of over 250,000 new houses. We would like to see more being done to encourage building on brownfield sites in line with the government's target of 60 per cent brownfield for new development and the early adoption of this target before the current 2008 deadline."Local authorities should particularly encourage brownfield development in towns, city centres and on the urban fringe to aid regeneration of these areas. Government should adopt policies which encourage more development in disadvantaged parts of the country, rather than the over-crowded and affluent south east where the majority of new housing is likely to go."

Forum Response: British Property Federation

A spokesman for the BPF told ePolitix.com: "The British Property Federation supports sustainable land use and specifically the Government's policy of directing 60 per cent of new housing development to brownfield land. Although one must bear in mind when trying to apply the target at a local level, as opposed to a national level, that some areas have very little brownfield land available and at the same time much housing demand. Such areas must be allowed to meet their basic needs. We also support the government's recommendation that future housing densities should reach an average of 30 dwellings per hectare whilst recognising that high density development will not suit each and every circumstance."But the issue of whether 50, 60, or 70 per cent of new housing development should be on brownfield land or whether densities should reach 30, 40, or 50 dwellings per hectare must not be allowed to shroud a far more important debate, namely issues surrounding the chronic under supply of new homes. At a time when housing demand has never been higher, the number of new homes coming forward has never been lower, certainly not since the 1940s. This is due primarily to a poorly resourced planning system but also a NIMBY culture which still pervades in many areas. "It has become apparent that brownfield land sites are not being released at the rate that they should be and despite supplementary planning guidance to the contrary, old employment sites, where the chance of employment development is zero, are still being preserved."Finally contrary to Mr Uhlig we believe that greenfiled housing development can be classed as sustainable development, if there is a demonstrable need for new homes, good transport links and at the same time a lack of alternative bownfield land. As it should, PPG3 makes reference to the need for sufficient housing land "at the right place and at the right time" and that everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home. This clearly extends in certain circumstances to those that live, or wish to live, in rural communities and where PPG3 makes reference to the importance of housing meeting the needs of regional economies."