The publication of the Government’s long-awaited Land Use Framework marks a significant moment in shaping how England balances competing demands on land, including housing, food production, energy and nature recovery. However, the response from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) highlights deep concerns that the framework, while welcome in principle, may fall short of delivering meaningful change.
Context: A Framework for Competing Land Demands
The Government’s Land Use Framework aims to provide strategic guidance on how land in England should be used to meet climate targets, support biodiversity and accommodate development pressures. It reflects growing urgency around climate change, food security and access to green space, with ministers emphasising the need to make “the right decisions about our finite land.”
Yet, crucially, the framework is advisory rather than mandatory, intended to “steer” decision-making rather than impose binding rules on landowners or developers. This distinction is central to CPRE’s critique.
CPRE’s Core Criticism: Lack of Clear Direction
Ahead of the framework’s release, CPRE warned that it “will not solve the fundamental question” of how land should be prioritised across England. Their analysis suggests that without stronger direction, the framework risks becoming another high-level strategy that fails to address systemic issues in land use.
At the heart of CPRE’s response is concern over the absence of a clear spatial plan. The organisation argues that England needs a more explicit, map-based approach to determine where housing, nature recovery, farming and renewable energy should take precedence. Without this, competing interests may continue to be resolved inconsistently at local level.
CPRE’s position reflects its long-standing mission to protect rural landscapes from unplanned development while promoting sustainable land use.
The Brownfield-First Argument
A key pillar of CPRE’s response is its continued advocacy for a “brownfield-first” approach to development. Drawing on its own research, the charity has repeatedly highlighted that there is sufficient previously developed land to meet housing targets without encroaching on the countryside.
This argument is reinforced by earlier CPRE findings that over 1.4 million homes could be built on brownfield sites, reducing pressure on greenfield and Green Belt land.
Chief Executive Roger Mortlock has previously criticised current policy direction, stating that if government is serious about protecting the countryside, it “needs more teeth.” Although this comment predates the framework, it encapsulates CPRE’s broader stance: that guidance alone is insufficient without enforceable mechanisms.
Concerns Over the Countryside and Green Belt
CPRE has also raised concerns that the Land Use Framework does not adequately safeguard the countryside, particularly in the context of ongoing planning reforms and pressure to release Green Belt land.
The charity has been critical of policies such as the so-called “grey belt”, which it argues could lead to development on previously undeveloped land under the guise of low environmental value.
For CPRE, the framework should have provided stronger protections for rural areas while clearly prioritising land for nature recovery and sustainable farming. Instead, the absence of binding commitments risks continued incremental loss of countryside to housing and infrastructure.
Integration and Joined-Up Policy Making
Another major theme in CPRE’s response is the need for better integration across policy areas. Land use decisions intersect with agriculture, planning, climate policy and transport, yet these are often handled in silos.
CPRE has emphasised the importance of “integrating land use decision-making across sectors and scales”, arguing that tools already exist but are not being fully utilised.
The Land Use Framework is seen as an opportunity to bring these strands together, but CPRE suggests it does not go far enough in creating a truly joined-up system.
Balancing Climate, Nature and Food Security
While critical, CPRE acknowledges the scale of the challenge facing policymakers. The need to balance net zero targets, biodiversity restoration and food production is complex, particularly given finite land resources.
The Government estimates that only around 1% of land will be needed for renewable energy infrastructure, with potential for dual use such as grazing alongside solar or wind installations.
CPRE broadly supports the principle of multifunctional land use but stresses that without clear prioritisation, there is a risk that short-term economic pressures—particularly housing demand—will dominate decision-making.
A Missed Opportunity?
Overall, CPRE’s response frames the Land Use Framework as a step in the right direction but ultimately a missed opportunity for transformative change.
The organisation welcomes the recognition of land as a finite and strategic resource, as well as the focus on climate resilience and nature-based solutions. However, it argues that the framework lacks the clarity, authority and enforceability required to address England’s land use crisis.
By failing to provide a definitive plan for where development should and should not occur, the framework may leave local authorities and developers navigating the same tensions that have long characterised the planning system.
Conclusion
The CPRE response to the Government’s Land Use Framework underscores a fundamental tension in English land policy: the gap between ambition and implementation. While the framework sets out an important vision for balancing environmental and economic priorities, CPRE’s critique highlights the need for stronger direction, clearer spatial planning and enforceable policies.
As pressures on land continue to intensify, the success of the framework will likely depend on whether it evolves from a guiding document into a more robust system capable of delivering meaningful change for the countryside, communities and the environment.
