In the UK, there are competing demands on the use of land for biodiversity, food production, housing, recreation, health and well-being. Movements of populations and
climate change exacerbate the pressure of these demands. It is thus to be expected that tensions will arise between and among food producers, residents, planners, builders, industrialists, environmentalists and others. Points of view vary significantly and CPRE thus has its critics. Some critics characterise CPRE as being: • A proponent of a
drawbridge mentality (i.e. "I've moved to the countryside but I don't want others to do likewise") This is sometimes characterised as betraying a
NIMBY approach. CPRE counters this by saying that what is needed in rural areas is low-cost rental accommodation or genuinely affordable homes. • Motivated by
Luddite nostalgia. • A supporter of exclusionary planning practices to keep low-income residents out of rural areas. CPRE has changed its positions on issues over time. For example, in December 2008
George Monbiot of
The Guardian interviewed the then CPRE head,
Shaun Spiers, about the organisation's opposition to wind farms but not opencast
coal mines. George Monbiot asked why he couldn't find any opposition of the CPRE to surface
coal mining over the past five years, and pointed out that the negative effects that coal mines cause by removing the soil from large areas are much greater than the negative effects wind energy might have on the countryside. However, perhaps as a result of this pressure, in 2010, campaigning against inappropriate mineral extraction by opencast mining started to be featured under the 'Climate change and natural resources' section of CPRE's website. In 2011, the CPRE argued that not enough public consultation had been done on
HS2 though a 5-month public consultation was currently being run at the time. The CPRE has been accused by some of exaggerating the threat to rural England and of being alarmist by warning that the Green Belt is in danger of being 'concreted over'. According to a right-wing
think tank, the
Institute for Economic Affairs, only about one-tenth of the English surface area, (rather than the Green Belt) is 'developed' in the broadest sense; about half of this 'development' consists of domestic gardens, leaving only one-twentieth which is really 'under concrete' (including roads, railways, car parks, etc.). It is nevertheless the case that in 2017/18, 8.9 km of previously undeveloped Green Belt land changed to a developed use, of which 2.9 km turned into residential use. Figures from the British
YIMBY movement have criticised the CPRE, accusing it of denying the British housing crisis and significantly underestimating housing need in high-cost areas to justify the inviolability of the Greenbelt. YIMBYs have claimed that this policy denies both rural and urban communities the housing that, if planned correctly, they would want to build. The alleged success of CPRE's campaign to restrict housing on the rural-urban fringe has led John Myers, co-founder of London YIMBY, to describe it as 'the NRA of the UK' (referring to the
National Rifle Association of America, rather than the unrelated British
NRA). A CPRE report admits more housing is needed but challenges the government statistics on numbers, stating they are based on aspiration rather than observed need. Criticism has also been targeted at the CPRE's emphasis on the use of brownfield sites over greenfield sites as a first choice for building, accusing it of overstating their ability to meet Britain's housing need. According to the YIMBY movement, this is a distraction from the necessary infill development in and around major urban centres, which is claimed to offer significantly more potential to meet housing need inside urban areas. In October 2020 however, a CPRE report revealed that there is enough brownfield land for 1.3 million new homes and over half a million already have planning permission. In 2024, CPRE Hertfordshire were criticised by one Hertfordshire local authority about the accuracy of information in the charity's published analysis of a draft Local Plan. Concerns were publicly raised by the local authority that such misinformation could detrimentally affect residents’ abilities to provide a well-informed response to its Draft Local Plan as part of its ongoing consultation. ==CPRE people==