ASHFORD council planners are under fire for failing to do enough to protect the countryside from being concreted over to make way for hundreds of new homes.

Shock figures reveal Ashford’s record in safeguarding green field sites from development is one of the worst in the country, with barely one in three of all new homes being built on brown field - or previously used - land.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) surveyed every area in the country to see how well or poorly it was doing when it came to protecting the countryside from the bulldozers.

Ashford was close to the bottom of the table, ranked 322 out of 354 local authorities.

Between 2001 and 2004, more than two thirds of all new homes in the area ended up on green field sites.

The CPRE said Ashford’s poor track record was "particularly worrying" given its status as one of the country’s key growth areas.

It accused the council of failing to raise its game when it came to safeguarding the countryside.

Dr Hilary Newport, director of the Kent CPRE, said: "The loss of so much green field is to be regretted. Ashford could be doing so much better. With the level of growth being proposed, we must make sure we make the best possible use of brownfield land."

The council’s own figures indicated its performance could be even worse than the CPRE survey indicated, she added.

The Government’s target is for 60 per cent of all new homes to go on either brownfield land or by converting existing buildings. Ashford also came out poorly when it came to meeting targets to ensure developers did not swallow up excessive land.

The CPRE says developments averaged around 20 homes per hectare, compared to Government guidance that says councils should aim for 30 homes per hectare.

The survey's findings were given short shrift by Ashford council, which said the CPRE was "out of touch" with the challenges the area faced.

Richard Alderton, the council’s head of planning, said Ashford did not enjoy a large land bank of brownfield sites but was doing its best to limit the amount of green field land sacrificed for development.

He said: "The answer is to do with simple mathematics and the scale of growth required in Ashford. Clearly the bigger the number of houses needed in an area, the harder it is to get a high percentage on what is a fixed amount of brownfield land."

He went on: "The masterplan for Ashford’s growth can achieve about 40% of the 31,000 homes needed to 2031 on brownfield land. In itself that is a challenging target and we must avoid problems of town cramming. We need to improve urban environments."

It was unfair to compare Ashford’s performance with a national target that did not reflect variations in land available.

"Some areas with lots of brownfield land and only needing small amounts of housing will obviously achieve a higher percentage on brownfield sites. Other areas, like Ashford, where major growth is needed and there is limited brownfield land, are simply unable to achieve 60%.This is a national survey by CPRE and perhaps is not in touch with the local situation," he said.