GOVERNMENT plans for a huge expansion of house-building across Kent and the South East have been severely criticised by a cross-party committee of MPs.

In a damning report published today, the MPs raise serious questions about whether the Government can achieve its aims and warn the scale of development envisaged by ministers may prove unsustainable.

They say the costs of providing new schools, hospitals, roads and other community facilities will be “enormous” and that it is “questionable whether the benefits justify such a huge outlay".

The report’s conclusions dramatically undermine the Government’s arguments for increasing house-building in the county, which is expected to see an extra 116,000 homes built over the next two decades.

The Labour-dominated committee is highly critical of the failure of ministers to work out what extra facilities will be needed; say the aim of bringing down house prices is unlikely to be achieved and warn the plans will lead to “characterless urban sprawl serving commuters into London".

On the environment, the report states: “The additional homes could place excessive demands on the environment, leading to the loss of green field sites and excessive pressure on the water supply and other natural resources.”

The findings will be a serious blow to the Government’s blueprint for development in the South East, which earmarks north Kent and Ashford as key areas for significant growth.

Andrew Bennett, the Labour chairman of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister select committee, said: “We are far from convinced the Government’s plans will be sustainable. It could create characterless urban sprawl serving commuters into London, rather than the vibrant communities with affordable homes, jobs and leisure facilities which the Government wants.”

The impact on the environment had not been considered, while “basic issues” such as how water could be supplied to new homes had not been resolved, the report says.

The MPs estimate the costs of infrastructure needed at £20 billion and says councils must be confident community facilities are built at the same time houses are.

They also warn the importance of creating local jobs “might get overlooked in the rush to build a large number of homes” while larger green field sites in areas like Ashford could get developed first rather than brown field sites because they are easier to build on.

Commenting on the report, Ashford MP Damian Green said: “I share many of the committee’s fears. If John Prescott is serious about sustainable development, he should not be proposing the scale and speed of growth that he is. I hope he listens to what the committee says.”

Kent County Council recently issued a report which put the costs of providing the extra community facilities at £7.1billion and is demanding that the Government guarantees to meet the costs of extra schools, roads and hospitals.

County council leader Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart welcomed the report’s findings, saying he agreed with all the 45 recommendations MPs had made.

“The report is a very useful contribution to the debate. The MPs have made all the points that KCC has about the costs of the infrastructure which will be needed and the protection of the environment, which is crucial. It is no good having a 30-year housing plan if you don’t also have a 30-year infrastructure plan. We cannot take the housing without the infrastructure.”