People condemned to living in 'rabbit hutch houses' without planning reforms, Eric Pickles says He said: "We're seeing the right decisions made - less appeals, less challenges, and less overturning. Mr Pickles raised the prospect of families "trapped in "rabbit hutch" homes too small for their needs" unless further development was allowed. He said: "House building had fallen to its lowest peacetime rates since the 1920s. Families were trapped in "rabbit hutch" homes too small for their needs, forced by Whitehall density targets and parking limits." Mr Pickles pledged that "every inch of brownfield land" would be built on, rather than greenfield areas as campaigners fear. He said: "We are making the most of every single square inch of brownfield land, every vacant home and every disused building." Campaigners have feared for communities that have not yet developed a local plan to direct where development can take place and so could be at the mercy of builders. But Mr Pickles insisted: "Suggestions that the lack of a plan will lead to a charge of concrete mixers rolling into the English countryside are completely unfounded. Even in cases where there is no local plan new development will still have to conform to the framework, which clearly sets out that it must be well located, well designed and sustainable. Mr Pickles added: "We don't just want to be admired for our great heritage. We want to build the well-designed family homes with gardens and parking that people want - housing that stands the test of time. Our groundbreaking reforms will help us achieve that aim. They will help us forge anew our reputation in the world. And they will help us leave a legacy that our children, and their children after them, can be rightly proud of. Campaigners said they disagreed. Sir Simon Jenkins, the chairman of the National Trust, told The Daily Telegraph: "The majority of the English countryside which is not designated for protection is now to be released for development to a degree that we have not experienced since the 1940s. Former poet laureate Sir Andrew Motion, chairman of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, suggested the change would "wreck the countryside." He said the National Planning Policy Framework was "proving to be ground breaking in all the wrong ways." He said: "Developing greenfield sites unnecessarily and with inadequate local consultation is entirely the wrong way to make sure that we get the new homes the country so badly needs. A report commissioned by the National Trust suggested that local people's views were being sidelined by planning inspectors in favour of development. The framework, which has distilled 1,400 pages of planning guidance into 52 and is biased in favour of "sustainable development," became law last night. The LGiU report, which was commissioned and paid for by the National Trust, said: "The LGiU has found evidence that for ensuring that Local Plans are consistent with the NPPF, is prioritising development over the views of local people. The LGiU found that the need for more new homes was the most common reason for Local Plans being found unsound. It added: "The NPPF has, as a result, left councils less able to deliver a Local Plan that balances the views of local communities with the need for development."