Fresh approach to housing crisis

I applaud Penny Tyler for criticising the huge development of 4,000 houses which has been given the go-ahead in the south of Canterbury on Grade I agricultural land [Letters, January 14]. Also for bravely drawing attention to Councillor Ashley Clark’s notable discrepancies, i.e. on one hand voting for this huge unwieldy estate and then bemoaning the “continual encroachment of development”’. Perhaps there are two Conservative Councillor

Ashley Clarks?

Instead of taking this observation on the chin, his response was to criticise Penny’s concern about the detrimental impact the development will have on nature [Letters, January 20], stating that she “rails against building on agricultural land on the basis that it is building on nature” which he says is “indicative of a naivety that persist when it comes to planning issues”.

I wonder if Ashley is aware of his own party’s new Agricultural Act (that environmental and wildlife groups have strongly lobbied for) which aims for public money to be given to farmers to deliver public goods? Public goods which are considered things that society needs but that farmers cannot sell in the marketplace, e.g. creating more habitat that supports wildlife.

It is a world leading policy that means farmers and the like are paid to act as stewards of the land, rewarding them for measures to protect it, the soil, water and air, support thriving plants and wildlife and tackle climate change. However this can only happen if 1) the government put its money where its mouth is to support this transition, and 2) that the land isn’t lost under tons of concrete! Of course homeless people need houses! But really if we are to live sustainably in this post-brexit, climate changing world, we will need land to grow our own

crops here at home! Councillor Ashley Clark complains that the planning committee is always the “scapegoat for public wrath” and does not seem to think too highly of the Planning Inspectorate, which if district councils don’t get the planning right, he says, “rejects our plan and we end up with a developers anarchy over which we have little control”. Can I therefore suggest that he and his other Conservative fellows join others to lobby their government to change it so that we don’t have a developers’ free for all engulfing the land? Surely since this dreadful crisis it’s time to think creatively. Where in the post-brexit/ virus world do we need homes? How many are laying empty? How many are second/third homes? Can we address some people’s ‘need’ to buy second homes, i.e. pension shortfalls? Can the government give developers incentives to build on brownfield? Do we need to re-look at our growingly empty inner town scapes for housing development, where people can walk to the doctors or other services?

Mr Clark and all, save our precious decreasing green spaces (be it the nice flat agricultural land that developers so love, or wonderfully messy wildlife havens) and a gentle request not to scapegoat those attempting to stick up for it!

Naomi Blunt

South Road, Faversham