New-build houses that promote greener living

SIR – Tom Fyans, the deputy chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (Letters, July 28), is wrong to argue that the green belt is sacrosanct.

Climate change considerations must trump the desire to preserve small amounts of land: we need to build houses that allow people to walk or cycle to work. Yes, by all means use brownfield sites first – but the fact is that the green belt is strangling such fast-growing and exciting cities as Bristol, to such an extent that, rather than sacrifice just 2 per cent of North Somerset’s adjacent, poor-quality greenbelt land, new communities have been proposed more than 15 miles from Bristol’s jobs and infrastructure, with no viable bus or train service.

These two communities together will cause 4,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year just from commuting – not including school runs, shopping or leisure trips. The countryside needs sensible, flexible policies that put climate change at the heart of every planning proposal.

Jan Murray Churchill, Somerset

SIR – Going by the proliferation of property letting companies and the number of “To Let” signs adorning the terraced houses of our town (the majority of which used to be owneroccupied), I would guess that one major cause of the fall in the proportion of the population owning their own home is the large number of second property ownerships.

Banks return little interest and for many, investment in bricks and mortar is far more lucrative. The issue of second property ownership is the one which needs addressing – but the Conservative Party seems unlikely to do much about it.

John Jepson Cheltenham, Gloucestershire