Not the answer to city’s ‘decline’

Mr Armstrong [Letters, December 23] thinks that the city’s supposed “decline” is best addressed by encasing the entire city in a dreary urban sprawl to facilitate population expansion.

He cites Lavenham (West Suffolk) as an example of decline. I visited this area with a friend in September, and we thought it was beautiful. Lavenham is a small town with a wealth of ancient buildings, mainly mediaeval and Tudor. Several nearby villages (Long Melford, Cavendish and Clare), strung out along an unspoilt river valley (the other Stour) are very attractive.

The next day we got the bus from (not so pretty) Haverhill to Cambridge, and as always on long bus journeys, talked to our fellow passengers. Most of the time, we talked to an old gentleman who was going to a hospital appointment. He said it was awful to have cancer, but he had every confidence in the treatment he was receiving at the hospital (Addenbrookes). We told him how lucky he was - where we live in east Kent, the two hospitals are dreadful. Like everyone else in Britain, he had heard about QEQM’S baby deaths but was surprised to hear that Ashford is bad too - long waiting times, poor hygiene, harassed and exhausted staff.

Lovely, unspoilt countryside, and excellent NHS healthcare. If this is decline, let’s have more of it.

In sharp contrast, Peterborough is a cathedral city that has sacrificed all its character to massive urban expansion. Do we really want Canterbury to become the Peterborough of the south?

Rosemary Sealey

Black Griffin Lane, Canterbury