Greenfield flaw

ALTHOUGH I am on the committee of Courtwick Lane Opposition Group (CLOG), the points raised by Mary Mears (Gazette, February 3) are outside CLOG’s brief (to oppose the Courtwick development). Therefore, my comments are purely personal.
By The Newsroom
Published 10th Feb 2011, 11:22 BST

To me, the whole concept that future infrastructure relies on building new houses (on greenfield sites) is fatally flawed. Developers are not in business to benefit local residents; their raison d’être is to make as much profit as possible!

Hypothetically, if infrastructure requires a new doctors’ surgery handling 1,500 patients, the trade-off may be to build 1,000 new homes housing 3,000 people. So, the town now has 3,000 new residents but only 1,500 new “doctor spaces”. Is that (or anything remotely similar) a good deal for any town? I don’t think so!

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The development also means 2,000 new cars entering an already overcrowded road system, possibly through only one exit point; good arable land gets lost forever; a possible increased flood risk; damage to wildlife, etc. Surely, the development has done irreparable damage to the area with no gains?

Also, as Margaret Boulton illustrated at the Arun housing consultation meeting (Gazette story, February 3), what happens if a development is less successful? The developer seeks to reduce its “infrastructure liability”. Does that benefit residents? I don’t think so!

Most councils face the same dilemma. They are encouraged by government money to build, build, build! OK, there may be a need for more houses, but should that be to the detriment of existing residents who have mostly scrimped and saved to buy their house in a location of their choosing?

Most towns have empty houses or ugly brownfield sites (where the infrastructure is already in place). Wouldn’t they be better places to develop? Not for a developer – they make less profit!

Ray Blunt

Linnet Close,Wick