Letter: We cannot continue with the development of our farmland
I noted the farming adviser was imploring farmers to sell land to developers.
And then the Star seemed to be full of reports of proposed developments, the odd 250 houses here and there.
It seems to me whatever targets have been determined for housing requirements over the next 20 years, these developers appear intent on satisfying that quota within 12 months, so they can come back and ask for more, simply to maintain the economics of the building industry.
I am puzzled by the perceived demand. So is it simply a money thing? But whatever, we cannot sustain taking farming land and covering it with bricks and mortar, because we will become more and more dependent on imported food stuffs.
Continued development adds increasing strain on local facilities. Roads, transport, schools, water, police, fire, healthcare, all of which we are seriously under invested.
In theory more houses means more local money for spending on these services, but me being a sceptic, sees it as about a few people making money at the expense of others.
That expense is not necessarily in monetary terms. It seems quite acceptable to block views of the countryside, and if you look around Shrewsbury, that is exactly what will be happening.
Take Church Stretton or Little Switzerland as it has been called. Everything nestling sleepily in the hills, but whoever conceived the current building between the bypass and the town.
It is so incongruous and totally out of keeping, but why worry, it has provided some jobs and someone is making money.
Chris Brown
Westbury
