Sir – Your correspondent Justine Garbutt (Letters, September 20) has made another interesting contribution to the debate about the delivery of sites for housing.

She recommends the delay and control over the release of potential sites until the feasibility and sustainability of alternative development options have been properly assessed.

Then suitable sites can be auctioned. I am not sure whether or not her specific proposals would work even if there was any likelihood of implementation, but accept the premise that neither the quality nor quantity of new housing will reach required levels without changes to the planning system.

I always ask my classes on planning and housing to describe places and buildings they value, and have never had a student nominate an example built since 1948, when our current controls over development were brought into effect.

Kent County Council has carried out a more rigorous survey of residents’ attitudes to 69 recent housing schemes (including parking, attractiveness, safety, friendliness and quality of life) and has found telling differences between what people like and what designers and planners have sought to impose on developers and residents.

The response of Kent’s chief planner is that “We need to rediscover how to build suburbs that people actually like”. There are environmental constraints to meeting all the demands of potential home buyers. However, planners would avoid some the bashing meted out through the press and allowed to do their designated job of advising on sustainability and resilience if they could justify some of the standards and designs being imposed.

Planners should make more effort to listen to residents but then be able to explain and communicate the reasons for aspects of housing design, which do not meet with current popular expectations and demands.

Daniel Scharf, Department of Continuing Education, Rewley House, Oxford