MATTHEW Barber’s comments concerning the Vale’s reaction to a perceived housing crisis in the Vale and Helen Marshall’s counterpoint rebuttal make interesting reading.
Rather than address the opposition’s case, Councillor Barber chose to denigrate their use of statistics. It is true that, in the Strategic Sites Initiative, only seven of the proposed sites are in the Green Belt. In a parallel exercise, the Vale’s consultants propose the removal of many other sites from the Green Belt, including in the case of Cumnor, two recreation grounds. These second tranche proposals come with the statement that the removal of an area from the Green Belt does not necessarily mean the land will be built on. Why else remove land from the protection of the Green Belt?
The pursuit in parallel of the Strategic Sites and Green Belt Release policies confuses the two issues. Such obfuscation should be unacceptable.
I have been a parish councillor for 27 years and have never known relations between the district and parish councils to be worse.
The summary dismissal by the Vale of Drayton’s request that they trade two smaller areas of land acceptable to the parish for the larger area identified by the Vale provides ample reason for any parish council never to make a positive suggestion.
If land must be removed from the Green Belt, why not invite local councils to suggest where least damage might be done? I urge Councillor Barber to seek genuine dialogue, stop hectoring and start listening.
DR P HAWTIN, Bertie Road, Cumnor
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here