Sir – The West Barton proposals excite some of your readers. When do we hear from potential (and existing) residents about segregation from the city?

In any sane planning regime people matter first, as the respected Jan Gehl says: “First life, then spaces, then buildings; the other way around never works.”

In Barton, the city is thinking buildings first, apparently not even considering integrating the new area, there was no consultation on this possibility. Integration through a bus gate is risible. I predict that new Barton will require regeneration in a decade or two, planned segregation guarantees long-term social failure.

Rather than think of people, your correspondents find one flimsy pretext or another to keep their roads fit for their motoring. Mark Barrington-Ward wants the segregation to continue, with existing trees and hedges, so that he won’t be blinded by the lights of oncoming vehicles.

Philip Creswell is clear that a mere 1,200 homes shouldn’t get in the way of national traffic, without noticing that the A40 is de-trunked, the majority of its traffic being local. He defends this selfishness by claiming any benefit is for developers.

Paul Hornby’s case is sadder; living in the post-war illusion where ‘traffic and the city’ cannot mix. Does he travel from motorway to home? His model of Poundbury, still in construction, sits astride the ancient Bridport Road. Bill Baxter ignores the future residents but cares about the bypass trees.

This country is the most densely developed in Europe, yet we use our cars more than most and for an increasing proportion of journeys, with more passengers, yet we own fewer cars than other European countries with large populations. We have the lowest level of cycling among EU15 countries and often poor bus services. This is a result of our national fixation on benefiting the motorist.

Graham Smith, Oxford