Sir – My letter of August 2 to which Simon Norris refers (Letters, August 16) simply asked the question why the city council wants Oxford to adopt a European model of highway engineering (ie lower speed limits and boulevards on trunk roads), but not to also follow the ubiquitous European examples of co-housing.

I applaud Mr Norris’s use of the Internet to start to research co-housing, but his comment about the footwear of those advocating this form of housing seems to be an attempt at ridicule rather than to understand the fundamental arguments about co-housing that focus on a different balance between private and shared space.

In many parts of the world these arguments are being resolved in favour of providing less private space and more sharing of both space and facilities (inc companionship and the care of elderly, children, sick and disabled).

As far as I understand the remainder of his letter, Mr Norris seems to be saying that no effort should be spared in addressing the constraints of land acquisition, conservation, neighbours, Green Belt and access arrangements even if this results in the provision of outmoded and unsustainable forms of housing.

My view is that it would be more sensible for such efforts to go towards providing housing which is better adapted to the conditions of the 21st century, being environmentally more sustainable, socially more convivial and, incidentally, more affordable. I fully understand how the planning system has worked to limit the imaginations of public, professionals and politicians.

However, I don’t think that should prevent complaints being made about the indifference, ignorance and hostility of planners and architects towards new forms of housing for which demand is being expressed both here and abroad.

Daniel Scharf, Tutor in Town Planning, Oxford University Department of Continuing Education, Oxford