What really does disturb me about the development proposals is that ERYC seems to be quite happy to hand over large tracts of open space and green belt land to national developers whose sole interest is profit and will therefore plonk as many houses as possible onto their sites without any consideration as to their suitability to blend in with existing buildings and complement the general nature of the town.

Such developments are quick and comparatively cheap, which attracts the get-rich-quick developers but are not in the long term interests of the area.

ERYC must be made to look more carefully at alternatives for more housing. For example in York, Hull and other larger towns within the ERYC's jurisdiction there are many acres of derelict factories etc and other "brown field" sites that could be redeveloped.

In smaller towns and villages there are many small sites that enterprising local builders should be actively encouraged to sympathetically develop, yet currently planning department policy seems to make such developments very difficult.

Such schemes would provide employment for local labour and benefit the local economy rather than just benefit the directors and share holders of large national developers in the short term.

As to planning department policy, one might ask why Aldi is being allowed to back pedal over the long derelict site opposite Sainsbury's which had earlier been considered by McCarthy and Stone for retirement apartments which would have put many family-sized homes onto the market.
Whatever else happens no development must be allowed that might block the route of the proposed reopened rail line in the hope that in the future some far-sighted politicians (if this is not an oxymoron) might fund it.

Roger Bruton
Broadmanor
Pocklington