PLANNING system — not fit for propose? I have come to that conclusion, having just gone through a planning meeting for over 25 homes to be built in Spreyton, I might add, not just Spreyton; but because of what is happening to many of our small villages in Devon and all over the country.

At the other end of the scale we have wind farms and third runways. One of the points of consideration to build or not, should be sustainability. If over-using a word devalues it, this surely has happened to the word: sustainability.

How can it be sustainable to have many new homes in small villages miles away from shops and centres and jobs? It can't be. This is why I would like to see the planning system completely changed.

How in a modern democratic country there can be two completely different ways of appeals; if you believe in justice, I do not know.

If you are an applicant, you can have a much easier and cheaper system of appeal. If you are an objector, you have to go to the high court, which is very costly; which most residents cannot afford. I think objectors in our present system are just looked on as the 'awkward squad,' instead of part of the checks and balances of a fair system.    

I have proposed to the Department for Local Government that the planning system be reconstituted. The main points of change are: applicant and objector can appeal to the same forum or court. And to keep the cost down. At the planning meeting, both sides can cross examine each other and any officer on any point. That some of the members at the meeting are not councillors, but truly independent members with a reasonable amount of training in planning law. That is just for starters.

The other big issue that needs changing and is the cause of much of the problems for rural areas, is the Government's guideline on the number of homes per hectare.

At this time they are the same for urban and rural areas; a minimum of 30 per hectare, with a bit more flexibility for rural areas. But, most local planning authorities seem not to use the flexibility. It seems they will not be happy until all the green fields are built on, and we lose all our bio-diversity.

If the Government or opposition are looking for a big issue that effects everyone, and is ripe for change, then planning is it!  In my book, 'Earth and the Genesis Code,' I explain how humans are changing the planet and the climate by all of our activity.

Martin L Heath

IN the Times (April 30) you reported that a 'green light' had been given to a proposed development in Spreyton. I am in complete agreement with those inhabitants of the village who objected to the proposal to build 26 new dwellings there. Depending on numbers per household this could raise the population of this small village by about 75 people.

In planning terms the scheme may be 'well thought out' and the new houses 'very much in keeping with the village' but what has not been well thought out is the effect of so large an influx of people on this small community.

By all means build affordable housing for local people but people coming to a development such as this will have, in the main, little or no allegiance to the existing community and it is the community that will suffer, and suffer badly.

The proposal may include a SUDS scheme to recycle rainwater but what about the provision of parking spaces for 56 cars? — 56 cars for 26 dwellings! It is cars that have destroyed village amenities. Can anyone really see these coming back while car ownership is so universal? Remember, Spreyton once had a bus service, an amenity lost to cars.

Meg Wolton

Park Cottage

South Zeal