Sir, In my youth, few working class people bought or owned their own houses. Most rented.

This changed with Lady Thatcher’s right to buy council houses at knock-down prices.

Complaints of unaffordability are nothing new, as in the Daily Mirror, January 28, 1952: “The average man can’t afford a new house say the Builders. Even if Mr Average Man was allowed to build himself a house, he could not do so at today’s high prices. This is the admission made by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers... In their annual report... they cite the growing tendency among householders to do all their own decorations as evidence that the cost of building has now reached too high a level for the average private consumer. … in 1951 alone the cost of building went up 15 per cent, adding £150 to a £1,000 house. These additional costs of materials added almost £200,000,000 to last year’s total bill for building and civil engineering — sufficient itself to pay for 130,000 new three-bedroom houses… changes made by the Government in relaxing some of the controls are not likely by themselves to have any immediate major effect.”

Nothing new then. No one is saying we do not need more houses. What we are saying is that they need to be built in places where they do not destroy the countryside or alter the structure of rural communities.

At Stanford, a substantial house has been knocked down to make way for a new development.

So allegedly desperately needed housing is destroyed just to fulfil the whimsical fantasy of some architect’s vision of uniformity.

Why couldn’t it have been built around and add a bit of character to the development? Obviously it’s not all about need.

C Spinage

Stanford Road

Faringdon