Sir, Gordon Brown intends to address an international conference on the world shortage of foodstuff, especially grain. Yet the shortlisted Pennbury eco-town will cover nearly one and a half thousand acres of Grade 2 arable farmland with an estimated two million tonnes of concrete in order to build a so-called eco-town of 15,000 homes. We also have an estimated 30,000 cargo (including food imports) flights into East Midlands Airport over this East Leicestershire area. This makes a mockery of so-called eco-conservation.

The East Midlands Regional Planning Board and Leicestershire County Council have spent the past few years constructing a carefully considered plan which has ruled out any major development to the east of the city of Leicester. There are no satisfactory road or rail links, which are supposed to be part of the prime requisites for an eco-town. If the Government were to use legislation to override current planning procedures, it would show contempt for local democracy.

T. F. Jones

Little Stretton, Leics

Sir, Caroline Flint (letter, April 7) claims that the 15 shortlisted eco-towns are in areas where affordable homes are most needed. She also asserts that they were chosen with the support of the Highways and Environment agencies and Natural England.

The short listed Co-op scheme in south-east Leicestershire (“Prescottbury”) is in a Parliamentary constituency with less than 1 per cent unemployment. The area is farmland, literally a greenfield site, with no infrastructure. It stretches our credulity to claim that the scheme has the support of the Highways and Environment agencies and Natural England.

L. Faulkner

Hungarton, Leics

Sir, In order to assist the process of consultation will the Housing Minister undertake to publish forthwith the full text of support that has been given by the Highways and Environment agencies?

Dee Brunning

Bushby, Leicestershire

Sir, The suggestion that eco-towns should be based on the family unit (letter, April 9) is to be applauded. However, their effectiveness would be greatly enhanced by a much wider return to family and community living.

Given the greatly reduced costs of running eco-homes, only one parent would need to go out to work, thus freeing the other to look after children, elderly relatives, sick neighbours and those in need of help; this activity being of course reciprocal. Many more goods and services could then be supplied by local farmers, market gardeners, tradesmen and manufacturers, and local GP's could staff “cottage” hospitals.

The eco benefits would be enormous. Much of the “care industry”, with its use of vehicles and premises, would become unnecessary. Far fewer goods would hurtle pointlessly around the world, and travel to and from work would be much reduced. The social benefits would be as great. Less tearing about, more walking, and time to get to know neighbours would improve health and reduce stress and family breakdown.

George Garside

Anglesey

Explore Letters

• Feedback