Sir, – I spent five years as a town councillor and seven years as a county councillor. I was involved in the preparation and adoption of three development plans. I am a civil engineer and I have a diploma in environmental and planning law.
Gavin Daly (May 30th) writes that “The logic that a widely dispersed settlement pattern is inefficient and therefore more expensive for public service delivery is universally accepted”. He cites a 36-year-old Foras Forbartha report, entitled Urban Generated Housing in Rural Areas, from 1976 to support his claim.
More recent studies, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, into the quality of life in rural and urban Britain have found that people who live in the countryside lead longer, healthier and happier lives, while people who live in towns lead shorter, sicker and sadder lives, they commit more crime and they place more demands on the State.
The First European Quality of Life Survey: Urban–Rural Differences (2006) echoed some of these results, but found that the real divide is between rich and poor.
Later Mr Daly writes that the “overwhelming majority of residents (of one-off houses) commute to nearby towns and cities for employment and services”. This is true, since the most of the jobs and the services have been confined to urban areas.
Currently, the advice given to councillors by their planners is that only urban areas should be zoned for industrial or commercial activity and that industrial or commercial activity is to be discouraged in the countryside.
Mr Daly’s logic seems to be that rural people should move to the cities and towns where the jobs and services are based. A better approach might be to encourage the development of businesses, jobs and services in rural areas where people are already living. – Yours, etc,