We need to look at history to advise us on the wisdom of development potentials.

I agree with Emma Cariaga (Debate July 15) that we should look at history to advise us on the wisdom of development potentials.

If she were to do this objectively she would see that the growth of the suburbs coincided with, and was dependent on, cheap car travel – San Francisco being the ultimate realisation of the absurdity of this concept.

There it is normal to spend three hours a day commuting. With peak oil round the corner this is not an option any sane planner should pursue.

Much of the buzz and interest that we associate with such cities as Paris, Barcelona – and for that matter Bath, Glasgow and Edinburgh – is produced by the density of habitation into the city centre. The population intensity is sufficient to support a rich mix of activity and services as well as a good public transport system.

Some of the most liveable parts of London, eg South Kensington and Islington, are built at densities of 400 habitable rooms per hectare in four-storey terraces.

Is it possible this sudden preference for the garden city model, in the face of all the evidence that this is the last way to reduce carbon emissions, may be to favour owners of agricultural land and volume housebuilders?

Two powerful lobbies satisfied in one hit.
Kate Macintosh
Winchester