MAY I tax the patience of your readers and respond to the letter from Di Martin in the last issue of the Courier? (I don't, by the way, act for the builders seeking planning permission as claimed, but for the owners of the site).

Ms Martin takes objection to me stating that after a few years someone might wonder what all the "fuss" was about regarding the two proposed houses.

I apologise if this was taken the wrong way. I meant it not dismissively, but only as a figure of speech. I meant it specifically in the context of the way Sandford has developed over the years.

To the west of the village are the 16 houses in the newish Linhay Park development. I think that these have mellowed in well and are an admirable addition to the housing stock.

They are of course, nonetheless, very much on the edge of the village. At the other end of Sandford is the long-established development at Brady Close, actually in Fanny's Lane itself.

These houses were, of course, new in their time, probably rather threatening in their density and again expanded the village boundary outwards. They have, however, over the years been accepted as part of the Sandford landscape.

Both of these schemes undoubtedly changed "the distinctive character of the village" to quote Ms Martin, but have they changed it substantially for the worse?

If we go back further we could consider the "new" council houses in Meadowside and Church Parks.

Ms Martin knows my politics and I hope will believe that I mourn the slow loss of council housing, but I bet my bottom dollar that there were people in Sandford who bitterly opposed the advent of those particular low-cost housing schemes.

Not In My Back Yard they probably said. And now? Those estates are an integral and accepted part of the local landscape.

Low-cost housing features strongly in Ms Martin's letter, but I fear the term might be misleading.

If a developer submits a scheme for a housing development over a certain size they are asked by the Local Authority to provide a percentage of low-cost houses, which are generally managed by a Housing Association.

This is just not feasible on a development of two houses. In my last letter I stated the indisputable (sorry!) fact that the proposed houses for the Fanny's Lane site are "three-bedroomed compact" in developer-speak.

Even if one was to reduce them in size to two-up, two-down the cost of building plus the market cost of the site would still not make the houses "low-cost".

Ms Martin states that "it is the destruction of the stone wall that would make the biggest change to the appearance of Fanny's Lane" and mentions this destruction more than once.

Please, let it be understood, the stone wall is to be rebuilt with the same stones, to the same height, in a line parallel to the existing but five feet to the north so as to create a pavement.

And no, Ms Martin, your cynicism is unjustified, my clients' instruction on the "donation" of the pavement was made at the outset of my briefing, long before any discussions I had with the Highways Department and totally, I genuinely believe, without cognisance of the likely demands of that Department.

Yes, of course the re-alignment of the wall made vehicular access easier, but a scheme was definitely possible without it.

Finally, Ms Martin states that the response to the development would have been different if "the nature of the houses had been different". In what way does she mean? Financially I have tried to explain that low-cost is not viable.

How could I have reflected "the character of the row of cottages opposite", consisting of one (expensive to build) thatched cob cottage, and a terrace?

I would have been delighted to design a cob cottage, even more delighted to design a traditional terrace, but would have been thwarted at square one by the requirement of the Highways Department to provide one parking space per unit (at least) for the terrace, two spaces for the cottage, a turning head and spaces for visitors' parking.

If anyone could manage that gallon in a pint pot they'd be a miracle worker, not a mere architect.

At the same time, if I had designed a terrace to mirror the one opposite, in a traditional village composition, the planning officers (and occupants opposite) would fairly have complained of loss of privacy and overlooking.

I don't wish to pen further letters on this subject: the planners will in due time decide on the application, and I do seriously believe that if built this small and very self-effacing development will become accepted.

What I would like to do is to open up the debate to other than Sandford dwellers and pose the questions:

"Do we want villages to stay as they are?"

"If development is to be allowed, then what form should it take?"

"How do we achieve 'low-cost housing' when the government's house-building programme is non-existent?"

I look forward to readers' opinions.

Eddie Holden

Dip. Arch. RIBA

by email