Mr E Vickers, Chief Planning Officer, Middlesbrough Borough Council, Vancouver House, Corporation Road, Middlesbrough. TS1 1QP 31st October 2006. Dear Mr Vickers, Re Proposed Housing Development, Site 44, Longridge, Coulby Newham. We are aware of the longstanding proposals to develop the above site for housing and have major concerns about the viability and requirement for this new development, given present-day issues. Having taken part in RSS debate on housing numbers and localities we understand the desirability of the strategic Middlehaven site to the future residential facility of the district. We also understand the vacancy levels within existing areas and the potential to redevelop those sites, close to existing services etc and well away from the difficult congestion issues that affect the proposed housing site. More importantly we understand the significant objections to the scheme from local residents and community council groups. We note in your Green Spaces Policy you maintain a desire and intent to encourage greater use of green spaces, noting the health benefit potential, using a shared vision by stakeholders and communities. This windfall greenspace currently breaks up a suburban area and connects up to other public green spaces, notably Marton West Beck, Brass Castle Lane and Fairy Dell and already has an established tree cover and is well used by the public, having many footpaths across the site and is an important habitat for wildlife. We note there is a Planned Country Park for the area on a different site, yet here effectively there is one, although the obvious conclusion has not been met. Surely from the public response you have evidence of local community involvement and interaction. We note from your Action Plan you state four key aims, improve quality of green space, improve in areas the provision of our greenspace, protect our greenspace and involve people in our green space. There are not many occasions when all boxes can be ticked so readily. Given the political desire to become ‘green’ and to address climate change through strategies such as the provision of more trees, can environmentally detrimental proposals like the ones suggested for this site not be reconsidered in the light of today’s thinking and tomorrows needs? We hope you will consider this option, giving local residents input into their own locality and future. Yours sincerely, Jan Arger, Campaign to Protect Rural England