Christopher Mumford has put into words what plenty of people in Culcheth have been muttering while stuck in traffic: building homes is one thing, but building them on every available field with a shrug towards services is quite another.
In his letter on housing growth, Mr Mumford accepts that affordable homes are needed, particularly for younger people and those on lower incomes. That is a fair and necessary point. Culcheth should not become a place where only people who bought decades ago can afford to live. But he rightly questions why empty, neglected and deteriorating properties are not being tackled first.
It is hard to swallow the claim that greenfield development is the only answer when derelict buildings can sit unused for years, becoming eyesores and potential safety hazards. Brownfield land and empty homes may not be as simple or as profitable to develop as a tidy field, but neither is it reasonable to treat open countryside as the planning system’s spare bedroom.
Mr Mumford is especially concerned about proposed and recent development around Holcroft Lane, the Linear Park and land beyond Culcheth High School. He warns that more than 500 additional residents from Holcroft Lane, alongside proposals that could bring a further 1,000 people, would place unsustainable pressure on the village.
The infrastructure question is where the argument becomes impossible to dismiss. Culcheth now has one GP Practice serving a growing population, while roads are already heavily congested. When there is trouble on the East Lancs Road, traffic is regularly funnelled through the village, turning ordinary journeys into a slow-moving tribute to poor network resilience.
There is also the small matter of the countryside itself. Green spaces support wildlife, farming and the mental breathing room that makes Culcheth feel like Culcheth rather than an estate brochure with a parish name attached. Once agricultural land and open views are covered in brick, tarmac and obligatory ornamental grass, they are not coming back because someone later decides the planning balance was a bit off.
Mr Mumford is not arguing against all change. He is arguing for sensible priorities: restore vacant properties, make proper use of previously developed land, support farmers, and ensure GP provision, roads and other services are ready before thousands more residents are added. That is not anti-progress. It is the bare minimum of competent planning.
His concern is that the character of Culcheth is being steadily eroded by piecemeal development without a convincing plan for what the village is meant to become. On that point, it is difficult to argue with him. Growth can be positive, but only when it is planned as a community, not simply counted as a housing target.