Dear Councillor Grocock,

As a member of a council responsible for a great many historic towns and villages, and also caretaker of the public purse, could we ask you to be especially vigilant against maladministration within the Wealden District Council.

Obviously, we want to do our best to keep your council on the straight and narrow - and the way to do this is to monitor your progress and where applicable, lobby members, MPs and the media, pointing our potential pitfalls, so helping your council to avoid administrative errors. We thus contribute to council efficiency.

One of the most important functions that a council is charged with, is to provide a rolling stock of land for affordable housing. The fact that most councils are not doing so, is a major problem that is making our next generations financial slaves. The UK has an unenviable history of human rights abuses, beginning with the invention of concentration camps.

While (empire) building mansions might make a lot of bankers and landlords very happy; it is fair? We were under the impression that Britain was aiming to be at 1990 carbon levels by 2050. That goal relies on sustainable practices and sustainability equals affordability. Huge profits for some and slavery for others is not zero carbon friendly.

Building expensive homes, where we cannot house low wage earners, is economic lunacy and un-sustainable. This is elitist politics, rather than an equal opportunities bedrock - that should prevail in the interests of democracy. The new goal is a Circular Economy.

These are particularly difficult times, where public funding is under scrutiny against overspending, but such international issues as global warming should still be targeted for attention. We would then expect grants of planning permission for houses that are both affordable and zero carbon - to reduce global warming - and that means smaller houses with a proportionally smaller carbon footprint.

A workable formula for such housing is clear. Sweden and Germany lead with flatpack and other low energy housing - that is affordable, being in the £25-70,000 range. Young families could afford to buy such houses, provided that councils earmark land for affordable development. 

What we don't want is agricultural land suddenly going from £5,000 an acre to £1,000,000 - simply because a council failed to identify land for affordable housing. The moment land is allowed to escalate in value, houses are no longer affordable.

Could we suggest that land that is identified as suitable (necessary) for affordable housing, should only be granted consent for genuinely affordable homes. That might put a stop to the Klondike planning stampede that has opened up as a result of council sloth.

Once land is earmarked for affordable developments, Community Land Trusts could build houses for letting at sensible rents - but once again, they need land that is identified as being for affordable housing.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message and we look forward to seeing many sustainable decisions in the future and perhaps hearing your views on such proposals, when you have a spare moment.

Yours sincerely

Climate Change Trust