It seems that Paul Rowley, the head of strategic and community planning for Horsham District has already made his mind up that more than 2,000 houses should be built on valued countryside immediately to the west of Ifield (The Argus, September 6).

Firstly, he appears to narrow down options to a choice between two sites to the west of Crawley - west of Bewbush and north of the A264 on land which has been used and is marked on the 1:25,000 map (Explorer 131) as landfill - or valued countryside including a golf course immediately west of Ifield.

Secondly, he seems to dismiss the west of Bewbush site on three grounds:

1. There are problems to do with stability with developing the landfill site: I am sure there must be technical "fixes" for any such difficulty, especially given the laudable national presumption in favour of "brownfield" over "greenfield" sites. I am sure even Mr Rowley would not try to claim the landscape value of the west of Bewbush site approaches that of the Ifield site.

2. Problems to do with access to the A264: This beggars belief since the whole point is that this site is adjacent to a dual carriageway and access to it could be afforded by one or more roundabouts and access roads. The Ifield alternative would require the huge expense and environmental impact of major road construction involving a major western by-pass around Crawley. Also, the Bewbush site is bounded to the north by the railway line and a new railway station could be built.

3. It would further narrow the gap between Horsham and Crawley: My measurement of the 1:25,000 OS map shows there is currently 4.25km between the furthest west point of Crawley and the furthest east part of Horsham. Use of the entire landfill site west of Bewbush would reduce this by a mere 0.5km.

The real impacts of development will be felt by the people of Crawley (not the people of Horsham) - in the short term by the disruption of the construction work and in the longer term by the inevitable loss of countryside on the fringes of our town.

The situation is made worse in Ifield, for instance, by the steady erosion of open spaces within the neighbourhood for new developments such as houses and schools.

The people of Ifield, therefore, are faced not only with the reality of "town cramming" but also with the real possibility of more than 2,000 houses and associated developments, including employment, on beautiful countryside immediately to the west which just happens to be in Horsham District.

No doubt I will be criticised for being a Nimby. I agree I am just that in the sense I value my local landscape for the benefit of current and future generations.

Is that unreasonable?

Geraint Thomas

-Aldingbourne Close, Ifield, Crawley