These eco towns are going to be hotbeds of crime where there is no work, probably no means of travel, no water except during floods and, who knows, no electricity either. Every single person in them will have a real cause for their anger too – they will have all been let down. Add in a lot of immigrants, mainly from the rest of the world outside Europe (Migrationwatch figures) all with their own ideas of how people should behave and live(words left out).

I wonder if the Nu Labs see such places as the new Council estates all voting Labour in the back of their minds?

Houses and flats are not (generally) built on a whim because no sensible builder invests time and money on a development project unless he perceives there to be sound evidence of demand for the new homes at a price that will make him a profit.

For many years we have seen superb Victorian terraces and squares, particularly in northern towns, decaying because there is no demand to live there. It is no use renovating them if no jobs exist to attract new occupants to the area. By all means renovate them at public expense to provide decent homes to replace 1960s concrete hell holes for those trapped in dismal estates, but do so only as part of a balanced budget (for example where the land occupied by the concrete monstrosity is desirable to a commercial buyer or the cost of necessary work to that monstrosity is such that renovation of an old terrace would provide better value for money).

At the other end of the scale we still see builders sniffing around every available square inch of London because they know the land occupied by a failing pub can turn into ten flats which will sell off-plan. This might end soon, the market will decide.

Government decrees cannot create a demand which does not exist.

I have a vague recollection of someone once saying "you cannot buck the market". The history of nationalised industries should be proof enough for everyone of the truth of that phrase. We can but hope the current government will agree. My fear is that they will attempt to create artificial demand by throwing vast sums of taxpayers' money at speculative developments, after all their standing is now so low they have nothing to lose.

Mr Eyles put this point much better than I have, but he is surely wrong about one thing. He says there has been a failure to deal with the strategic issue of transport. Methinks he overlooks John Prescott's Integrated Transport initiative – the centrepiece of his role in the first Blair government. I know little of transport and cannot explain all the benefits, perhaps one of your readers can enlighten me.

The cost & shortage of housing is entirely because of government regulations. This may enable the toffs to look out on fields of cows rather than of the common people but it keeps most of Britain living in expensive outdated homes & sucks up an unnecessarily large amount of their income to do so. It also makes it difficult for people to start a family until they are middle aged. Compared to that the damage to those "adversely affected" by having neighbours is insignificant.

Reply: Not what I wanted – I voted "No"

Correct, but the pressure on accommodation from increasing population continues and no-one talks about it.

When it comes to buying property, the availability of mortgages is indeed important, hence the impact of the credit crunch on those wanting and able to buy houses.

However, prices (including rental prices) are also determined by the supply and demand for accommodation. Demand for bed spaces is primarily determined by the number of people in the country (including citizens, immigrants, tourists and other visitors) which brings us back to population.

Therefore, could I ask: do you agree that population is an issue for the housing market, and if so, what should be done about it?

Reply: Yes – we need to control our borders better

And I'm no big environmentalist but what will be the impact of theses 3 million new homes … requiring 3 million new water supplies, 3 million electrical supplies, 3 million new washing machines, 3 million new fridge freezers, 100's of miles of access roads with street-lighting, drainage etc etc… ?

You should know better!
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Just sitting back and thinking about this and other problems this government has got itself and the taxpayer into, it seems their failures can be classified into two categories:

The first is where they have completely failed to deal with the strategic issues properly. Defence, transport and energy provision are examples in this category. It seems that they are incapable of thinking about our long and medium term needs and doing what governments should do to plan and provide the infrastructure.

The second category is where they have spotted a strategic need, say in education or the NHS, but have gone about dealing with it in the worst possible way by interfering with the market place. The result is a flurry of top down targets and policies, which only serve to muddy the waters and make matters much, much worse. They have concerned themselves with detail and interfered with professionals who should have been allowed to get on with the job. That interference has spawned a whole growth industry of civil and public servants whose career structures have depended upon responding to the dictat from above as opposed to the need from below. Much of that detailed interference has centered around their obsession with technology, such as IT and CCTV, as a substitute for human hard work and interaction – the removal of police from the streets is a case in point. Their other obsession is with legislation as another panacea for our ills. Admittedly, much of that is of EU origins, but it still amounts to a considerable and daily interference in all of our lives.

So, to return to the particular point of your article: I too, am pleased that the Tories have promised to abolish regional government in England. There is no point to it and it is another layer of government that we could do without. We also need an end to centralised targets imposed upon local planning authorities. Let the market take the strain.

But we also need reasoned and informed debate about how the country is going to prosper in the next two or three decades. This involves consideration of housing; transport; how we intend to earn our living as a nation; how we are going to feed ourselves and how we are going to govern ourselves at local, national and international levels.

It looks like David Cameron is going to be busy when/if he gets into power.