Brownfield plans

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Malcolm Fraser’s article (Perspective, 7 December). Malcolm is an accomplished architect and I would not normally rush to disagree with him, but in this case I have no option.

Firstly, it is untrue that the Murray Estates proposals for development in west Edinburgh are being proposed instead of development on “brownfield” land. Let me set out the facts:

Edinburgh Council’s own Housing Need and Demand Assessment says that Edinburgh needs approximately 48,000 new homes in the next decade.

To achieve this, 19,000 homes are proposed for the areas outside Edinburgh; namely Fife, West and East Lothian, Midlothian and the Scottish Borders.

To follow the logic argued by Malcolm, all of these proposals should be abandoned and these homes should be built within the urban fabric of the city.

I think recent discussions regarding Portobello High School show just how tricky greenfield debate can be in Edinburgh, and such development would be a scale unprecedented within the city. In addition, the council has identified sites for nearly 20,000 homes on brownfield sites.

These are proposals we are perfectly happy to support, but be clear that despite the best efforts of everyone involved, such an allocation will still not meet the city’s housing needs. Malcolm should accept that our proposals (like those plans outside Edinburgh) are in addition to, not instead of, brownfield development. Edinburgh has struck a fine balance of building on brownfield land, and of exporting much of its housing needs beyond the city boundary. But the city still has a significant shortfall and we are simply proposing to build new homes to meet that need in one of the most sustainable locations in Scotland.

We don’t need slick PR to put forward our arguments; we will simply let the facts speak for themselves.

Jestyn Davies

Murray Estates

Edinburgh