I AM writing in response to two articles that were published in the Advertiser/Messenger on May 26.

Firstly, in response to the article about the petition started by Mrs K Moore.

The "starter homes" or "affordable housing" that is being quoted will be two, three and four-bedroom houses, two or three storeys high, and one and two-bedroom apartments, two or three storeys high.

In total, there will be 19 houses and 41 apartments. These homes will be affordable for single people, couples, small families who do not require large expensive houses. Is this not Government policy?

I have spoken to Gallaghers months ago to enquire about the land and was advised that nobody was interested in purchasing the proposed shops/nursery and so, because the marketing of such a development was taking too long to sell, it was decided then to submit plans for additional houses. This is not a bid by Gallaghers to make more money, but, as land is so valuable these days, it obviously will not remain undeveloped.

With regards to people having their children on a list for the nursery, these plans were just outline plans, as stated above, there was no interest, so how can such a development go ahead?

I agree more schools etc. are needed as "locals" who have lived here prior to estates being built in Bromsgrove are struggling to put their children into the school of their choice. Bromsgrove is a small market town and as new developments have been added and are still being added (Breme Park), amenities, for example doctors, dentists and schools, have not been provided to accommodate the extra demands -- but this should be taken up with council.

The only traffic congestion I have ever experienced is not getting out of the Oakalls but at the traffic lights heading towards the island at the Harvester (two lanes into one) and on my return from either the Birmingham Road or motorway at the Harvester island.

As to the unoccupied land being a haven for wildlife and having housing built there disturbing them, even if shops were built on that land it would still disturb the wildlife. I personnally would like to see this land kept as a landscaped green area, but as stated above, land is too valuable to leave undeveloped.

I am very concerned still that residents want a community centre in a so-called "semi rural village." Again I will point out that this only brings trouble to the area from teenagers. People further into the estate and at the bottom obviously do not see the kids hanging around drinking alcohol by the island at Regents Park Road/Royal Worcester Crescent. I am sure residents do not want to encourage more of this behaviour on the Oakalls.

If shops were built, there would have to be a policy of waste food being disposed of properly, otherwise we are in danger of encouraging rats with the consequences of poison having to be put down, thereby endangering not only wildlife, but domestic pets. Even if shops were built on that land, would people walk rather than drive? I do not believe they would, therefore it would make the roads on the Oakalls busier.

In response to the letter by Mrs Thomas -- it is now the ownership of the council to maintain the grass areas. I agree that we pay a lot of council tax and would expect better service, but these issues must be taken up with the council.

With regards to the point about the leisure facilities, are additional ones needed when there are parks/swimming baths within the area?

Miss L Goodall

The Oakalls

Bromsgrove