Concerning the upcoming consultation on the proposed housing development plans for Salisbury, councillors have suggested that objectors should address ‘technical’ issues for each site such as traffic, drainage, schooling, archaeology, newts, bats etc. 

This piecemeal approach is fundamentally flawed and will not work, being ‘reactive’ to such a situation never does. 

We should be more proactive and the plan should be opposed because it does not meet the basic needs of Salisbury.

It assumes a supply-based model that dictates a centrist desire to build more houses, rather than a demand-based approach that reflects the economic needs of the city. 

The planning report actually states this, on page 5: "Housing growth has not been matched by growth in employment."

The city does not have sufficient demand in terms of economic activity to merit further expansion.

Salisbury has never recovered from the loss of two huge employers, the HM Land Forces site at Wilton and the closure of Friends Provident in the city centre, the site of which is still largely empty.

READ MORE: See all our reader letters here

We have fewer people employed in Salisbury now than we did 10 years ago.

I appreciate that there is a need for more housing in the county, but development should be clearly focussed on those areas of increased economic demand.

The current council plan merely states that development should be based on large urban areas, of which Salisbury is one.

This is lazy planning.

Instead, WCC ought to review the economic growth of all the large towns in the county and use that to shape where the housing need is greatest. 

This is the argument that ALL of our councillors should be using to actively propose a compelling alternative to the existing plan.

Andy Campbell

Folkestone Road


Send letters by email to or by post to Editor, Salisbury Journal, Suite B (Ground Floor), Milford House, Milford Street, Salisbury, SP1 2BP.