STEPHEN Clee's assertions about the ease of building 3,400 new homes (Shuttle/Times & News, October 18) requires scrutiny.

"Brownfield sites" is a term that has long been used to mislead the public that most are polluted ex-industrial sites "not in their areas".

In fact, that large traditional garden three doors away (just bought by a builder who can afford more than any homebuyer) or your local neighbourhood nature reserve (where your kids play away from traffic and you walk the dog safely), will be included in this soothing phrase.

Planning departments choose to label sites "brownfield" when in fact, they can be anywhere not listed "green belt". Most localised brownfield sites in housing areas are far richer in wildlife and provide far more for families by easy access than private green belt (where only the odd bird flies over and all else is ruthlessly controlled, including public access).

Places which were used previously can be cynically classed as brownfield when money talks, regardless that it may be 100 years since any former use, and they are now beauty spots.

In Aggborough, once a very traditional area, the local "quarry" was classed as brownfield despite housing bats, birds, bluebells and badgers in quantity, and being the only safe place for dogs and children of all ages. Nowadays, dogs have only the streets and teenagers here have nowhere legal or free to go - even the Harriers wall says "no ball games".

In recent years Wyre Forest has been more guilty than most of in-filling houses excessively, to the detriment of area after area where people live (but not distant councillors who vote each project) and this new plan should degrade the area further soon.

PS: Can we be told which mean, tax-greedy councillors voted for three parking places opposite Captain Cod's on Comberton Hill to be yellow-lined? They obstructed no-one. Now they await rich pickings for the forthcoming council-controlled wardens !

ROBIN VAUGHAN Griffin Avenue Kidderminster