It’s no secret that builders prefer to build on open land because it’s quicker, cheaper and easier than previously-used brownfield sites and the houses will be in far greater demand and hence will command higher prices.

That’s why it was such a bad idea for the Government to have been advised on planning matters by the big builders. Every town and village has been expanded, ostensibly to solve the housing crisis, but invariably the houses built have been mainly executive units and far beyond the pockets of local first-time buyers. You’d think that was enough distortion of reality for private profit. But no, at Coventry it seems that

“swathes of green belt in the heart of England have been earmarked for new homes for people who may never exist…..based on population growth predictions that demographers warn are likely to be over-inflated.” Analysis presented at the British Society of Population Studies suggested homes earmarked for open fields were being planned for “ghosts”, because there is no wider evidence of the sharp predicted population growth.”

The question arises, if true does the scandal extend to other places, and in particular to Shropshire, where Oswestry Hill Fort’s setting is being imperilled on the grounds that Shropshire’s other 1,345 square miles are insufficient to accommodate projected population growth?.

The last bit of building land left in Shropshire?