DESPITE Andy Burnham's mitigation changes, we still stand to lose a lot of our open space to the merciless developers.

It is ironic that despite all the correct concern about poor local air quality, we then plan destroy large local green areas which contribute to the clean air we depend on.

Another insult to us is the very low level of social housing in all these plans.

Other housing is planned as "affordable" . . . to whom, exactly?

We need to make the best use of our space, so how much of this new development will be huge space-wasting executive mansions and luxury flats?

An even bigger insult is the lack of any measures to ensure that all this new housing will be for local people.

There is no protection against speculators buying up a lot of it to rent out or sell on to rich ­— possibly overseas ­— clients. Where are the local houses for local young people ?

Finally, these plans will mean the end to any possibility of a return to locally grown food. In the original spatial framework, I could not find even one mention of food, farming or agriculture ­— and this for a population of nearly three million people!

Instead, it planned to destroy good farmland. I doubt this new version will be any different. I consider that it should be a human right to have access to locally grown food from suppliers we know.

Peter Thompson