Dispersal through the villages, combined with some estate development on a human scale (100 houses max) on the edge of the larger settlements is the best option from a design legacy standpoint. Vast bolt-on housing estates have not worked in the past and more enlightened LPAs such as neighbouring Stratford District have begun to recognise this, adopting a wider dispersal strategy. The NPPF recognises the importance of cross-border consistancy, so WDC should consider adopting a similar policy, widening the remit of the SHLAA to include many of the smalller villages, where existing services are under threat. Built up area boundaries should be abolished or significantly re-drawn, as past infill policies have already filled them to capacity.

Regarding the argument that development should be curtailed in villages because this will somehow increase the use of the car? - this argument lost credence the day Sir Tim Bernars-Lee invented the internet. The advent of high-speed broadband, the increasing tendancy to work from home, the fact that most people bank online, download entertainment online, shop online and indeed respond to this consultation online, mean that village development going forward is a viable and forward-thinking alternative. Small scale development in villages also provides a source of land supply for small local builders, currently excluded from the land supply market by a combination of volume housebuilder cartels and the myopic introduction of "garden grabbing" legislation, notably prevalent in this preferred options document. Local builders produce a significantly higher quality product and will bring forward high quality affordable rural housing, assuming the LPA do not impose unrealistic thresholds (no more than 30%). This sort of development provides long term benefit to the local economy (not the sort term boost associated with large estate development) and encourages the development of small local businesses, which coallesce around this type of development.