Witnessing the sad decline of communities in County Durham | Letters
Aditya Chakrabortty’s article on Category D villages in Durham (To understand Britain’s malaise, visit Shildon – the town that refused to die, 11 April) reminded me of the day, around 20 years ago, when the librarian of Trevelyan College, of which I was then principal, came to see me clutching a copy of the 1951 county development plan for Durham. He had found it in the college library and wanted to know whether we should keep it or let it go. He knew I would be interested as I was also a county councillor.
I came across the chapter that categorised villages and established the pernicious Category D policy. My response to the librarian was that we must keep it, as future generations needed to see what the effect of utilitarian policies that take no account of people’s lives could be – and this from a Labour-run council.
I hope the lesson will have been learned by Labour politicians who look likely to be running the country after the next general election.
Dr Nigel Martin
Durham
Aditya Chakrabortty’s article on the decline of communities in Durham brought to mind my time working in Durham county council in the 1970s. The 1951 county plan had four categories of settlements: A for major public investment as “growth centres”, B for some investment and C for less. Even then, all that was left of many Category D villages were the streets, in some not even those.
Two new towns, Peterlee and Newton Aycliffe, had been built. I did the study that led to a new railway station being opened to serve Newton Aycliffe, on the Darlington‑Bishop Auckland line. Those were times of optimism. How sad to reflect on missed opportunities. Let’s hope that a new government can inspire positive thinking to turn around the economy.
Prof Lewis Lesley
Liverpool
Thank you, Aditya Chakrabortty, for highlighting the spirit of Shildon. I was Durham’s chief constable when Shildon lost its last bank. This steeled my resolve not to close its police station. Sadly, too many utilities and services close buildings on the spurious grounds of cost, when buildings offer so much more to a community than an overhead.
Mike Barton
Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.