You mentioned Sir Frederick Gibberd's 1970 Master Plan in which, as you rightly point out, he had determined the ultimate shape, size and social structure of a fully-developed Haverhill. He also maintained that the population should not be permitted to rise above 30,000.
The shape and extent, he decided, was governed by the skyline of the surrounding hills which form a shallow valley.
He based his concept on the idea that anything which developed beyond the hilly horizon would lose its identity with the town and its natural centre. Over the hill and far away, presumably. Out of site? The question ought to have been asked: "Out of sight of what?"
I assume that your observation that: "The Masterplan of 1970 is almost fulfilled, the skyline around the town has (already?) been taken as the limit of growth", was the starting point for your whole article.
As I read, my mind travelled back over those 38-40 years. I had the luck and the, misfortune to be elected to that happy band of pilgrims, the 12 enthusiastic individuals of Haverhill Urban District Council, thrust into those early days of the town expansion, all of us charged up to the gills with something like missionary zeal...
Well, anyway, that is how it ought to have been.
The fact is, that the transition from a sleepy, self-contented market town into a viable, vibrant entity was in the end due to natural causes more than mere social engineering. I think, in the end, most of us were overwhelmed with the complexities of expansion.
Trying for the sake of the community to steer a clear path between the tripartite interests of Greater London Council, made up as it was of the 32 boroughs, West Suffolk County Council, central Government and, not least of course, the final interests of Haverhill Urban District Council, sometime it was more like a David and Goliath contest – most of us involved in it got battered into pulp in the process.
There had to be a master town plan, not least for legal requirement, but also to serve as a template to work to. Hence Sir Frederick Gibberd was engaged to produce the very best possible plan for the future in 1970. We probably thought that he had provided it. In 2008, the question is, did he?
I am sorry if there may be some who might question my motive now in suggesting, with hindsight, that perhaps he got it all wrong.
It is easy, after all, to be wiser in hindsight, but I can at least claim a right to my own reservations formed at the time.
You will find in your archives, in the issue of the Echo of November 5, 1970, a letter printed in my name which expressed the very same reservations that have appeared in your own Hartbeat 38 years later I feel now that I am somewhat vindicated for those reservations expressed at the time.
Frankly at the time I just could not see how Sir Frederick proposed to bring the expansion and development to a close once these optimum targets had been reached.
The mere facts of life itself denied his assumptions that it could be stopped.
If I needed any confirmation of this interesting fact of life, I didn't have to travel any further than my own home to seek the eureka moment of revelation.
We came to Haverhill some time in 1969 – five of us, wife, self and three children, from age 11 downwards.
I personally had no illusions that as far as wife and self were concerned the three from age 11 downwards were quite enough, but in due (and natural) course of evolutionary instincts, the three might also produce three each of their own, making nine.
Then of that nine, there would be nine extra partners, until ultimately the numbers ought to reach Biblical Genesis proportions. Where on earth were they going to find living space, work facilities, etc, etc? Not in Haverhill if Sir Fred had the controlling hand in it.
The 39 years since then have proved my suppositions. We do have nine grandchildren.
At a public meeting to discuss the proposals set out in his Master Plan Sir Frederick would not and could not answer my questions.
"How do you propose to accommodate a naturally rising population? As I do not propose to commit suicide to make room for my progeny...
"Maybe a system of compulsory sterilisation might work? Or at the extreme, selective mass euthanasia?"
Naturally he couldn't answer me. In fact he absolutely ignored me.
Anyway, I am somewhat vindicated. We started out a family unit of five who occupied just one house together. Now we have increased to 17 directly – plus three extra partners. As I type the numbers are increasing.
Suffice it to say that overall we now occupy six houses. Indications suggest we shall need at least six more. Now the interesting thing about all this is that this is also true of every other unit family.
It won't take another million years for that 30,000 to double, then treble. They can't all stay in Haverhill, but where else can they go to set up house and home? Everywhere else is creaking under the same growth problems, never mind a few innocuous wind turbines dotted about here and there (I appreciate the countryside as much as anyone) but ultimately we cannot control population growth.
Even those with the most sincere green credentials may well have to accept far worse intrusions into the countryside.
There it is. Thanks for the memories.
John Insole,
Boxford Court,
Haverhill.