As Winchester planners gear up to discuss the section of the district plan which deals with new communities, MP, Mark Oaten, gives his views on the possibility of building 2,000 homes at Barton Farm, north of the city

Pick up a map of Winchester and one of the most obvious features is the big wedge of fields in the north, cut out of Winchester like a slice of cake.

What could be more obvious than to meet demand for housing in the area by slapping a big housing development there? At least, that's the thinking in some quarters.

Such a simplistic description of Winchester is totally inappropriate, as I have often argued.

As a historic town dating to the Roman era, huge new developments will put the character of the city and its infrastructure under impossible strain from the new demands on roads, parking, schools, police, fire services, the hospital and other NHS services.

I am not arguing that Hampshire should put up a "full" sign or a big barrier saying: "No more developments in this area".

I accept that there is a need for some form of housing, particularly affordable and key-worker housing.

But this needs to be done sensitively to meet the needs of teachers, police, NHS workers and so that our children can afford to continue to live in the area.

Part of the answer is to use brownfield sites around the city. I believe this sort of careful redevelopment can help solve the housing problems.

The local council's hard work in finding all these sites has helped stop Barton Farm development so far, but there is a danger that the pendulum is swinging too far back the other way.

Too much urban development would be just as bad as building on Barton Farm.

The bottom line is that the Government has allocated a yearly target of 62,000 new houses to London and the South-East, of which regional planners have allotted Hampshire some 6,000 extra houses per year. The houses have got to be built somewhere.

So what's the answer? It's clear that some areas are better able to support urban regeneration than others.

There's supposed to be regional co-ordination to make sure that brownfield sites are best used and to take into account local sensitivities. In reality, there is little evidence of this.

Some authorities - such as Southampton - don't look as hard for urban sites as they could.

They should be made to try harder.

This should be combined with an ability to trade sites between various city and local authority areas so that we build where it's most appropriate - not just where it's easiest.

We also need to give local authorities the ability to put the brakes on. If we don't, there can be big problems such as those I've seen in Whiteley, in my constituency.

Many new homes were built and within three or four years the primary school was full. Two extra classrooms were added and there is talk of adding a temporary classroom. Clearly, the infrastructure that should accompany new homes was not in place.

If we don't want to see this problem elsewhere we have to stage development slowly - to give infrastructure time to catch up with house building and take the pressure off planning.

Our greenfields are like the lungs of the city, helping it to breathe.

Just as much as it needs them as a valuable amenity Winchester doesn't need the sorts of half million pound, five-bedroom homes that tend to crop up on such developments.

We can't get rid of the national need for more houses in the South-East. Nor is brownfield development a panacea - in fact, it brings its own problems.

If we're going to say "no" to Barton Farm then we have to get the bigger picture.

That means a combined approach - tackling the problem at a regional level with better co-ordination and more intelligent development plans that make best use of brownfield sites across the region, not just in Winchester.

With plans like that, we can get the kind of homes we need without sacrificing the character of our ancient city.