Last week, housing minister Caroline Flint issued tough new guidance for councils on granting planning permission in flood risk areas. The move came despite her having already shortlisted Ford's flood plain as a potential site for a new eco-town. Here, Samuel Underwood asks Ms Flint and protest campaigner Terry Knott about their reasons for and against the development.

Caroline Flint MP, Minister for Housing
Housing is one of those subjects that is always in the newspaper.

This has been particularly true on these pages recently since my decision to include a site at Ford on the shortlist of potential eco-towns - which I know has sparked a lot of debate.

And this is an important issue which needs debating.

We have an ageing, growing population, and more people living on their own. Housing demand has outstripped supply and, irrespective of shortterm market conditions, this has pushed prices far beyond the reach of many people.

We cannot ignore the needs of first time buyers who can't get on to the housing ladder, or families who can't make the next step up.

We must build three million new homes across the country by 2020. But do we need more houses round here? The answer is clearly yes.

Not only are there almost 4,000 families on a waiting list for affordable housing, I'm sure everyone knows someone who is struggling to scrape together a deposit but in the past two years combined, the local council, Arun, could only built 61 new low-cost homes.

So leaving things as they are simply isn't an option.

The key question is how we do this throughout Sussex, whether it is through an eco-town or by expanding existing settlements.

I know some residents have strong concerns about new development in their area - fearing existing towns and villages could lose out, transport links or schools not able to cope, or the character of the community damaged.

I share these concerns. No one wants to see unsuitable development that causes more problems than it solves.

These are real challenges that developers must address if they want their proposals to succeed.

Eco-towns do offer a golden opportunity to develop a greener generation of housing.

Housing is responsible for 27% of Britain's carbon emissions but eco-towns will be made up of zero-carbon housing, shops, schools and even the pub.

They won't solve climate change alone but they can demonstrate how sustainable living can be available to everyone.

I must also tackle some myths about eco-towns.

Let me be absolutely clear - they will go through the planning process and suggestions otherwise are wrong.

There is no easy ride for developers, no "done deals".

Terry Knott, Co-chairman of Communities Against Ford Eco-town (Cafe)
Cafe believes very strongly that the Ford area is a totally inappropriate location for an eco-town.

Originally there were two Ford eco-town submissions to the housing minister's consultation paper.

Both were essentially elderly development proposals which had been given a hurried coat of green paint.

Cafe, while supporting carbon-neutral schemes in general, totally opposes the proposal that Ford should be the site for an eco-town for a whole variety of practical reasons.

Not least because both the site and the proposals fail to satisfy many of the criteria set out by the Government itself.

Each proposal talks of building at least 5,000 homes, with one seeing this as a basis for further development and the other seeing Ford as the site for all the Arun district's housing requirements for the next 20 years.

Several times we have seen an upper figure of 20,000 houses mentioned. Meeting the need of the 4,000 families on the housing list by re-settling them at Ford is not the answer.

Transport links to the site are also an issue. Argus readers hardly need reminding about the congestion on the A27 at Arundel and especially the need to complete the bypass. Yet here we have a potential development, which is contrary to the West Sussex structure plan's policy which states "no A27 Arundel bypass, no development".

Also, because Ford is a lowlying area which is susceptible to fluvial, tidal and surface water flooding, even a one metre rise in sea level would leave Ford almost cut off - pretty stupid for a new town.

It is difficult to understand why the Ford site lends itself as an eco-town in the eyes of the Government, or the developers, at a time when we need all the food production we can get and at a time of dramatic rises in crop prices.

A new town would severely damage the planned regeneration of Littlehampton and Bognor. The area has severe road infrastructure problems and congestion, and there is limited demand for low-cost housing in this part of West Sussex.

We believe the harsh reality of the proposal is simply to build houses. Ford is quite the wrong place for an eco-town.

Tomorrow's public meeting, at which Arun's special select committee will present the findings from its six-day inquiry, will be held at the Arun Civic Centre in Littlehampton at 6pm.

What do you think? Comment below.