Jonathan Naylor, of Charleton Court Barns, West Charleton, writes:

Further to last week's article on the affordable housing ballot in Charleton, I think it should be noted that while it states both in the article and on the ballot paper that 84 per cent were in favour of a development, from the housing needs survey, this figure only represents less than 20 per cent of the voting residents of the parish – based on surveys returned in comparison to residents in the parish.

Following the open meeting in November, along with many other issues, residents at the meeting felt the survey did not give a true census of the parish population and asked for a ballot to be carried out to give everyone a chance in the community to express their view.

Any development in Charleton would have to come under a scheme called the Village Housing Initiative because, under normal circumstances, Charleton parish does not have any further allocation for development.

This means that the scheme – established by South Hams Council – allows the possible inclusion of land which would normally never be considered for development to be put forward by local landowners.

Like myself, I am sure that there are many people who are not against the provision of local homes for local people but I feel that schemes like this require careful monitoring and consultation.

We are in danger of creating an unnecessary incentive for developers and landowners to propose development on greenfield sites and areas within our Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which would normally be protected.

This is why it is important that residents not only vote in ballots like this but make sure they ask the right questions and make their views known initially and at every step of the way in order that the best decisions are made in harmony with the shape of the community.

There are obvious reasons why local planners decide that further development in a rural community like Charleton should not be considered and it is therefore very important that under this sort of proposal and scheme, the public are consulted at every angle and are not accused of nimbyism when they have genuine concerns about the effects of a new development on a rural landscape and small community.

As confirmed in the article about how plans came about in Charleton, I am concerned that schemes like this promote the proposal of developments and initial dialogue between landowners and developers long before the community is consulted and the requisite in to establishing a need for genuine housing comes after. This is obviously the wrong way around.

It is very important that the genuine need for local homes under affordable housing schemes are the main driving factor and careful consideration and consultation is made to ascertain that any such planned housing is both affordable and properly required before we start to allocate greenfield land for development.

As a community that relies heavily on its tourism industry, in relation to its landscape and beauty spots, we must make sure there is a firm control and balance over these type of proposals and schemes like the VHI and that they are initiated for all the right reasons.

The proposal in Charleton was not initiated by the district council or local housing organisations and residents should not be afraid of expressing a view on matters that effect the overall shape of their community and should realise that their local parish council works on their behalf in representing the views of the community.

Under this type of scheme, parish residents are an essential factor in deciding its future and outcome and it is only right they should be encouraged and allowed to make their views known with careful consideration of all the facts.