In last week’s Gazette, Cllr Judy Pearce wrote that “everyone seems to resent new houses, but everyone wants houses that their children can afford”.

This was part of a justification for the large number of new houses planned for Kingsbridge. The planned expansion of the town comes without the investment in infrastructure, whether it be increased employment opportunities, improved links to the main centres of employment of higher-value work, such as Plymouth, or addressing the traffic congestion and health risks in parts of Kingsbridge, such as Church Street.

When we moved back to Devon we chose Kingsbridge because it is a vibrant community of all age groups. The town is alive all the year round as there are few second homes. However, I believe that those in South Hams District Council involved with delivering the housing development plans are not disclosing all the real ­reasons for maximising the numbers of houses to be built.

First, the target for houses in Kingsbridge, south west Devon and other parts of the country are driven by national targets, not local needs.

Second, the ‘affordable homes’ mantra is disingenuous. Affordability is a relative term. Broadly speaking, it means the rent or sale price is around 80 per cent of market rates. In the South Hams the average price of a terraced property is £251,170, and £191,763 in west Devon. The average South Hams income is 26 per cent less than the national average, while a terraced house is 33 per cent more expensive than the national average.

Currently there are just two new-build plots for sale in the Kingsbridge area, offering just a 30 per cent share of a £257,000 property. These plots are affordable at 30 per cent, but just two properties make no real impact to the needs for those of working age. Perhaps Cllr Pearce can tell us how many ‘affordable homes’ have been built in the past 10 years, and how many of those are now occupied by local working people.

Third, what I believe to be the real reason why we are pressured into accepting overdevelopment is that the financial imperatives for the developers, and the financial benefits for local authorities, will always be more important than the needs of the local population.

Local authorities can only react to developers’ proposals for any particular site. They are naturally driven to maximise profit on each development. Local authorities, then, have little control in ensuring that developers’ proposals meet local needs.

However, the biggest financial incentive of all is the income-generation opportunity for the local authority for each new house built. In 2016-17 central government will pay a new homes bonus to SHDC of £2.08m for delivering 250 units of housing – more than £8,000 per house. SHDC will also receive a one-off payment from the developer under Section 106.

In 2009-10, this revenue stream generated £2,610,602 for SHDC. In addition to these substantial initial income streams for each new house built, there will be additional annual council tax receipts of around £450,000 per annum on 250 properties, depending on council tax bands. SHDC can gain additional ­revenues for new housebuilding of around £5m per annum, depending on the volume built.

There are, of course, other increases in revenues generated for SHDC from an increasing population for chargeable ­services provided by the ­district, such as parking. Is this financial opportunity the ­reason why SHDC is not more imaginative about providing truly affordable houses for our young people?

It could allocate a parcel of land in Kingsbridge for self-build properties. But would such an action mean losing the Section 106 income and ­suffering delays in receiving the new homes bonus, or is it just a lack of imagination and the will to provide the homes “our children can afford”?

Nick Cotter

Fosse Road

Kingsbridge