JOHN STEVENSON of West Alvington, Kingsbridge, writes:

Thank you, on behalf of myself and many other residents present, to Kingsbridge mayor Cllr Irene Jeeninga and the rest of the councillors at the recent town council meeting.

Although their meeting format officially only gives members of the public the opportunity to speak at the start, Cllr Jeeninga allowed a number of us the opportunity to raise our concerns regarding the development plans in Kingsbridge.

Although I realise that a lot of what was said may have been taken as criticism of the town council, it was actually just representative of the frustration felt by residents.

The development plan states quite clearly that its purpose is to 'meet the housing need', yet everything that has been presented regarding the early development stages indicates that virtually no attention has been given to this goal.

We do not have a need for more homes costing well in excess of £150,000, as is clear from this paper's property pages. The need is for more low- market value houses, preferably with a reasonable percentage of shared equity units, that people on low incomes are able to afford.

The K5 proposal, as stands in the agreed development plan, appeared to be a good location to achieve these objectives, being north-facing and near to an industrial estate. However, these very attributes that make it suitable have been presented as a reason why the original site boundary is not appropriate.

Instead, the development consultancy, Pegasus, has admitted that it is limiting its planning consideration to a much larger area that extends all the way up to the boundary with West Alvington. This change, that Pegasus argues as minor, substantially alters the acceptability of the site.

Firstly it will result in a substantial increase in the market value of the properties built, which is contrary to the strategy of meeting the housing need. In addition, it will have a marked impact on residents in and around Kingsbridge, further increasing congestion on a road that is already unable to cope adequately with the existing volume of traffic.

Two good, and well supported, proposals were made by the council: to request that South Hams Council explains what exactly 'the housing need' is; and to explain what provision is being made to improve the infrastructure to cope with any further development.

My, and I'm sure others, hope is that Kingsbridge Town Council pursues this line of questioning to ensure that our area of outstanding natural beauty is not irrevocably damaged by ill-conceived development.