ALTHOUGH not a member of the conservation bodies wisely questioning the draft DNPA Plan, I am of Dartmoor stock and share concerns regarding the rate of development.

Before justifying any further building, DNPA needs to ignore 'demand' and establish what is true 'requirement'.

We read again the populist phrase 'affordable housing', but I have yet to see a workable definition. DNPA propose a 25% discount from market value is affordable. A glance at the property pages finds a small bungalow costs £210,000 in Meavy — one of the areas for such policy. Similar might therefore be discounted to £157,500.

The plan also states the average income to be £24,000. A three times mortgage might raise £72,000, leaving the Meavy buyer with a £85,500 shortfall. Far from affordable!

What counts on affordability, is the income of non-houseowners; possibly closer to £12,000. This might raise £36,000 at mortgage. Shouldn't this be the core of any such policy? And yet it doesn't even cover the plot value anywhere in the National Park.

It is dangerous to justify open development under affordable provision when the policies are irrelevant to those it is intended for. The way forward might only be assisted purchase schemes through housing associations.

I am fortunate to be climbing the property ladder, but have several friends for whom that first rung is set too high. We hope DNPA review the Plan (which has good intent) putting environment first, then demonstrated requirement, then some figures which make sense to those who are house-hunting.

Mark Warne

Whitchurch Road

Tavistock

I WAS very disappointed to read the DNPA head of planning, Graham Wall, engaging political 'spin' to justify the arguably flawed housing policies of an otherwise reasonable draft plan.

By their own published figures, DNPA have already far exceeded their allocation of new properties until 2011. This has been at cost to both environment and residents. It is logical sense to have a presumption against new development for the time to come.

Having been so busy recently, one might assume the planners, (who consume much of the DNPA budget), might enjoy the break and leave our suffering villages alone.

Mr Wall labels the Dartmoor conservationists (nearly 2,000 in combined membership) as being radical in their views. I would suggest allowing 15 years' worth of housing in a four-year period is a far more radical action.

Amanda Steers

La Corbiere

Meavy