RE the proposed 1,700 houses in and around Tavistock and Okehampton, I wonder if any thought has been given to the infrastructure before all these houses are built? For instance, 1,700 houses probably mean about 2,500 more cars and possibly 3,500 ? 4,000 more people, but what about the basic services, schools, doctors, transport, parking etc? There has also been talk of ?revitalising? villages by providing houses, local employment and post office shops. This is fine in theory, but many of the small villages do not have suitable roads to cope with the increase of traffic generated by multiple house building and the creation of businesses. As for the village shop, this has effectively been killed by the ease in which people can drive to a local supermarket in their car. Perhaps the answer could be a new town such as that proposed for the South Hams, this could provide affordable housing, shops, jobs and all the infrastructure needed to go with it while at the same time preserving our villages and historic market towns from over development. Paul Mercer Ivy Cottage Peter Tavy I HAVE been following your correspondence about housing in West Devon with interest and it seems to me that the provision of additional housing is being driven by factors other than genuine need. While I sympathise with the arguments about children finding affordable homes to buy in the villages where their parents live, and the need to prevent a village from dying, surely houses should be situated near to where work is? Work provides the need for housing, not someone?s desire to live in a village. A similar argument should be applied to new housing in Tavistock and Okehampton. While these places can provide some additional work, many of the inhabitants of the several hundred new homes planned will be travelling to Plymouth or Exeter for work. If so, shouldn?t that be where the new houses are built? R Crispin Glenard Midella Road Yelverton
