Tracy Leese, of Badger Close, Dartmouth, writes:

The proposed Millwood Homes development in Dartmouth has no restrictions in place to ensure the homes are only used as a main residences, Chronicle, March 9, and it seems there is nothing to stop these properties from being purchased as second homes.

I am in favour of some second homes, as the majority of Dartmouth's employment, including my business, depends on these. But we only have to look around the town to see ample residential properties up for sale which would suit second home owners as the prices are out of reach for most local people.

Why aren't there covenants being put on new 'affordable' housing developments to prohibit second home use?

Like it or not, Dartmouth relies on second homes and our tourist industry for local employment opportunities and for our shops to survive.

People have to appreciate that for Dartmouth to thrive we have to share this beautiful town with other folk, albeit if they wish to only use their property once or twice a year.

However, a balance is crucial to ensure we don't tip the scales in creating too many second homes and become similar to Salcombe, a 'part-time town'.

Some of the new apartments in Victoria Road, on the old Tozers site, have been quickly snapped up and there are possibly six more brand new luxury apartments to be built, pending planning, so potential second home owners need not worry as there are there are properties in the town to choose from.

Possibly the Millwood Homes development will depend on second owners purchasing some of the properties. Could this be because the prices will be much higher than local people can afford?

Is it at all possible for the development to meet the real needs of affordable housing, or is it all government jargon and smokescreens, hiding the real problems instead of tackling the problems head on?

How much does it cost to build an average three bed semi-detached house, surely not £200,000?

There are long waiting lists for housing association properties and a shortage of affordable housing.

Can't we have not-for-profit, affordable housing schemes?

Concerning employment, we only have to look around our little town to see at least eight empty shop premises and a further 11, if not more, businesses up for sale.

So incorporating employment units within the new housing development would not solve our vacant shops situation in the town centre.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on rebuilding our diminishing businesses in our town centre?

I fear more hardworking shopkeepers will be forced out of town by some landlords who refuse to offer lower rents and decent incentives for start up businesses.

Can't the Government step in to force lower rents and rates to prevent more and more smaller town centres from losing their shops? Surely it is better to have the business premises rented out on a reduced rent incentive rather than vacant premises.

Also, do landlords realise the negative impact the growing number of empty shops will have on potential businesses looking to settle in the town?

Who will want to visit a town with so many empty shops?

Some of our streets could eventually look like the shopping precinct in Paignton – deserted.

I know this is not just about Dartmouth, it is happening to most small towns, but landlords should have a responsibility for the future of the town and should be obligated to provide affordable business rents for all and incentives for start-up businesses.

Or maybe someone has another solution for Dartmouth and similar towns to fill the empty shops?

From what I can see, if something doesn't happen soon it will be too late for Dartmouth as more and more businesses in the town are eventually pushed out.

Councillors and landlords, including Dartmouth United Charites, it is time for you to get your heads together and find solutions. It's time for action.