SIR - In response to the letters (Cheaper homes needed) and (Gene pool opposition) in last week's Gazette from Dursley residents about the proposed housing development in Berkeley, it was unfortunate that both letters writers were mis-informed and had completely missed the point.

The objection is not to the building of affordable housing. It is the objection to housing of the nature and scale suggested. Three hundred houses would increase the housing stock in Berkeley by 40 percent and would completely alter the character of the town. Only a small proportion of these houses would be affordable.

The land is ironically owned by a local Berkeley resident and I believe he plans to sell the land to David Wilson Homes to develop it. Their average house price, as per their website is £211,000!

The Government inspector also wants to re-classify Berkeley with a population of fewer than 2,000 as a "Principal Settlement" enabling him to build many more houses without going through the usual checks and balances that would question such decisions. It is worthy of mention that the nearest principal settlement to Berkeley is Dursley and Cam with a population of 17,000. These 300 houses may only be the start.

.The "local gene pool" in part is what makes the town such a special place to live. I have lived in the town for 14 years and I run my business from the town. The sense of community spirit and the history and character of the town and its locals make it such a unique and lovely place.

I employ many Berkeley people and I am as keen as anyone to see affordable housing built in the town to allow the local youngsters to remain here. The truth is that the majority of the 300 houses are not going to be affordable to the local residents of Berkeley.

We operate in a market economy where the value of these houses will attract the professional person currently living outside the town who will commute to Gloucester or Bristol for work. It is nonsense for the Government inspector to suggest that Sharpness can fulfill all the employment requirements of this development.

This will create further traffic issues, ask anyone who uses Alkington Lane! These are only a few parts of the argument and, when you consider the location of the development, transport, town infrastructure and the effect on the environment, it is important that every Berkeley resident attends the meeting of ABRAID (Association of Berkeley Residents Against Insensitive Development) at Berkeley Primary School on Tuesday, February 8 (6.30pm) to hear the facts. Attending the meeting might even benefit the two Dursley letter-writers.

T N Scott Ham