THE dilemma over whether to encourage or dissuade house builders from plying their trade in the Lake District and immediately beyond is one that will impact on every man, woman and child with an interest in the region.

According to the current structure plan South Lakeland is full, having already completed its allocation up to 2006.

A new structure plan is being proposed which would slash the number of homes built per year by more than half.

Yet at the same time estate agents cannot get enough properties on their books to meet demand; local builders are having to move out of the area to stay in business; and local people are struggling to afford getting onto the property ladder at all.

As one South Lakeland council officer told this newspaper: The demand for housing in South Lakeland seems insatiable.

It would be a mistake to judge this in terms of builders and estate agents alone, however.

Builders going out of the area take tradesmen with them or cut back on their labour force, and another employment opportunity will be lost to the young.

Meanwhile, a shortage of homes in South Lakeland will only fuel the housing price upward spiral.

Local families will find it increasingly hard to compete.

The few homes that are built will tend more to be occupied by commuters with jobs in big cities across the North of England, or well-off pensioners or second-home owners.

There is nothing wrong with these categories of residents, but if the population gets out of balance then local services - schools, shops, pubs, health centres, post offices and others - will find it increasingly difficult to survive.

Worst of all, severe restrictions will make it less likely that builders will be prepared to provide the affordable housing the area craves.

What land they do get their hands on, again at inflated prices, will be used for executive homes, not low-profit housing for young, local families.

The problem was highlighted at Lakes Parish Council this week, where the effect of the restrictive policy on Grasmere was mentioned specifically.

But the same concern affects all Lakes villages.

Indiscriminate building, however, would change the nature of towns and villages within the Lake District National Park in a way that would be unwelcome to both locals and the visitors who find the area so attractive.

The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in market towns like Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale or Ulverston, on the fringes: thereby lies the dilemma.

The reason given for curbing the building of housing is a desire to regenerate Barrow and other deprived areas on the West Coast, and to encourage development there.

But no one wanting to live in Kendal is going to opt for Workington instead.

Such social engineering is doomed to failure.

If society had wanted to maintain control of housing it would not have so willingly sold off the council-owned stock, now raising the sort of prices that would have seemed outrageous only a few years ago.

Even the solution of converting barns and other under-used agricultural buildings to satisfy the housing need is now falling foul of the planners who are saying enough is enough.

The answer must be moderation and sensible, controlled expansion.

Slow down the sale of council housing by cutting off the right to buy; allow genuine barn conversions into one or two properties at a time; encourage new homes building in land pockets as they open up, but include affordable houses for locals; and explore in-fill and restored land opportunities at every opportunity, but not in flood plains.

If it comes down to control by social engineering or market forces, the latter will be more effective every time.