Gilly Holt, of Stafford, Staffs, writes:

Surely the curbing of unpleasantness is what is needed?

I write with reference to ­several articles in the Gazette over the past 12 months. I, like the author of last week’s letter titled ‘Second homes need curbs’, also felt the necessity to write as a result.

I think it is all rather sad and depressing to read, week upon week, the vitriol and animosity from some people towards ­second home owners. Last year we had to suffer the debacle of an aggressive and unpleasant three-week debate in the Gazette of the use of the term ‘grockle’, with some people feeling so venomous that they did their best to justify the use of what is unquestionably a ­disparaging term.

Now we have the start of a new year, with ‘goodwill to all men’, and yet the unpleasantness continues.

Having read all the articles and letters, I have to conclude that what appears to already be a divided community will only become more divided if we continue along the path we are taking and the resentment shown by some continues.

I appreciate fully the ­negative impact on a local ­community of second home ownership, it ­cannot be argued. I also acknowledge that Salcombe has been greatly affected, with last week’s author stating that the proportion of second homes stands at 39 per cent.

We all wish to live in a vibrant, supportive and happy community, and again I fully appreciate that this is hard when you have such a large proportion of residents only being temporary.

However, that being said, Salcombe is not alone in its problems – it is a national problem for all those areas that either offer great employment prospects or are in the enviable position of being located in the most beautiful parts of our green and pleasant land.

Such areas draw people in, and rather than vilifying them I believe they need to be embraced, the advantages of them being there appreciated and the negatives worked upon and solutions sought, which together will result in a happy and prosperous community for everybody.

We live in a democratic ­society and I agree that it is of the utmost importance to maintain that democracy in light of the horrors we all witness elsewhere in the world. However, democracy must be respected and encouraged in the right way. I do not believe ‘calling residents to arms’ over what I construe to be a loathing, by some, of second home owners is the way forward.

I have to admit I am not too sure what the aims were of last week’s author? To quote: ‘This is not an attempt to bash ­second home owners.’ Yet being honest, that was exactly what the letter was about. Not wanting second home owners on the one hand by wanting local residents to rally and vote against any more second homes being built – mirroring St Ives recently – but on the other wishing for them to bring their skills, knowledge and more importantly money to the metaphorical council chamber.

I am not so sure closing doors is the solution. As an economist, I totally agree with Mike Fice: it is a flawed plan. For a prosperous, happy and forward-­thinking community, new doors should always be allowed to be opened. I feel closure ultimately results in an inward-looking and decaying community.

I fully appreciate that more needs to be done in respect of affordable housing, but again this is a countrywide problem, the results of the capitalist economy within which we all reside.

However, the crux of the matter is that houses will not be built unless there is a profit to be made, and unfortunately affordable housing is not too profitable, if at all.

Again, I agree that what is construed as affordable in real terms very rarely is; but again, this is not purely a Salcombe problem, it is a countrywide problem, this experience being borne out where I live in Staffordshire.

I agree that there must be constraints, but realistic and fair constraints that consider ­everyone’s views, are feasible and benefit as much of the ­community as possible while also protecting all that everyone unquestionably holds dear, the protection of the beautiful Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that is the South Hams.

In respect of the comment about involvement of ‘partial’ residents in the local council and in local matters, I fear many believe their views would be unwelcome, viewed with suspicion and construed wrongly as being on a different agenda. That is a great pity.

Unfortunately, neighbourhood plans have been met with complacency throughout the UK, so it is not solely applicable to Salcombe. People lead very busy lives and have different priorities, so I feel it is ­somewhat harsh to criticise local residents for being complacent and not responding.

I also feel that local residents should not be criticised for ­welcoming and embracing the benefits of ‘their rich employers’. Why should they not make hay when the sun shines? Why should they not benefit from owning holiday lets? After all, tourism is such a huge part of the South Hams’ economy, so why shouldn’t they be involved and prosper?

The further comment of counterbalancing the ‘damage’ done to the community by second home owners again is unpleasant, questionable and divisive, as are comments such as ‘the few who feed off them benefit, the rest of us suffer

the noise, inconvenience and ­disruption while they make money and change the very soul of the place’.

Again, I am afraid I have to disagree with the comments that say profits from second homes fail to find their way back into the local community. The high turnover of guests – owners included – results in far greater expenditure within the community, albeit for a ­relatively short season. Those staying for a week or two are far more likely to eat out, partake in retail therapy and participate in all the ­outdoor activities that the South Hams has to offer.

The second homes also ­provide employment for many local people, with funds flowing into the local economy by way of all the building works that ensue, the maintenance required and the day-to-day running of these properties.

Despite the anger and resentment shown by the author of last week’s letter, there is a ray of hope by the very fact that she does mention the need for honest dialogue. That being said, can we please have constructive dialogue that will result in a fair and amenable way forward for all. Please cease these hostilities.

Business rates and the ­constant threat from Cllr Julian Brazil seeking to double council tax for second home owners are not going to solve all the issues, but merely cause more division and animosity.

Can we please just all get on and look for a way forward that will result in benefits to us all. We are all human, after all, and the vast majority of second home owners are actually really rather pleasant and fair-minded people.