I am writing in reply to the ­letter that appeared in this paper on June 23 concerning the Burgh Island Hotel building application.

Items three and eight of this letter had already been addressed by the conditional approval granted by the ­decision notice dated March 30, 2017.

I consider that all of the remaining points, other than items 11 and 12, relate to the impact of the development on the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast, the cultural heritage and the visual impact by virtue of the design of the building. All of these points, in addition to the other planning considerations contained in the officer report, raised by the statutory consultees and letters of representation, were considered by the members of the committee during the meeting on March 15. Members also made a site visit before determining the application.

Matters relating to coastal erosion were discussed during the meeting. Further, a review of the consultation responses available on the council ­planning website show that the Environment Agency withdrew its objection.

Reference was made in the letters to an accepted practice that members of the committee who intend to abstain, cast their vote with the case officer. While it may be the case that some members do so on occasion, this is not as a matter of practice. Each member of the committee is required to, and entitled to, reach their own decision on an application and is neither bound by the recommendation of the officer or the views of any other member.

This application was ­advertised properly and representations were received from ­statutory consultees, including the parish council and members of the public. The application was considered by the development management committee in accordance with the legislative framework and a decision was reached.

I appreciate that it was ­contrary to the officer recommendation, but that does not make the decision unlawful, or as suggested in the letter, a mistake. This was a finely balanced decision, but one the members were entitled to make.

In light of this, it would, in my view, be wrong to refer the matter back to the committee in order to seek to reverse the decision issued on March 30, 2017.

Cllr Robert Steer

Chairman

Development

Management Committee

South Hams District Council