Mark Royce, of Lower Coltscombe, Slapton, writes: I want to convey my dismay at the Lower Coltscombe holiday village proposal. Mr Chris Thomas writes that, as an owner of a house nearby, I do not want a holiday village in my back yard. In reality, I do not want to see any of the undeveloped areas of rural beauty, especially in planning protected areas, blighted by new holiday villages. This is not a 'my back yard' issue; the South Hams has very few remaining areas of unspoilt beauty and has planning protections in place in order to prevent development. Mr Costello has speculated on the purchase of a cheap piece of agricultural land and has made huge efforts to turn it into a holiday village, contrary to these planning regulations and also within a protected area of undeveloped coast. This is not an altruistic charity endeavour, but an investment on which Mr Costello hopes to make a large profit. The initial stage, consisting of 18,000 square feet of buildings plus bridges, roads, parking lots and a new one-kilometre road cutting across prime agricultural land, is by no means small and unobtrusive. The steep-sided landscape is completely unsuited and would require mobility vehicles in order to get around. Furthermore, the local towns and villages, sadly, do not have good access for disabled people, nor available parking or road infrastructure to cope with the increased traffic this development would bring. Mr Haque was neither biased nor slanted, but merely stating facts. The state of Mr Costello's physical abilities should have absolutely no bearing on the matter and I am surprised Mr Thomas thinks otherwise. Likewise, the value of the households in the vicinity is of no relevance. As to us making things up in order to object is simply ludicrous. All of the opposition comments are based on facts, research and a sound knowledge of the area in which we live. The cynicism to which Mr Haque alludes is to that of a developer who, having effectively been turned down once, continues to railroad his project forward knowing fully that it runs counter to the planning protections and policies that were enshrined in order to preserve our natural heritage and the many protected wildlife species that flourish within it.
Protected site is just not right
Thursday 14th May 2015 10:00 pm