I THINK your correspondent, David Gray (Letters, August 15) has clearly misunderstood the concerns of local residents and planners about the proposed wedding venue at Lower Grenofen, and has not looked closely at the 'huge financial benefits' claimed by the applicant.

One of the over-riding objections raised by the planning committee, who clearly had looked closely at the financial aspects of the proposal, was that it 'would not generate an over-riding economic benefit which would outweigh the harm that would be caused...'

The objection of the horse riders who live within the Grenofen area is the fact that their only access to moorland riding without crossing the very busy A386 is via the narrow, single track lane and bridlepath which runs along the edge of the proposed wedding venue where the traffic, music and other distractions would very much be an issue.

This is their only route across the river to access riding on Roborough Down. The lane is incredibly steep and narrow with no room for a horse to pass a car, let alone a minibus, for most of its length. The same issues apply for the many walkers and cyclists who use this popular route.

Has Mr Gray ever walked the Walkham Valley from Grenofen to Double Waters and enjoyed the peace and tranquillity and abundant wildlife to be found along the river? Picnicked with children? Walked at dusk and seen the myriad of bats emerging from their roosts — seven species being recorded emerging from the buildings at Ever After itself? Watched kingfishers flash along the river and dippers bobbing on the boulders?

That all this will be preserved and remain unspoilt for the thousands of local people who visit and cherish the Walkham Valley at Lower Grenofen every year is the 'positive' of this planning decision, and far outweighs the limited commercial benefit for the area.

So well done, West Devon planners, your courage in facing down this application, despite the obviously advanced stage of building which has already taken place, is to be applauded.

Mary Harper

Yelverton

DAVID Gray (Letters, August 15) laments the planning committee's decision to refuse Ever After, Grenofen's application to operate as a wedding venue.

Mr Gray states, as if it is a matter of fact, that noise concerns are not an issue. I assure him, it is a matter of great concern. The hubbub generated by up to 100 guests as well as music will inevitably leak into the surrounding woodland and would utterly change the character of the area. People have been coming to the woods for generations to enjoy an unspoilt, natural environment and that means listening to the river and the birds, not the dull thud of disco or even a tasteful harpist. 

Mr Gray observes that many wedding venues are now on working farms. That sounds ideal; a genuinely private venue with good access, that will not impact on an amenity enjoyed by the general public. Much more suitable than Lower Grenofen!

I have no problem with a wedding venue in the right location, but I strongly object to a business that will profit very few at the expense of the many who currently enjoy a much loved and tranquil beauty spot. I believe the planning committee showed common sense and courage.

Jonny Kurzman

email

DAVID Gray raises some interesting points regarding the proposed wedding venue at Lower Grenofen. Unfortunately they do not bear scrutiny.

Mr Gray 'hazards a guess' about the number of objectors who have actually visited the venue. Presumably, he thinks they are few. In fact, apart from those who live nearby, there are many like myself who visit frequently — several times a week in many cases.

There are often a dozen cars parked there and on one Sunday recently I counted thirty. The area is large enough to accommodate these numbers without the crowding and noise that a concentration of guests at a wedding would create.

It should be remembered too that music and voice sounds at a wedding are not confined to evenings; these are all-day events.

Mr Gray speaks of 'huge financial benefits' to the town. Of course traders such as florists, caterers, taxis etc will agree to take on such business, should the venue actually be working, but it would be a pity if this were at the expense of wedding venues already functioning in the area, many already experienced in the hospitality business.

But must everything be reduced to pounds and pence? Such areas as Lower Grenofen have a value far beyond the monetary and themselves bring visitors who come to the area for exactly the beauty and tranquillity they find there. The wedding venue may bring some visitors; it will surely drive away others.

In mentioning the 'workable travel plan' (the proposed minibus?) Mr Gray forgets that numerous trade vehicles will use this steep, narrow and twisting lane to deliver flowers, cakes, food, musicians etc — not to mention the bridal white Rolls Royce and its entourage! — and those needed to remove the waste, including the contents of 'luxury portaloos', afterwards.

The planning committee will remember their own experience during their site meeting when over 20 vehicles came down and other drivers were forced to wait at the bottom or in the driveway of Fenn House. (I was one.) And sometimes, inevitably, there will be emergency vehicles needing access.

Mr Gray's comparison with the Focus site (hey — why not use that as a wedding venue?) and indeed his own sadness, are of course irrelevant.

Donna Baker

Tavistock