IN response to the article published in the Times on June 12, I want to express my shock and disbelief at comments made by Cllr Colin Rogers with reference to the planning application for housing on land at Butcher Park Hill. How, as the vice chair of Tavistock Town Council's planning committee and a democratically elected councillor, can he possibly bow to pressure from developers and publicly express he feels the committee is 'between a rock and a hard place' in relation to this application. He quotes the developers Trand as having said if this application is refused the owners of the site will still go ahead and build the holiday chalets which the Government planning officer agreed to on an appeal in 2010. At that appeal it had been proved there was a need for holiday accommodation of this type in Tavistock and at the same time the appointed Government planning inspector empha-sised, when granting the application, that this was not a suitable site for ANY form of housing development (maybe he was pre-empting what we all now see as inevitable — a change in the application from holiday use to housing — no doubt a more lucrative outcome for the owners of the site. So, Councillor Rogers and planning committee —what is the problem?  The planning has been granted for the holiday chalets (although nothing has been done in four years other than the entrance installed with the devastation of the ancient Devon hedge that so many protested about!)  An application on this land for development has already been through a government appeal —this  should now be the end of it. No more time or public money should be being allocated to this. Let's save limited public resources for the proposed site in Tavistock for 700 houses, which is within the current housing development plan, not pockets of land surrounding the town which are not. Simon Raeburn Tavistock I AM writing in response to the article published in the Times on June 12, 'Town housing bid gets council backing'.   The meeting advertised in the article only gave us hours of notice to try and attend on such a very important subject.  This is very poor stakeholder engagement, not everyone can pop in the office in advance and take a look when meetings will be held. My husband attended the meeting and raised a number of concerns.  The most disturbing reply was to his questions around the safety of the road, Butcher Park Hill and the impacts on all road users of this proposed development.   The town council representatives con-firmed that they also had concerns about the road, however, their view was that this was down to the Highways Agency and not them. We disagree; while the Highways Agency will be a stakeholder, the decision and therefore the accountability to support the proposal most definitely sits with the town and West Devon Borough councils. It is the responsibility of these elected bodies to represent the views of their electorate and surely nothing is more important than responding to road safety concerns? These are the people who have been elected to do the best for Tavistock (not all councillors I must say, but clearly the majority). I will be taking a good look at who I vote for next time.   It isn't that long ago since a pupil of Kelly College was tragically killed whilst cycling on a Tavistock road, which doesn't have anywhere near the number of hazards that Butcher Park Hill has. This development will no doubt attract young families, whose children will cycle and walk down the road to access friends and amenities.    I will be asking the planning committee to acknowledge the level of risk associated with their actions; there's no second take when a life has been lost.   In reply to both Cllr Ewings' representation regarding the application and Cllr Rogers statement of being stuck between a rock and a hard place, they are omitting at least one key fact.  The land in question has already been granted planning permission, but for a holiday park. This new application is not a holiday park and should therefore be considered on its own merit.  I'm beginning to think that this was the plan all along as very little was ever done in terms of building the park, just sufficient, I guess, to say 'it's been started, then go for a change of use'.   Why hasn't the town council suggested to the developer that they approach the owners of the land on the Callington Road site and adjust the plans to fit the existing local strategy?  Why have a perfectly sensible strategy and then ignore it? N K Francis Tavistock I NOTE that at least one local councillor is in support of changing the existing approval for 52 non-residential timber clad caravans to 110 residential housing units at Butcher Park Hill. I believe she would better serve her electorate by encouraging developers to apply for permission on land already allocated to serve the housing needs of Tavistock, rather than support development contrary to the current Local Plan 2011-2026, particularly as the planning inspector in allowing the appeal by 3H Investments Ltd imposed conditions 'as residential dwellings would not be appropriate here'. M Deane Chollacott Close Tavistock NEW maths for developers! 1. Apply for permission to build 52 chalets/holiday homes on a green field site outside the town plan. The plans are rejected but allowed on appeal. 2. Do nothing further about the holiday homes but instead apply to build 110 houses on the same site. Whilst we hope this too will be rejected by the council you will then, of course, go to appeal. 3. In the meantime, with no publicity whatsoever, you buy the field the other side of the road from the original site and, in the not too distant future, you will put in for another 110 homes. 4. So 52 holiday homes becomes 110 houses which, in turn, becomes 220 houses with not a single promise of help with the infrastructure. What magical maths! Wake up Tavistock and see that this unwanted development is rejected! David Farrant Butcher Park Hill Tavistock