aI WOULD like to thank all of those who took the trouble to sign the petitions against the felling of our much-valued trees on the former Carmelite Monastery site in Launceston Road — and also to thank those councillors who supported this cause.
As I visited people in this part of the town, I found no one who opposed a housing development outright, few who objected to the demolition of the old monastery and a general acceptance that some vegetation would be lost as part of the project.
I encountered no Luddities and no NIMBYism, just a universal sense of anger and frustration that a property developer should consider the destruction of community assets on this scale to be acceptable in seeking to maximise the profit to be made from this site.
Surely, the purpose of having elected representatives on a planning committee is to balance the needs of the community with the needs of business. If those who have agreed to this severe environmental degradation — at a highly visible location, which forms part of the Tavistock skyline, and is adjacent to both the hospital and the homes of many elderly residents — feel that this kind of institutionalised vandalism is a price worth paying, I can assure them that there are a lot of people who live in the northern part of the town who strongly disagree.
Nigel Twinn
Heather View, Bolt House Close
Tavistock