SINCE West Devon Borough Council announced its intentions to build a multi-million pound hotel on the Abbey Rise Car Park in Tavistock, we have been inundated with your letters — too many to include in the paper, so here are all the letters we’ve received this week.

READING the news concerning the proposal for a hotel for Tavistock I am sadly accustomed to reading banal spin being offered in the hope and expectation that it will be accepted as fact.

This proposal, in the words of councillors and public employees will at best allow Tavistock to boast a budget hotel chain ‘demonstrating confidence in the town’ (a real feather in the cap).

This hotel will provide ‘up to’ 35 jobs (no doubt mostly part-time and low paid) and the visitors will spend around £77 each (really?).

Furthermore the hotel will ‘aid regeneration’ (Hmm). This will all help provide an income (less charges, whatever they may be) of ‘about’ 1% of the council tax. ‘Hopefully’ (no promises) council tax ‘may’ come down (maybe not) in the years after that. This will help prevent large hikes in council tax (again no promises) and help close a budget gap (which is the point anyway surely?).

The council and hotel chain also considered the site for the hotel ‘ideal’ apparently, although Cllr Sanders admits that the council would have loved to put it elsewhere (!). Maybe not ideal then? However this doesn’t seem to concern Cllr Sanders as he also (alarmingly) suggests this is a no risk venture (what?!) I should like to point out the only dead certs are death and taxes and I would be interested to know how much time and money has been spent so far on this scheme and how much dialogue the council (employee) has had with the public (employer) in finding out what the employer wants or doesn’t want.

This is an expensive contentious and speculative venture not without risk and consequences and its outcome should be decided by the people who have to pay for and live with it into the future.

Darren Young, Tavistock

AS an independent West Devon councillor and therefore one who can comment without the binds of any political affiliation, I thought I would set out the position of the borough council as I see it and to put some of the recent developments into context.

Over the last four or five years, Central Government has meted out eye-watering cuts in the funding it provides to local authorities while increasing the services it expects them to deliver (notably in respect of social care). In order to avoid financial insolvency, the council has responded in three ways; firstly to reduce overheads by sharing ‘back-office’ functions and delivering services jointly with South Hams, secondly to embark on a range of ‘invest to earn’ projects (of which the hotel is but one) and thirdly to reduce non-statuary services where it is considered safe to do so (such as closing some public toilets and passing responsibility for others to parish councils to fund).

Together these actions have, to date, reduced a predicted budget deficit of around £3.5-million over five years to around £1-million. With little sign of additional help from the Government, there is therefore still more work to do to close the gap.

It’s easy to understand why much of the above is unpopular, and it is absolutely right that residents voice their concerns even though the roots of these measures lie at the decision of the Government to severely reduce local authority funding. The decisions the current council reach reflect the views of individual councillors who serve on it so if you have thoughts on how to better deliver the council’s commitments and balance its budget, then why not stand for election to the council in May and bring your ideas to the table?

Ric Cheadle, independent councillor for Buckland Monachorum Ward

JUST as I thought that councillors were beginning to listen to people’s views about too much building it is almost unbelievable to read that a council group are seeking to give themselves planning permission to build a hotel on one of the few car parks in the town after apparently being told by the hotel chain that they would not accept anywhere else.

If the reports in the Times Gazette are correct a small group of councillors plan to risk bankrupting WDBC by borrowing 10.6-million to fund this and projects in Okehampton, plus over £502.000 from council reserves to service the first of the loan payments and another £406.700 from section 106 money from developers (which I thought was to be used to bring the railway back to Tavistock) — in other words borrowing money left, right and centre for what Cllr Sanders thinks is ‘A dead cert’ – how many times have punters heard that one before!

In addition to the questions raised by people in last week’s ‘letters’ columns, I would add these:

1) What happens if the hotel chain does decide that this is a no-go after a couple of years and they can afford to surrender the lease. WDBC cannot afford to have a redundant hotel on its books so presumably the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

2) Has this little group even considered the effect of what is likely to be a ‘cheap cheerful’ style hotel is going to have on all the small hotels and B&B establishments in the town?

3) Some of our councillors may consider that parking arrangements in the town are ‘adequate’ even after the loss of Abbey Rise so may one dare to ask if they will still be ‘adequate’ after the 1200+ houses are built around the town, quite possibly bringing around 1400-1500 extra cars? If they really want to benefit the town and make some money, build a multi- story car park on the site.

And finally 4) No matter what is said about the closure of public toilets being a separate issue, they are not, as many people have said. In fact they are causing considerable concern so if it does indeed only cost £50,000 per annum to keep them going then surely the council should put some of their savings towards it rather that dump responsibility on local councils and if keeping the loos open in West Devon means another 1% on council tax, so be it.

I might add that Bedford Bridge is a very popular spot for walkers and picnickers in the summer, attracting a huge amount of people and is actually only open from Easter to the end of October — are they all expected to pee in the bushes because the council is too mean to keep them open for a few months?               

Councillor Oxborough is absolutely correct when he says the ‘council must communicate’. I’m sure there are many more questions and points of view on this that people would like to put to our councillors so I would urge anybody who wants to know what Councillor Sanders and the ‘Invest to Earn’ group are getting up to, please attend the meeting at the council offices at 6.45pm on February 18.

Paul Mercer, Tavistock

I NOTE Cllr Sanders response to the criticism in relation to the proposed hotel development as printed in the Tavistock Times on January 31.

Does Cllr Sanders seriously want us to believe that if this development goes ahead it will reduce the need for a rise in council tax, indeed he appears suggest that it could lead to a reduction — does he think the people of Tavistock are simpletons ?

Is Cllr Sanders suggesting that the residents of Tavistock allow this inappropriate development in order that the rest of the residents of the West Devon Borough Council area benefit?

The fact that the hotel chain have turned down every other site in the town as unsuitable should not lead to a fait accompli that we must have a hotel in a location that the vast majority of residents find unsuitable — it’s our town!

May I suggest that once the name of the hotel chain involved is known, those who are opposed to the development contact the chief executive and express those concerns.

Finally I say to Cllr Sanders our consent for this completely unwanted project cannot be bought with vague promises of jam tomorrow, the heritage of our unique town is not for sale to the highest bidder.

Ferris Hatheson, Tavistock

HAVE WDBC done an analysis to see if there is the demand before providing the supply?

Have the existing hotels, B&Bs and numerous AirBnB providers in Tavistock been declining bookings between them for 160 guests per night or 80% resulting in 128 guests per night (based on the 80 rooms accommodating two guests).

If this is not the case then I agree with the majority of the previous letter writers, the ‘well known and respected hotel owners’ would have no qualms about terminating the lease.

In this current climate of onllne shopping, surely our local shops need all the support they can get. If Tavistock becomes a town of closed shops and only charity shops no-one will want to stay here let alone shop.

The main reason people shop out of town is because they know they will be able to park, Getting rid of these parking spaces will only compound the parking problem resulting in less footfall in the town meaning more empty shops (quite a few of these are independent shops which is also a main reason for people choosing to shop in Tavistock) if Tavistock becomes a town of closed shops and only charity shops I suspect this will not benefit the council financially.as some of these shops are council owned so less income by way of rent and business rates for WDBC.

J Moule, Tavistock

LIKE most people I’m concerned about those negative impacts threatening Tavistock if a new hotel is built. 

WDBC has taken a hammering from public criticism in recent weeks but there seems to be a lack of acknowledgement that Westminster has financially suffocated local authorities all around the country.  Through my work I’ve had dealings with WDBC for countless years and it has been obvious to me for a long time that they have been starved of cash by government, despite that we are supposed to be the 5th wealthiest nation in the world.  I’m sure none of this will change people’s voting habits, but in my opinion the finger of blame in this instance should be pointed directly at Westminster rather than at WDBC and the very unpopular choices that they are ridiculously and unnecessarily being forced to consider.

J Maddock, Bere Alston

RATHER than build a hotel in the centre of Tavistock, which apparently no-one seems to want, on a car park which everyone wants to keep, why don’t our councillors think ‘outside the box’.

Could they not set up a property development company, to avoid any legislative restrictions, and spend our £10-million on buying 34 new houses on one of the planned developments in the town (current average price £300k).

These would not be the usual subsidised ‘social housing’ stock but good quality homes which could be let at today’s average rental (approx £800 per month). If managed properly they could give a 6% annual return on our money.

The benefits being

a) 34 families, who are at the moment unable to climb on the housing ladder, getting a new home in our town,

b) Our £10-million, at the current 2% pa inflation rate for residential property, would grow to £18-million after 30 years, instead being invested in a depreciating old hotel block.

c) Regular financial contribution from rents would boost our council’s funds and so subsidising our individual council tax.

I’m sure those in charge will be able to come up with a list of reasons why this is not practical, but at least it might keep the peace.

C D Crofton

FURTHER to the letters on this topic in last week’s Gazette which highlighted the short and long term drawbacks to this scheme, has any consideration been given to the inevitable chaos that would arise during construction should this ill-conceived idea ever become reality.

The site is opposite Abbey Rise the site of the ambulance station, the fire station, the police office, social services and a busy GP practice and pharmacy - the disruption to these services is totally unacceptable.

The town is already facing a three month closure of an approach road to Tavistock due to construction works. Even a prolonged one-way system opposite Abbey Rise would cause more disruption and distress.

If Tavistock really needs an 80 bed hotel - is there any evidence for this? - perhaps an out of town site with a park-and-ride facility available to all would be a better solution.

Gerry Pearce, Tavistock

The new hotel - what a brilliant idea!!

1) Doing away with a very convenient car park

2) Closing public toilets

3) Potholes everywhere

4) Drains blocked, old and smelly

The list is endless.

I’m sure council taxpayers would appreciate their money being spent on this venture.

K Sydenham

I WAS appalled to discover at Monday’s Chamber of Commerce meeting that West Devon Borough Council are about to sign a multi-million pound contract to build a budget hotel without first conducting any form of impact assessment or market assessment report.

What evidence has been gathered to support their conclusion that Tavistock requires another 80 hotel rooms? Answer: none.

What evidence has been gathered that  Tavistock will benefit from an additional 35,000 visitors? Answer: none.

What professional independent evidence has been gathered that the local economy will benefit by £2.7-million? Answer: none.

What professional evidence has been undertaken to discover the effect on local residents, visitors and businesses of a large scale loss of parking spaces? Answer: none.

What consultation has taken place with local stakeholders such as Tavistock BID? Answer: none.

Philip Davies, Bedford Hotel

Full consultation is needed on the proposed 80 bed hotel for Tavistock

Although I am presently a Tavistock town councillor I am writing in a private capacity. I am not expressing the views or decisions of your town council on the hotel project, which are to be determined.

I read about the proposed 80 bed hotel for our town in the Tavistock Times (January 24). I was not able to attend our Council meeting held on January 22 at which West Devon Borough Council (WDBC) briefed councillors, so have since read what I can find about it. There is no publicly available video recording of the January 22 meeting.

I do have a remote commercial interest, as a director of Harford Bridge Holiday Park which is situated in another parish (Peter Tavy). I am also a director of Tavistock Business Improvement District (BID).

Outwardly the proposal is ‘good news’ as it demonstrates a willingness and ambition to invest in local communities, but the idea also appears flawed and risky. The foremost areas for decision makers and influencers to gain understanding about the proposed hotel seem to be:

1. Its effect on visitor parking.

2. Its effect on existing accommodation providers in competition with the new hotel.

However, there are also many other matters that need illumination by our Borough Council. These include: the use of the planning process to gain consent to build, the appropriateness of WDBC acting for a hotel operator, the use of borrowing to finance the project and consequential financial risk, what happens after the lease ends, who pays for the building’s demolition / re-purposing /refurbishment etc., etc. The focus of this letter though is on parking, competition and need for full, open consultation:

Existing visitor parking

Abbey Rise ‘long stay’ (over four hours) parking in Whitchurch Road, Tavistock has 56 spaces. The 2016 WDBC commissioned ‘People and Places Survey’ assessed the borough’s general vitality and highlights action points to guide WDBC’s development strategy. Pages 20 & 21 of the most recent survey covers parking allocations for ‘short stay’ and ‘long stay’ in Tavistock. In the percentage allocated to ‘long stay’ and ‘short stay’ the survey shows that parking in Tavistock is skewed towards ‘long stay’ – the national average is 51% whereas in Tavistock it is 65%. There is actually an in-built 8% comparative deficiency of ‘short stay’ spaces compared to the national average for a ‘small town’.

Regular visitors to Tavistock will know that Abbey Rise is an attractive place for short stay parking but can seldom find an available space. Could WDBC increase revenue from the site by re-designating it as ‘short stay and generate a higher return compared with cheap all-day parking?

Proposed hotel parking

Within the project proposal on the Abbey Rise site it is stated the hotel will likely operate at 80% occupancy. On this basis there would likely be 64 guest vehicles to park overnight. On the re-developed site there are 25 parking spaces proposed. If the modelling is reasonably accurate there is an expected excess of guest vehicles above the hotel parking capacity – in the region of 40 or more vehicles. These will need to find parking in other places like Market Road which is unrestricted from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 a.m. and on Sundays, or near Tavyside Surgery. Appropriation of free on-street parking spaces by the hotel operator does not seem to be a fair use of publicly available free parking and will not raise any money for WDBC. For the hotel operator it will minimise the rateable value for Business Rates and enable them to charge a fee for the few available spaces as a convenience ‘value add’ for guests. That doesn’t seem right when other hotels have to provide for guest parking within their premises and pay Business Rates to WDBC on what they provide.

The hotel’s effect on other accommodation providers

It would be very helpful to inform decision making on whether to permit the development to understand more about what modelling has been done to estimate its effect on other accommodation providers in our town. Increasing supply of hotel accommodation will not automatically lead to an increase in uptake. It may actually push prices down and reduce the profitability of local accommodation providers. Therefore, we need to know what negative effects the hotel will have as well as the positive effects that WDBC have to date mentioned in public communications on their proposal. We need a balanced presentation of the facts.

Consultation

On February 4 2019 Tavistock District Chamber of Commerce (TDCC) will hear from our borough council on what is proposed. Other interested bodies such as Tavistock Business Improvement District (BID) will be hoping to be briefed on what is proposed in more detail. There really should be a full public consultation before project development proceeds much further.

Paul Williamson

ANOTHER week and yet another plan is dropped onto our toes, cramming yet more development into our lovely town, this time by replacing Abbey Rise car park with a hotel. 

With between 650 and 1,000 new homes planned for our small town, a conservative estimate for the increase in our population would be around 1,500. Where will we all park with a ten percent population growth and a ten percent reduction in car park spaces?

These plans for a new hotel have been dropped on our toes completely out of the blue. Who knew anything about this beforehand? Why? Where’s the demand? What’s wrong with our existing hotels and choice of accommodation? What impact will it have on those existing businesses? Where will St Rumons parents park to take their children to school?  The traffic barely crawls round town in the summer months as it is. One of the main attractions of our town is the ability to park freely in town for a reasonable amount of time. How long does anyone think that our free on street parking will continue, once parking spaces are reduced and are viewed as a money-spinner?

Everyone I speak to is incredulous about these plans for this hotel. It’s change for change’s sake.

Caroline Hatheson

Heaven help Tavistock because West Devon Borough Council surely aren’t!!

Some points that the residents of Tavistock should have a ponder over.

The councils aren’t just happy with imposing circa 14,00 new properties on this town, and is anyone actually keeping count of the houses and flats that are popping up everywhere, including the one off builds.

Now they want to impose a 80-bedroomed hotel on us which will remove 56 parking spaces from the residents and visitors to the town. However, it isn’t just 56 parking spaces, where will the 80 guests park their cars and the staff of the hotel, in actual fact the town will be deprived of 136 car parking spaces!

Why does the town suddenly need an 80-bedroomed hotel?  Has the council carried out a survey of the current accommodation providers to see how many bed spaces were taken up in 2017 and 2018, if they did, they didn’t ask me. So why do they think the town needs this? What is their motivation? Is it profit over the needs of the local residents

Of the 31 WDBC councillors representing various wards in Devon, only six actually live in Tavistock, so where do the interests of the other 25 lie when voting on new builds and a hotel?

WDBC borrows money really cheaply from the government, hence the white elephant in Kilworthy Park. 

If WDBC nows have a private limited company why don’t they use this cheap money for building houses for local families and become landlords, instead of agreeing to all these national building companies dictate what they think this town needs.

As sure as eggs are eggs they won’t build enough starter homes for first time buyers who will have no chance of affording a £300K home, there seems to be an excessive number of three, four and five bedroom properties.

The Highways and other bodies are very good at overusing the word ’adequate’ when you ask them about traffic, pollution, wild life, flooding etc.  the response is ‘It will be adequate’.  They have this response because they do not have the funds to improve the roads even though builders are supposed to pay a 106 payment to the Council, some of which should go towards the roads, does anyone know where it does go?

Tavistock currently has a population of circa 12,500, by adding 1400+ properties using a calculation of three people per property this will equate to an increase in population of 4200+ or 33%+. so returning to the parking issue, some of these people will want to drive in to Tavistock but where will they park?  You have just lost 136 spaces by building a 80-bed hotel that no-one has proved the town needs. If the hotel is not fully occupied there will not be a staff of 35 as quoted!  Will 35 new job vacancies be enough for the residents of the 1,000 plus new homes?

We have planning approved, applied for, being spoken about and rumoured for 48 flats on the Drake roundabout, 250 houses on Plymouth Road, 148 Old Launceston Road, 635 Callington Road, 110 Butcher Park Hill, 12 Parkwood Road, 80 Mount Kelly, 130 Violet Lane and rumour now has it that Kelly’s are looking to put in planning for land they own in Old Exeter Road. This is as well as all the individual plots in and around the town and this is without Anderton Lane.  If my maths serves me correctly this amounts to 1,420 which is more than the new regional plan for Plymouth, South Hams and West Devon which is supposed to be implemented in March this year to protect these areas from future development land. However, Devon County Council aren’t part of this plan and they hold the purse for Highways!

This town has the following recognitions, Conservation Area  — Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and World Heritage Site but for how long? If the councils are allowed to destroy our green fields, and once they’re gone they’re gone for ever they’ll never come back, we will also lose the town’s accolades.  

Why will tourists want to come here in the future, there won’t be anywhere to park, there will be traffic jams and all they will be able to see is houses!

The damage that will be caused by increasing our population by up to 33%, but not increase any infrastructure, isn’t worth thinking about.  Also have a thought for the Victorian sewers.

If you are concerned about what is happening to your lovely old market town please contact your MP Geoffrey Cox as well as the councillors for WDBC and Devon County Council and when the local elections come up make sure you vote for someone who genuinely cares about Tavistock and not about their ego or their professional career as a councillor.

Fortunately there are a few councillors that are opposed to all this building work and they need the public’s support to fight these planning applications.

Mrs J Rogers, Tavistock

Will someone at West Devon Borough Council please tell me what is going on?

By the time they are finished with their potential 1,000 new houses, everything that makes this little town of Tavistock special will be eroded. (note the keyword: little!)

Extra people means extra traffic. Plymouth Road is already gridlocked at times. What about the parking? Even on a wet winter’s day, I and others have often driven round and round the huge Bedford Car Park hunting for a space!

Yet now in their wisdom, the council are going to close the Abbey Rise Car Park in order to build a large hotel. Is this really necessary?

After all, we already have JD Wetherspoon, with its 31 rooms. Will it honestly be good for Tavistock’s well-being?

Why has there been no public consultation on such a major change to our town? Perhaps residents would actually prefer to accept a little extra on their council tax instead? But we’ll never know now if the council goes ahead with this idea.

They also seem to be oblivious to the fact that this car park is the closest to the town centre and is therefore a comfortable short walk for anyone elderly or not physically up to the long hike from Bedford Car Park.

Since the £2/£2.50 low parking fee, day visitors and locals alike have already learned that they are not guaranteed a parking space in Tavistock; and word gets arund.

The very people we need to attract to keep the town centre alive will start to avoid Tavistock altogether, because “it’s all too much trouble”.

Although I hate to say it, the current Abbey Rise Car Park would be the ideal location for a much-needed multi-storey car park, which would also generate a good income.

I haven’t even started on the state of the public toilets yet! Tavistock needs its loos! It is a basic human right to be able to go to the toilet when needed — one thing we pay our council tax for, or so I thought!

The ones near the Guildhall are quite unpleasant, but at least they work. But visitors finding themselves at the Co-op car park end of town (at the bottom of Brook Street) find nowhere to relieve themselves after what is sometimes a long journey here to visit Tavistock.

Thank goodness for the lovely Pannier Market looks — but just don’t visit Tavi on a Monday! Lastly, the toilets at the Bedford Car Park are also a good example of what is needed, although better signage is needed.

All these points are in addition to the recently highlighted shortfall in Tavistock of NHS dentists and doctors. The council appears too be struggling to cope with this serious problem now, so how on earth is it going to tackle this challenge in the face of hundreds and hundreds of new residents in the future?

It is time the council started to use some common sense, before it is too late for Tavistock.

Veronica Aston, Tavistock