Can we satisfy both interests?

On March 11, you published a letter from Seaton Design Statement Working Party representatives, about the application to build homes (and surely, some business outlets?) at the junction of Harepath Road and Harepath Hill.

On March 11, you published a letter from Seaton Design Statement Working Party representatives, about the application to build homes (and surely, some business outlets?) at the junction of Harepath Road and Harepath Hill.I have great admiration for the work of the Design Statement Team, but what are they thinking of? Can they really believe that it is more sensible to build this sort of development on a flood plain?They are not the only people to value Green Belts, but it is exaggeration to suggest that the proposed development would "link-up" with Colyford. If you want more homes, you have to build them somewhere - but somewhere sensible. To talk of the old holiday camp site as brown field land may be accurate, but not wise.If we build anything there, we have to raise the level by two metres - it's not just Tesco who would have to do this. Wouldn't we do better to build only the essentials there - Jurassic Coast unit, hotel, youth club etc, and turn the rest into a Park, an extension of the marshlands which it abuts, and put the houses where they are less likely to get flooded, up on the hills?Naturally, people who live in Seaton want homes, but tourists want places to go to, to walk in, to sit in and to enjoy. Towns like Seaton depend on attracting the tourists. But we could satisfy both interests, couldn't we?James HineyKings Court Harbour RoadSeaton


You may also want to watch:


Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus