JOHN CHALMERS, chairman, South Hams Society, of Croft Road, Salcombe, writes: The facts behind the Batson Cross development are more complicated than the statements made by Cllr Coulson in his ­letter, Gazette, May 1. The current Batson Cross development is the result of two decisions by the district council. The first, the choice of site, comes from the site-allocation' process ­conducted by the ­council. During this process 11 ­possible sites were put forward to a town meeting on February 1, 2010, including The Crofts. The Crofts was in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and development of it would have caused at least as much damage as Batson Cross. The preferred site, arrived at by a town council vote, was between the garage and Beadon, again in the AONB, but less ­prominent. The Crofts emerged as the worst site. However, after a site visit, a council meeting on March 25, 2010, rejected The Crofts but ignored the results of the town meeting. The planners chose the Batson Cross site by ­methods that have not been made public, and the council confirmed it. The South Hams Society ­criticised this choice of site along with many other ­decisions in the site-allocation document. When the document came up for examination by the planning inspectorate, I attended the session on the Salcombe sites and proposed the Shadycombe Road car park as an alternative. Despite being agreed by the council's planners as the best site available, the Batson Cross site remained allocated. The second decision was the granting of planning permission to Bloor's application. Again there was a town ­meeting on the proposed application. The South Hams Society objected to the design because the damage to the AONB was made worse by the buildings on the skyline. It would have been possible to produce a design that was much less dominating. However the district council planning committee, which included Cllr Coulson, approved the application instead of insisting on a design that was less damaging to the AONB. So, contrary to what Cllr Coulson asserts, the decisions leading to the current deplorable development have been made by the district ­council, not the residents.