Colin Payne, a dissident chalet owner at Norton Park, of Stoke Fleming, writes: In response to 'Park chalet owners told they should stay in touch' in the November 7 edition, I thank Mr Paul Reach for his comments about the shortcomings of chalet owners at Norton Park not engaging with activities in Dartmouth Town. The letter referred to was addressed to Dartmouth Town Council and presumably the BID was invited to comment. Mr Reach is quite correct in stating that the majority of owners with business-rated chalets live away from Dartmouth and therefore have little opportunity to actively engage. He infers that we are negligent in not installing letterboxes in our chalets and registering them as postal addresses with the Royal Mail. Why should we, when we receive all our business mail more conveniently at our homes, from where we run our small letting businesses. The principal partner of the BID, South Hams Council, knows this. Is it not strange how we were first made aware that we were participating in the BID, when we so easily received £150 demands for levy payment from South Hams Council straight to our registered postal addresses? Mr Reach's argument makes no sense: does South Hams Council itself and the town council receive important documents and bills at the publically owned buildings and utilities in their charge? I think not. Most chalets owners at Norton Park are on domestic rates for private usage, and those who let their chalets at Norton Park do so on a marginally profitable basis – many are in deficit just to help cover costs. Why was Norton Park included in the BID in the first place? The man admitted it himself: the BID required a ­revenue of £172,350 per annum to deliver the benefits that the BID promised, so it was simply a case of adding in Norton Park business-rated chalet owners, who would be contributing 15 per cent to that total, and adding in the businesses on the industrial/commercial estates, who also will not benefit from the BID. Without exception, all chalet owners, and particularly those who are offering holiday lets, are actually contributing in a small way to the Dartmouth economy by advertising ­privately and attracting guests to the area who spend in the shops and supermarkets. As for the vast profits that we allegedly make and export from Dartmouth, I leave the readers to judge.