RS WYNEE, of Vavasours Slip, Dartmouth, writes:

We should all have reason to be concerned over your front page headline of the Friday, June 8, entitled 'I'll leave town with 'dump' flats'. You have also recently published my letter, issue 17th February 2012, which had expressed many of the localities concerns over this development at that time – which still holds true.

Matters have recently escalated when a 'start on site' was made – closely followed by the very long 'stop on site'. This has left the area in a deplorable state and most probably only done to achieve a definitive 'start on site' date for planning control purposes.

However, with little or no progress for several months, the eyesore of the ambulance station has been turned into even worse building site chaos for us all to look at and appreciate.

The developer has previously stated how he loves Dartmouth – I personally do not appreciate his new vision to improve our town either at present or into the future.

I am unclear which planning approval is referred to in your article. The original planning permission was in the 1970s for the additional four flats to complete the Vavasour House development or, more recently in approx 2008/9, for six flats and associated six parking spaces.

In the more recent of these applications concerns were expressed by Dartmouth Town Council and South Hams Council and the application refused.

However the then applicant considered he knew better than the officials in charge the type of development Dartmouth needed and he appealed that decision.

The inspector duly arrived from Bristol and this appeal hearing overturned the council's rejection.

However, that developer decided to sell on and the present developer has described the current planning permission was for 'dump' flats – as the locality and the councils had realised – but he now wishes to proceed with a development which is, in essence, very similar but with reworked elevations.

Some of our concerns – external finishes, highway and safety problems – have been very slightly improved but saying that the height has been reduced is only minimal and, in fact, the bulk of the elevation area has increased due to even more intrusion into the skyline mainly from the larger penthouse flat with the Japanese roof garden.

Do I need to remind anyone that these so called 'dump' flats, if built, will start with a lowest price in the region of £500,000 to £600,000 for the rear two flats – overlooking the park and the Ship in Dock's bed and breakfast windows and with no sunlight into any main room – and considerably more, possibly £800,000-plus, for the four flats facing the river – with minimal sunlight to the lounge in the morning.

The south elevation, facing the town, has no windows into any room on that side due to the building being right on the land boundary with Vavasour House. With the present developer's new proposals, the prices may well be in excess of the above figures – all with one car parking space for each of the flats. This is such great planning for the future and should guarantee a large income if parking meters are imposed – or even more street parking demand.

It is apparent that the previous application was registered, went through the planning process and subsequent appeal because that developer had earlier agreed a Section 106. The new application will not even be registered by South Hams without the developer agreeing to a similar Section 106 payment.

The new applicant is experienced enough to have known full well before his site purchase that the development would attract such a payment.

He is incorrect to state that he has to pay the amount, which equates to £25,000 per flat, as it will, of course, be added to the selling price being asked. Yes it will increase the cost of the flats but it is the new flat owners who will, indirectly, have paid for the Section 106 requirement.

The great shame of this whole sorry story is that none of the architects or developers involved have seen the great opportunity to develop the park elevation in the style in sympathy with the listed Ridge Hill properties and the Ship In Dock and thus finish that whole facade from the park viewpoint while, perhaps, still being ultra modern to the river frontage and within the properties.

It will not surprise anyone that South Hams Council is so insistent on such payment being agreed to - while not being strong, at the original design stages, with its contact or meetings with the developers and architects as to what is acceptable, even desirable, to the local community and thus missed a great opportunity.

Do we need such a 'landmark' building there? I suggest not.

The locality deserves a better development for this important site than either the approved or the new proposal offers but this, unfortunately, is not what you get in the profit-driven world we live in.

Developers can and do ride roughshod over the decisions determined by those whom we employ or whom we take the trouble to vote to represent us.

And to make matters worse the previous applicant, by winning the appeal, would have been awarded costs and expenses to be paid by the council – meaning us the tax payers.