The demise of the museum ­proposal for an extension to the Butterwalk, it being less important since alternative exhibition space has been offered, and the planning application now withdrawn, will be both welcomed and regretted.

As to the relative proportions of those opposed views, we will never know. I was looking ­forward to the vigorous discussion about the architectural quality and appropriateness of the project that was bound to ensue, some of it unthinking and spontaneous, some more seriously considered and of later expression.

It is well understood by social scientists that initial instinctive reaction to a controversial proposal is almost always strongly against. They call it change-aversion. The ­initial reaction against the now much-respected Flavel is an example. Similarly, with the museum extension, all the reported opinion in the Chronicle condemns the proposal. But before the matter fades into history, it is proper that views in support should be in the paper so that some future author of the third ‘Chronicles of Dartmouth’ can reflect on the matter.

I am personally strongly in favour of the proposed extension. After a period of careful consideration, as expected of a trustee of the museum asked to allocate significant funding for the project, I became convinced the proposal had merit and was viable. In this deliberation, I had an advantage over Chronicle readers, with more time to think about it and come to a reasoned conclusion that the aesthetic qualities of the extension would improve the quality of the area significantly and be of interest to visitors and of benefit to the town.

And what are those aesthetic qualities? From a study of current successful museum and other civic building extensions, it was apparent that the design had to be contemporary to contrast with the historic building, rather than attempting to mimic it, this being impossible because the extension was to be first floor only and open underneath.

This single-floor requirement was to allow the gable end of this part of the Butterwalk not to be obscured, the opposed end on the frontage in Duke Street having been removed some time before the late 19th century. The extension therefore had to offer a light-­balanced appearance, and glass, which is used extensively in such projects, was, you might say, the clear choice.

The architect met these requirements and produced an initial design that works well and links in visually with the Flavel. It also part-obscures the working rears of the merchants’ houses that originally backed onto a quay. Unless freshly painted, these rears are best described as scruffy, ­somewhat reminiscent of St Saviour’s Court, regarded as a slum and demolished in 1935.

The plans were well-received by Historic England, the uniquely expert body responsible for protecting listed buildings, which gave its approval, commenting on the improvement to the back street that the proposed extension would bring.

Initial discussions with

South Hams District Council ­planning were favourable, and so was a presentation to Dartmouth Town Council, when the museum was asked to submit a planning application. However, the councillors are now unanimously against the project, seemingly a volte-face, but they, of course, are entitled to vote as they wish.

It is a shame we have lost the opportunity to have a debate in a considered and informed way about not just the architectural aspects, but also the potential uses and benefits that a modern building could have for ­educational tools and visitor attraction etc. The town deserves a deeper analysis.

Brian Parker

trustee, Dartmouth Museum