Gould Road Gas site Application no 41/2364/13/F
3 years ago the town came together in a spirited defence of the Croft fields against the suggestion by the Princes Foundation that Salcombe future housing should be positioned on the site behind the former Gas holder site and that the access road would go through the Gas site.
The current application for 5 houses on the gas site needs to be opposed in a similar fashion. The applicant claims that no one was interested in using the site for commercail purposes. This is not true as I (amongst others) was trying to buy the site to use as a boatyard for local employment.
The applicant knew before he purchased it that the site was allocated only for employment purposes and he has overpaid for it in the hope of getting permission for housing.
Please oppose this application and enure that it is used for the purpose it was allocated for.
comments submitted to SHDC by Peter Goldsworthy
Quite right. The place of work determines whether a home is first or second. The more people working here, the more first homes and the fewer second home there will be. The provision of employment is the only way to keep up the level of first homes, which is why building affordable homes without there being any jobs doesn´t work.
I agree with you on your objection and I also have registered mine. We have been searching for premises for many years without any luck. I looked into the gasworks and found that the pricing was prohibitive for commercial investment and totally based on building holiday homes under the guise of no business interests, which is not true in my opinion and experience. It seems Salcombe planners are obsessed with building homes for failing but failing to focus on the local economy, both of which must go hand-in-hand
I can remember the gasworks gasometer - showing my age! The LAST thing Salcombe needs are more yuppie pads to add (mainly) to the developers´ coffers. It need affordable housing for true locals who work in the town all year around. It is about time yuppie pads were outlawed and that Salcombe developments aim at benefitting true locals instead of developers and those with more money than sense.
The approval has recently gone to appeal. In my view it needs to be rejected if people want to stop developers simply lining their pockets. Salcombe developments should benefit the people who live and work here. The first stage is to ensure the appeal is kicked into the long grass.