I WRITE to respond to your article on page 23 of your last issue: "Who printed mystery handbills about Pedlarspool site?"

I happen to know that the person who circulated these handbills was not present at the Parish meeting because she had not been allowed access. Indeed if she had been, I am sure she would have "owned up" to this as it was innocently done.

A number of residents from Upton Hellions and the Beech Park area of Crediton fiercely object to the proposals to develop this 50 acre site with housing and industrial units.

The reasons for our objections are numerous, but I would think that most Crediton residents would not wish for urban sprawl on this scale, without the infrastructure to support it, and in a river valley of such beauty.

The "Floodplain campaign" is so called as it seems to have passed the planners by, that in the last year the field North of Pedlarspool Lane has flooded on several occasions which would suggest to us, that it is unsuitable for housing.

The reason for our presence at the parish meeting was that none of us had been made aware of the proposals. All the people directly overlooking the site had not had the courtesy of being informed.

We also believed that Sandford residents were not aware either and we wanted to let them know, through formal channels i.e. the parish meeting, that this site is in their parish and will have big implications for their way of life.

Far from simply being at the consultation stage as suggested by Mr Harvey, the vice chairman, the final date for objections was on January 13 2009. At the time of this parish meeting the plans were to be concluded at the MDDC planning committee meeting on April 15 and, if passed, would go through to the Secretary of State.

We understand now that this date has been put back to July/August 2009. Our campaign will, therefore, have the time to put together a cogent and serious case against the use of this site in the hope that it will go no further.

We believe that there has been a complete failure in the consultation process. There is no use in saying "we tried to consult but no-one listens" which is what we are being told. The fact that so many people did not know and are now up in arms shows that no real attempt was made.

The same is true for the people affected by the Link Road in Crediton.

The MDDC Preferred Options Document for Crediton included Pedlarspool, but because it is beyond the ridge that forms the boundary of the town, there is some measure of "out of sight, out of mind" for the people of Crediton.

Even residents of Sandford and Upton Hellions would not have known the name of this area. As it was, the site was not included in the Preferred Options Document for Sandford, in whose parish the site is located.

It could be perceived by many that this was a deliberate deception on the part of the MDDC. If no-one objects, then the plans will go through, and the Government housing quotas met.

I have written to the Sandford Parish Council apologising for what to then seemed an invasion. In fact, it was really an attempt to alert them to the potential disaster on their doorstep and an offer to work with them to oppose it. I can only hope that now the seriousness of the situation is clear.

Sue Keogh

On behalf of the

Floodplain Campaign

Three Graces

Upton Hellions

Crediton