WE were dismayed to see the unanimous refusal of all three planning applications for Spitalcroft reported as 'gearing up for an expensive public inquiry' implying irresponsibility on behalf of Kennet District Council in turning this down.

This is a gross distortion of the truth. If there is another public inquiry into the future of Spitalcroft, it will only be at the developer's request. This is the result of a deeply flawed planning system which allows developers to continually submit any number of planning applications to the council (often two at a time) in the hope that the councillors, the planning department and local campaigners will become dispirited and worn down, short of time, effort and money, and will give in to their demands.

Spitalcroft allotment site was sold by the church after being in production for many years. Allotment holders were told to leave, and the land left unused in the main, in the hope this will give them a right to develop.

As stated by a councillor at the meeting last week "This is not wanted by anyone in the community". Some people wanted part of the site as a park. Far from being fought for by '"just a few allotment holders" as claimed by Cathryn Martin (letter, Gazette & Herald October 16), this loss was bitterly opposed by local people and was won fair and square on planning arguments. The ground proposed for replacement allotments is no substitute for the soil and sheltered site enjoyed at Spitalcroft.

Allotments are a way to guarantee good productive land is available for local food for generations to come.

There is a system for the public to participate in planning and Kennet have been rigorous in their attempts to seek views on the Local Plan. Developers were asked to submit any housing sites for consideration through this. The owners/developers of Spitalcroft chose not to submit their site for consideration at that time, although their desire to build on it was well known. Thus, the only system which guaranteed that our views were considered in comparing possible future housing sites was evaded. Unlike those who fought them, they have the money to force their way through the planning system.

The fact that Ms Martin found a shortage of first-time buyer properties is something we've long campaigned against.

Money spent opposing 'bully boys' trying to force through development to further spoil our town is council tax well spent.

MRS C CARVER

Devizes & Marlborough Friends of the Earth