“May I address just four lines of Mr Manney¿s letter and question his ¿hyperbole¿.

¿To sum up, I believe we in the Bay are faced with a deplorable plan to bail out a small organisation, benefiting but a small membership, to allow a massive development of housing in an already densely-housed area for the sake of a huge profit for Bloor Homes, Churston Golf Club and Torbay Council¿,

A ¿deplorable plan¿ perhaps to a dozen or so residents living around the area that is to be sold, but a wonderful plan to most club members or anyone wanting to buy a home in this area and to the hard pressed council needing funding from any source that isn¿t council tax payers.

A ¿small organisation¿ that has an average of 550-650 members in any given year (counting social members); that employs ( at least) 10 full time staff and many more part time staff; that brings income into the bay and pleasure to many; that gives around £15000 a year to charities (many of them local). Small compared to say the NHS I grant you.

A ¿massive development¿ that amounts to around 100-120 dwellings with many of these being small apartments in a single block near the Churston Station corner of the area. Not massive in my experience.

A ¿densely-housed area¿, well if Churston is dense then the spoiled Mr Manney must live on Dartmoor. When I was growing up in Salford I would have given anything to live in a rural area like Churston.

A ¿huge profit¿, well I couldn¿t possibly speak for Bloor Homes but the golf club is getting like for like replacement of clubhouse, land and golfing holes along with elimination of a burdensome debt which resulted from paying £1.65 million to Torbay for the leasehold, money which I feel sure has already held down Mr Manney¿s council tax in recent years.”

“Yes, hole in one, and there is simple arithmetic which even a first year at secondary school can understand.”

“Harry Gorst,as the saying goes." there are lies damned lies and statistics "”

“Did you not do sums at school Hole in One. You can't have it both ways, either you accept the Community Partnership way of working it out which means that 97 per cent of the golf club were in favour of the development because only 9 people of the 310 at the meeting voted against it or you do it the proper way and include in your calculation all the people who did not turn up to the meeting in which case 63% of the membership voted for it. Now, if you assume that the people that didn't turn up could not have been against it or they would have taken the trouble to come to the meeting and vote then we are back to
the 97% which is not an acceptable way of presenting the figures. That was the mistake the Community Partnership made which resulted in them being castigated for the inaccurate presentation of the figures.”

“"just 9 voted against the development"

as reported in the Herald .”

“Nice to see you back Hole in One and as usual you don't seem to be able to get your facts right. 63% of the membership of the club voted for the development, you shouldn't believe what you read from people with a strong vested interest like those living in green lane.

As for Mr Manney, there is not room here to go into detail sufficient to say that there is not one point that is accurate in his letter.

I have one word of advice for Mr Manney, be careful what you wish for. If you knew your facts you would understand that comment.”

“Harry Gorst. Not nearly as biased and dubious as the vote taken by the Churston Golf Club members in support of the development. The next election will sort out most of the dubious politicians as well.”

“Dear Ken Pritchard. After over 40 years in the marketing and advertising business I am sorry to have to tell you that your questionnaire does not match up to professional standards. It would have been surprising had you not received the answers you did. I am not against this type of questionnaire but if you do one in future please ensure that it is professionally produced and then people like me will not be able to question it. There is a reason that market research companies charge large sums of money for doing this sort of thing.
As it stands I have to repeat the the results of your questionnaire are of dubious use.”

“Harry, I wish to make no comment on your overall opinion about the proposed development at the golf club but I must put some facts your way because it seems some of your detailed comments are based on incorrect assumptions or a lack of detailed knowledge of the circumstances.

Firstly, the questionnaire I think you are refering to (I am only aware of one) was not published by "The Gazette" but by the local Community Partnership which I chair. "The Gazette" and the Community Partnership are not formally linked or associated with each other. The Gazette is an independent publication run by local volunteers, nothing to with the Community Partnership (although we do publish a report in each edition as do many local organisations).

Secondly you claim that the questions in that questionnaire were "leading". By way of openess here are the three questions for anyone reading this to judge.

1. "Are you in favour of the proposed sale of this land to Bloor Homes?" (We had identified the land in question in the introduction to the questionnaire.)
2. "Are you in favour of the Dartmouth Road site being developed as described above?" (The introduction described the site & outlined the proposed development as shown by Bloor Homes at their open day.)
3. "Are you in favour of the construction of a proposed new club house and roadway in Churston?" (Again as shown by Bloor at the open day).

There were three options to each question: "Yes", "No" & "No Opinion". There was also a large section (1 side of A4) for people to write any comments they wanted to whether in support of or against the proposals.

I leave it to others to decide whether these are leading questions or not.

Finally you quote a response rate as being less than 25% of "The Gazette" readership. This may well be true (I do not know what "The Gazette" readership is) but as already pointed out this was nothing to do with "The Gazette" so their readership numbers are irrelevant. The response rate was in fact about 31% (504 responses out of 1600 questionnaires). I respect your personal view on whether this is good, bad or indifferent but lets get the numbers correct! For my part I know from experience that this is a relatively high response rate for such a questionnaire.

So, all opinions valuable in what is an important, complex and emotive matter but let's make sure we base those opinions on facts.”

“You would have to be blind not to notice that the Bloor publication wasn't the cheaply produced Galmpton, Churston and Broadsands Gazette. However, there is a much broader concern here.

The Gazette is a community magazine and as such should be communicating with its readers in a balanced way on all subjects. It should not under any circumstances be leading any sort of campaign. Yes, of course, it can report what the RAGS are saying but it also should be reporting the views of those in favour of the proposal and even those who could not care less either way.

It is not as if they have overwhelming support for their views. The questionnaire sent out by the Gazette was poorly prepared and even with the leading questions it contained it only elicited a response which represented less than 25% of the readership.

By nailing their colours to the mast of the RAGS, the Gazette has also managed to manufacture a commercial problem for themselves. The newsletter is supported by many local business with advertising and sponsorship but no businessman wants to be associated with a publication which is likely to antagonise 75% of his customers. In addition, for local businesses, extra housing means extra customers and any business would be foolish to reject the possibility of more income.”