SIR — I refer to your report on David Gliddon's proposal for a new supermarket in Williton.

His earlier proposal for a mixed development of refurbished retail accommodation and circa 90 homes comprised two phases which would utilise the land to the rear of his family business which fronts onto Bank Street.

The current proposal to develop a superstore to the rear of the site, complete with its parking spaces, implies that he is prepared to sacrifice phase two of his proposed residential development.

The gross area set aside for phase two of his proposed residential development is approximately 3500 sq m. Using the proposed "net" sales area of 1366 sq m, referred to in the article, and allowing 12.5m per parking bay (net of circulation), the 3500 sq m site area is quickly accounted for.

One has to assume that vehicular access to the proposed superstore, both for customers and delivery vehicles, would be via the service road to phase one of the proposed residential development, which leads off Bank Street. Hardly a pleasant scenario for the occupants of those dwellings.

Mr Gliddon makes reference to a pedestrian access to Fore Street. Does he intend to purchase Lloyds Bank or some such other commercial enterprise?

Further, does he really imagine that those people who have driven to shop at a superstore will then take the trouble to walk through to Fore Street?

I also find it somewhat ironic for him to state that Williton has gone backwards over the last 30 years.

There are now two industrial estates, albeit not fully occupied, and business opportunities are there if people want to take them.

To compare Williton with urban centres such as Minehead, Bridgwater and Taunton is somewhat fallacious. They are towns. Williton is not a town.

A major superstore would destroy the heart of the village, which is something Mr Gliddon claims his desire to support.

I note he states that a superstore of this size would help the "majority" of local businesses to thrive. What about the "minority"?

Traditionally people living in rural communities here always travelled to the urban centres for their employment.

A superstore might at best provide 50 or so job opportunities, but there would still be a net imbalance when one takes into account the likely number of occupants for phase one of his proposed residential development.

It is well known that superstores have a tendancy to employ their staff on a part-time basis. This would potentially mean that people currently employed in the village on a full-time basis would be down-grading their hours should they secure employment with the proposed superstore.

To claim, as Mr Gliddon does, that he is trying to protect the village is somewhat of a misnomer. This is simply a potential business opportunity.

A truly philanthropic gesture would be to make a substantial contribution to the long awaited and overdue village hall.

In conclusion, one cannot help but empathise with the thoughts expressed by Mrs Brooks in your last issue concerning the proposed Morrisons development at Minehead.

Roger House,

Minehead.