EU’S in no position to point the finger

on Wednesday last rejected the Fragrance Hotel Development primarily because of the impact that the massive extension would have had upon local residents.

The overwhelming building would take away their sky view and daylight and the reflected light from the lovely Bath Stone Min rear wall.

However, only one councillor talked of the biodiversity loss involved and was keen that there should be a biodiversity gain in the development plan.

It was nonsense for the consultants defending the developers’ proposal to claim there was no biodiversity loss when they were intending to destroy entirely the rich mature “Therapeutic” garden of the Min and exchange a third of this space with the extension building, which would extend over the car park as well.

The rest of the Min garden was to be a flagstoned space with a few new plants and trees.

They also intended it solely to be available to the customers of the hotel and its restaurant and spa.

Only with no hotel extension at all and conversion of the car park into a publicly available garden adjoining the existing garden, can there be a significant biodiversity gain and the Ecological Emergency Declaration of B&NES Council in July be fulfilled.

That declaration obliges councillors to make all decisions in accordance with this Core Policy which is intended to “protect our wildlife

and habitats and enable residents to benefit from a green, nature-rich environment.”

The carbon footprint on removing the garden and the loss of many species of birds and the bats that visit would totally oppose the declaration and must not be allowed to happen whatever new proposal is made.

During the Napoleonic War, (writes Pete Milory, Chronicle letters, 24 September), Napoleon referred to Great Britain as Perfidious Albion,” that no one should trust Britain.

Good Lord mon General, who are you, ‘who set Europe on fire,’ to preach to anyone, let alone Great Britain, whose brave heroes Nelson and Wellington ensured that Europe was finally rid of your destructive presence?

Then, Pete Milory adds that “having had Brexit .... the [UK] government thinks it is a good idea to negate an international agreement.

Maybe that’s because the EU has been in material breach of its own obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, nor has it acted in good faith.