A South Hams district councillor has responded to claims that the eviction of caravan dwellers near Totnes amounted to a “targeted attack”.

Cllr John McKay, ward member for West Dart, wrote to the South Hams Gazette to address a previous article featuring the evicted residents’ opinions and to defend the council’s actions.

In that previous report, residents criticised the council following the removal of caravans from land near Green Lane.

However, in a letter, Cllr McKay challenged the narrative presented by the occupiers.

“While I recognise that feelings run high at a time like this, I don’t think the content of this article can go unchallenged,” he stated.

The councillor was particularly critical of the philosophical stance taken by some residents regarding state authority. He pointed to statements suggesting the eviction highlighted a tension between ‘bureaucratic systems and those choosing to live outside them’.

“There is no functioning society that does not require its members to obey its rules, and we are lucky to live in one where its rules are not too onerous, and we are able to influence them through the democratic process,” McKay argued.

He continued: “I’m afraid I have absolutely no time for anybody who declares they do not recognise the authority of the state. It is a wholly ignorant position and is premised on some pseudo-legal nonsense that is not ‘alternative’, it is simply wrong.”

He specifically addressed the concept of "Freemen of the Land," stating that such labels do not provide a "‘Get Out of Jail’ card".

While one resident claims to live “privately” rather than in the “public domain,” McKay maintained that the removal of this site was not an injustice.

McKay insisted enforcement action was a last resort, saying the lengthy timeline reflected attempts to resolve the situation, but claimed the main occupier of the site refused to engage.

Discussing a different resident, McKay added: “Mr Holland says the [eviction] case was ‘full of holes’, so he might have won. But he simply refused to recognise the Council’s authority or acknowledge the process that was underway.”

Mr Holland was not in the country at the time of the eviction notice, case hearing, or forceful eviction.

The councillor also disputed claims that alternative accommodation was withheld.

“As for the claim that alternative accommodation was not offered, that is nonsense. The Council has a legally binding duty to do so, never mind an obvious moral duty,” he said.

Mr Holland insisted he was never spoken to by the council, and another resident said the offers made were “not appropriate”.

While acknowledging that other caravan sites in the district operate without issue, he insisted this encampment had become a problem that “required resolution” - citing complaints from locals.

“It simply is not acceptable to display signs like ‘F*** Off’ or to shout at people as they pass… ever,” he wrote, adding that officers eventually felt they could not visit the site without a police presence.

Residents deny allegations of intimidation, stating that no criminal charges or formal enforcement actions were brought against them.

Since news of the eviction broke, social media comments have been largely supportive of the removed residents, with many calling them “friendly people” who kept the site “tidy.”

William Holland was informed of Cllr McKay’s response but chose not to add a comment.