Friday conundrum

This is one to ponder on while you enjoy the sunshine....

Seaton has a thriving tourist base (let's leave the holiday camp "viability" question aside, it should not appear in any EDDC report - the fact that it does raises some bias/prejudice issues.). It is proposed to remove the large majority of overnight beds here and put them elsewhere in the region...thereby allegedly getting the SW Tourism people off respective backs. So the town, as I see it, becomes a residential backwater with (and no disrespect to them) birdwatchers as the long term tourism revenue stream.
The tourist who brings money to the town is the one who can't be bothered with bringing his/her own flask of coffee and sandwiches, the one we should be after is the one that brings his suitcase for a few days and lives in the town for food etc. Won't be possible if this plan goes ahead, this to me, throws doubt on the viability of having a visitors centre anyway (I'm a resident, I might go ooh, once).
It seems we're having a proposal to give something to the town to encourage tourism, but removing the facility of the town that will generate money, and as local traders would rather see money staying in town as long as possible, they get a whammy by a supersize store that whips a lot of that off to city boardrooms.

OK, I've soapboxed this enough, the thing to think about is this...
Hollybush Hotels own the holiday camp, their core business is Hotels eg The Prince Regent in Weymouth. If the visitor's centre (and town) relies on thousands of visitors and there is no overnight accommodation, how come there is no plan to include a hotel in this application from day one?