Sir, Tenby Observer recently published correspondence from Phil Baker, a Harbour Commissioner, Community Councillor and the County Council representative for Saundersfoot. Unfortunately, he has accused our campaign of being anonymous, of being critical of development which has already taken place in the village and also of being critical of members of Saundersfoot Community Council. The Victorian Society website provides guidance on how to campaign to save a building. One suggestion is to engage the support of your local councillor, which in our case is not possible, when he has a conflict of interest. We have been accused of being critical of members of the Community Council. It is difficult when another Harbour Commissioner, David McDermott, also sits as a community councillor and fails to declare at council meetings that he has a prejudicial interest, when matters concerning the regeneration programme are discussed. Clr. McDermott only declares a personal interest and as such continues to take part in discussions, instead of leaving the room with Clr. Baker. This prejudicial interest was raised by a supporter of the campaign at the Community Council's September 2014 meeting. Unfortunately, the verbal response from Clr. McDermott has resulted in the supporter feeling it necessary to lodge a complaint. Having sought guidance and confirmed that Clr. McDermott has a prejudicial interest, the campaign wrote to the Community Council on October 7, expressing concerns and asked that they themselves sought clarification on this matter before the next monthly meeting took place. Our correspondence and concerns were not raised at the monthly meeting held November 6. However, on November 15, we received correspondence from the Community Council confirming that after seeking advice, Clr. McDermott would in future be declaring a prejudicial interest and vacating the room when matters concerning the regeneration programme are raised. However, he has already taken part and expressed his views at meetings held in September, October and November. As a campaign, all we seek is a fair and democratic process when discussing the future of the Coal Office and its adjoining gardens. With regard to the claim that our campaign is anonymous, our Facebook page displays the name and often a photograph of the supporter who is posting comments. Since August, at least one of the campaign's supporters has been present at every Community Council meeting to observe and sometimes comment when the public are invited to do so. Clr. Baker claims the campaign has made 'a sideswipe at massive investment in Saundersfoot'. Our campaign is objecting to the proposals to demolish the Coal Office and its adjoining gardens to provide car parking spaces. Saundersfoot Community Council issued a statement in August making it clear that, like the rest of the community, they have no desire for any such change to take place. It is unfortunate that our County Councillor is not of the same view and the community is being denied the support of our elected representative due to his prejudicial interest as a Harbour Commissioner. Many of our supporters have expressed their concerns that the proposals are already further advanced than we are aware, towards submission as a planning application. At their meeting on November 6, Saundersfoot Community Council had received correspondence from Martin White, head of regeneration at Pembrokeshire County Council. A further presentation is now to be given to stakeholders by planning consultants The Urbanists. Our Community Council have responded to the letter asking that the presentation is made available to members of the public. As a campaign we welcome and support such a request. A strong vocal objection to these proposals needs to be maintained. Pembrokeshire County Council may have no further use for this building but that does not mean the building itself is of no further use. Save Saundersfoot Coal Office