Sir,

I commend people for taking an interest in town affairs and taking the time to write into the papers; it's just a shame they don't know the full facts.

The council put the De Valence Pavilion on the market for feelers, basically to see who came forward and what ideas were out there.

The reason for this was to try and reduce the council outgoings and save the council tax payers money.

So far.

Mr. Harris and the Cinema: Mr. Harris wanted the town council to pay for the refurbishment of the De Valence turning it into a cinema; then he intended to put his son in to run it.

This would have cost the council in the region of £75,000.

Fact: This would not have saved the council tax payers money.

Then there was the national company who wanted to buy the De Valence.

Unfortunately, the offer, after paying a third of this money to the county council, would have meant the town council would not be able to afford a premises in which to continue.

Silent World: Their initial proposal was that they have the first 12 months rent-free, the second 12 months for £15,000, then the third year they would pay £30,000 rent. I personally feel this could be deemed unethical, as I am sure there are many businesses in the town that would jump at the chance of a one-year rent-free premises.

All this while the council would be paying council tax and the upkeep of the De Valence.

As I said, we put the feelers out to try and save the council tax payers money.

The schemes would ultimately cost the council tax payers money.

We all sit around this table voluntarily, giving up our time, for no payment whatsoever. For things that we believe in.

I for one have struggled with ill-health for the past several years, but still give up my time for the benefit of Tenby and its people.

I don't think it's fair for people to judge councillors when they are at least trying their level best to make a difference and look after the council tax payers best interests without losing our only concrete asset.

Clr. Mrs. Sue Lane,

Tenby.