Sir,

As I feared, my letter of April 5, calling for more objectivity over the issue of the proposed Civic Amenity Site has produced further emotive rhetoric, which does little to advance the campaign to protect Brooklands Home.

First, may I place on record my sincere respect for the staff of the home and the excellent standard of care that is provided. The residents have my deepest sympathy and compassion. Life is not fair.

The basic facts are that the current CAS site in the Salterns is no longer fit for purpose and it has to be relocated. After some six years of search the PCC appear to have concluded that the site adjacent to the Brooklands Home is the most viable available. Whilst that might be unpalatable to most of us, the PCC has to take into consideration the needs of all the residents in the Tenby area. If there were no suitable site in the Tenby area then everyone, including builders, carpenters and painters, would have to travel to Pembroke Dock to dispose of waste with additional costs to be borne by everyone.

With justification, a campaign was launched by the home to object to this proposal and the campaign has gained considerable and deserved emotive support, However, I fear, that it is not enough to defeat the proposal. Hence the need to marshal a more objective campaign.

I would suggest using the Freedom of Information Act to establish the criteria for a new site and a list of all the potential sites that have been reviewed and the reasons that they were discarded. Then utilise the local knowledge of supporters to try and positively identify a viable alternative. This I would suggest would be far more productive than just crying anywhere but here.

The anonymous correspondent from Newell Hill suggested the Salterns Car Park, which they feel is under-utilised. However, there was a study published some three years ago that concluded that, with the present rate of erosion, the sea will break through The Burrows by the end of this decade and most of the Salterns will be subject to tidal waters - who knows perhaps Newell Hill will become sea-front properties.

I fully accept that Mr. Bridge, as manager of Brooklands Home, is far more cognisant of the needs of patients with dementia, therefore I was somewhat disappointed that he chose to quote sources which are basically staff guidelines for the identification and treatment of patients with dementia. Agreed McManus & McClenaghan does conclude that 'a good acoustic environment can support inclusion and reduce confusion in people with dementia' but, whilst this could be extended to the current issue, the paper is directed at the internal environment of a care home. Any published study on the location of care homes and the potential adverse impact of adjacent development would, almost certainly, resolve the issue in favour of Brooklands Home.

I would thank Mr. Bridge for his kind invite to visit Brooklands Home, but I have already done so - I do try to do some homework before 'putting pen to paper' and do not require to be further educated by him. However, it did strike me that for a facility that requires 'peace and tranquility', it is unfortunate that Brooklands was established in a premises fronting onto a busy, major road.

Some of your correspondents suggested that I would not like the new CAS site to be located next to my home and I totally agree with them. However, if it were the case, then I would seek facts to support a coherent and logic based objection and, if that failed, then I would enter negotiation with the PCC to ameliorate the impact and seek compensation for the potential affect upon my lifestyle and the impact on the value of my property which, incidentally, is not in 'Cloud Cuckoo Land'.

John H.T. Griffiths,

Tenby.