Sir,

I'd like to respond to an anonymous letter in last week's column, 'Unacceptable intrusion', which spoke of my perceived support for the relocation of the Tenby civic amenity site to land next to Brooklands Nursing Home near New Hedges.

Just because I haven't spoken out against it, it doesn't mean I'm in support of it. I'm the neighbouring councillor and since I first heard about the plans at the beginning of July, I've sought as much information as I can. It was because of a request I made with Clrs. Phil Baker (Saundersfoot) and Jonathan Preston (Penally and New Hedges) that a meeting was arranged for neighbouring residents and members of surrounding community councils to see the plans for the project and meet the county council's officers.

The meeting was subsequently held at particularly short notice to the invitees who were notified in a letter from the council addressed: 'Dear Householder', whilst some close-by residents only heard about the meeting by word of mouth. These observations serve to underline the perception that the views of those potentially affected come secondary to recycling targets and funding provisions.

During the meeting, a number of potential health fears were raised by an agent acting on behalf of Brooklands, and I asked him to be more specific on the effects this proposal might have on the patients. My curiosity wasn't met kindly, and the agent responded: 'are you an expert on mental health then?' I answered no, and that it was because of this that I wanted to know the facts. At the end of the meeting, I gave my contact card to the Brooklands management and their agent, asking - not offering - but asking if they could explain their concerns to me in detail.

They got in touch, and arranged for Clr. Preston and I to see them on the same day the anonymous letter was published, where we were shown (among other things) three independent letters of objection from health professionals. Earlier that week, I also attended a meeting of Tenby Town Council to hear their discussions over this proposal, which you covered on page15.

If anonymous still believes I am overlooking the plight of the residents or isn't convinced that I am treating this matter seriously enough, he/she might also be interested to know that my grandmother is a very happy and well looked-after resident at Brooklands.

I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion either way, and would like anonymous to know that I have my own reservations, and that I'm not blocking out the concerns of others either.

Letters columns like this are a vital tool in getting public opinion across to officers, elected representatives, and most importantly in this case: to the 18 members of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.

If the council pushes ahead for planning permission, it is the 18 members of PCNPA who will vote to decide this application - and I hope they won't overlook the well-supported and growing number of concerns.

We're told that whatever happens, the Salterns civic amenity site is definitely going to be closed down, and unless this proposed state-of-the-art facility can go next to Brooklands, it will simply not be replaced as there is 'no Plan B.'

I think it would be brilliant to have a modern civic amenity facility serving this part of the county, a view I share with many others, including Brooklands.

However, as much as I support the idea behind the proposal, I believe it would be more appropriate for land that isn't located next to such a sensitive site.

Jacob Williams,

County Councillor for East Williamston,

New Park,

Wooden.