I MUST agree with Stuart Pethick (Letters, September 13) that the questionnaire about Tavistock war memorial was biased, but then they always are.
What was most odd to me was that it seemed to be only half of the question. There was no mention of the vacated site in the Guildhall car park.
Obviously, the council will rejoice at having two more parking spaces, but does that mean we will lose two more trees? This being the main approach to the town would it not be nice to have a whole row of trees and shrubs in front of the cars? And, please, oh, please, could we have two trees, one on each corner of the new square? I know they would need a lot of protection at first, and probably replanting a few times, but it is worth it.
What is a town without trees, and what is a building without detail? A box. I heard that there was a tree or two on the original plans for the square, and that the first submitted plans for the new building by the Alexander Centre showed stone cladding. I know for sure there was supposed to be much more detail on the new library building because they have a brochure in the lobby showing it with an arrow specifically pointing to the decorative panels which would have saved it, had they been applied. I'm suprised somebody hasn't hidden all those brochures.
It costs so little to add that bit extra that turns something purely functional into a thing we all rejoice in for generations. Don't sink the ship for a ha'p'eth of tar.
Simon Mole
Station House, Quant Park
Tavistock
I AM opposed to moving Tavistock War Memorial, and found Mr Pethick's excellent letter in the Times most heartening, though am very disappointed that there appears to be no reaction from the council.
My wife and I have not received a consultation document so have not had the opportunity to voice our opposition to the proposal. This shows that the circulation of the document is such that a true picture of people's wishes will not be obtained.
Ian Wans
Hare Tor, Hawthorn Park
Lydford