ANA Pultenay's remarks as reported in Okehampton Times of last week concerning lack of consultation over matters affecting the town, confirm the strongly held views of many townspeople.

For several weeks this recurring theme has appeared in letters to your paper, all supporting Mrs Pultenay's beliefs.

It is not sufficient to put on a short exhibition of artists' ideas and invite comment at the time of the visit. This does not constitute consultation.

Often, ideas which appear attractive when well presented do not, on more careful consideration, stand up to financial examination.

At the end of the day it is all down to money and more particularly, who pays!

The present difficulties in the town such as St James Church and the proposed supermarket are the subjects of much comment.

This will all pale into insignificance unless a great deal more public participation takes place in respect of the pleasure grounds.

At a public meeting on February 29 this year the majority opinion appeared to be against proposals for a new swimming pool on the site of the existing tennis courts.

Yet we are led to understand that despite those feelings, plans have gone forward for lottery funding to go ahead.

It is fair to point out that at this time any such plans are in the concept stage, so nothing is in the contractual position as yet.

The more interesting questions are:

l Who actually has seen what has gone forward?

l Do the people of the town know what is proposed?

l Finally, do they really care or will they sit back, let it happened then complain!

The pleasure ground is not simply for those who use the excellent bowling club, the tennis courts and putting green, it is equally important to the people who enjoy its peace and panoramic setting; their opinions must be considered; in short, exactly what consultation is — a commodity appearing to be in short supply at the moment, but by no means difficult to rectify.

Ted Cann

11 Exeter Road

Okehampton