PETER NORTON of Dartmouth Court, Oxford Street, Dartmouth, writes:

The future of the Guildhall is, quite rightly, under consideration in view of its running cost, its low level of use and the estimated cost of essential and urgent repair and upgrading.

The discussion at the town council meeting on Monday was depressing.

Clearly some of the councillors had made up their minds without considering all the relevant factors.

Indeed one might have gotten the impression that the main reason to sell was to cover the unfunded promise to contribute to the proposed covered pool.

Little, if any, thought appears to have been given to where the office and council meetings would be held or what the views are of the people of Dartmouth on the matter.

A note of realism came from Cllr Gaukroger, who suggested that an independent expert study should be commissioned without delay so that an informed decision could be made.

This received some support in a recorded vote but was defeated.

The mayor then invited Cllr Hawke to propose a 'amendment' notwithstanding that you do not amend a defeated motion.

The amendment was put to the meeting as 'the council should apply for planning permission to sell the Guildhall' – a nonsense in itself since a planning application needs to set out specific physical intentions and in any case is not a pre-requisite for a simple sale.

The motion was however put and carried as an amendment and again as a substantive resolution, both as recorded votes.

What a mess! I dread to think how the unfortunate staff will record the debate in the minutes and particularly how they will implement the decision.