At the end of Paul Reach’s opinion piece published in last week’s Chronicle, he said

he does not believe that Dartmouth is safe in the hands of our town council.

I do not know whether all of Dartmouth Town Council’s decisions have been correct. Probably not – we all make ­mistakes. However, I have no doubt that council members are trying to do what is best for the town at a very difficult time.

Local government is under such huge financial pressure that it is barely able to fulfil its statutory obligations. These do not include the provision of such amenities as public lavatories, parks and swimming pools, and there is a realistic possibility that South Hams District Council may have to withdraw support for these ­services. For a town based so heavily on tourism, this would cause great economic damage.

Our town council appears to be doing its best to ensure

that Dartmouth can preserve ­services that are desirable – and in some cases vital if we are to attract visitors.

Of course, this may cause Dartmouth a degree of financial stress in the future, but the council has the, to my mind correct, view that taking action is less risky than doing nothing.

I question whether Mr Reach is the right person to be ­lecturing our councillors. The Dartmouth Business Improve­ment District was certainly not in safe hands when he was its chairman. Because incorrect information was provided and communication was poor, the BID completely failed to gain the support of business rate-payers and had to be ­dissolved.

As an indication of Mr Reach’s judgement, I will share with you that, not many years ago, he tried to convince me that Coronation Park should be converted into a car park.

If Paul Reach wishes to ­influence the decisions of Dartmouth Town Council, he should get himself elected, if he can; but he will need to explain what he would do to ensure Dartmouth’s future, rather than ­condemning the decisions of those who have been elected to make them.

Tim Hailstone

Stoke Fleming