Cllr Tony Fyson, of Above Town, Dartmouth, writes: It is disappointing that ­dissent has broken out so soon after Dartmouth Town Council agreed a long-term strategy to put the Guildhall on a sound financial footing. The approved programme will support the proper running of the town's affairs and conservation of a listed building and, not least, benefit the town's taxpayers. A working group investigated the options thoroughly, including selling the building, and established that the most ­economical way forward would be to retain the premises as the place where the council and its committees meet and where our hard-working staff are employed. Appropriate ­alternative accommodation, if it could be found, would be ­prohibitively expensive and would preclude the possibility of generating significant income to offset against costs. References to gross expenditure over a 10-year period, which is where the imaginary total of £400,000 or £350,000 comes from, are wildly misleading. Already income in this first year of the programme looks set to reach around 25 per cent of the planned expenditure. The net figure is what matters, and in the early years is bound to include necessary investment, for example in improved kitchen and lift installations. The Guildhall is a public asset with considerable potential. It is part of Dartmouth's heritage and its ballroom and associated facilities, along with the council chamber, large meeting room, mayor's parlour, historic regalia and portraits, make it an administrative and community centre that is unique and largely unknown to most residents, let alone to ­visitors. As such it does not compete damagingly with other facilities in the town; but even if it did, taxpayers would doubtless take a dim view if we failed to move it as far towards profitability as possible. It does have to be marketed properly, however. In the first instance, the council is looking to respond positively to a ­suggestion from the Business Improvement District team that shared marketing expenditure could be arranged to the ­mutual advantage of various town facilities. My colleague, Cllr Cawley, makes a useful point about improving our business planning in these early days. Rather than resigning from the group, he might consider helping us to move forward on this issue, although I am bound to note that he promoted enthusiastically his own suggestion for a small business hub in the Clifton Room without any such supporting business rationale.