OH dear, vituperation and ingenuousness are the only responses by town councillors to a letter criticising the taking over of The Laverton by Westbury Town Council.

I actually attended the meeting on November 3 when the decision was taken, and none of the documents the mayor refers to in his letter (Wiltshire Times, November 21) were mentioned or quoted all debate was based on the 'business plan'.

This consists of seven, A4 pages, five of which are background information on the history of the building and its accommodation.

The two financial pages are thin and implausible and make no reference to any documentation used in the production of the subsequent figures.

A 'worse case scenario' is assumed which, to bring the hall up to modern standards, would cost £135,000; this sum is not justified. Possible grants, totalling £49k are listed, leaving £86k to be found from a one-off town council precept of £26 per household in 2004/2005.

Estimates of possible income are made over the next three years suggesting increases of 50 per cent, 37 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. How can these figures be justified particularly as no survey of prospective use has been carried out?

If the five-year budget is based on 'income and cost estimates compiled by a management team' (Russell Hawker letter, same page) why did Gordon King, who proposed the motion and spoke passionately and emotionally about The Laverton, admit the financial plan was a 'guesstimate'?

The mayor quotes his survey, carried out at the Paragon on November 1, when 50 per cent of those asked said they wished the town council to take over The Laverton but how many were consulted? Approximately 120. Is this the considered view of the council tax payers of Westbury? I suggest not.

Why didn't the town council have the courtesy to consult all its householders through a referendum, like other west Wiltshire towns? And the 'overwhelming vote' to pay 50p a week for the privilege well, that is also interesting: the alternative questions were to pay £1 or £2 per week, no wonder the vote was overwhelming.

Only half of those who wanted to take over the hall, i.e. 31 out of 61, were prepared to pay for it, even at 50p per week.

Although one can appreciate the architectural merits of the building, should the council tax payers of Westbury fork out £26 for an ill-thought out and inadequately costed proposal which could easily be the Westbury White Elephant?

P Biggs

All Saints Crescent

Westbury