THEY say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I described the old Gaumont cinema as ugly.

Mr Reeves believes (Gazette last week) "the rear end can leave a lot to be desired."

I simply do not like 1930s Art Deco. If it came before a planning committee today I believe it would be rejected.

Chippenham, which was once called little Bath, was ruined by many bad planning decisions over several decades.

However, each to his own. Mr Reeves should understand that my letters were seeking to promote a public debate about a public building and to be honest about my personal views.

It is clear that Mr Reeves and I agree completely that the site's future should not be driven by a short term cash gain of about £500,000.

We can all draw comfort that the district council has agreed with my suggestion that the public should be consulted on their property.

It is indeed a jolly good idea to use the building for community use as suggested by MASK and others but we must understand that this will come with a heavy price to all of us as taxpayers.

We know from our experience with the Neeld Hall that lottery money is unlikely to be available. It's worth a try though.

We should also be equally clear that the decision forced through council by the Conservative and Independent group to reject a rescue package for Goldiggers was taken on poor advice that "best value" for the public was to sell the Gaumont site for housing.

I may be wrong about Art Deco but I hope the public will give a big thumbs down to a short-sighted, greedy policy. In the meantime what ought we to do about our inadequate public library?

COUN PHILIP ALLNATT

Lady Coventry Road

Chippenham