SIR  — I have been instructed to respond on behalf of Watchet Town Council to the letter published last week under the headline “The most inauspicious and tragic end”.

The writer seeks to perpetuate the myth that the Watchet Council Chamber was gifted to the people of Watchet and claims the consultation that the town council held into the future of the chamber was “botched”.

There are other points contained in the letter which seek to put the council in a poor light and the town council wishes to refute them.

The council has acted with regard to this matter in good faith, in an open and transparent manner and has clearly documented its actions for the public to see.

As has been stated on previous occasions in these pages, the chamber was leased from the Wyndham Estate and then purchased from them in 1992 for £8,500.

Considerable efforts were made, as also detailed in these pages, to reach as many as possible in the town to inform them that the consultation on the council chamber was underway.

The writer wrote of the desire of some in the town to save the building for community use.

As the council understands it, there was no offer of support in response to this appeal.

The council set up a working group to advise on the future use of the building. It was made clear that the council was open to approaches from community groups as far back as February 2016.

A meeting was held with representatives of community groups before the decision was made to put the building up for sale.

At that meeting it was clear that there was no proposal of substance for the council to consider. Therefore the decision was made to offer the building for sale in “as is” condition.

An offer to purchase the building was accepted on the basis of it representing best value as the council is required by law to ensure.

This offer was later withdrawn and the next best offer was accepted.

Until this offer has reached the exchange of contracts stage, the council is unable to comment further on the matter.

This does not suggest any lack of regard for the building but a need to deal with the sale in the manner fairest to those who have made offers to purchase. It would not be appropriate for a town councillor to comment on the merits of any offer.

The writer’s comments about picnic tables and the fate of the chairman’s chair also misrepresent the facts.

The chair donated by Vic Danby is respected and valued and is still used for the meetings of the full council.

Rather than put the chair on display where it might be sat on by members of the public in the Boat Museum or the Visitor Centre and possibly damaged, the council stores the chair safely between meetings.

The council meets around tables set up for each meeting and I can assure the writer that they are more substantial that those conjured up by his use of the term “picnic tables”; neither do we use folding chairs.

The honour boards listing the names of former council chairman are on display in the Visitor Centre where the council meets, and the council continues to debate its affairs with the appropriate gravitas in a room which is more welcoming to visitors than the former chamber ever was.

I hope that the writer and others understand that the building will continue to be protected by its listed building status, the existing covenants contained in the deeds of the property and additional measures being taken by the council as part of the sale process to protect the heritage assets of the building.

Sarah Reed,

Town Clerk,

Watchet Town Council.