SIR — Having read the report 'Hinkley C safety to take a back seat' (Free Press July 1) I feel there are some unanswered questions.

It states: "Certain work streams will have to be sacrificed in favour of the more technical side of the operation. One of these work streams is public safety."

I appreciate the relevant councils are strapped for cash and realise they may be looking at the best interests of the taxpayer, but safety of this nature cannot be compromised by money.

I note the three authorities have been provided with cash from EDF - I do wonder if the money they have offered is insufficient, in which case there is a need to review the financial costing of this part of the scheme with EDF.

It appears the three local authorities are being pushed to prioritise pre-existing demands that are in the pipeline, and I'm concerned that due to financial restraints the councils may approve some actions without full and proper consideration and not contemplate the welfare of the community as a whole.

Looking at some of the paperwork involved I can appreciate the councils may be drowning in the morass of information in regards to planning applications.

The jetty application is available on a DVD and is nearly four gigabytes in size; such is the scale of matters.

I wonder if this is a tactic applied by the applicants in the hope someone will scan and approve without reading and digesting the information fully.

To be fair to whoever may have been given the task, it could easily happen simply by volume and repetition within the documentation.

I would like reassurance that the councils are acting with the best interests of the community.

Alex Reed,

Cannington.