SIR,

There I was, sitting with my feet up thinking, 'lovely, no letter to write this week'.

Then I spotted the sneaky little dig at those who oppose development without reason in Stephen Starkie's letter ostensibly to do with the Estyn report.

Once again on these pages, an attempt is made to portray us as small-minded country hicks with no knowledge of the 'outside world'.

Why does the pro-development lobby believe it has a monopoly on visions for the future?

On the contrary, I believe we have a far clearer view of what the future holds for the town if thoughtless and reckless construction is allowed to continue.

Besides, it is a popular misconception that we oppose all development. Of course, we all want to see a thriving and vibrant town centre so, by all means develop it but do it with a bit of vision.

Do it sympathetically. Do it with a thought for those shop and office workers whose cars are currently turning the rowing club field into a mud-bath and blocking Goldwire Lane.

Not their fault; they have been priced out of parking in the main car parks by prohibitive charges and lack of spaces in the free parking areas.

And what happens when someone does come up with a good development idea like the hotel next to Overmonnow garage which would have been a valuable source of employment and tourist revenue?

Someone makes a right pig's ear of the negotiations, the developer does a runner and we are left with a treeless wasteland because work on the site had already started, prematurely and presumably without permission. Brilliant.

Why should the public have any faith in a 'planning' department capable of such incompetence?

Further, why should we have faith in a government that is apparently allowed to rewrite a hugely important planning document after it has been voted through by council.

Or those in charge of applications who have yet to post a public notice on the gate of the Hillcrest vicarage six months after the start of the application.

Instead, the notice is posted on the gate of a pavementless, blind-bend entrance deemed to be too dangerous to be the access to the site.

If it is too precarious for vehicles, how is a Hillcrest pensioner supposed to get to see it?

Of course, these departments will tell you that these actions are within the law and that would be true but they are legal only in the same way that most of the MPs' expenses were legal in the recent scandal.

They are manipulations of flawed systems for the perpetrator's own ends and engender nothing but mistrust from an increasingly cynical public.

I'm off to have a lie down. My head hurts from all the banging on (newly built?) brick walls.

Chris Williams

(Monmouth)