Sir,

 I read, with some degree of shock, the report of the Shire Hall overspend and the attachment of blame to the dispute at Beaufort Arms Court. I also noted the response from the county council and the county councillor to the recent court decision.

I feel that some clarity is required and possibly some explanations are deserved by the readers of your paper and residents of this town.

1) The landlords referred to in your article are in fact residents of the flats in Beaufort Arms Court

2) When they met with the council's officers last November they freely and willingly offered 52 weeks free access to the contractors and sought only an undertaking that, given the fact this project was already behind schedule that an assurance in the form of a penalty clause could be inserted in the agreement.

3) At that meeting the officials commented that they had no money to compensate for any over run as the scaffold costs were some £400,000 more than had been anticipated already

4) Within 72 hours the residents were notified that the project would need to be extended by another 7-8 weeks and that there would be no compensation if there were to be an over run

5) The council started work in the area without a licence agreement and advised the residents they would be proceeding with or without their consent, if indeed it was required.

6) At no stage were the residents offered compensation for the scheduled duration of the works, indeed they sought ways of ensuring that any work undertaken would be on time, to schedule and at no cost to the council, yet the council insisted there could be no penalty for any extended work.

7) The businesses in Beaufort Arms Court have felt the effect of the decreased visibility and restricted access, as have the residents. Indeed emergency vehicles can no longer access the Courtyard from the market square and now have to approach form the car park.

8) The residents asked for access to the scaffold to review and possibly repair two sash windows. Access was denied on HASAW grounds and yes, the council did offer to budget for and repair if required those windows

9) A meeting was arranged to try and iron out the difficulties at county hall but the council had already instigated court proceedings

10) The issue of alleged water damage is not relevant to this case and would be a matter for the respective insurance companies. We have seen minimal detail, nor have we been shown meaningful evidence but were advised if we did not pursue this matter to the courts the council would forget the damage allegedly caused.

11) The compensation agreement was reached minutes before going into the court.

12) Beaufort Tenants Management will face a large bill for defending this action but will recoup some, if not all costs, from the guaranteed payment from the council.

13) I have been gobsmacked by the arrogance and bullying I felt at the hands of the council and its elected representatives and their willingness to spend public money to bring an action to grant a licence for a time period we had already agreed to at no cost to the project.

The council has spent money on this case, we have spent money on this case, the council have to compensate us during the project all because it could not be agreed that major scaffolding and building works would have a detrimental effect on the businesses in the courtyard and the lives of the residents.

We accepted their presence for a year and wanted an assurance of no over-run. Nothing more, nothing less and now we are living with the consequences and effects of this action

 Far from BTM causing the delay and overspend I would suggest that other factors should be considered and, hopefully, that all interested parties will have attended the public meeting in Bridges on June 23rd where I am sure the updates on the project will have been welcomed and the subject of some discussion

Mark Williamson

(Monmouth