South Hams District Council’s formal reprimand of Kingswear parish councillor Mike Trevorrow, and recommendation that he should apologise to complainants and to the council for “bringing his council into disrepute”, is not likely to be the end of the affair.

Cllr Trevorrow did not attend the hearing to defend his actions, and although he claims in a statement that he “had nothing to do with the drawing up of the petition”, he has not been helpful in getting to the bottom of allegations of impropriety that have so distressed three of his colleagues and that remain unanswered (The Chronicle, June 30).

While acting as chairman

of the parish council on September 8, 2015, and in breach of standing orders, for which he was reprimanded, Cllr Trevorrow permitted an anonymously authored letter to be read out by resident Rob Lovell. This letter alleged that “these named councillors have acted with self-interest and neglected the views of the majority [of residents]”.

In fact, the views of “the majority” had not been ­ascertained: 33 residents were signatories to the letter 30 have subsequently withdrawn the allegations, but three have not done so, and nor have all those involved in its compilation.

Mr Lovell has said he did not know who it was who asked him to read the letter, but Cllr Trevorrow knows who the compilers are, as he made clear in a letter to the Chronicle on September 25, 2015: “I have been asked by the compilers of the poll condemning the three councillors to explain the ­reasons for its being brought about.”

The allegations stated that three named Kingswear Parish Council councillors had acted contrary to the Nolan principles of public life – that is, they had sought to gain advantage for themselves. This is a serious matter for those who hold ­public office.

When, during a parish ­council meeting, I pointed out Mr Trevorrow’s involvement and knowledge about the ­compilers of the letter, he denied he knew who the ­compilers were. When I then read out Cllr Trevorrow’s own Chronicle letter, he became overwrought and PC Vaughan felt obliged to intervene.

The meeting when the letter was read was only the second that one of the councillors about whom the allegations had been made had attended as a councillor. She had not voted on the contentious playground proposal, yet when she ­proposed on March 8, 2016, that the parish council inquire into the allegations about her integrity, she was denied. Those against inquiring into the allegations included Cllrs Trevorrow and Hawkins.

Cllr Trevorrow may feel ­disinclined to apologise, but even now it is not too late for an inquiry to establish whether the anonymous compliers of the letter have information about the impropriety of the named councillors.

If so, that is a matter to be addressed urgently, not swept under the carpet. Cllr Trevorrow’s assistance would be appreciated by all who wish to move on – after all, as he has said, “it is important residents should be aware of the whole story”.

Richard Rawlins

Beacon Road

Kingswear