My jaw dropped as I read P Fenton’s letter in last week’s Gazette. I could not understand how someone could write based on such ignorance or at best on a biased and inaccurate ‘article’ from Julian Brazil.

We often see comments about brown envelopes and lining of pockets in the press and on social media. Slanderous and plainly untrue, yet if the people making them were pursued by law there would be a further outcry, so they are left.

I thought I should write in defence of councillors. I confess that I am married to a councillor, so you may say I am biased, but at least I have an insight into the hours worked, the care taken and the genuine intent to work for the good of the area.

Let’s put some facts on the table. Councillors are not well paid for what they do. They get an allowance, which for the hours worked tends to be below the minimum wage. Many of the hours are unsocial. They work very hard out of a moral duty and for the purpose of doing good. They need to have thick skins and broad shoulders to bear the attacks they receive. They have to work within strict rules and guidelines, especially within planning, which seems to be a common bugbear. They actually save the local community money as they offer their expertise and time freely, doing a difficult job and trying to

help smooth the role of local government.

P Fenton, who is in my husband’s ward, has never contacted him, so I wonder how their conclusions have been made.

There are many in his ward who have contacted him

as they are concerned over ­planning issues, are struggling to find appropriate housing, have environmental health problems, financial problems etc. He often meets with them to discuss issues, helps when he can and gives explanations when he cannot.

All this does take up a lot of his time, but it is part of his

job. He treats all with the

respect and confidentiality they deserve, which means much of his good work cannot be reported to the press for scrutiny. In the absence of good stories, the press seems to instead promote stories damning the council to fill its editorial.

P Fenton seems to have a gripe about planning. It is true that councillors are contacted by developers. Unsolicited contact from them, petitioning in favour of development, is received. This can in no way be deemed to be “doing business with them”.

Unfortunately, such developers, like piranhas, do have teeth, and if a planning application is turned down for a reason that does not fall within the Government’s strict criteria, the door is left open for an appeal. Such appeals are expensive and as such cost you and me money. The electorate would be up in arms if the council had to face and lose many appeals, with the appropriate high costs, as a result of turning down a development purely because people didn’t like it.

The council has in fact run a series of training events for members of parish councils, explaining the rules of planning and the criteria for turning down proposals. The criteria are by no means secretive. If P Fenton were to get a little more involved with local politics, rather than criticising those who do, they would have more information on which to base their comments.

Did you know that South Hams District Council has received recognition for being one of the most innovative councils in the country? The reforms of its administration under T18 has involved ­substantial cost savings, which in turn means that in times of huge government cuts it has managed to maintain a good level of service to its constituents. In fact, many councils have been in contact with it in order to follow its

lead so they, too, can maintain ­services in times of such ­economic ­pressure.

Unfortunately, the cuts to funding continue, hence the current consultation on one council. More extremely difficult decisions need to be made. Unfortunately, bias again is evident in the press on this matter. There are no winners in the ­situation where there is just not enough money to go round, but a course to minimise losses must be chosen. Whatever the outcome, the decision will be made with a lot of soul searching and with the intent of doing what is best for the people of the area, not because councillors are “inept” or “self-interested”.

Our councillors are trying their best to do a good job based on the rules and ever-decreasing budgets handed down by ­central government. Perhaps more comments and petitions should be directed there.

So come on, P Fenton and others who choose to sling insults at your hard-working councillors, open your eyes and have a look at what is actually going on, rather than believing the comments of one particu-larly embittered politician. Perhaps an apology is in order.

Mary Wright

West Alvington