Sue Pudduck, of Wood Lane, Kingswear, writes:

Having attended the meeting of Kingswear Parish Council last week, I wish to comment on the proceedings.

I felt hopeful when Jan Trevorrow spoke of mending the rift in the village and received support from both sides. The meeting appeared to be addressing business and,

for the most part, councillors appeared to want positive ­outcomes for the village.

I was therefore appalled when the meeting turned into a very personal attack on one councillor who was not present and therefore could not defend herself from the allegations made. Luckily Cllr Ruth Searle realised that going forward in that manner was clearly an abuse of all the principles of the Nolan Guide to Public Life and reined the council in.

I would ask councillors to reflect on what they were trying to achieve. I would also ask them to consider the stratagems used to try to achieve their ends.

The letter from the headmaster that was circulated contained considerable hearsay and I am surprised that those present have not yet realised that using non-substantiated word of mouth can be challenged legally.

The one fact in the letter was that Cllr Payne had used the Freedom of Information Act to find out about numbers of children attending the school who lived in Kingswear. Some of you appear to believe this is a shocking crime. If it was, do you really believe that any ­government body would have complied with her request?

Cllr Payne spent her life in education, is certainly DBS-checked and her request to visit the school and to get information about the school was a ­genuine request to get involved using her area of expertise.

One can only ask why her repeated attempts to get ­information, which is critical to making sound judgements to help the synergy between school and council, was refused.

I should point out that by this time Cllr Payne was minded that a small playground would be acceptable on Jubilee Park.

I should also point out that she used the FOI Act to get the information over a year ago. Why has this come to the ­council at this point in time?

The headmaster is moving on, so he is gaining nothing from the allegations in his letter. It would appear that some members of the council hold a grudge against Cllr Payne. Why else would a parishioner be allowed to pass on information four years out of date regarding a B&B that Cllr Payne ran?

If a playground is seen as being a good thing for the village, why would her objection to a playground be seen as self-interest? If a small playground is good for Kingswear, surely it would also be good for visitors to a B&B? The allegation of self-interest is senseless.

None of this reflects well on the parish council and takes away from the often repeated ambition to draw a line under the previous history and move forward harmoniously. It has all the appearance of a strategy to draw attention away from the use of council powers by non-authorised personnel.

What appalled me most on Tuesday night was the vicious personal and back-biting tone of the attacks from certain councillors. Since coming onto the council, Cllr Payne has worked hard and has contributed ­considerably to the council’s workload. Had she been present, she certainly would have been put forward as the responsible financial officer, which seems incongruous with the level of criticism levelled at her.

I would suggest that all ­mention of the FOI be removed from an apology in the next agenda and that councillors stop paying lip service to bridge building and actually move forward.