Cllr Jacqui Orme, of Dunning Walk, Teignmouth, writes:

With regard to the letter in last week's Teignmouth Post penned by Cllr Falcão, I would like to provide further information to the public as clarification.

Accusations raised in such a manner and containing in my opinion erroneous information and inaccuracies are damaging to the council as a whole, to each of us individually and most concerning, to the contractors who undertook the work in good faith, to a high standard and on the instruction of Teignbridge Council's arboricultural officer following a site visit.

Accounts for payment are passed around at council meetings for all councillors present to peruse and approve with information subsequently available for the public to see, either from the office at Bitton House, on the council website or the library; so transparency is not an issue.

Any concerns we have regarding individual items can be clarified by the office without the need to raise them in a public meeting, with the risk of inaccurate claims such as this being reported.

The fallen tree was one of several which caused a dangerous situation, potentially risking lives, which necessitated an emergency response. It had fallen through the roof of the Air Training Corps HQ and consequently exposed asbestos: urgent remedial action avoided further damage which would have incurred even higher costs.

Inaccurate claims that the billed amount was for only one tree have challenged the integrity of the contractors involved. An extensive breakdown of the work undertaken would, had Cllr Falcão taken the time to read it, have saved your newspaper space for something more interesting and positive.

Any councillor who doesn't understand the terminology can request clarification from the clerk in simple layman's terms, but as the excerpt below demonstrates, the work was clearly more extensive than previously stated.

l Saturday, February 2, call out charge plus four operatives (two climbers and two groundsmen);

l Monday, February 4, six operatives (three climbers and three groundsmen);

l Tuesday, February 5, five operatives (two climbers and three groundsmen);

l Wednesday, February 6, five operatives (two climbers and three groundsmen);

l Thursday, February 7 (part day), three operatives (one climber and two groundsmen);

l Friday, February 8, five operatives (two climbers and three groundsmen);

l Tuesday, February 12 (part day), three operatives (one climber and two groundsmen).

The above works also necessitated the use of a mobile elevated platform and pedestrian control and removal of all arisings.

I believe an apology is owed to the contractors concerned for false allegations which have brought their good reputation into question. Perhaps next time a bank of trees threatens to extinguish an entire group of youngsters while simultaneously exposing them to asbestos poisoning in the process, the electorate needn't worry, we'll put it on the agenda and have a series of meetings and proposals before we even consider taking any action.

I'm sure we'll have the support of an out-of-hours solicitor, at an exorbitant fee, to advise us when we get sued.MORE LETTERS IN OUR DIGITL EDITION