IT is necessary to put the record straight in relation to ex-councillor Peter Kenyon's outburst (LET, May 23) against those who care about Towneley.

He suggests protection of Towneley is the preserve of Liberal Democrats.

Towneley for the People, as one of the main organisations involved, has always had support from members and supporters of all political parties and those with no party allegiance.

The unanimous decision by Burnley Borough Council's development control committee that the new school should not be built on the playing fields involved all the parties including Mr Kenyon's Labour Party.

The proposal to write to the Secretary of State asking for a public inquiry came from the Labour vice-chair of the committee and was not, as claimed by Mr Kenyon, politically driven by Liberals.

Mr Kenyon is wrong to claim the officer's recommendation to the committee was a marginal one and the fact that the district council unanimously objected and sought a public inquiry in itself is an exceptional circumstance.

The decision by the full council to refuse to sell Towneley land to the County Council for the school was indeed marginal, but was taken following incorrect information regarding alternative sites having been given to the council.

Towneley for the People, who made representations to the full council, did not seek a blanket refusal to sell but only a refusal to transfer land if the Secretary of State refused a public inquiry on planning grounds.

Refusal to transfer the land to LCC will ensure Burnley people are given the opportunity to make representations to a public inquiry if a compulsory purchase order is pursued by the LCC.

Ex-councillor Kenyon is now claiming the cost of a public inquiry on compulsory purchase would be £90,000 rather than the £30,000 claimed by Stuart Caddy.

We doubt that the cost would approach either figure as the council ought to have sufficient expertise to represent the interests of the people of Burnley at a public inquiry.

Mr Kenyon claims objectors put their own interests above those of a generation of schoolchildren. The objectors come from all parts of the town and surrounding areas, it is a shame that Mr Kenyon did not regard the interests of the people of Burnley as important.

Those opposed to the spoiling of the park by putting a new school on the playing fields made it clear that they were concerned about under-achievement by Burnley's children and they welcomed new schools but in the right place.

Mr Kenyon is also wrong when he claims flood consultants said the risk of flooding in Fulledge would be reduced they said it would not make it significantly worse.

IAN GALBRAITH, secretary, Towneley for the People, Manchester Road, Burnley.