Councillor Heenan suggests that the conclusion of the recent independent report on the Thamesdown Drive extension is ‘there is a better way of doing it’ (SA Dec 18).

What he really means but isn’t saying, is that there is a cheaper short term alternative.

The councillor believes that the first step in his grand plan is to develop a strategy for the revival of the Cheney Manor Trading Estate.

For those who have lived in the area for decades, one would have thought councillors and officers have had enough time to determine a policy.

I dread to think how long ago it was that the old Plessey canteen was razed to the ground, or the Square D factory vacated.

It is of course disingenuous of Coun Heenan to suggest that the estate has not been a consideration in the argument for the Thamesdown Drive extension, in July 2013 his predecessor Councillor Williams cited the trading estate as a key reason for the project “to go ahead”.

In truth, Coun Heenan’s suggestion of an improper “fixation” on the Thamesdown Drive link by those he dismisses in a pejorative manner as “people”, ignores the fact it is the people who pay for such things as traffic and road improvements, whereas ‘experts’ are paid to provide justification for the ideas promoted by their paymasters.

Or is Coun Heenan asking us to believe that independent reports tending to favour the officially sanctioned view are simply a matter of coincidence?

Is Coun Heenan now saying that the attempts of our two MPs to lobby the Chancellor for £50m was simply an exercise in political jiggery pokery based on a flawed basis and devoid of any quantitative thinking?

If so I think the people of Swindon will be rightly outraged.

I note Coun Heenan fails to address the view expressed by his leader that projects should not only be assessed on a financial return, but also how they improve Swindon.

Des Morgan Caraway Drive Swindon