AS THE matter of a new town hall now moves to consideration by full council and public consultation, let us be clear about its real and abiding consequences.

Cabinet voted to approve the proposal without addressing the essential issue of its impact on the identity of Morecambe town and its relationship with Lancaster city.

In the 30 years or so since local government was reorganised, the seaside resort and historic city have retained what I regard as a natural and healthy distinction acknowledged in the use of both traditional town halls.

The existence of Morecambe Bay Independent councillors and the current well-received move to petition the Deputy Prime Minister to support a town council for Morecambe testify to a sustained wish to strengthen (not erode) the resort's identity.

If your readers believe as I do that town and city will better prosper to their mutual benefit if Morecambe retains a degree of civic pride and self-deter-mination, they will reject outright a plan that effectively completes the Lancastrianisation of the resort.

The proposed new More-cambe' town hall will by definition be Lancaster City Council's only seat of local government, sited geograph-ically in the centre of the resort.

Far from rendering More-cambe the capital of the sub-region' the town will to all intents and purposes function as the outer residential, office and industrial fringe of Lancaster.

Council documents exist that already, most insensitively, refer to Morecambe Promenade as Lancaster frontage'. It will be exactly that were we to agree to abandon Morecambe Town Hall for any use other than that which its founders intended.

I submit that modern officer accommodation, English Heri-tage restrictions and financial concerns are strictly secondary to the heart of the matter and urge the council to address these through the overdue renovation and extension of existing halls.

Ray Wilcockson, Morecambe.