You Write

I tried to park in the Walkergate car park (or Walkergate car puddle). What a disgrace!

Once I had parked I went to find a ticket machine (another adventure), searched for correct change (because the machine doesn't give change and asks for the odd amount of £1.10 for two hours). Didn't have a 10p piece so had to use 50p - another 40p of my money going to the council.

There used to be a car park at the bottom of Claypath but this is now the Gala Theatre - no replacement car park. There used to be a car park next to the railway station but this is now a housing development - no replacement car park. There used to be a car park behind Boots but this is now the Prince Bishops although we did get another car park and shops.

Did the council lose the plot? No, this land is owned and was developed by Boots plc - nothing to do with the council (unless you count granting permission).

But at least we still have the Millburngate car park and the Safeway car park - which are almost always full.

Now you know why people voted against the Regional Assembly - it won't change anything and will cost the council tax payers of this region lots of money which would pay for a couple of car parks and some resurfacing at Walkergate.

Is a motto of Durham City Council 'waste thousands to save pennies'?

Emily Williams, Durham

Litter worries

In RESPONSE to Valerie Richardson I could not agree more with her sentiments (Advertiser, November 20). I can assure her that her parish council has objected to every increase in takeaways on Front Street.

With regard to the new takeaway, this was approved in May 2001. The approval, though not taken up at the time, had five years to run before it expires, and as the work was within that timescale there was no need for a further application for change of use.

I agree with Valerie Richardson about the lunchtime litter, to which may I add the Indian/ Chinese takeaways do not contribute as they do not open at lunchtime.

This litter is created by the many other food shops there.

The increased size of both Framwellgate Comprehensive and New College, which both fail to encourage their students, to eat on the premises may contribute to greatest part of the litter. The city council does an excellent job at clearing this up, but that is an unnecessary cost to the ratepayer.

The litter on Front Street is, I can assure you, of the highest priority to the city and parish councillors of Framwellgatemoor ward, and yes, warnings should be replaced by on-the-spot £50 fines.

While we are in agreement at the effects of this problem, the planning officers cannot dictate the commercial make-up of Front Street - this is not a planning issue.

I, and the parish council, agree that in the case of Front Street the result is an imbalance in trade. But without a change in planning law, which is beyond the planners' control, I cannot see how this can be achieved.

Coun Terry Moderate

Framwellgatemoor parish and Durham City councils

Not so calm

MAY I, through the Advertiser, question the use of so called traffic calming measures?

I have just driven from Ushaw Moor to Bearpark and encountered the first of these measures.

I gave way to oncoming traffic, as directed by the traffic calming measure but when the traffic had cleared I had to guess that no other vehicles would speed up though Bearpark before I had negotiated a safe pass through as the place where it is situated, outside the Aged Miners' Homes, does not allow for seeing round a bend. Definitely in the wrong place!

On returning to Ushaw Moor, one car came through and then another two vehicles raced to beat me through, although I then had the right of way and was travelling at under 30 miles an hour being forewarned by my first encounter!

If there is a need to slow traffic, the dreaded 'humps' would suffice. The current type of calming measure is a danger to all vehicles and does exactly the opposite to what the name suggests.

Mrs M Charlton, Ushaw Moor.