Sir, - I support Coun Robinson's view that council taxpayers' money should be better spent improving pedestrian safety in Thirsk rather than the appearance of Long Street. (D&S letters, Jan 2) However, I do not agree with his view of the causes that have made Long Street less attractive than it should be. The causes extend well beyond the derelict garage and adjoining cottages.

Long Street was the old A19 and is a disappointing and unattractive continuance into Thirsk of Stockton Road. Its wide, black-metalled verges came about as a result of a perceived need to widen the road before the Thirsk by-pass was built.

The increased commercialisation of Long Street has, over time, resulted in these wide black metalled verges being used as parking places for vehicles awaiting repair and service at a garage and as external show rooms for new and used motor cars and motor cycles.

Its appearance is not helped by the wide expanses of tarmac and the lack of off-street parking for the residents of Long Street.

This has been compounded by the fact that there appears to be no long-term plan for Thirsk and the local planning authority apparently continuing to permit the increased commercial development of Long Street.

Among other things, a double-glazing manufacturer now uses the old school and a tyre service company has more recently been accommodated in purpose-built premises.

Isn't it about time Coun Robinson and his fellow councillors formulated a development plan for Thirsk instead of permitting the continuance of what appears to be ad-hoc opportunist development?

No doubt Coun Robinson's colleague, Coun Marshall, who was a member of the Long Street Enhancement Working Party, will say that the working party was a step in the right direction, and she may be right, but it is clear that its findings do not have the support of many residents of Thirsk who see them as grandiose and excessively costly.

Isn't it about time the derelict garage and cottages was purchased and developed, by the local authority if need be?

Planters have appeared in almost every place that they can in central Thirsk, including on top of a bus shelter, but not in Long Street. Planters strategically placed in sufficient numbers in Long Street could provide a low-cost and shorter-term solution as well as enhancing its appearance.

Isn't it also about time that Coun Robinson and colleagues sought to put the responsibility for the dangerous state of the Market Place and the public footpaths leading from it firmly where it should lay? Hambleton District Council owns Thirsk Market Place and should ensure it is safe. The maintenance of footpaths leading from the Market Place is the responsibility of the county council notwithstanding Thirsk Town Council set aside £2,000 to repair them.

Councillors Robinson, Hubbard and Marshall should meet with the people they purport to represent and agree a way forward for the development of Long Street and greater Thirsk.

GEOFF GARBUTT

St. Mary's Walk,

Thirsk.

Customer care

Sir, - I see Wendy Morrison (D&S letters, Dec 19) shares my concern about the viability of Safeway in Victoria Road, but harshly accuses me of "swanning around" in Darlington!

As a shopper at this Safeway for 10 years, I fund parking through my custom and need not be disciplined with a system of fines.

It may interest Wendy that following my complaint, Safeway Customer Care - whilst upholding the validity of the penalty charge - supplied me with in-store vouchers to an equivalent value. A sensible compromise which encourages me to continue as one of their customers.

ANDREW SWIFT

Forcett,

Richmond.