Letters: Gas field facts

Also, I understand the D&S is only reporting the facts as people present them. However I'm getting a bit fed-up with the negative coverage of this story, and also on BBC Look North the other night.

There rarely seems to be any attempt to present a balanced view.

The anti campaigners like to bang on about the visual intrusion of the rig (for four or five weeks only).

The anti-traffic gang complain about stone trucks constructing a working surface (six weeks only).

Residents in the village bang on about how a similar drilling at Ralph's Cross lit up the dale with flaring (only now the flaring is in a pit, unseen).

Tom Chadwick (Green Party) bangs on about how a rig at Mulgrave Castle in 1978 could be heard 10 miles away(now everything is silenced so as to be inaudible at 200 metres).

Also he paints a scenario of mud/oil/pollution rushing into the Esk (only the entire site will be six feet below ground, with an impermeable material, plus clay layer to avoid any possibility of leakage).

Then the horse riders think that the world will end because they might encounter a truck on the road during construction of the base (only it won't be happening at the weekend, the only time 90pc of them ride).

I was pretty annoyed when Look North did a piece on the field in question, including a scene where the reporter strolled about in the field. The first we knew of this was when we saw it on TV. Bit of a cheek I thought.

We have had it implied that if it's passed, the field will resemble ICI for 40 years. That's total rubbish.

Your paper reported that there was"300 billion cubic metres of gas there, it would all be led out in tankers"

The actual likely amount is 49 billion cubic feet - about three billion cubic metres. That's still too much to be taken in tankers - a pipeline would be needed. But there is already a gas pipe alongside the road from Whitby to Pickering. How many people know it's there? Hardly a ghastly scar on the landscape is it?

COLIN GRICE

Hall Farm,

Westerdale,

Whitby.

Sutton shelter

Sir, - I refer to the letter "Thankless Task" (D&S, May 9). I agree the balance of the objection and the councils' attitude to them does indeed need to be redressed.

The objection to the site of the proposed bus shelter was supported by at least 19 residents of Sutton village. I have not spoken to one resident who is in support of the idea.

As for my being unfair in saying our protests have been ignored, I delivered a letter to North Yorkshire County Council at County Hall Northallerton at 10am on February 18, 2003. To date it has not been acknowledged or replied to. I have also attended parish council meetings when the shelter was been discussed but was informed several times before the meetings began that I would not be allowed to speak and put forward or explain the objections the residents had to the proposals. Perhaps this is the explanation of why nobody but council members attend these meetings. I think ignored and disdain are fairly accurate descriptions of the way our objections have been treated.

The parish council seems to be of the opinion that we are opposed to the idea of commemorating the Millennium. This is not so, but we do think it should be in the centre of the village where residents can see it as they go about their daily lives and not be tucked away in some obscure corner invisible to 100pc of residents who will never use it.

If the council is spending public money it should be in a way that benefits the whole community and not for part-time use by six children.

The site for the intended bus shelter has indeed been the school bus pick-up point for many years but what is never mentioned by either the parish or county councils is that the location was condemned as dangerous by themselves several years ago and the pick up point moved not once but twice to equally unsatisfactory sites. It moved back to the present site as a temporary measure until a safer and permanent site could be found, and then the matter was forgotten until the present day.

Councillors may well be a worthy body of people and they have my admiration but they are not infallible and make mistakes like everybody else. I think the siting of this bus shelter is one of them.

T S LOWEY

Sutton,

Thirsk.

Bridge history

Sir, - The opening of the new Myton Bridge over the River Swale, prompts me to recall the extraordinary history of this bridge, the original of which was probably made of wood and was the scene of one the most gruesome battles of northern history.

We go back to 1319, the days of Edward II, when he and his followers were engaged in the siege of Berwick, and the Scottish leaders the Earl of Murray and Lord James Douglas took the opportunity to move south with an army of some 15,000 men.

They reached Boroughbridge, which they reduced to ashes. They then began advancing to the gates of York, where they hoped to capture the Queen, who was believed to be visiting the city at that time.

Having been warned of the approaching Scots, the Archbishop of York, with the help of the Bishop of Ely, began forming a hybrid army believed to number 10,000 men charged with preventing the Scots from reaching the city. It was an army of volunteers including many white robed churchmen and lay people.

They advanced to meet the Scots who then feigned a retreat and, having crossed Myton Bridge, they lay in ambush and lit haystacks to blind the oncoming English.

What followed was quite horrific, the Archbishop's army was pinned into a corner at the bridge and the Scots slaughtered some 3,000 men, others being drowned in the River Swale trying to escape. It is said that there were many priests, monks and other churchmen amongst the dead which included the Lord Mayor of York, Sir Nicholas Fleming.

So ended the Battle of Myton the story of which will surely be in the minds of those attending the opening of the newly built bridge.

DAVID MORRIS

Prior Avenue,

Richmond.

Editor's note: The full story of the battle is in Mr Morris' book The History of the River Swale, (Sessions of York.£8.95)

No protection

Sir, - Coun Brian Jones is either mistaken or is whistling in the dark when he said in his report to Middleton St George Parish Council (D&S, May 16) that so-called greenfield sites in Middleton St George are "protected by the Parish Plan". The Parish Plan provides no protection for anything; it is merely the opinion of some local people and the planning consultant whom they employed.

The Parish Plan carries no statutory authority; when a planning application is being considered by the Darlington Borough Council planning committee, the Parish Plan would be given no greater or less consideration than any other opinion. Where the Parish Plan, or any other local opinion, conflicts with or impedes the regional and national development plans, which have been through a statutory process, they carry almost no weight at all.

Each planning application is considered on its own merits and within the framework of the statutorily agreed development plan, Almost all land within the village, green, brown or any other colour, could be developed if the builder can advance a sufficiently persuasive case to the planning committee who operate under very strict rules and guidance. The only protection anyone has against any development is to put their opinion and supporting evidence to the planning committee when the application is being considered.

MIKE LATTER

Pounteys Close,

Middleton St George.