Letters: City that never was

The Teesside Study Group was campaigning for a unifying plan for the area in the 1950s. I came here in 1965 to prepare the plan, a study that took 17 months to lay out the future of some 400 square miles of this sub-region for the following 25 years.

The plan was approved early in 1967 and Teesside County Borough was set up in 1968. It was a time of great change and fine achievements for Teesside, but for only six years.

In 1974 the Conservative Government for purely party political reasons dissembled the County Borough, restored the three District Councils of Stockton, Middlesbrough and Redcar (then Langbaurgh) within a Cleveland County Council. This destroyed any possibility of a City of Teesside. The area returned to in-fighting for trade and jobs between the three small towns.

Six years ago, in 1996, the county council was abolished making a progressive city even more remote.

In the same D&S in which David Simmons letter appeared there was Spectator's comment about the "rise and rise" of the use of the term Tees Valley. This has become almost a joke, like the use of Teesdale for land in Stockton. Matters of geographical confusion arise every week because Teesside does not have an identity.

Had the Teesside County Borough not been destroyed we could have had a City of Teesside today. In 1968 it was the seventh largest urban area in England. What we have lost in the intervening years can be gathered from what other cities have gained.

* We would have had a fast and regular light railway system throughout the area.

* The airport, built for heavily laden trans-Atlantic traffic in wartime would have been of international standard.

* A city authority would have had greater control of the Development Corporation, particularly in achieving a higher quality of design on derelict land.

* The development of Middlesbrough's quaysides would not have been lost.

* We would have city-standard cultural provision. Fifty years ago the Globe in Stockton was playing to packed houses, yet now its Art Centre is defunct and Billingham Theatre is threatened.

With the proposed North-East Regional Assembly the small towns of Teesside will have a very tiny voice. What you see on the ground today has arisen from the new start anticipated in the plan of 1967 but it could have been very much better. Can Teesside make up for lost time?

FRANKLIN MEDHURST

Carlton,

Stockton-on-Tees.

Don't dump here

Sir, - It is with concern that I respond to your leading article and the letter from Y A Brookes of Brompton-on-Swale (D&S, Nov 1).

If Yorwaste was given the go-ahead to open the waste transfer station at Brompton-on-Swale, then I would advise it to consider not using the landfill site at Guisborough.

We no more want any extra vehicles bringing another county's waste to our area than anybody else would. In the past, the councillors of Guisborough have twice stopped companies from dumping certain waste products.

Cleveland Waste Management wanted to dump sludge pellets and other offensive materials on their site. This was refused and since then they have mothballed their site. During the foot-and-mouth outbreak, one of the many Government agencies involved attempted to dump carcasses which had come from a FMD-free area, travelling through an infected area and then wanted to put them in the Biffa site, a clean area. After many heated phonecalls and a picket line the carcasses were re-routed to another site.

If Guisborough was the intended site for Yorwaste, then I would ask other councillors of the areas these vehicles would travel through to put pressure on them and get them to re-consider.

I have asked officers of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to investigate this situation. To put it most politely - we do not want your waste. Do with it whatever but do not come to Guisborough.

Coun BILL CLARKE

Beaufort Close,

Guisborough.

Is it needed?

Sir, - The question for worried residents and businesses of Brompton on Swale and Scorton concerned about the effects of a new waste site is not merely the siting involved. They should be asking why such a site is needed at all.

Landfill is at the very bottom of the waste hierarchy according to the Government's Waste Strategy, Waste 2000 and the EU Landfill Directive. It gives off dangerous emissions and pollutes the land for future generations. It should only be considered after effective policies have been introduced for the minimisation, reduction and recycling of waste. The other old waste disposal answer of incineration is rightly just as unpopular with the public who fear the health effects from the pollution caused.

We need to learn to treat waste as a resource. The only answer is separation and collection from the doorstep of both dry recyclables for recycling and compostable materials for in vessel anaerobic digestion, a compost system that kills viruses and parasites. This produces clean goods worth recycling and clean compost fit to return to the land.

The county should be asked what it is doing to promote such a doorstep collection and recycling scheme.

VAL BARTON

CAIR (The Campaign Against the Incineration of Refuse)

Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Why the secrecy?

Sir, - Last week residents packed into Richmondshire council chamber to hear the district council's resources committee decide on the future of our historic station building.

At an earlier meeting we had received presentations from four commercial bidders for the site. Now, at the start of the evening, a selection of public statements and questions was read out, until it was time to hear the views of our elected representatives. That was the reason we were there, after all.

Your readers may be surprised to learn that an alliance of Conservative and Richmondshire Association of Independent Councillors voted to exclude press and public Whilst this is a respected, common practice in other councils when confidential financial matters are being discussed, it is highly unusual to exclude the public from the rest of what should be an open meeting.

The most shocking reason given for this came from Coun Heseltine, who declared he was not prepared to "play to the gallery"!

Sadly, even Coun Metcalfe, the sole Richmond councillor on the committee, voted to exclude us. Only the three Liberal Democrat councillors and Coun Miller (Independent) felt able to discuss the issues in public. We were therefore asked to leave.

When the decision was announced around 11pm, all those waiting were relieved to hear that it included an option to explore keeping the building as a community facility held in trust for the people of Richmond, in addition to two commercial options.

What a pity that so many of our representatives did not-have either sufficient confidence in themselves or in the public to allow us to hear how that decision was reached. That way they might have earned more of our trust for their future deliberations.

SHEILA CLARKE

Crofts Avenue,

Richmond.