You write: Who killed Robins?

Not content with fatally undermining Robins with their ill-founded scheme for a multiplex they would have us believe Robins is a struggling liability, frequented by a few unusual die-hards who do not represent the needs of the people of Durham.

What we really need, according to the city council, is an Australian theme pub.

In reality, an average of four thousand people visit Robins each week, and last year the cinema made a healthy, six-figure profit - both statistics which the ailing Gala can only dream of.

Suggestions that the Gala, which has neither the capacity nor the equipment to show mainstream films, will provide an adequate replacement are ludicrous.

The people of Durham do need a cinema. Families need somewhere to enjoy films together. Children need somewhere in Durham to visit and enjoy independently. Film lovers need somewhere to indulge their passion.

In short, we need councillors who will represent our best interests effectively. Sadly, with the closure of Robins, we will have none of the above. And what's next? Perhaps the people of Durham don't really need a Cathedral in their county - a Prince Bishop theme pub might be a better use of the building.

Sarah Nicholson, Newton Hall

Thank you Robins

SIR - I have read with interest the statement by Troveworth and your subsequent articles on the Robins. I was not aware that the level of support they were providing to Robins was as great as implied.

While detailed figures have not been made available I am given the impression that Troveworth is still a highly successful company in spite of this burden. Whatever the figures I think that the regular users of the Robins should express their appreciation to Troveworth for this support.

There have been claims that the cinema has been struggling, but I understand that attendance figures have been well above those that would be expected for a city of our size. If this is correct then it is due to the excellent service provided by the present management which has geared its programmes to what the customers want.

This could never be adequately replaced by a multiplex which essentially provides standardised fare based on the potential profit for the mass producers. I am somewhat doubtful that the Gala could provide such a good service even if it is able to adapt the existing facilities.

Thank you Robins - you cannot be replaced.P J Beard, Durham

College films

SIR - It is ironic that the imminent closure of the Robins Cinema will leave facilities in Durham University the only ones able to show 35mm film.

The College of St Hild and St Bede was one of the first in the country to include Film and Television Studies in its teacher training curriculum. Its thriving film society still provides modern high-standard projection facilities to university students.

The current death throes of continuous public cinema programmes in Durham fit sadly into the final chapter, 'Going, Going Gone,' of my almost completed book text 'Cinema in a Cathedral City 1896-2002.'

There was at least a hope that the Walkergate Complex would provide some continuity, but it now seems clear that this prospect has been abandoned.

We have been very much rewarded by the cinema policy of Robins Cinemas and its successor. Its re-opening in June 1991 was supported by national and local arts grants and, alongside its mainstream programmes, it was able to cater for a significant film study culture in the city.

Perhaps the future of cinema projection via digital big screen technology will allow some other place to give us up-to-the minute film releases without our having to travel many miles.

David R Williams (former Head of Film and Television Department), College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Safety first

SIR - Your article Police drivers to face new scrutiny (Advertiser w/e October 26) contains the statement 'even officers driving with blue flashing lights will be encouraged to think of safety first.' I trust that this is an editorial comment and not a quote from a police source.

Any police driver not already adhering to such practices has no place driving on official duties. Safety first practices should be mandatory and not just 'encouraged.'It is high time that the necessity for high speed pursuits and travel was seriously reviewed.

Name and address supplied

Broadband plea

SIR - I am writing about the lack of availability of broadband internet to the Pelton, West Pelton and surrounding areas.

The problem is that we are on the Beamish exchange and not the Chester-le-Street one, which is in the process of being modified. If enough people register an interest on the BT website (www.bt.com /broadband) the company will consider upgrading this exchange.

It is in all our interests to have this broadband exchange sooner rather than later. As the price of broadband drops more people will find this an attractive offer for the home internet as well as for schools in the area.

It is free to register and you are not obligated to anything.

D Walker, Chester-le-Street

People's parking

SIR - With reference to Nick Trowbridge's letter (Advertiser, October 26), I live in Hawthorn Terrace but have never heard of, and have never received any literature from, the Popular People's Parking Group (PPPG). Does the group exist, in fact?

Mr Trowbridge's statement that 'it is not the council that should back down' perplexes me.

It would appear that he is urging us to vote for what the highway authority offered us in 2002 and again in 2002, and which we rejected on both occasions.

The reason why residents twice rejected the authority's scheme is that the area is not suitable as a cheap long-stay commuter parking area. It has a very high density of residents in an area of Victorian terraced housing without garages or drives, and on-street parking is a necessity for car-owning residents.

We want to be accorded the same rights as many other people enjoy, to own a car and be able to park near our home.

Mr Trowbridge suggests that all residents should back the PPPG proposal for short-stay parking identical to that operation in nearby Allergate and Crossgate.

The highway authority has never offered residents in Hawthorn Terrace area short-stay parking. Had they done so, residents would probably have accepted their proposals for parking control.

Furthermore, the traffic regulations proposed by the authority are being put forward now only because pressure from the police and other persistent objections made by the Hawthorn Terrace neighbourhood forced the authority to do something to ameliorate the hazardous congestion in this area.

The aims of the PPPG and the Hawthorn Terrace Neighbourhood appear to be similar - that is, short-term parking.

The neighbourhood presented to the highway authority a scheme - voted for by a majority of residents and businesses - for short-term metered parking at the northern end of Hawthorn Terrace and along Holly Street, with other areas for permit holders only. The authority rejected it.

It is unfortunate for the residents in the Hawthorn Terrace area that the authority has adopted an entrenched position - accept long-stay pay and display commuter parking, or put up with the continuing chaos on your streets.

Hawthorn Terrace Resident

Same again

SIR - Following Sarah Foster's article on council parking plans, I would like to comment on the response of the county council's spokesman.

It is true that the council has considered plans for our area twice. However, rather bizarrely, they considered the same plans twice!

This surprised residents in our area since many representations had been made to the council to draw their attention to flaws in their proposals.

If we had agreed to the scheme, the whole of our area would have been given over to long-stay pay and display parking. None of the nearby streets would have spaces set aside for residents.

There are no such large blocks of pay and display in residential streets in other areas of the city.

The council has simply stated that if we try the scheme we will see the benefits.

They say that those who were previously against the scheme are now very happy with it and have contacted them to say so.

This conflicts with the evidence, given to us by the council, of their own surveys that show many residents are often unable to park even near to their own homes.

This ignores the numerous complaints of the residents who took the trouble to respond to the council's survey. This makes a mockery of local democracy in action.

Jackie Richardson, Durham.