Letters: Right to know

I had to go through the same procedure when Leyburn Council refused to give me a copy of the accounts as prescribed by statute. Councillors then blamed me for the extra costs when in fact it was the fault of councillors for not acting correctly.

The extra audit cost should not be confused with the democratic right of the electorate to enquire into how the council handles its money. I think the attitude and comments from some councilors reported in the D&S prove the worth of the rule that prevents the District Auditor from disclosing the names of complainants. Councilors should be aware that the law lays out clearly that it is they who are answerable to the electorate, not the electorate to them.

At a public meeting a few years ago, Richmondshire District Council, presented a report that made it clear that Thornborough Hall needed refurbishing at a cost of more than half a million pounds and that the district council was spending about £30,000 per annum on running costs.

In spite of this, Leyburn Town Council started negotiations for the purchase, though I along with others stated this would result in the 1,500 electors of Leyburn facing a financial abyss. It is clear the purchase of Thornborough Hall was not in the best interests of the electorate.

It is a fact that the people of the Leyburn and the surrounding area paid for Thornborough Hall when Leyburn Rural District Council existed, but they were still asked to pay a further undeclared amount to purchase Thornborough Hall, the price was kept a closely guarded secret by the Town Council.

The message to Leyburn councillors isdo not blame the people who are being asked to pay a 67pc increase in their precept for enquiring into how you are handling their money. They have the right to know.

G R ORAM

Woodburn Drive,

Leyburn.

How much?

Sir, - I presumed, as did Mrs Braithwaite (D&S, June 21), that our expensive gates on Leyburn market shelter were paid for by the generous citizens of Leyburn.

However despite a letter of inquiry to the town council and a perusal of the council minutes of the past two years, I can find no record of the cost of these gates.

Do we have an anonymous benefactor? Could he/she be persuaded to spend money enhancing the welcome given to Leyburn visitors and locals rather than rebuffing them. The world certainly does get odder and odder.

JENNIE WHITE

Wensley Mill,

Wensley.

A better place

Sir, - I feel I really must come to Mr Bernard Borman's defence, as I feel it was totally unfair for Coun Nigel Watson to ridicule him as he did. (D&S letters, June 7).

Bernard Borman is a highly intelligent man and if Coun Watson and his cronies on Richmondshire District Council had half his brains between the lot of them, Richmondshire would be a better place in which to live.

(Mrs) M A CALVERT-NEWSOME

Brough Meadows

Catterick Village

An insult to all

Sir, - I refer to Coun Nigel Watson's letter (D&S June 7) regarding the jolly outing of officers of Richmondshire District Council. Clearly Coun Watson intended to attack me, and failed. What he has succeeded in doing, however, is to insult the council tax payers of Richmondshire.

BERNARD BORMAN

Brentwood,

Leyburn.

Whither Girsby

Sir, - I was interested in Countryman's Diary about Croft and Sockburn in last Friday's D&S (June 7.

Until fairly recently part of County Durham, Girsby was on the south side of the Tees, thus surviving the reorganisation of 1974. Although the county boundary has been moved into the river, as far as I know Girsby church is still in the Diocese of Durham.

Could the reason for there being part of County Durham on both sides of the Tees be that Sockburn was an early crossing point, pre-dating Croft, and the Bishop of Durham needed to ensure complete control here?

An interesting side line to this was that many years ago there was a dispute between two local councils about which one should empty the dustbin from a house which was partly in County Durham and partly in the North Riding!

PETER W ELLIOTT

Butterfield Drive,

Eaglescliffe.