Letters to the Editor

By April 1, 1996, this amount had risen to £439.81 - an increase of 12.13%.

Then in 1997, Darlington acquired unitary status. The council was at great pains to tell us how much we were going to benefit by this; no longer being shackled to Durham County.

The first tax it levied appeared to support this when, on April 1, 1997, band A properties were billed for £398.06 - a reduction of 9.3% on the previous year set by Durham County.

However, this was all clawed back the following year with an increase of 10.25%. Since then, the Darlington authority has continued with inflation-busting increases and now, in 2002, we are faced with a bill for £622.98 which means that, from its inception as a unitary authority, this council has raised the tax by 56.5%.

I am left wondering how we are supposed to have benefited from the change - it seems more like a rip-off than a benefit. And now the layman has to contend with, on the one hand, Stephen Byers and Nick Raynsford speaking on behalf of the Government telling us that, owing to significant increases in central funding, high increases in council tax are not necessary, and, on the other hand, local councils saying they are because Government funding is inadequate.

Meanwhile, the tax continues to rise and the Government does nothing to stop it. May I urge all who read this letter who are dissatisfied with the situation to do something about it; attend ward surgeries and let your local councillors know your feelings - complain to the head of the council; complain to MP Alan Milburn. I have done all of these things but the odd lone voice in the wilderness achieves nothing. A few hundred voices might stop the rot.

B P SWADDLE

Park Crescent,

Darlington.

Name them

Sir, - I have just received the latest Hambleton Times, bragging on page three that the council tax is the second lowest in the country and then, on page four, stating that the discrimination against all the wheelchair users, including those over 60, is to continue yet again.

The excuse given is that there is no money available again this year to give taxi vouchers for these disabled council taxpayers, only for the physically able who can board a bus.

My simple question is: Why not? If they can provide vouchers in lots of other areas, including Richmondshire, why not in Hambleton? Is it not actually against the law to discriminate against one particular section of the population? Could it be so that the bragging (above) can continue?

Will the council please publish immediately the names of those councillors who voted for this positive discrimination so that we can have the chance to vote them off at the next council election if we so wish?

H F BOOTH

Little Crakehall,

Bedale.

Let there be light

Sir, - Our council tax demand has arrived accompanied by the usual bumf. I assume the intention is to keep us better informed.

The North Yorkshire Police Authority has increased its portion of our council tax by no less than 41.5pc yet in two sides of an A4 sheet of paper it proffers no real explanation of the reasons for this staggering increase. We are briefly told on what the increase will be spent but nothing whatsoever about the options it faced and how it came to make the choices imposing such a massive increase. Its explanatory leaflet reminds me of the lamppost used by a drunk - more for support than for illumination.

Northallerton Town Council has increased its portion of the tax by no less than 20.1pc. At £41.26 for Band D we are now paying them 73.7pc of the sum we pay for district-wide services yet we are given no leaflet at all. At Thirsk they pay even more - £49.58 (88.5% of the district).

At Husthwaite Band D households pay more than thirty pounds and at Helperby, Sowerby and Stokesley they pay more than twenty pounds. Perhaps the time has come for parishes levying these higher taxes to provide some explanation of what they are up to?

And perhaps it is time for all the authorities to re-examine the format of their leaflets to make them more interesting and informative?

D F SEVERS

Borrowby Avenue,

Northallerton

Sir, - I find interesting the news that Darlington Borough Council is actively seeking developers for land at Yarm Road (D&S March 22), and also the letter from H R C Owen, former chief executive of Darlington Borough Council (D&S March 29).

I may have missed something here. I remember about three years ago a rumour went round that the land at the end of Neasham Road had been sold to Darlington Football Club. I don't remember the council actively seeking developers or putting a "For Sale" hoarding up to say the land was on the market.

And so it came to pass, that the land which was not allocated for development, was sold to Darlington Football Club for the sum of £15,000 an acre as opposed to the market value of about £450,000 for housing or about £500,000 an acre for a supermarket or industrial use.

Whatever happened to competitive tendering or, as we now know it "Best Value," where a council has to challenge, compare, consult, compete?

As Mr Owen states in the last sentence of his letter, regarding sweeping aside planning policies so that you don't have any difficulties with planning permission: "That about sums up how far this council can be trusted in its dealings with developers."

Mr Owen, nothing's changed - as can be proved by asking the residents of Neasham Road.

JANET MAZURK

Neasham Road Residents' Action Group,

Darlington.

Don't blame locals

Sir, - I refer to your report "Defiant Landlord makes new closure bid," (D&S March 29). It's certainly not the villagers' fault!

Mark Wilson of the Milbank Arms in Well should think again. If the villagers do not visit his pub, possibly it is because of his attitude and the overall way in which he has run his business.

I spent many years visiting just such village inns when I worked in that trade and am more aware than most as to what does and does not make for a successful business.

Relying just on those few people who live in Well is never going to produce a healthy turnover, it would be nice if the majority of the inhabitants of the village did use his facilities, but this alone is simply not enough.

Mr Wilson should try harder to develop his business outside the immediate village area. Others have done it, so why not him?

The profit on food is greatly in advance of that generated from the sale of drink. It is for this reason that other landlords, in a similar rural situation. have majored on the food side of their trade.

As most people like to make eating out an enjoyable experience, they often travel a short distance from home and over time visit various different venues. So why not a good food establishment in the village of Well?

After all, there are many more such people with money to spend in the larger towns of Northallerton, Ripon and Bedale - all with easy access to the Milbank.

If I were a planning officer, I would not accept Mr Wilson's reasons for wishing to close his pub and change it to a private house - these are not reasons, but excuses. They are excuses for not trying to generate business from where it can be found, and blaming the villagers of Well is typical of this man.

Others have turned their business round with hard work; others have kept going and been rewarded; others have taken advice and sought the help of those who live around them - why not Mark Wilson?

R A JONES

Snape ,

Bedale.

A decision at odds

Sir, - In a single day recently, a well-known moorland pub sold more meals than in the whole of 2001. By contrast, the YHA - without waiting to see how countryside business recuperates - has decided to sell Aysgarth Youth Hostel.

That must not be allowed to happen. The hostel's situation is superb in every respect, standing in the loveliest countryside in Wensleydale and with a huge number of footpaths in all directions.

It should be a key player in bringing more money into the countryside: today's budget backpackers are the people who will bring their families to the dales in future years.

The YHA nationally seems to be as ignorant of Wensleydale's natural beauties as of the economic plight of last year's foot-and-mouth areas. One trusts county councillors will attack the YHA's decision with vigour: a decision totally at odds with both current legislation on the loss of tourist accommodation and with the YHA's own ethos.

W A AND H FORSTER

Wellington Mews,

Ripon.

Inquiry call

Sir, - Your article (D&S March 29) was based on information obtained from North Yorkshire County Council and may lead some to believe that the residents of Brentwood are militant and inconsiderate. Readers should be aware of the facts.

If the county wishes to install speed cushions in Brentwood they should consult the people of Brentwood and not half of Leyburn. Such gerrymandering guarantees the outcome.

Virtually all residents wish to see speed reductions but they are against the present proposal, which the planning department of the district council voted unanimously against.

A survey obtained from the RAC shows that the speed cushions increase exhaust fumes by as much as 60pc and create noise and vibration. This proposal would not reduce the unnecessary traffic through this former cul-de-sac and is contrary to the district plan and the 1997 public inquiry, which spoke specifically against additional traffic and speed humps.

Government advice is against through-roads in residential areas and the county is trying to force us to accept a 30-year-old plan in spite of three petitions by residents.

The county's proposal could cost as much as £50,000 when restoring the cul-de-sac would be between £500 and £1,000.

Residents in Brentwood are entitled to hefty compensation, information withheld from councillors. In today's financial climate this is not sound management. Our two district councillors, together with our county councillor and the ombudsman, as well as the Brentwood Area Residents' Association, have asked for a public inquiry so that all parties may be heard.

We object to being told what we must and must not do in Leyburn by a councillor from Hawes.

G R DYSON

Brentwood,

Leyburn.

Have a say

Sir, - Your readers may recall the "women with a mission" article (D&S, Jan 18), describing the work of Carol Lewis in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale.

The Two Dales Partnership (2DP) would like to thank all those people who gave their support to our appeal and particularly to those who wrote letters to this paper.

We can now report that the appeal has been unanimously approved, and we look forward to a three-year period of regeneration activity. This will be supported by special European and UK government grants which have already been earmarked for the two dales.

The next step is to give local people the chance to look again at the plans we consulted them on in November 2000. There may well be changes of priority needed as a result of our experience of foot-and-mouth disease.

May I, therefore, through these columns, say that we are holding open days from 10am-noon and 6-8pm on April 17 (Muker), April 19 (Reeth), and April 29 (Langthwaite).

With such a strong expression of support, we particularly look forward to meeting local people, and others, at these sessions. Come along and let us know what you think.

GAVIN GRAVESON

Secretary 2DP

Low Row,

Richmond