Letters: Contradictions

I read with interest comments made by the chairman of Aldbrough St John Parish council (D&S letters, Mar 15) where he appears to question the judgment of Richmondshire district planning officer, Mr Featherstone, over building projects in the village.

The chairman made the point that Mr Featherstone was acting in apparent contradiction over comments made that the proposed surgery may have an intrusive effect on neighbouring properties. Whereas he (Mr Featherstone) previously rejected similar objections made by the parish council over the proposal for Crossbury Manor, which was subsequently built.

I should like to say that Crossbury Manor is several hundred metres away from the village and is visible in the distance only to a proportion of residents, whereas the surgery development would be only a few metres from neighbouring properties and visible to a great deal more.

So why isn't the parish council against this development so close to residents' homes when it objected to a structure much further afield? It appears as though parish councillors are contradicting their own position in much the same way as they accuse Mr Featherstone.

Furthermore, parish council support for the proposed surgery development does not represent the opinion of all residents. There are objectors who do feel that the development would be intrusive. It does need to be said though, that these objectors aren't "not in my back yard" grumblers but rather people who hold genuine and wide ranging concerns over the proposal which still has many grey areas.

In my opinion, it is only right and proper that Mr Featherstone should continue to make his conclusions independently looking at proposals in their own context and without reference to previous developments.

DANIEL REED

End Cottage,

Aldbrough St John.

Please clarify

Sir, - I write with reference to the application to Richmondshire District Council for a new surgery in Aldborough St John.

This would provide much improved, extended, and enlarged medical facilities for people over a considerable area.

One might have expected that the council would treat such a meritorious application earnestly, perhaps sympathetically. Instead, it appears to have simply relegated it to be dealt with by those with "delegated powers."

This, it seems to me, is not the way to treat an important application which would affect large numbers of people; and I would ask the council to act to clarify, and if need be, to rectify the situation without delay.

ALLAN FORDE

Hargill House,

Gilding West.

Caring team

Sir. - We are forever hearing and reading criticism of our hospitals. The comments that follow proves they are not all bad, and we are so very lucky to have the Friarage Hospital in our area.

Having just spent seven nights on WHU ward in the Friarage Hospital, having had major surgery performed by Mr Ballard and his theatre team, I would like to make the public aware of the TLC and expert nursing I received.

Mr Ballard explained the operation in great detail to my husband and me, as it was not a run of the mill procedure. The after care I was given by him was great; he came to see me two or three times a day on the ward, to check on my progress.

Senior Sister Cockran runs a happy and caring team of nurses, under very difficult conditions. The ward was bright and friendly and pleasant to be in.

A grateful ex-patient has donated to the ward a cordless phone, so relatives and patients can speak to each other even though being confined to bed. I was able to speak to my husband late in the evening after my operation to reassure him I was OK. To hear each other's voices made such a difference.

Mrs J DREW

Sowerby,

Thirsk.

Site suggestions

Sir, - To assist the Richmondshire district councillors in making their decision on where to site their new offices, here are couple of suggestions:

Lease purchase the Duchess of Kent Military Hospital, where they would be able to accommodate all their staff under the one roof, and there would be sufficient space for each person, including cleaners and tea "persons" to have a room of their own. A creche would be an essential requirement.

Committee leaders would be able to commandeer whole "wards" ... Richmond would have its own, as would Hawes and Leyburn.

There would be no need for staff to be off sick as all facilities would be on site and portable equipment could be wheeled to their bedside.

In addition, there would be the facilities of the operating theatre to "persuade" councillors to change their minds, or even get a transplanted one.

For those who would need it, there would be a chapel for contemplation.

Finally, at the DKMH there would be a security system in operation to keep out the public - or even councillors from Catterick.

The second suggestion for a new HQ would be the Walkerville Hotel, the mind boggles as to the possibilities there.

J K HENDREN

St Paul's Drive,

Brompton on Swale,

Richmond