Letters to the Editor

At each of a series of public consultation meetings, currently being held across the county, I explained the reasons for the proposal. These are based on a number of key priorities viz:

l Achieving excellence in education.

l Providing quality care for those in need.

l Maintaining a safe and effective transport infrastructure (including winter maintenance).

l Keeping council tax below the average for county councils in England.

For a whole host of reasons, it is not possible to achieve these objectives with a council tax increase equivalent to the current level of inflation.

In addition the county council has had to wrestle with the devastating effects of foot-and-mouth, floods and a rail crash, the costs of which have fallen substantially on the county council.

Mr Collin projects a figure of £1,000 for a band D property next year. This needs to be explained. The current band D council tax comprises four elements: county council (£668), Richmondshire (£134), police (£63). which total £865, plus a variable parish element.

The county council element ranks 28th out of 34 English shire Counties, with the current average for counties being £705 - hence my statement that the county council has a low level of council tax when compared with other counties.

The county council's approach to seeking efficiency measures is also questioned. In addition to the Best Value process and its associated inspection regime, the county council has shown itself willing and able to adopt approaches such as using PFI for new schools, externalising services, and selling assets that are no longer required.

These are all indicators of an authority not complacent about its service performance levels.

Coun JOHN K WEIGHELL

Leader of the Council

North Yorkshire County Council,

County Hall,

Northallerton.

Keep council here

Sir, - Taking the Richmond out of Richmondshire? How dare they! The D&S Times of February 8 dropped a bombshell in the main item on the front page of the North Yorkshire edition under the headline "Council offices set to move out of Richmond centre."

When local government was reorganised in 1974, the new district revived the ancient name of Richmondshire, meaning the shire or district of Richmond. Richmond, the most historic town in Richmondshire, should remain the base of Richmondshire District Council, alongside technology-based improve- ments such as community offices.

The district council should not be adding to Richmond's present troubles, which include the disgraceful intention to close the magistrates' court, the last survivor of the many courts which have been held here over nine centuries. The district council is about to put up our council tax while cutting back on the services provided, including grants to preserve our precious heritage.

The council has already lost face over the recent closure of the popular Farm and Garden Centre from the council-owned former railway station.

It seems that the proposals to move Richmondshire out of Richmond have not been discussed with local district councillors. Let us hope they now fight to keep the Richmond in Richmondshire.

JANE HATCHER

Bargate,

Richmond.

Sir, - Readers may remember correspondence and pictures in the papers some weeks ago about the so-called "statues" that Saltburn Improvement Company wants to inflict upon Saltburn.

Despite overwhelming public rejection of them as "piles of junk" etc - comments written when photographs of the statues were displayed in Saltburn Library - Saltburn Improvement Company is making yet another attempt to get planning permission. The application will be advertised today and any objections have to be lodged with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council planning department within 21 days.

The intended sites are the Old Rose Garden in Marine Parade and adjacent to the miniature railway shed in the valley, both public land. Notices have to be posted on site but when planning permission was sought to develop the old nursery site in the Valley Gardens, the notices disappeared within two days.

If any readers do not want these "statues" imposed on Saltburn, they should ensure their objections are registered. To be even-handed, I understand that both Joan Guy (parish councillor/secretary to Saltburn Improvement Company) and Jackie Taylor (director, Saltburn Improvement Company) are whole-hearted in their support for these "statues"- - unless, of course, those statues were erected outside their own front doors.

BRIAN KENNEDY

Gill Street,

Saltburn-by-Sea.

Fine at fifty

Sir, - I refer to the article on the over fifties' forum on January 25, advising us not to sit back and moan about things. Perhaps Mr Fisher would care to visit the area where he would find large numbers of over fifties actively engaged in improving the quality of life through involvement in the wide variety of organisations in Stokesley, Great Ayton, Hutton Rudby and the surrounding villages.

There seems to be an assumption that we need other bodies to co-ordinate us and represent out views. Unfortunately, it is very easy to attract grants for co-ordination but extremely difficult to attract funds to maintain existing services. The Community Care Association provides carer relief, befriending and a luncheon club, as well as transport, and has just had to agree to raid reserves to balance next year's budget. We shall have difficulty replacing even one of our minibuses if this continues.

KATH MURRAY

Chairman, Community Care Association

Stokesley.

Cottage facts

Sir, - I am writing in response to your front page article in last week's paper which was grossly misleading.

Contrary to the emotive headline, the cottage in question, 2 Low Green, has absolutely no bearing on the view of Roseberry Topping upstream from Low Green as any photograph will prove.

Your readers in Great Ayton, some of whom were invited to sign a petition drawn up by the person whose biased views formed the basis of the article, might like to know that the "huge" extension is a modest one-storey building 9ft in width; the total number of residents who objected was three and the rear of the extension is the replacement of an existing dilapidated building.

If any of the allegations relating to loss of amenity and light to the neighbouring properties were valid, the planning department would not have supported this application.

A HOUGHTON

Newton under Roseberry.

Video evidence

Sir, - Masham Parish Council notes your report on the provisional tree preservation order placed on willow trees at Masham recreation ground (D&S Feb 1), and would like to make the following points.

Harrogate planning official Dan Bastow is quoted as saying no evidence of the trees' roots interfering with the drains was presented to the planning authority. The council wishes to pint out that both Harrogate Borough Council and the parish council have video evidence of the incursion of the roots.

Your report also suggests that the parish council did not offer to plant two new trees - we did. The council also wishes to point out Harrogate Borough Council would not accept responsibility for these drains.

Coun P NICKLAS

Chairman of Masham Parish Council.

Is the price right?

Sir, - Richmondshire District Council spends over £1m a year on four full-time executive directors, to run an authority budget of £8m and a staff of 150.

How on earth is Sue Young going to solely direct the area's new primary care health trust of 700 and a budget of £80m, as a two-and-a-half day part-timer paid only £12,000? This appears to be bordering the miraculous unless the district council top brass is excessive and expensively top heavy?

Coun TONY PELTON

Catterick Village.