Sir, - Saltburn Improvement Company has commissioned two "statues" (costing £25,000 each) and wants to know where to put them.

They have been put on a display in Saltburn library, offering a choice of three sites (all selected by the company). There is no choice given for people to say they do not want these 10ft-high objects erected anywhere in Saltburn.

I asked whether I could use the library to collect the signatures of all those people who did not want the "statues" at all. I was refused permission.

Even so, comments have been written on the sheet provided eg "Monstrosities; Enough rubbish in Saltburn already; Put them four miles out at sea".

From past experience, it can be predicted that Saltburn Improvement Company will simply ignore all the objections to its "statues".

I should point out that planning permission has already been denied once when Saltburn Improvement Company tried to put them up in the station portico.

May I suggest that people who do not want their objections ignored should contact either myself or their ward councillor.

I realise some people may choose one of the sites offered as being the furthest away from their own house and therefore they won't have to look at the "statues".

However, wouldn't it be better to erect these "statues" outside the homes of some of the directors of Saltburn Improvement Company? I am sure that their neighbours would be "over the moon" to have such valuable objects outside their front doors!

BRIAN KENNEDY

Gill Street,

Saltburn-by-the-Sea.

How independent

Sir, - Following the local elections in May 1999, the 34 members of Richmondshire District Council were made up as follows: Independent 19, Liberal Democrat 9, Conservative 6 and SDP 1. That situation remained until May of this year, then an Independent councillor left that group to sit on her own in the council. Two weeks ago a further four councillors left the "Richmondshire Association of Independent Councillors (RAIC)" and set up a new group on the council called the "Independents".

The membership of the council now stands at Richmondshire Association of Independent councillors 13, Liberal Democrats 9, Conservative 6 and SDP 1. At the council meeting on Tuesday, July 17, membership of the committees, sub-committees and working groups of the council was re-arranged in order to reflect the proportionally of each political group on the council. This is required by local government law.

The council has now moved from being controlled by the RAIC, led by Coun John Blackie, to a council under no overall control. Liberal Democrats believe that the chairmanships of the various committees of the council should be agreed on a proportional basis reflecting the membership of the council.

But at the council meeting this week Coun Blackie's group, supported by the Conservatives, pushed through nominations for all the chairmanships and vice-chairmanships of every committee.

If the Conservative group and the RAIC intend to run the Richmondshire district, it is time they admitted their "cosy arrangement". I challenge Coun Alderson (Conservative leader) and Coun Blackie (RAIC leader) to publicly admit to their "arrangement" or allow the council to be run by all the groups on the council.

Coun RICHARD D GOOD

Leader, Lib-Dem group,

Richmondshire District Council.

Efforts in vain

Sir, - I refer to Jill Neil's report on the future of Brentwood in Leyburn (D&S, July 13).

Private individuals, and more recently the Brentwood Area Residents Association, have worked extremely hard to retain Brentwood as a cul-de-sac. But both Richmondshire District Council and North Yorkshire County Council ignored the 1997and 2000 public inquiries.

The 1997 inquiry said opening up Brentwood as a through road would "would harm the amenities of the residents of Brentwood, in attracting considerable extra traffic. The resulting noise and activity would not be alleviated by speed humps ... a source of considerable nuisance in a residential area."

Further it said: "If the highway authority is insistent upon emergency access from both ends of an estate road system, including Brentwood, then there are ways to achieve this without opening up the road to traffic, without restriction."

The proposal for speed cushions shows a blatant disregard of the two public inquiries.

North Yorkshire County Council did propose a site for lockable bollards and the association offered to contribute to their installation. It therefore would have cost the council very little.

It appears the efforts of the residents' association have been in vain since both local authorities have ploughed their own furrows, at the expense of the safety, amenity, security and property values of mainly elderly and/or disabled people.

G KANE

Chairman, Brentwood Area Residents' Association,

Leyburn.

It's unacceptable

Sir, - There is a somewhat cynical saying "improvement equals decline". Sadly, it is all too often justified.

Yorkshire Water has spent a reputed £2m on a new sewage works at Masham. Unlike the old works, which I understand worked by gravity, the purified effluent from the new plant requires to be pumped into the River Ure.

Our group is astonished to learn that Yorkshire Water Services Ltd has now applied to the Environment Agency "for consent to discharge sewage effluent in an emergency (following power failure or mechanical breakdown) from Masham sewage treatment works into the River Ure".

Clearly contingency plans have to be made but tipping sewage into the River Ure is not an acceptable solution.

Any of your readers who feel as we do can register an objection with the Environment Agency, Coverdale House, Aviator Court, Clifton Moor, York, YO30 4GZ (Ref: 27/22/0063. For the attention of Mr P A Stephenson), by July 27.

GERALD HODGSON

Chairman, River Ure Group,

Thorney Field,

Spennithorne,

Leyburn.