Sir, - I was appalled to learn this week that Stockton Borough Council had held a further meeting to discuss the future development of The Garth, 689 Yarm Road, Eaglescliffe.

Appalled because, not for the first time in my own personal experience the meeting was held "behind closed doors" and the public and Press were deliberately excluded. Obviously excluded because this issue is very sensitive to the local people who mostly do not want the development in an area already suffering from over build in recent years as the large gardens disappear.

"The Garth" has generated some very strong feeling locally regarding its development from one lovely old Edwardian house to 30 and now the new proposal of 25 new flats. This, in an area where some of the oldest houses in Eaglescliffe make it such a popular area to live in the first place.

The area currently has constant traffic jams on most days at peak times, but on the weekends the traffic is a real problem at all times. A block of 30/25 new flats will of course generate more traffic tying to gain access to Yarm Road.

But why is the council even allowed to discuss this type of thing excluding any public opinion. After all it is always the tax-paying public which is inconvenienced and have to live permanently with these decisions - wrong or right. I know this to my personal cost.

Are these planning officers really representing the views of the local people or just considering the that tax generated for council coffers from 30/25 flats will be more than that gained from one lovely old building.

It was interesting to read this week in the D&S that Stockton Council had hold yet another secret meeting to award a pay rise to their leader, giving him £110,000 per year. Yet another example of not wanting public opinion on what must be seen as a sensitive issue when them are real spending cuts for the elderly and disabled.

It makes you wonder what also is discussed by the council at secret meetings which we don't get to find out about that may affect our lives.

Mrs C M BELL

Yarm Road,

Eaglescliffe.

Dome perspective

Sir, - The Dome project was conceived by the last Conservative government and the leader of the project was Michael Heseltine. At that time, it seemed to be a reasonable idea as a welcome to the new millennium.

When the new Labour government came into office in May 97, it was faced with need to make a quick decision. It could either:

(a) Cancel the project and presumably have to write off millions for committed expenditure, or,

(b) Complete the project as originally designed.

With all the benefit of hindsight, and what a wonderful thing that is, it made the wrong decision. But of course, we all knew that way back in Michael Heseltine's time didn't we? It should also be borne in mind, that had option (b) been chosen, it would never have been known that the Dome would be a failure.

You may be sure that opportunist William Hague and his handful of cronies, augmented by a hostile national press, would have ensured that the present government would never have heard the last of it.

Now for the fresh view. Hands up all those who can remember Black Wednesday - the occasion when the last Tory government speculated about £4bn pounds in an effort to remain within the exchange rate mechanism and lost.

Another £4bn or so has already been lost in compensation related to the BSE fiasco. A fiasco that was grossly exacerbated by both the last two successive Tory governments in their inexcusable attempts to keep the facts out of the public domain.

The cost of the millennium Dome project, has very recently been quoted as £0.8bn. It therefore follows that we could have had about ten millennium domes for the cost of just two recent Tory examples of mismanagement of our finances.

Perish the thought!

ALAN BENN

Burneston Village Stores,

Bedale.

Tax scrutiny

Sir, - I hope that you will permit me to add to my recent letter that all council taxes, local, district and county have continued to rise annually until they have become an over bearing burden on aged and low income residents. The greater the age, the greater the burden.

This is all the more so because council taxes are entirely regressive, being neither linked to age, income, or inflation, so that all increases in council tax absorb an ever increasing proportion of income.

It is therefore all the more important that all council taxes are closely scrutinised and closely controlled by the democratically-elected representatives of all the people.

JOHN WOODROW

Summersdale,

Harmby