Sir, - You report the securing of planning permission for a new "beacon" on Beacon Hill on the boundary of Danby and Glaisdale parishes (D&S, Mar 21).

I was one of the people who responded to the question in the Danby Parish Plan questionnaire (Glaisdale was not included), "Would you support the permanent marking of Danby Beacon as a historical site?" in the affirmative. We were not then asked our opinions on how it would be marked, or by whom.

What we are now faced with is a modern sculpture which does not fit with the history of Danby Beacon Hill, however artistic it may be.

The old, rough-hewn post which "fell down" in the 1970s was indeed the last "beacon pole", but its purpose was never to have had a basket arrangement on the top.

Beacon bonfires 150 years ago had a central post against which the bundles of brushwood were stacked for efficient burning (as the best Guy Fawkes bonfires still do), but it was also tall enough to fly either the Union Jack or a regimental flag.

Those of us who remember the Danby Beacon Pole will recall a crosspiece at the top, which would have had a pulley arrangement so that the flag could be recovered prior to setting fire to the stack - one would not want to burn one's own flag! The 1775 large-scale map of Yorkshire has a tiny but very recognisable depiction of just such a bonfire on Danby Beacon, complete with pole and flag.

Such a bonfire would have been for night-time signalling only. The beacon structure for use in daylight used to be separate - one or more barrels of burning tar, in or on a frame on the ground, designed to create a dense column of black smoke, instead of flames. On a hilltop there was never a need for anything on top of a pole, which would have made beacon management so much more complicated.

Therefore what we are being offered to mark our historical site has no historical relevance whatsoever. Are not this and future generations in great danger of becoming even more confused than we already have been by the relatively recent fashion for putting "beacon baskets" on tall poles on hill-tops?

Our own national park authority has been as guilty in this respect as any other.

PETER WOODS

Rosedale Intake,

Danby.

A spur to action?

Sir, - I write in support of A T P Millen (D&S letters, March 21, letters) concerning the disgraceful state of the verges and lay-bys in Hambleton district and indeed throughout much of North Yorkshire.

Would that A T P Millen's letter or indeed countless others, some of which the D&S has published, prove to be a spur to action. I fear that yet again a plea for such action will fall on deaf ears.

A recent overseas visitor to North Yorkshire commented to me that it was one of the dirtiest rural areas he had seen in the UK.

What is the point of spending tens of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money promoting tourism in Hamleton district, yet at the same time making no consistent effort to keep the verges and lay-bys clean.

I have no doubt that there will be a "focus group" looking into the problem. The solution is plain for all to see. Please Hambleton listen to the community you serve - and do something about it.

LIONEL TWISS

Barbeck,

York Road,

Thirsk.

A precedent

Sir, - We refer to your report "Go-ahead for extension despite light loss fears" (D&S, Mar 21).

How can planners go against their own guidelines and pass this extension when it infringes the Right of Light Act 1959 which says "if you have enjoyed the light for a full period of 20 years without interruption the right shall be deemed absolute."

The extension will overpower our dining room window, which runs parallel with the proposed extension.

We insisted we had a visit from the planning officer as the application, which had been turned down twice, was now going to be put through the "fast track" procedure which means that the committee does not have an opportunity to comment.

We insisted that the planning officer viewed the extension from the inside. To no avail, she said right to light was a civil matter and to take it up with a solicitor.

Now we will have to take out injunction against our neighbour to stop this extension being built, which would not have been necessary had the planning officers not gone against their own guidelines, in doing so reversing their decisions of 1984 and 2002.

Anyone who has had a planning application refused in the past under the 45 degree rule governing right to light can now apply again with confidence due to this precedent-setting decision.

ERIC & MARGARET KIRBY.

Newby,

Middlesbrough.