Sir, - Who dropped the Middleham Jewel and where does all the Middleham Town Council's money go?

History shows us that Middleham was a wealthy town with past residents responsible for the efficient administration of the North of England. How things have changed!

We still have a parish income that is the envy of all other parishes in the district. An income, per capita, that is eight times larger than any other district parish. So, why is there no town council finance available to support community initiatives, community services, residents needs from toddlers to senior citizens? Why doesn't Middleham have a car park, bowling green, tennis court, town garden, adventure playground, security CCTV...? Why does a town with an annual income of £28,000+ not have any current development projects or financial reserves for future ones?

Can it be that spending £50,000 on administration and legal fees during the last three years has allowed the town's wealth to slip though its fingers. Can it be that spending six times as much as other larger parishes spend on town clerk services and instigating three costly and unsuccessful legal battles has used up all the income that should have provided services and amenities for its residents?

All households in Middleham pay a precept to help support the town. Currently the Middleham precept is in the top 25pc for the district. This precept is for the administration of the parish and should be adequate for that purpose. Middleham parish precept was £4,260 last year but, £16,500 was spent on legal fees and administration. Where did the other £12,000+ come from? It came from rental fees paid for the moor and other lands donated by our ancestors for the good of the people of Middleham. One can only wonder what their reactions would be to this waste.

The Middleham Jewel lay hidden for centuries and eventually brought wealth back to Middleham. The town council's spending on legal fees and administration services is lost forever!

R PARISH

The Springs,

Middleham.

Key to success

Sir, - I refer to your article of November 30 reporting that the resources committee of Richmondshire District Council believes that Middleham Key Centre "has now turned the corner". I am obviously delighted that the councillors are pleased with our progress and would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed to our success in the last 12 months.

It is really good to see such a wide range of groups and individuals taking advantage of the facilities which are available at the centre. After all, community life is all about people, not just buildings.

So please bear with me whilst I publicly thank all the users, volunteers, sponsors, staff, trustees, champions and supporters in Middleham, throughout Richmondshire and further afield.

Our Christmas gift fair held last Sunday reminds me to thank all stall holders and helpers for all our regular stalls and markets. These events bring much needed trade to Middleham in general and help to financially support community activity at the centre.

We are not complacent. We are keen to work together with other organisations to make the best possible use of all the facilities that are available in Middleham.

Mark Johnston sums it up very well in the current issue of Dales Life where he reminds us that all the work that has been carried out in Middleham was based on a vision that the town should "manage its assets and channel them to the benefit of all". The good news is that the vision is alive and well and living in Middleham.

NANCY MURGATROYD

Chairman of Trustees, Middleham Key Centre Ltd

Park Lane,

Middleham.

Make it work

Sir, - At least three times now, the D&S Times has reported that Mike Pattison claims he was forced out of his thriving business in the former Richmond railway station building, whilst the authority insists that he gave notice to quit voluntarily. This apparent contradiction only makes sense if you realise that the Pattisons felt forced to hand in their notice under unendurable pressure.

First the council was not willing to renew the Farm and Garden Centre lease under terms acceptable to its proprietors.

Next, there was the pressure of having the rent doubled. As a recent correspondent to your paper highlighted, the council did the same thing to a Hawes caf which they had earmarked for other purposes.

They also did it closer to home, when they wanted other things for the swimming pool caf. In this case too the then proprietor was forced out by the doubling of his rent. This is the kind of tactic the council uses, but is not willing to acknowledge, when it talks of Mr Pattison's "voluntary" notice to quit.

It has also been reported in the Press that the Pattisons snubbed the offer of a 12-month extended license to trade. However, no mention was made of this offer being conditional on a month's notice. In a trade which requires summer stock to be ordered in the winter, it must surely be obvious that such terms would be wholly unacceptable. Where is the justice in this kind of underhand manipulation?

Thirteen jobs have now been sacrificed at the unique and popular Richmond Farm and Garden Centre. Richmondshire District Council may make money on the sale of the building for leisure, but does it realise the true long-term cost to the town of this enormous mistake?

SUE HOLDEN

Station Cottages,

Richmond.

Sir, - It is with interest that I see Richmondshire District Council is seeking ideas for the use of the old railway station at Richmond. It says that the building is in an area earmarked for leisure pursuits.

May I suggest that with the high popularity of TV garden programmes, and DIY room "make-overs", there is clearly a need for a centre that supplies the necessary equipment and materials to support these hobbies. Perhaps a garden centre combined with hardware, plumbing and building materials would be an ideal choice for the site.

In the future when I require the sort of things I would currently buy from the Richmond Garden and Farm Centre, I will have to go to Sam Turners, in Northallerton. Needless to say, it is inevitable that whilst I am there, I will do other shopping, to the detriment of Richmond traders.

Can I seriously suggest that the district council, which clearly has its own agenda regarding this site, should consider offering Mr Pattison a suitably-sized industrial unit, at a beneficial rental. Under the circumstances, perhaps it should also pay for the transfer of all his stock, so that this excellent emporium (no other description would suit this Aladdin's cave of delights) can continue to supply our needs.

Like many others in the district, I am suspicious of the council's motives, and will be watching with great interest what it eventually decides is a more suitable use for this building.

R J B TWOMEY

Low Green,

Catterick Village.