Sir, - It's happened again! Richmondshire District Council, according to your news report (D&S, Aug 1), has again been ambushed after a decision had been reached.

You clearly states that the application was defeated on the chairman's casting vote. The meeting followed a site meeting in Finghall, which I attended as an interested party. The residents of Finghall were well represented at the site meeting as they were at the council planning meeting.

The report states that the residents were split in their opinions on this application, with some residents backing the proposal. Having seen the letters to the council, I find that there were only two which were out of step with the majority and neither of these could be said to be in support of the application. They only state that they do not object.

The report later states that the final decision should be deferred until Defra advice has been sought on the suitability of another location.

Surely this is a planning matter, not a case of alternatives. It is a matter for the planning department officers who have already given their opinion clearly.

What other experts are needed for planning? I thought we employed them already to look into the district's planning matters. Who else do we need? What else must we pay for out of our rates? How many times is the council going to be side-tracked?

Does Mr Blackie, who seems to be the main obstacle to closing this matter, have the interests of the Dales communities uppermost on his agenda? He appears to be working from a different agenda to everyone else. What is on his agenda? Is it a case of he with the loudest voice is the only one to be taken note of?

All councillors should respect and represent the communities they serve (whether they live in them or not) and voice their needs and concerns and not just offer their own personal opinions, otherwise all we have is the "President Blair" policies of the current Government, which appear to be more dictatorial than democratic.

The council has now had two meetings regarding this application and I wonder how many times this has to be done before the matter is concluded. I would say to the councillors, ignore the smokescreens and delaying tactics and listen to the people. Their welfare, and environment are your responsibility, they have trusted you to represent them. Do so. Do your job honestly and retain credibility and respect.

ALAN DAVIS

Finghall,

Leyburn.

Sir, - It is refreshing to know that Couns Ramsbottom, Curran and Parlour have finally noticed the disproportionate impact which the leader of the council, Coun John Blackie, has on our planning process (D&S Times Aug 8). We experienced similar problems last year in Leyburn.

Although our two district councillors, our county councillor, the ombudsmen, police and Transport 2000 shared the views of the residents, the view of Coun Blackie prevailed.

It reminds me of a quotation by Pope, namely "Order is heaven's first law, and thus confessed, some are, and must be, greater than the rest". Should a property developer be on a planning committee anyway?

BERNARD BORMAN

Brentwood,

Leyburn.

Better for birds

Sir, - With the start of the grouse shooting season on August 12 comes the inevitable criticism from animal rights organisations on the "cruelty" or "barbarism" of shooting sports.

How wrong that standpoint is.

New independent studies organised by the Countryside Alliance and the Moorland Association and carried out by ornithologists and moorland managers have shown that rare birds such as the curlew, golden plover, lapwing and snipe are thriving on and around the well-keepered grouse moors of northern England - in stark contrast to other parts of the country where they are in serious decline.

The studies show a strong link between thriving wader populations and moors with full-time gamekeepers - testament to the huge contribution shooting and keeping make both to the rural economy and the conservation of moorland areas.

Gamekeepers and grouse shooting are fundamental to the survival of these rare species in the UK - shooting's detractors should not be so quick to judge in future.

JOHN HAIGH

Regional Director for Yorkshire Countryside Alliance

Front Street,

Thirsk.

Yarm interests

Sir, - I would like to comment on a letter from Coun Sherris (D&S, July 25) which I find to be most unsatisfactory.

Surely he has responsibilities to the people of Yarm? How can he avoid his duties as a borough and parish councillor by declaring that he has a prejudicial interest on matters that he states he had no knowledge of?

Surely he and Couns Addison and Monk must notify Stockton Borrough Council and the Charities Commissioners that the trust's actions are outside their constitution as a parochial charity?

DENNIS OPIE

The Grove,

Yarm.

Collector's query

Sir, - I collect ashtrays and beer mats from long defunct breweries. I have 500 and my aim is to collect one from each brewery which existed.

I recently visited Richmond and Catterick, but had no luck in tracing a mat or ashtray of J W Fryer & Sons, which was taken over in 1956. I visited a few pubs and shops but without success. Is there a reader who has encountered either, so that I can judge whether my quest is sensible or not?

GEOFFREY HAMMOND

The Close,

Winchester.