Sir, - I refer to your report on the Scots pine tree at Stokesley (D&S, Aug 8).

It is a large, mature tree and, in the words of the arboriculturist, is very, very old. It does not stand in the churchyard, but in the churchyard extension more commonly known as the cemetery.

It should be noted that the arboriculturist in his report did not state that the tree is "not dangerous", in fact he refers to potentially hazardous branches and the complicated issue of them being hazardous. He also could not decide if the work previously recommended had been done and recommended that it should be done.

Trees of a similar type, age and size were uprooted in Stewart Park, Middlesbrough, in 1998, and more recently in the South, falling into a school playground killing a child. Already, two very large branches have fallen into the cemetery.

Until I advised Mr M Richards of Hambleton District Council, they denied having a responsibility. But all councils have a duty under the Local Government Act, miscellaneous policies of 1976, amongst other matters for dangerous trees.

I have been informed by Simon Parry of the Health and Safety Executive that an arboriculturist is not a suitable person to determine the safety of trees, which rather undermines the council's decision based on a report by a person not suitably qualified for the safety and legal aspects.

Now that the district council has made the decision, it will be legally liable for any hurt or damage should the tree or branches fall.

Even though the council saw fit to place a tree preservation order on the tree(s) in 1990, it will be more than the council or anybody can do to preserve the tree as, like all living organisms, it will eventually die.

If it was in a position where deterioration would not cause hurt or damage, most people would agree with the decision, but it will cause hurt and damage unless something is done to prevent it happening; the risk is unacceptable.

An interesting point for taxpayers: when the councillors made the site visit to Stokesley, most of the 17 members arrived individually in cars. On the sensible grounds of taxpayers' economy, I question why some of the councillors could not have carried fellow councillors as passengers?

R W BARKER

Ladycross Farm,

Stokesley.

Numbers game

Sir, - It was with some anger that I noticed the comments made by Coun Geoff Baker in the D&S Times of August 8.

Coun Baker remarked, when discussing the proposed auction mart move to the Thirsk Road, some 90m from the St James' estate: "The mart needs moving downtown away from its present situation as soon as possible. For the few people it might put out, think of the majority who will benefit."

What a foolish fellow this Coun Baker appears to be ... let him be told that the definition of "few" is: "a small number." Some 600 households that are likely to be affected, amounting to well over 1,000 people.

Coun Baker, 1,000 is not "a small number."

Incidentally, if this proposal goes ahead, it will deviate from some eight Hambleton district-wide local policies.

Who are the people to benefit? Probably the majority of shareholders in this private business venture.

Thank goodness for common sense from Couns Stan Nash, John Smith, David Blades and Peter Brown for suggesting the auction mart should be applying to move to the north of the town.

The north of the town is an area where our council has spent a considerable amount of our money to build a purpose-built industrial estate.

It is an area where traffic can be accommodated, away from the flood plains and an area where any offensive smell and noise will blow away from the town as opposed to into the town.

Surely, Coun Baker, that, in your own words: "for the few people it might put out (the shareholders of the auction mart), think of the majority who will benefit" (the residents of Northallerton).

ROBERT BEAVER

St Stephen's Gardens,

Northallerton.

Refuse scheme

Sir, - I support your correspondent Mr Bunting (D&S letters, Aug 8) in his concern over the new collection scheme for refuse in Hambleton. In addition to his valid points made, I, too, am concerned about the infrequency of collection.

With a family of five, I find that we regularly have to travel to the Yafforth refuse tip with our surplus waste, excluding newspapers, bottles and garden compost. The new wheeled black bin capacity of six black bags is not sufficient for collection once a fortnight.

While I approved the purpose of reducing the amount of rubbish sent to landfill, I feel that the council has added a burden on householders by not fully addressing the implications of the new wheeled bin refuse of composting collection scheme.

I suggest the council should monitor the new system to identify the effect it has on households and be prepared to review the frequency of collections so that we, as taxpayers, are provided with a justifiable service.

DEBORAH FAULKNER

Newsham,

Thirsk.

Sir, - Forty years ago, the great train robbery took place. Almost as a memorial to it, Hambleton District Council this week performed an equally audacious manoeuvre, the great wheelie bin robbery.

At a stroke, the weekly collection of household refuse is to be once a fortnight - a 50pc reduction in service. The trade-off is a "green" collection on alternative weeks. Great news if your a garden is as big as a market garden.

No more black bags either. Buy your own I'm told and use shopping bags. Marvellous. Eat your heart out Ronnie Biggs, You're small-fry now.

M H PEACOCK

Ash Tree Road,

Bedale.

Costly insurance

Sir, - When I booked a holiday with a Darlington travel agency, I was given "free travel insurance" with Ketteridge Insurance Group.

The booking clerk went through a standard agency health check list and declared that my travelling companion and I qualified for the travel insurance.

We were handed the insurance company's form, which we did not have time to read all the small print in detail, and duly signed it.

Later, my companion took ill and we had to cancel the holiday. The travel agency refunded its portion of the cost very quickly but the insurance company took weeks to respond. They sought clarification from my companion's GP as to her health, going back many months. He wrote directly to the company.

Many weeks later, the company wrote to say that it would not be making any payment on the policy for, in the very small print high up the page was clause stating that, had medication been changed in the previous three months, the policy would be invalid if not cleared with the insurers before being activated.

The booking clerk made no request for such information via her standard agency checklist and, hence, we had not made the medication situation known.

When the form is given to you to sign on the spot you do not read it in detail, having being told that you have been "accepted" for insurance.

So readers be warned that "free" insurance can turn out to be costly. Take time to check all the print on the document, even if it holds up other customers.

A wiser, but £500 poorer, traveller.

BRIAN JEFFERSON

The Green,

Piercebridge.