Sir, - I wish to point out several facts which seem to have been ignored in the letter "Shelter Points" (D&S, April 25).

The main one is that the proposed site has always been considered unsafe by the county and parish councils and also by the operator of the school bus service. If it is now considered to be satisfactory, perhaps the councils could explain the reasons behind the change of mind from unsafe to safe.

Also, this bus shelter was first proposed more than four months ago and is not a recent proposal, and until the matter was brought to the attention of the public by the D&S Times, all protest to the county and parish councils was treated with disdain or ignored.

To spend a large sum of public money on a bus shelter for the part-time use by about six children is in my opinion a gross misuse of public funding when the county council is always reminding us how strapped it is for cash to fund essential services, hence the hearty increase in council tax of 17pc.

Both county and parish councils seem to be determined that Sutton should have a bus shelter in defiance of common sense and residents' objections.

T J LOWEY

Glenarm,

Sutton,

Thirsk.

Thanks for aid

Sir. - May I thank two very generous cyclists who came to my aid on Good Friday?

I was staying with my mother in Askrigg, and my son Ben, aged 11, and I decided to cycle down the "Roman road" from above Gayle down to Bainbridge and back to Askrigg, as we have done before.

However, early into the ride, Ben hit a rock and fell off, and worse, suffered a puncture. We started forlornly wheeling our bikes down the road, when two cyclists coming up the road stopped to help us. Not only did they quickly have the wheel off, but produced a spare inner tube to replace the punctured one, pumped it up, and replaced it again, having us on our way.

I think they were from Richmond and Catterick, so would like to use your paper to say thank you very much - you restored my faith in human nature and reassured a worried young man. And I will be better prepared next time!

JOHN SCRUTON

Mapperley,

Nottingham.

Shame on them

Sir, - Fair daffodils, we weep to see you haste aways so soon.

Thus wrote Robert Herrick, lamenting the demise of those joyous spring flowers which brighten everyone's lives in spring.

In Richmond, those roadside daffodils have been wonderful, but their untimely demise has been at the hands of children who have wantonly picked them and then left the heads on the pavement. Shame on their parents and teachers who have never taught them the wonder and beauty of these flowers. Look but do not touch.

MARION MOVERLEY

Lyons Road,

Richmond.

More trains

Sir, - The problems at Thirsk Station are easily soluble.

Firstly, rebuild the station so the platforms are on the outside of the lines, then the existing road bridge would provide level access to both sides, and secondly, persuade more train operators to stop there - Virgin Trains would provide a greater range of destinations southwards, and enhance the current pathetic service to Darlington and points further north.

Alas, as far as the current railway administration is concerned, there are no "easy" solutions. I suspect it would be easier to polish the rails with a nail file than sort out the problems at Thirsk and Northallerton!

CHRISTOPHER M PURSER

St Oswald's House,

Front Street,

Sowerby.

Many thanks

Sir, - On behalf of the Tees Cottage Pumping Station at Darlington, I would like to extend a hearty thank you to all the wonderful people who attended our Easter steaming event. We raised enough money to start repairing the damage to the rare gas engine, caused by vandals.

We would also like to thank the staff at The Northern Echo and Darlington & Stockton Times for their support, without whom, this restoration work would not be possible.

CHLOE HARVEY

Chalford Oaks,

Acklam,

Middlesbrough

Garden use

Sir, - Regarding the planning application for 20-22 Bridge Street, Great Ayton and your report "Cosy cottage dream", (D&S, Apr 25).

Why does Ms Whitwell feel that the wish for a status quo is not a practical option with regard to the garden area ?

After all, this garden was part of 18 Bridge Street in previous ownership and now also in the ownership of W2 Developments . No reason was given at the planning meeting as to why number 18 is no longer in the application.

Why can't the garden remain as a garden for the use of 18 Bridge Street, which we expect will be developed eventually?

This option has been practical before; surely a garden can have an imaginative use, without necessarily having to be built on.

S COLE

Race Terrace,

Great Ayton.