Sir, - The title of your leading article, "Policy is a pain" (D&S, Jan 21) just about sums up the feeling of this authority, which has had to wrestle with the consequences of its recent decision to refuse permission for the conversion of a barn at Cams to a home for affordable rent.

When the hopes and aspirations of a local couple are dashed by planning law public sympathy is always going to be with the people and not the policy - I fully understand this. For some of your readers it may come as a surprise but my sympathy, and that of my fellow members, is also with the applicants in this case.

However, as your leading article so succinctly points out, planning policies have to be followed otherwise they are not worth the paper they are written on. Further, these policies haven't come out of thin air, the public have had the opportunity to comment, both on the current Local Plan and more recently, the new Plan, the very documents that dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

So when it comes to planning and deciding planning applications, as in the case of Cams, we have to act consistently and apply the policies of the Local Plan.

The Cams application was against both national and local policies. To approve it would have made a mockery of the planning system and opened the door to a flood of similar applications. All would have been able to use the argument that a precedent had been set and that if the authority was willing to approve one then they should all be approved! This is not a sensible way to decide planning applications in one of the nation's finest landscapes.

So, yes, policy is very definitely a pain, yet please recognise that we always try to apply planning laws consistently and fairly as opposed to inconsistently and unfairly.

STEVE MACAR

Chairman, Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

Yorebridge House,

Bainbridge.

Give it back

Sir, - Your readers with long memories will recall the green-painted, round, wooden structure that stood in a corner of the Queen Elizabeth Grammar School playing fields.

Some time after 1974, the hut mysteriously burnt down. The telescope which it housed had been previously removed, rumour has it, by Durham County Council on their take-over of Darlington's affairs. The town is, once more, in control of its own affairs. Those who removed the said telescope should be strongly encouraged to hand it back to the town. It has been mentioned to me that a suitably prominent place in some public building would suffice.

Will anyone else back this plea to return "our" telescope?

PETER KING

Parkside,

Darlington.

Think of us

Sir, - In reply to the former bin man's letter (D&S, Jan 31) and agreeing with some of his comments, it appears he hasn't considered the sick, disabled, and elderly people who are unable to comply with his ideas. This group of people would also find it a severe problem if wheelie bins were introduced.

In my vicinity, a number of residents do put their bags by the kerbside. I'm sure the collectors are thankful but hope they don't resent residents who don't. I find our bin men very cheerful and obliging and hope the council retains its current policy and that perhaps other housekeepers - who are able bodied - help more by recycling and assisting the bin men where possible.

V P JOYCE

Mount Drive,

Leyburn,