Sir, – As one who was present at the meeting in Osmotherley referred to in your issue of April 3 and the subsequent meeting to confirm the results of the questionnaire available on the day, I feel compelled to respond.

If the parish council felt the need to publicly criticise behaviour on the day, it should have also perhaps have commented on the dictatorial manner in which the meeting was conducted, which is what prompted the reaction.

A leaflet headed Osmotherley Community Trust and signed “Coun Tim Swales” was circulated to promote the meeting stating the intention was “to have an open discussion”.

Mr Swales opened the meeting (whether in his capacity as a councillor, or director/trustee of the OCT was unclear to most of us) with the remarks: “We don’t intend to discuss this and we don’t intend to take questions, we don’t want it to descend into a slanging match like the last meeting.”

As a lesson in how to create animosity and aggravation, this I think ranks as a master class.

The “plan” on display is best described as a back-of-a-fagpacket sketch which, apart from a description of location, had no indication of dimensions, or cost. How it was expected anybody could come to an informed opinion is beyond me.

At the subsequent meeting, which I attended as an observer, it was revealed that 131-plus had attended on the day, there had been 141 forms returned ( three spoilt) which when collated showed that 38 per cent was the largest body in favour of a specific site. As 141 represents at best approximately 20 per cent of the population, it is hardly resounding approval by any standards.

Despite this, the principals intimated they, whoever they may be, would start negotiations to buy the land.

In conclusion, may I point out in two previous issues this matter has only been reported as a proposal for a village car park, when it is in fact a car park, sports facility, and lowcost housing. It is a large development in a small village.

P JOHNSON Oswaldene, Osmotherley.