Sir, – You recently ran a front page story (Sowerby Gateway, D&S, Oct 14) reporting on amended plans submitted by the developers. As always, the developers try to make it seem wonderful. Of course, they don’t want you to look at just how flawed these proposals actually are.

Far from seeming to address all the issues of concern as Councillor Robson was reported as saying, they fall far short of what may be needed and actually would make some things worse.

They propose changing the layout from a cul-de-sac design to a grid design as being a good thing. It isn’t. It is a recipe for thieves. The police will rightly condemn such a possibility as dead-end roads are significantly safer than those that allow thieves easy access and escape. If the developers are suggesting that then they are quite bonkers and I doubt if they are that.

I found it interesting that far from thinking these plans address the concerns, Coun Robson himself made it clear at the Thirsk Area Forum on October 18, in quite forthright terms, that these are not now his views.

I am pleased he spoke out to deny that these “supposed new plans” had his support, or that they would do anything much to resolve the traffic issues, though I am puzzled as to how he seemed to have said one thing one day and another later on.

Incidentally, this Thirsk Area Forum – you know the one, where councillors meet to discuss local concerns with residents. What a farce that was.

Oddly enough, I had the idea that councillors should actually talk to their residents, especially at this meeting as that is why they called it.

So what did we get? With the exception of the chairman of planning, who obviously cannot comment and who was there to listen to the residents, the rest of the councillors hid behind officers; the officers hid behind the councillors.

The councillors said hardly a word, other than Coun Gareth Dadd. All we heard were the officers’ views.

My wife, who never goes to things like this, was embarrassed by what she saw and by the lack of respect shown to the residents.

Actually, I too think the participants should be ashamed of their performance. But of course they will see it as something to cheer about; as having “seen off” those pesky people who dared to question them.

Put simply, we wanted views from councillors, not their hired hands. So who are they “representing” and how are they doing it so their voters can see? The answer would seem to be, not the residents of Thirsk/Sowerby.

JOE SALMON Chairman, STUFF (Sowerby and Thirsk United for the Future)