PUBLISHED: 11:07 02 November 2006 | UPDATED: 11:08 06 May 2010
SIR - Well done Graham Frost (re front page story about Norton Common). As a former Letchworth resident, and one who currently works in Letchworth, I applaud his efforts to keep Norton Common from any further development. Is nothing sacred? Are there not
SIR - Well done Graham Frost (re front page story about Norton Common). As a former Letchworth resident, and one who currently works in Letchworth, I applaud his efforts to keep Norton Common from any further development. Is nothing sacred?
Are there not any other sites that could be used? There is already the leisure centre, the large recreation ground on the Grange, and one opposite the football club. For those ardent seekers of leisure, there's also the brilliant Letchworth Greenway. Is this not enough?
Norton Common is not there simply for the middle-class dog walkers who are lucky enough to live around its perimeter, it functions as a sanctuary from the concrete, tarmac and block paving absolutely everywhere else, and is a green and pleasant space to be enjoyed as it is.
Develop it further, and I am sure the people who would gain the most are the oiks and yobs who would use it as a hang out, especially after we have spoilt their fun by not rebuilding the skate parks that have been burnt or vandalised into oblivion before.
I would personally go further and remove the anachronistic open air swimming pool which gets used for only a few months of the year, and remains an eyesore 24/7, 365 days a year.
Keep it as it is, leave the wildlife who live there in relative peace, and stick your multi-sports activity area somewhere else!
SIR - May I correct some misunderstandings contained in your front page article "Not for the common good" (October 26, Letchworth edition)
Whilst most of Norton Common has recently been designated a Local Nature Reserve, the formal recreation areas such as the bowling greens, play area, swimming pool, car parks and tennis courts fall outside the reserve. The proposal is therefore not to install floodlights in a nature reserve but to provide additional lighting in the formal recreational area of the common.
The statement that "it is going to pollute the area with light when it is a nature reserve" is also incorrect. The proposed lighting would be directed onto a single tennis court and has very little overspill. It may slightly illuminate the play area and bowling green but would not pollute the nature reserve with light.
I hope this helps to clarify the facts.
Head of Service
Leisure and Environment, NHDC