Sir, – The correspondents who harness hazy memories of Perth City Hall to insist on forcing a new use on the obsolete building are maintaining their barrage of rose-tinted letters to you.
I wonder, however, if I speak for the silent majority who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Perth and Kinross Council in their forward-looking and sensible approach to the issue.
I commend the council for standing its ground in arguing to retain ownership of the site.
This has been a public place for nearly 1,000 years. Why should it be sold to an individual owner?
Or may I offer bids for underused areas ofKinnoull Hill or perhaps the empty parts of the North Inch?
The vast majority of the people I speak to in Perth believe the defunct and deteriorating hall should be cleared in favour of a public space which local people and visitors could embrace and enjoy as part of a dynamic, modern city.
Even Historic Scotland is rowing backwards by stating, from my understanding, that it will no longer object to the hall’s removal “in perpetuity.”
It was, and is, a messy mix of architectural styles shoehorned into too small a space, topped by oversized putti that have been a laughing stock for a century.
If we really want to save historic buildings, let’s discuss St Paul’s, the first church built in Perth after the Middle Ages, or the Lower City Mills, the last of Perth’s trio of 18th century urban mills to which public access might be secured.
(Dr) Norman Watson. Rowanbrae, 6 Glebe Terrace, Perth.
Teach children cycling safety
Sir, – With reference to Clark Cross’s latest letter (November 10) it is correct that he made noreference to cyclistspaying VED in his original letter but it was he who suggested that cyclists pay a licence fee to offset the £70 million supposedly spent on cycling infrastructure.
The various letters published in reply are pointing out to Mr Cross that cyclists already pay their share via general taxation.
Sustrans, who administer the walking/cycling initiative on behalf of Transport Scotland state that much of any expenditure is spent “off road” which, although good for tourism and getting more people active, does not help in the urban “conflict” between pedestrians, cyclists and motorised transport.
Licensing of cyclists has been looked at by various countries who have all rejected the idea as being uneconomical to administer and enforce.
In the UK we can’t even enforce our current motoring laws.
Most regular cyclists will agree that cycling on a non dual-purpose footpath is unacceptable, however, surveys by councils and police show that the main offenders are 10 years of age and under.
Compulsory cycle training at primary school would go a long way to hopefully sort out much of this problem. Teaching children how to cycle safely and responsibly would be much more productive than teaching them French, Spanish or Gaelic at a very young age.
Dave Brimner. Mearns Drive, Montrose.
Let Scotland’s youth flourish
Sir, – Why does your anti-cycling correspondent Clark Cross wish to deny young people in Scotland a happy and healthy future?
He seems to believe that all cycles and cycle equipment are prohibitively expensive.
This is not the case. Durable bicycles can be bought for under £100.
Many hard-working families see cycling as an affordable and healthy leisure pursuit.
Getting out on bikes is a great way for families to bond and to keep fit.
I would suggest it is better to be active than to lie about an over-heated house watching videos and eating fast food.
Cycling is not the preserve of the Lycra-clad middle-class professionals.
It is a cheap and healthy hobby for thousands of young Scots.
Mr Cross should not seek to stop these young people taking care of themselves.
Bob Stark. Mill Street, Tillicoultry.
Biking makes nation healthier
Sir, – Clark Cross asks me to defend the money spent on cycling routes, and asks why the non-cycling public should be paying for this as he appears to think it brings no benefits.
I defend this expenditure for exactly the same reasons as I would defend providing safe, clean water and a reliablesewerage system and that is that these measures contribute to the overall public good.
Anyone who has not been living in a cave for the past 20 years would be aware that we now have serious problems with obesity andthe health problems associated with this.
Our NHS now faces a serious drain on its resources if the problem of obesity is not tackled by promoting a more healthy lifestyle and encouraging cycling is a practical way of doing this.
The problem is that many people who would cycle are discouraged by the risk caused by the amount of traffic on our roads and even moreso if accompanied by children.
In today’s world, with our pollution problems and the health risks caused by increasingly sedentary lifestyles, it does amaze me that Mr Cross should need these things explained to him.
As to his suggestion that cyclists should wear a label allowing for easier identification, would one bearing the word unclean be sufficient or would he prefer that this be accompanied by the sound of a clapper?
George White. 2 Cupar Road, Auchtermuchty.
Punishing the majority
Sir, – I would like to respond to the letters from Dave Brimner and Alison Page (November 6) who object to a licence fee for cyclists.
I specifically said that the £70 million was for cycle lanes and cycle related expenditure but they both deviate to the roads.
Mr Brimner says that this has not been spent.
This is wrong.
I obtained information from Freedom of Information requests and the £70 million is a very conservative sum and has been spent, with more in the pipeline.
Both complainers ignore the fact that Scotland’s councils and the government are spending huge sums on specialist cycling facilities.
They complain it would be difficult and expensive to administer a licensing system. I would say that an £80-a-year licence, administered by the local authority, would be good value for cyclists getting specialist facilities.
The Scottish Government is planning to bring in a licence for air weapons at a cost of more than £90 and there are more than 500,000 weapons in Scotland.
I repeat: why should the non-cycling public, who are in the majority, pay the major part of the £70 million already spent as well as future projects?
Clark Cross. 138 Springfield Road, Linlithgow.
We depend on each other
Sir, – I write in reply to the appropriately named Mr Cross’s latest letter (November 10) complaining that non-cyclists are forced to pay forthe new cyclinginfrastructure.
Tax-paying non-walkers pay for pavements, non-drivers pay for roads out of general and local taxation, folk without access to rail services subsidise trains andso on. The list includesferries, bridges andeven planes and airports.
We all pay for these vital infrastructuresand means of keeping us all connected and mobile.
Welcome to the real world. There is indeed such a thing as society.
Keith Grant. Beechgrove Place, Perth.
Make tackling poverty priority
Sir, – I welcome the Government’s plans to spend more money on making sure the UK has faster broadband but when it says it should be an essential service like gas and electricity I pause for thought.
The two existing services may be available to everyone but there is a growing population that cannot afford to use either of them due to the policy of austerity.
People have to choose between heating and lighting and getting a square meal.
The money would be better spent tackling poverty first.
David Coutts. 42 Scott Street, Dundee.