A NUMBER of items in the interview with the trustees of Haxby Memorial Hall are incorrect or misleading ("Hall to play for as row hots up", August 10).

The building is not "falling to bits". The Atkins survey proves it is in very good condition and will last for many years with normal maintenance. Most items listed are very minor and to be expected in a building a fraction its age.

If the option favoured by most people were adopted, namely to keep the original schoolroom and schoolhouse only and develop to the rear, the leaky flat roof would be demolished and not incur repair costs.

Similarly, the "rotten window" is to be replaced next month through normal maintenance. The figure of £235,000 includes demolishing outbuildings, improved car parking, clearing the neglected grounds and providing a secure boundary - all items required in any solution undertaken. Several other items are regulatory requirements the trustees have failed to fulfil in recent years and are required regardless of refurbishment.

No one suggests the 24-year-old extension should be refurbished. It would be demolished and replaced by the new development.

The assertion that £2 million will provide an atrium, banqueting room and caf is wrong. All of these have been cut from the original plans to reduce costs from £3 million plus.

To say the cost of providing the people's preferred choice is "unknown, but considerable", is nonsense. The trustees should produce an honest cost of doing it by someone other than Huf Haus who sell a self-contained, prefabricated product. The cost of any "solution" they offer will surely be weighted to favour their standard product.

We agree "it has to be do, do, do!" but do what the residents have asked you to for five years. Please, trustees, what part of "no!" don't you understand?

Joyce Widd,

York Road,

Haxby,

York.

Updated: 10:10 Tuesday, August 16, 2005