SIR: I read with interest and great concern your article News (BEN, March 5) entitled "Football for free".

The views expressed in your article give a false picture of the situation. It is simply not true to say that the Council declined to accept the offer of the land free of charge.

A report was submitted to the Leisure Services Committee on the April 7, 1993 which detailed the offer of the two football pitches, cricket pitch and pavilion to the Council. The Committee clearly recognised the benefits of taking this land into Council ownership in that it would help secure its long term protection for recreational use. On this basis the Committee agreed to accept the offer from the developer subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement. This would have formally bound all parties to the agreement. This decision was subsequently approved by the full Council meeting on April 21, 1993.

Despite the best endeavours of the Council it subsequently proved impossible to get the developer to sign the Agreement, and so the transfer of the land never took place. This was due to the developer having other ideas for the site and nothing whatsoever to do with the Local Authority. It is totally wrong and misleading to suggest otherwise.

It would have been helpful if your reporter had simply taken the time to ask the Department for clarification of the actual position before publishing such a one sided piece. Instead your misleading portrayal of the Council was inexcusable.

I trust this letter goes some way towards establishing the true position of the local authority in this matter.

?Councillor G Riley

Chairman of Leisure Services Committee?

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.