For instance Diss Town Council did not provide any funding for the building of the cricket pavilion in the late 1980s.

The main part of the funding was via a loan, which was the sole responsibility of the cricket club to repay.

It is impossible for anyone not directly involved on a day-to-day basis with the cricket club to understand the problems we encounter and the increasing cost to the club and the time and effort being placed on a handful of club members to maintain the Rectory Meadow.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would feel we are exaggerating the position – the major cost of any fencing would be the responsibility of the cricket club and this will cause us – being a small club with a vast majority of players aged under 21 – a considerable financial commitment.

Why would we want to take on this without good reason?

Some of the views against the fencing being erected bear testimony that the club's concerns are not understood and appreciated.

If the cricket club was to move from Rectory Meadow, the prospect of the area being left as an open space for years to come is, I believe, naive as the town council will not want a commitment to maintain the area.

The fencing should be viewed as a positive commitment by the cricket club to try and enhance the quality of the area so cricket and other sports will continue to be played on the Rectory Meadow for years to come.

Mike Tooke,
Club captain, Diss Cricket Club

---

Winds of change

Thank goodness SLP Energy has finally seen the light (Victory For Protesters, Diss Express, September 12).

The area between Dickleburgh, the Pulhams and Rushall is confirmed as unsuitable for siting giant wind turbines.

Local campaigners have been saying this since the plan first surfaced, 18 months ago.

Those living in the area have lived in dread that political and financial pressure (greed) would drive the scheme through, despite severe problems with the site.

More than 100 properties are within 1km of the site. Industrial wind turbines carry unresolved health issues.

A major but fragile water supply lies under the site. Construction work can easily contaminate this.

The surface is polluted by years of military use (hydrogen production sludge from airship days, dangerous substances from use as an aircraft dump, live munitions from use as a firing range/Cold War storage etc).

It also has a sensitive and precious ecology and is a highly valued rural amenity. It is unsuitable for any form of industrial development, let alone 125 metre tall wind turbines.

These factors were obvious from the start. The plans should never have got off the ground in the first place.

Definitely yes to renewable energy but only in the right places – not at the expense of the environment it claims to be trying to preserve.