I FULLY agree with Carolyn Clinton (Letters, December 24) who expressed the concerns of most residents in the immediate area of the Age Concern building at Clarence Park.

I wonder just how much research went into the planning committee's decision to give its approval to this huge extension, ignoring the advice of the competent professionals in the planning department - and in doing so, flouting their own Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for the borough.

Have they compared the figures of those who use this facility on a regular basis with the number of older people who choose not to? These figures should be readily available from Age Concern and town hall records. I think they would be surprised by the number of older people who dont want to join the sort of organised activities offered there.

Did the councillors ask the views of any of the Age Concern members? I did, and was surprised to find that support for the extension is not 100 per cent. Older people don't always voice something which may offend their peers.

I understand that, in the near future, this organisation will be vacating its town centre premises. What provision have they made for this contingency, or are they hoping to use the new extension for the offices and storage space previously turned down by the planners? Once they have this new, additional space, who is going to ensure that it is always used for the planning purpose granted?

This "small building", which was to be used as a meeting place for coffee etc, suddenly needed a music and alcohol licence. Age Concern were economical with the truth when the idea for this building was first mooted.

Why are the large vehicles, which arrive daily, not directed to the lower car park in the Lido where they would not present a danger to the nearby school? Why must we have these vehicles on Mosley Avenue?

By allowing this minority group such a prime spot in a green belt area, the council is setting a precedent so that other groups, whose members would benefit from "exercise and a lovely view for the less able-bodied" (Mrs Pilkington's words at the site meeting on December 14), could expect the same positive outcome for their applications to build.

This green belt land was placed in trust with the councillors for future generations to enjoy. I feel that this trust has been betrayed.

However, it will be a matter of council record who carried out this act of betrayal, and who allowed a building - which bears a close resemblance to Mike Baldwin's knicker factory - to be erected in this lovely area.

AUDREY SCHOFIELD