I AM writing in response to Cllr Margaret E Clare's comments in the Evening News on August 18 headlined: A cathedral would be fine, but not a mosque?

I disagree with her analysis of the situation that people would be OK accepting a cathedral on their doorstep but not a mosque.

Any planning application that would undermine the quality of life in an area and have an adverse affect on the environment would be wholly unacceptable, even if it was a cathedral.

If a cathedral was proposed for a site near to where I lived, and if it had a detrimental affect on the peaceful tranquillity of my surroundings, then I would strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic flow, excessive noise levels, high levels of pollution, danger to public safety, etc.

I would certainly not give my eye teeth to reside within the confines of a cathedral even if Edward Heath does, nor would I accept her point that it would increase the value of my property. In fact, it would decrease the value of my property. If Margaret E Clare had £40,000 to invest in a property, I am quite sure that she would not buy a property in an area that did not have the potential to increase the value of her investment.

It's seems to me that Cllr Clare thinks it is OK for her to push her ideas of what is right and wrong for other people, playing the politician just like her colleagues do on the planning committee, especially when it does not affect her and her major investment in life -- her property.

(name and address supplied)