IN THE recent spate of letters criticising Mr St John, students repeatedly infer that they and the university bestow significant benefits on the city and the population.

In 40 years neither I nor anyone I know has discovered any benefits.

I get on with my life and tolerate everyone but find it unacceptable when those who are allegedly intellectually blessed fail to state clearly what they claim to mean. Space limitation prevents me listing all the disadvantages experienced over the lifetime of the university but many local people have been adversely affected.

1.The naivete of lecturers appointed when the university was first established doubled the cost of houses in a period of 12 weeks.

As an agent said at the time "We just let them have what's on the books but if they bothered to visit the district for a day they would save themselves a fortune." Readers may say that's history but the local property market has remained distorted ever since.

2.Absentee landlords attracted by profits from students maintain the distortion. My own family members would like to return but houses equivalent to their own cost ten times more in Lancaster.

Property prices affected by the university have forced them out.

3.Local families used to picnic on the river bank at Halton. Children enjoyed swimming in the smooth, slow water above Halton Weir. Lancaster had a successful rowing club at the time but students of the university chose to form their own club based at the old Halton Railway station.

To give themselves a longer stretch of smooth water they promptly demolished Halton Weir. Their action ruined a popular, free, local pleasure area and halcyon days of picnics by the river were ended forever.

4.Canalside student flats are sited five minutes from the centre of our allegedly tourist area city. The land was once earmarked for development as parkland. It was a place where city workers often took their lunch whilst mothers and children spent days picnicking, flying kites, playing football and cricket or just relaxing watching the boats sail by.

Those lovely free days for locals ended when the university, with connivance of the local council, developed the land to build flats. Protests which included 270 in number but representing thousands more, were ignored.

Why did the Uni have to choose another local leisure spot.

Finally, as I began with Mr St John, let me say I believe he does have cause for complaint. It is a shameful fact that when he asked for help the university and St Martins ignored him.

The university needs a "student and citizen" welfare officer. All the Mr St Johns would then have a point of reference.

As for my experiences my present student neighbours (nine in total) are pleasant enough but two years ago their mountaineering predecessors climbed on my roof every time I left the house.

And only last month my relative's children, living on Dale Street, were awakened and scared when noisy students ran around on their roof.

N James Lancaster