I SEE rules emanating from Brussels as the only way that a ruling imposed on us by 'London' can be overturned to the advantage of many Malvern people. I accept that some people will not agree but I do think that local people, those who pay a precept on their rates, should decide if the facilities that used to be on the hills should be replaced.

I have lived in sight of the Malvern Hills all my life and have lived in Malvern for the last 45 years paying a bit on the rates towards the upkeep of the hills, of course. We lived for 30 years in West Malvern and, because the hills were so accessible, we regularly took our four children for walks on the hills. For the children, no trip was complete if a visit was not made to the caf on the Beacon. The nearby toilet was a bit primitive but extremely well patronised by nearly everyone who passed that way.

When a fire destroyed the old wooden building that had given good service for a good many years, some people in London decided that it should not be replaced, and I don't remember any of your correspondents complaining about those who made the decision being 'faceless and unelected', but I don't believe one of them lived locally!

Over the years the loss of the Beacon Caf comes up in conversation regularly and I have yet to meet anyone who lives locally who agrees with the ruling from above. I suppose we all know our station and when rulings like this are made for us it gives us a comfortable well looked after feeling. But when we are citizens of the European Union I for one will feel entitled to ask that the situation be reviewed. A straightforward questionnaire could be included with each Council Tax bill that had a Malvern Hills Conservators precept asking 'Are you in favour of replacing the Beacon Caf and toilets? Yes or no.' We all know that it is good for Malvern to attract visitors so why not have a caf or, dare I say it, a proper restaurant with modern toilet facilities on or near the Beacon?

For local people who never knew the original Beacon Caf, I had better add a few details. It was constructed like a wood cabin and was only single storey and it was certainly not an eyesore.

In the summer you could sit inside in the shade or sit at the heavy wooden tables and benches on a patio taking in the panoramic view. In the winter all but the hardiest sat in the caf and all you could see through the cigarette smoke was the condensation running down the inside of the windows - no double glazing!

When walking on the hills the real bonus was to have children with you, because from the outset a call at the caf was expected even if there was little time and everyone had to gallop all the way.

It seems acceptable for obelisks to be built on the hillside so it may be a good idea to have two built facing London with the bases near together but both leaning out a bit, just to express our feelings.

Seriously, such a pair of obelisks could house enough communication aerials to pay for the whole project and the ongoing rental would subsidise the running of the project with money left over for our local charities.

R J JACKSON, Teme Avenue, Malvern.