Hotel plan for pub car park means

'lunatics are running the asylum'

SIR, - Having just read the article about proposed building at the Hare and Hounds, at Menston, I really believe the lunatics must be running the asylum, (or would be if we still had one!)

Who are these faceless wonders who sit on the planning committees and make such idiotic proposals which seem to get carried through to completion, however crazy they are?

An annexe of 35 bedrooms attached to the building cannot now be built as the expiry date has passed. So let's build a separate hotel on the car park of the original pub, which is still very much in use. (Have they not seen how full that car park becomes on special days like Mothering Sunday, to name but one, when you can't put a bicycle down on it for cars parked bumper to bumper?) - and to show there's no ill feeling, we'll put on an extra ten bedrooms and make it 45.

Hang on, though. It's a busy road. And we'll have all that extra traffic from the new High Royds estate,. Was that 500 houses, and at two cars per house, on average, let me see, is that an extra 1,000 cars down that road each day at rush hour?

(Silly name really. I mean, rush hour! With all that traffic, who's going anywhere?)

We don't want any more traffic turning right. Tell you what, we'll ask the drivers to go round an extra 20 miles to get back to where they ultimately want to be. (As if!!)

And the worst yet - a building design on the lines of the adjacent Hare and Hounds has been thrown out as being unsuitable! What architectural monstrosity will I eventually find facing my unbelieving eyes when I pull my curtains each morning? I dread to think.

I had been under the impression that the whole harebrained scheme had died a natural death some time ago, and that the planners had listened to the (at the time) weight of public opinion and thrown it where it belonged, in the wastepaper basket.

It's hardly rocket science, is it? Avoid all the traffic and other issues and reject the whole scheme. Is this the silly season, or what?

Elizabeth Sharp

'The Gables',

48 Bradford Road,

Menston.

Action taken

SIR, - I read with interest the recent letter from 'Graham' of Yeadon. In response to complaints received I recently visited the site outside Yeadon Cemetery with an officer from Leeds City Council, and noted that there were two damaged bins with no lids.

I watched with interest as a large black crow removed a fast food packet and dropped it on the floor beside the bin. A little later I also saw a rat in the same vicinity.

I have thus requested that new bins with lids be put on the site. I have also seen the potholes and have asked for them to be filled.

The ones on Haw Lane where it loops around parallel to Cemetery Road are indeed horrific and I have asked for them to be filled as a matter of urgency, I have also raised the quality

of the Haw Lane road surface in general.

If Graham would like to get in touch with me directly on 07950 008005 to discuss this and any other problems I would be happy to hear from him.

Coun Ryk Downes

Liberal Democrat,

Otley and Yeadon Ward.

Bridge issue

SIR, - As a newcomer to Burley-in-Wharfedale, I have read the Burley Bridge correspondence with interest.

One vital point has been overlooked - the crossing is a designated public right of way, and I believe there is a statutory duty to maintain safe passage. This is nothing to do with self-interested ramblers - it's public access at stake.

Currently it is impassable for most of the year - this is analogous to the right of way (road) to one's house being similarly impassable!

As for "90 per cent of villagers not wanting a bridge" or "ramblers being selfish" I understand a properly conducted survey showed 75 per cent in favour.

In respect of selfishness, as a public right of way, linking to others on the north bank, the public has just that - a right to cross (safely) and enjoy. At present only a few, particularly those with fishing rights, enjoy both river banks.

Private rights v public rights - for some that reverses the selfishness argument. Personally I feel there should be scope for both sectors to enjoy their rights to the full.

It would be a useful temporary measure to improve the stepping stones, but with rapidly rising river levels that would be only short term. However, anyone who has crossed perfectly good stepping stones across wide, deep, fast flowing water will know what an unbalancing experience that can be.

As the growth in walking is chiefly among the 50-plus age group, a bridge has to be the only long-term solution.

From its source to confluence the Wharfe has some 39 foot or road bridges, and is beautiful along the whole length. Burley is the sixth largest community along the Wharfe but doesn't possess a single bridge. As for despoiling beauty, as suggested, which of those 39 bridges is an eyesore and should be removed?

As for going to the 'toll bridge' (when was it that?) at Ben Rhydding 'like the rest of us', why should we want to add up to six road miles on to a 12 to 15-mile walk?

Or 'leave the car at Askwith' - I'm sure Askwith residents will be pleased. The object is to leave the car at home - either for Burley residents, or those arriving by bus or train.

Finally on the subject of footpath signage - that is another statutory function, and Bradford Met, and many others do an excellent job. Ramblers groups in their own time and expense do a stalwart job voluntary assisting in maintaining stiles, etc.

TONY BURKITT

11, Greenhow Park,

Burley-in-Wharfedale,

Girl's version

SIR, - I am writing to you in response to the report I read in the paper on September 9, about the teenage girls and their so-called bad behaviour on the X84 bus from Otley to Leeds.

My daughter was one of those teenage girls and her story is very different. I as a parent would like to defend my daughter, her friends and the school. This gentleman has been totally unfair towards these girls. This is my daughter's version of what happened on that day:

"On Tuesday, September 7, 19 Prince Henry's students got on the X84 with the intention of looking around a college that we would be attending later that month.

"As the journey was rather long we were not planning to sit in complete silence, but we were not overly loud.

"Yes, a few girls that travelled that day were being rather silly but again not unacceptably.

"In Mr Mitchell's version he mentioned how we had no regard for any of the other passengers on the top of the bus that day. What he failed to mention was that not one person, including the bus driver, said anything about our behaviour. In my experience, bus drivers stop the bus if anyone is behaving unacceptably.

"What Mr Mitchell didn't realise was that we were travelling to a college where we will do a course in child care, therefore we would not swear in front of a young boy.

"Also, a few of us were talking to both the parent and the child on the bus. Now I am sure any parent, if travelling with a young child, thought that behaviour on the bus was unacceptable they would say something, which they did not do.

"Teenagers will never gain the respect that we deserve when we are constantly slandered over things that have been completely blown out of proportion, like in this incident.

"Mr Mitchell failed to inform people of the facts. Instead he just slandered the name and reputation of Prince Henry's Grammar School."

S Seghetti

Church Close,

Pool-in-Wharfedale

Nanny state

SIR, - My grandfather died in 1946 at the age of 92.

This was before the National Health Service started and he was never told that eating fatty foods could cause cholesterol.

Nobody told him that he ought to exercise more, or that sugar could cause health problems. He was never told how many units of alcohol he was allowed, or that smokers died younger. No doubt he ate a "peck o' muck" in his lifetime.

Now we are told that salt could be damaging to health - what next? One wonders how long my grandfather might have lived, if he, too, had had the benefit of the nannying advice to which we are all now accustomed.

C M Harper

Banksfield Avenue,

Yeadon.

Blooming good

SIR, - Through your newspaper, may I say how delighted Otley Town Council is with the results of Yorkshire in Bloom competition.

The Otley in Bloom committee work very hard all year round and to achieve best town and overall winner is a credit to them.

We thank them all for their hard work, also to the shops, business premises and pubs, for putting on such a wonderful display. Thanks also to the parks and cleansing departments for their help.

Coun Millie Stott

Chairman,

Environment and

Economic Development

Committee,

Otley Town Council,

Otley Civic Centre,

Otley.

Fall thanks

SIR, - I would like to say a sincere 'thanks' to the ambulance crew who attended my friend after a fall whilst out walking in Danefield woods on Saturday, August 7.

Also Andrew Thorpe and two other gentlemen who so gallantly offered to carry the stretcher and the two ladies who remained with me for support - they were all caring and wonderful.

I am pleased to say that my friend is now recovering at home after a partial hip replacement in Bradford Royal Infirmary.

Jane Hall

West Busk Lane,

Otley.

Poetry prices

SIR, -Waitrose, Waitrose, what have you done? You think you've got Morrisons on the run.

With your sky high prices, you're in for a shock if you think the Yorkshire folk you can mock.

The Safeway caf was second to none, now its one pound twenty for a buttered scone.

Buses run to Guiseley and Yeadon, too. So I'd watch the prices if I were you.

Mrs J M Chaffer

Haw Lane,

Yeadon.