Letters to the Editor

SIR, - over the past few months, the future of Otley Civic Centre has become one of the most important issues concerning the whole town.

I feel that the time has come for the political tennis to stop and for someone to take a lead.

Let me fill you in on one or two details. Around 30 years ago, following reorganisation, the Otley Civic Centre was taken over by the city council and closed.

The local Otley Town Council, recognising the need for a community hall, decided to take on the day to day running of the hall, along with internal repairs. After negotiations a rent was fixed and the hall reopened.

Virtually no large amounts of money have ever been spent on the building and now with the Disability Act almost upon us a major problem has arisen.

Large parts of the building are not disabled person friendly. This, along with a list of other works which badly need doing, such as new windows, re-wiring, total roof repairs, water penetration (both external and internal), addition of lifts and chair lifts, etc, etc. the list is endless if we are to bring the building into the 21st Century.

Whilst some or all of these need to be addressed, the main problem is the fact that the hall is built on three levels which is totally unacceptable in this day and age. It is quite clear that major alterations and total internal rebuild would give Otley a hall to be proud of.

Either a ground floor one level main hall, with upper rooms and offices, or upper floor main hall on one level, with lower offices and rooms.

What is on offer?

The local Labour Party wish to retain the building, borrow £300,000 and do some of the repairs. They would rely on the city council to repair the roof (approx £200,000) and hope that they would re-wire the building at no cost to the town council (approx £180,000). A fire retaining area would be left, where in the event of a fire the disabled would be taken and left, and if the fire brigade arrived on time then (hopefully) the disabled would be saved.

There would be a large short fall in funding, some areas would still not be accessible to the disabled. The building would still be on three levels and there would be no inspection of the floor joists, outer walls, etc, etc.

The local Liberal Demo-crats, Conservatives and Independent feel that repairs to this building to bring it into the 21st Century would run into millions and feel that a cheap bodged up job is not acceptable.

If there was a bottomless pit of money then we could look at making Otley Civic Centre into something to be proud of.

Our costings have shown that it would work out much cheaper for a purpose built new building, than to level out and re-construct the interior of the existing building.

This brings me back to the point of the letter. As agreement cannot be reached as to who is telling the truth and who is pulling the wool over the other person's eyes, I feel that someone has to take the lead.

Hence the reason why I have sent copies of this letter to the leaders of the political groups on Leeds City Council.

I feel that for too long now there has been nothing positive forthcoming from either side only accusations one against the other.

If a full report on the whole state of the building is produced taking into account the points I have raised, then for once and for all, we shall know if the building can be saved for everyone, irrespective of infirmity, to enjoy, or if we have to look at a 'new civic centre'.

Coun Nigel Francis

6 Pearson's Buildings

Otley

Help needed

SIR, - In response to the letter (July 1) from the vice-Chairman of Leeds and District Gardeners Federation I wonder if he can have any influence in improving the management of one of the allotment sites in Otley.

I have had an allotment for several years at the Whitebridge site (near Gallows Hill) and I am extremely demoralised. I have seen the following:-

lAllotments on site which have been totally overgrown year on year.

lPeople taking on an allotment and abandoning it a few months later.

lrubbish dumped.

l Asbestos sheets broken up (which are still there).

l Poor access.

lDeliberate fires to sheds.

lTheft of tools and vegetables, fires

Now there seems to be an influx of garden "businesses".

Who can help to regenerate this site? I am informed that the site is "under review" but I am still waiting for the outcome of this.

In the meantime there are a few people, myself included, who are trying to grow vegetables but it is not exactly a thriving and healthy allotment site!

Perhaps Phil Gomersal would like to visit the site and offer some expert advice before I give up completely!

L Marsden

Otley

Make it safe

SIR Accident prevention or theft by extortion? We are told that the purpose of speed cameras is to reduce road accidents. Yes, speed, as such, is the cause of some road accidents, but the main cause is bad or inconsiderate driving.

If the police or the local authority are so determined to cut down on measures to reduce accidents, we have laws to stop the use of mobile phones whilst driving, then let's stop all animals being carried in the front area, and to be secure in the rear.

Stop all loud excessive music in cars (the driver would never be able to hear an approaching emergency vehicle).

Certainly no smoking by drivers. Have you ever been behind a driver trying to light up, either by match or lighter that won't work.

Stop all windows being blacked out, when you are unable to identify the driver. In very serious cases of drink/drug driving where accidents occur, their should be instant disqualification.

Heavy goods vehicles should have a financial concession if used within certain night hours, we all know our major roads are heavily congested.

How many thousand dead files are their, i.e. untraceable drivers/owners. Since speed limits were introduced some 70 years ago, on many of our major

The A roads have not been upgraded, widened or altered to cope with the modern car and modern day cars with extra speed and braking systems.

The speed details that are picked up by these cameras should be a guide to the senior police officers or whoever, and they should use the grey matter as to applying for a summons or a penalty ticket to be sent.

Surely the purpose of the cameras is to pick up the fast dangerous driver, the type that pull out and overtake a long line of slowly moving cars and then force their way in at the front of the queue.

The enforcement of the minor speed camera offences are an insult to our British Court Justice.

By law, we are obliged to drive at least to the speed limit allowed, if the camera picks up drivers doing 35mph in a 40/50 zone, they should be considered for a penalty ticket, as they can cause a long tail back of vehicles.

The relationship between the police and the public is being annihilated through the enforcement of speed restriction. Does the means really justify the end?

Our council officers have failed miserably in accident prevention when they have allowed planning without any thought to the safety of the public and drivers.

To allow a major store to have only one exit and entry at one point and onto a narrow, heavily used traffic road in Guiseley (B6153) is a clear example.

The Carlton cross roads, is another. It is still a danger/hazard area, with heavy foliage on the junction, with the hump in the major road on the Bradford side, giving a very reduced field of vision.

To allow the Wharfedale Hospital to be built on the far side of a Market town with such narrow winding roads is yet another.

Our local ring roads are out dated, we should have plans for an up and over system by now, half a bypass round Otley.

I have telephoned and sent photos of areas that are in need of attention from a road safety measure to the Leeds Council, no action, I have contacted councillors, I have tried many times to contact the police at Weetwood, but impossible to get through when wishing to report damaged road signs, etc.

I have requested at least an answering machine but no gain. Who really is interested in Road Safety Measures? I have asked for a free phone telephone no, to both the police and Leeds City Council, no answer.

What is the definition of speed in relation to speed cameras, and the danger caused by speeding cars doing 37 mph in a 30 mph zone when traffic is light and an open clear road.

I do ask those in authority to be sensible, and to be truly fair in the operation and punishment of the decent caring respectable public.

We must keep a good relationship between the police and the public. We also need the respect of the general public in the fight against crime and drugs.

Norman Copsey

Whackhouse Lane

Yeadon

Spanish eyes

SIR In reply to the letter from D Cooney regarding A boards in Otley obstructing the pavements, does he not give any consideration to the blind and disabled people who have great difficulty with these.

If he is so bothered about the shopkeepers of Otley going bankrupt why do all his letters come from Spain, is he supporting the shopkeepers of Otley?

COUN Millie Stott

Chairman Environment and Economic Development Committee

Otley Town Council

St Martins Ave

Otley

Numbers game

SIR, - I have noted all Councillor Graham Latty's comments and I will be the first to admit that when the first planning application was made for the YEB site of 117 dwellings his intervention on the residents' behalf was appreciated.

But, I think he will agree that a 100 plus was never ever going to be agreed to and was a try-on by the developer which is what they always seem to do. Frighten everybody with a completely outrageous plan and then reduce the number and by so doing hope to convince the people that they are being considerate.

It's the name of the game this use of psychology. At that time, as it is now, government regulations in the form of PPG3 were in existence, this laid down ground rules for the development of brown field sites. The general rule was that between 30 and 50 hectares anywhere between 44 and 74 houses would have been sufficient to meet government requirements.

Coun Latty was prepared to call it a day when the developer finally reduced the number to 69, but the residents continued with their objection and it was finally reduced to 62, way above the figure of 44 which was within government guidelines. He also claims that there was the possibility of the developer appealing should his application be rejected, and I ask on what grounds? Providing that the council planning kept within the government guidelines they could have insisted on a figure of 45.

So why be so afraid of the developer appealing when you are operating within the law?

I honesty believe that an appointed inspector looking at the plan and taking into consideration the infrastructure situation and the maturity of the existing housing, would support the residents view and reject his appeal.

Coming again to this latest proposal for the Silver Cross site, I still maintain that it is a monstrous proposal and say again that an underground car park other than possibly in a city centre must be considered unreasonable and the whole plan as it stands needs binning.

D Conlon

23 Back Lane

Guiseley