Letters to the Editor

SIR, Readers may well be under the impression that the content of your report concerning Otley Civic Centre was written with the full knowledge of all who were mentioned in your report.

Please therefore permit me to comment on that report and its content. From my perspective, your report was factual and very well written.

What never ceases to amaze me is the sheer lunacy of the Lib Dem/Tory alliance. First of all both parties claim that there is no local alliance; yet here they are apparently in full agreement concerning the future of the civic centre.

The members of this alliance never seem to think things through. They rush to the press with half baked schemes and never have they done their sums. At last week's Policy and Resources meeting of Otley Town Council they united to defeat the Labour budget for 2003/2004. Their budget was passed.

Their budget allocated vast sums of money to augment necessary DDA renovations. This is to a building which they propose to abandon within two years. Their proposal is to build a new centre, presumably larger than the current Civic Centre, if it is to contain a library and one-stop shop. As usual there proposals are just pie in the sky.

Questions need to be asked: 1, Have they obtained the land? 2, At what Cost. 3, Currently there is no lease to the Civic Centre, so what will their proposals be if and when it becomes necessary to be tied to a lease? 4, Have they mapped out the land and are able to report on square metreage that they require? 5, Have they had an architect do draw up plans and feasibility?

6, Are they to completely ignore the architects' report which has been submitted to Otley Town Council at considerable cost of which they were in full agreement? 7 Where will the money for their scheme come from? 8, Do they not realise that there is an abundance of office space to let in Otley? 9, Could they say whether their proposed Civic Centre is to be entirely owned by the people of Otley or are they hoping that some fairy godmother will step in to look after and renovate their building? 10, Will this alliance come back with further costings and measurements for approval by the people of Otley?

Perhaps now the people who are interested in the Civic Centre will begin to realise that there is a Lib/Tory Alliance and that when it comes to voting, a Liberal vote is a Tory vote and vice versa. This will be further demonstrated when they refuse to compete one against the other.

Mark my words, neither the Tories nor the Liberals will contest all 15 seats in the town council elections in May. Do you, the people of Otley believe them when they say that there is no alliance?

Ray Dunn

42 St David's Road,

Otley.

Rugby history

SIR, - Referring to Gordon Bradley's letter (Wharfedale Observer, January 30), and in particular to the penultimate paragraph, the Otley Football Club as it was known when formed in 1865, was not a founder member of the Northern Union in 1895.

The Northern Union was formed on the August 29, 1895, when 22 clubs (11 from Yorkshire, nine from Lancashire and two from Cheshire), at a meeting held at the George Hotel, Huddersfield, decided to sever their connections with the Rugby Football Union after long disagreements regarding the paying of expenses to players.

The clubs represented at the meeting are as follows:- Batley, Bradford, Broughton Rangers, Brighouse Rangers, Halifax, Huddersfield, Hull, Hunslet, Leeds, Liversedge, Leigh, Manningham, Oldham, Rochdale Hornets, Runcorn, St. Helens, Stockport, Tyldesley, Wakefield Trinity, Warrington, Widnes and Wigan.

At a meeting of the Northern Union held on July 19, 1898, open professionalism was adopted.

Due to the disappearance of the old record, it is not certain how or when an Otley Club joined and played in the Northern Union. As I understand it, it appears there was a split in the club, one fraction taking most of the players and joining the Northern Union and the diehards supporting the Rugby Union, but with no players to fulfil the fixtures, remaining administration only for quite some time. But this is only conjecture.

Jeffery P Cooper

41 Silverdale Drive,

Guiseley.

Housing factors

SIR,- Re the proposed new housing and industrial development and relief road east of Otley. Points against housing/industrial area:

l Building on a greenfield site contrary to Government policy.

l Increasing traffic congestion, pollution etc.

l Already inadequate infra-structure for local transport.

l Further cramming of Otley contrary to Leeds own U.D.P. statement.

l Already stretched local services in terms of education, medical and dental facilities.

l Would more Greenfield land be required for extra education, medical and social facilities?

l Further despoliation of the lower Wharfe Valley, consequently detracting from the attractiveness of the area to present residents and tourists alike.

l Possible increased flood potential due to increased run-off.

Points to consider re the proposed new east of Otley relief road:

Is one necessary? Most traffic heads down the valley W-E and vice-versa.

Most congestion in Otley is due to north-south traffic having only one river crossing point.

Quarry lorries would still continue to pass through Otley from the Blubberhouses area. The bridge in Otley is evidently due to be strengthened to cope with 44-ton lorries.

Are we being offered a relief road only on the condition that Leeds can build between 550/800 houses (which figure is correct?) creating an overspill area for Leeds?

It is said that Otley has the 2nd highest council housing waiting list in the Leeds area. How would these houses alleviate that? Can the houses be kept for a proportion of Otley residents only?

What is affordable housing that Councillor Gerald McGowan is championing? Evidently there is now way that 75 per cent of any such development can be earmarked for such housing.

Is the relief road being proposed mainly to take lorries from a huge sand and gravel quarry planned slightly further east in the valley?

If the relief road is proposed for relieving the town centre of quarry lorries from this new eyesore and environmentally unsound quarry, why not make the proposed extractors liable or part liable towards costs of a new road?

Could traffic be re-routed heading towards Harrogate from the western end of the present by-pass? Would it be possible to create a crawler lane on Pool bank for heavy traffic?

Many problems with any future access on and off any new relief road from the proposed housing/industrial development can be foreseen. If it is proven that we do need a relief road east of Otley it should be worth building in its own right as a through route, as originally planned, without recourse to the bribery/incentive of getting a developer to pay for its construction so that they can build vast numbers of houses on greenfield land, meanwhile still leaving the town centre with derelict and semi-derelict eyesore areas that could be used for a variety of housing and also business needs.

The Planning Committee of the town council believe that:

The new houses will re-generate business in the town centre.

The housing will act as a catalyst for shopping in Otley.

That a further supermarket in Otley will make the town a more attractive shopping venue.

I believe that any influx of new residents would obviously do some shopping in Otley but like most people they would frequent the supermarkets and larger stores in the towns and cities adjacent to Otley. Therefore I believe Otley will still struggle to have major stores, other than supermarkets, investing in the town. Small businesses will remain so and we will still have a plethora of charity shops, banks, building societies and, of course, estate agents to sell those affordable houses.

Mick Johnson

Leeds Road,

Otley.

Letter to PM

SIR, - Through your pages may I let your readers know about the letter I have sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair about charges for care.

'Dear Prime Minister, I am writing with regards to charges that are being implemented for Local Authority Care Services. As a disabled person I need access to home care and other Social Services that enable me to maintain my health, mobility, independence, quality of life and dignity.

'I receive a fixed income that does not take full account of the extra costs that I incur as a result of my impairment. The level of charges that are proposed will place an unacceptable financial burden, that I cannot bare and that will have a very negative effect on every aspect of my life, independence and opportunities.

'I feel strongly that such charges penalise, discriminate and victimise me because of my support and care needs and in doing so are fundamentally opposed to the values of such Acts as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, or the National Assistance Act 1948.

'The implementation of charges also undervalues the support and care that is provided by family members and carers, which saves health and social services an estimated £57 billion a year.

'The impact of charges will also place a much greater responsibility on many families and carers, who may find themselves in situations where they can no longer provide the necessary support, that results in increased demands on respite and residential services. In the interest of my equality and human rights I would ask for any support that you could give that would prevent the implementation of such an unfair and discriminating policy.'

Freda Naylor

21 Grange View,

Otley.

Danger at the crossroads

SIR, - Again the danger of the Carlton crossroads is under discussion. Through my employment I attended a terrible double fatal accident on these crossroads some 40 odd years ago.

I also attended the inquest where witnesses were called on to give agonising evidence leaving them very tearful and distressed, as I was also.

The Coroner, Mr Brown, gave certain directives to alleviate further such accidents. Sadly they were never carried out.

I was also involved again in very traumatic fatal accident on the same stretch of road, some quarter of a mile from the Carlton crossroads, near to the airport.

As a result of this accident, a hump in the road at this point was taken out, as can be seen today. This now gives drivers a longer clear field of vision.

At the Carlton crossroads, when travelling from the direction of Otley, there is also a hump in the road when looking towards Bradford, or the airport. This hump restricts the field of vision for drivers approaching the junction and for those trying to safely get out of the side roads. As with the other accident, this hump should have also been taken out. A roundabout would certainly also be beneficial; the roundabout at the junction further down the road deals easily with the same heavy volume of traffic.

I must add, that I consider our local planners of Leeds have badly let us down regarding road safety. I give two of many examples.

After the demolition of the large garage in the centre of Bramhope, they allowed the building of dwelling houses to cover the whole area right up to the edge and corner of the junction. This restricted a field of vision or opportunity of a roundabout being considered.

They allowed only one point of entry and exit for the large supermarket at Guiseley, both at the same point. Leeds has now allowed further development opposite this one point of heavy movement of traffic on to a narrow road. Again there is no chance of any road widening scheme or roundabout.

Where are the police as to giving advice etc on road safety on such large building projects?

CONCERNED

Yeadon.

(Name and address supplied)