Letters To The Editor

SIR - Leeds Education Authority shoots itself in the foot, even under its new management headed by Peter Ridsdale, who knows so much more about education than he knows about Leeds United Football Club.

Falling numbers of children of school age meant that some form of amalgamation had to take place in Otley. North of the River Wharfe are three schools, Thomas Chippendale Primary, Ashfield Infant and Nursery and The Whartons Primary (unaffected by these changes because it is full).

Thomas Chippendale School closed its doors for the last time on Friday, July 19, 2002. It was a primary school serving the needs of about 110 children from four to 11 years.

About half a mile away Ashfield Infant School, much smaller than Thomas Chippendale, stays open. It is to be extended to accommodate the years three, four, five and six. It will, in fact, accept all the children from Chippendale, raising its numbers from about 100 to 210.

What has Ashfield got? Smaller classrooms and fewer. An expensive building programme is in its early stages to attempt to redress this imbalance and is said to be costing £400.000.

Two new classrooms and other comparatively minor alterations to accommodate four new year groups - years three to six, a small school hall which also doubles as dining room and a well equipped kitchen, a nursery wing, limited space in which to establish a computer room, smaller grounds, surrounded by green belt with lovely views of the Otley Chevin.

It lies at the far side of a busy commuter road which all children will have to cross. There have been no accidents involving children on this busy road, but it must be remembered that all children going there in recent years are accompanied by their parents.

What had Thomas Chippendale got and still has got until it is pulled down? Larger classrooms and enough of them to accommodate all the 210 children it could have expected, an already established and recently equipped computer room, a separate art room, important for good art teaching, a library, a separate section for early years children with separate entrance, toilets and play area, a large well equipped school hall with full range of gymnastic and stage equipment.

It is the only remaining school hall in Otley Primary that is big enough to mount shows involving up to a hundred children and still leave space for an audience, a separate dining room and adjacent well equipped and spacious kitchen, a roomy hard surface playground surrounded by green playing field, a specially built flat playing field for sports and amply big enough to take in the increased numbers of children.

All this is surrounded on three sides by a large generally working class estate of neat houses from which most of the children can reach the school safely without having to cross any busy roads. Indeed, many of the older children come to school safely and unaccompanied by adults.

On the fourth side is the Otley Hospital and its grounds. A so-called dicey roof which might be expensive to repair, though to what extent this expense and the need for it has been investigated is unclear. If it had to be completely replaced, would it cost £400.000?

So why is the eminently more suitable school building closing? It could have been a centre of excellence and the envy of most primary schools in the whole of Leeds and in a working class area as well. Its governors publicly recognised that there had to be an amalgamation of schools in north Otley due to falling numbers and pressed the argument fervently that their school was better suited to accommodate the children of north Otley in terms of space, layout, suitable accommodation and access. Their arguments fell on stony ground.

In my view, the principal reason for its closure is that it is much more readily sold for building land and, being a larger site and unencumbered by green belt restrictions, was more likely to produce a tidy sum.

If the only criteria for success in its claim to reinstate itself as a viable authority by this manoeuvre is that it makes more money, then it is likely to succeed. If the criteria are child based, then it fails miserably.

I hope the inspectors came down on the side of Chippendale remaining open. Harold Best MP for Otley was firmly in favour of it. Is it too late?

Ian Wilson

27 Old Lane,

Otley.

A 'done deal'

SIR, - It was with no surprise that I read the headline of today's (July 25) issue concerning the sale of Otley All Saints School.

It is about time that Leeds City Council admitted that the closure and sale was a 'done deal' before the so-called consultation period so kindly offered last year.

The point of this sale was raised at the first meeting when it was suggested All Saints would close because it offered the best re-sale and development value. The gathered audience was told that as the land was owned by the Bradford Diocese it would be of no benefit to Leeds City Council.

I hope therefore, that the money raised (less agents' commission) will benefit the people of Otley.

Who knows, with all the residential building we may need a new school to cater for the increased population.

I seem to think it may pay for another ice rink in Millennium Square or even an increase in the allowances paid to councillors.

S Davey

3 Westbourne Villas,

Off Bradford Road,

Otley.

River pollution

SIR, - Just when we are saying 'the poor farming industry' again (after the latest foot and mouth report), the agency for the environment brings us down to earth (no pun).

It seems water pollution rose by 50 per cent last year with industry as a whole getting cleaner but farms were responsible for 27 per cent.

On a Leicester river the entire population of brown trout was killed by leakage or silage. We keep being told that farmers are guardians of the countryside. Well the environment agency reckons it cost us £50 per household per year with the polluting of water, soil and air.

Makes you think, more so knowing the current £3 billion a year subsidies are more than all other subsidies put together.

F Dickinson

Larkfield Road,

Rawdon.

Animal report

SIR, - This has been a crucial week for Britain's lab animals with publication of the Home Office statistics on animal experiments for 2001 and the House of Lords Select Committee Report on vivisection.

Figures showed a meagre 2.8 per cent drop in animals killed in British labs, but there were also some highly disturbing increases such as a 17 per cent rise in dog use, an 8 per cent rise in monkey use and an 8 per cent increase in tests using genetically modified animals (a 1207 per cent increase since 1990).

That still represents nearly three million animals dying in UK labs each year, a Government rigidly stuck in a policy vacuum on vivisection and a public losing faith and patience with its ability to embrace the type of reform expected of a Labour Government.

That sentiment was also echoed in the House of Lords' Report which, whilst broadly pro-industry and conservative as expected, included some key victories for anti-vivisectionists in major policy areas. The Home Office was criticised for complacency and lack of independence and greater scrutiny of their work was recommended; the Government was slammed over its appalling record on non-animal research funding and warned that Britain was being overtaken in non-animal science by the US and the EU; and there was a key recommendation to repeal Section 24 (the 'confidentiality clause' of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act to counter the veil of secrecy that has surrounded animal experiments for years.

Whist the report predictably states that their Lordships support the need to continue animal experiments, they also acknowledge that replacing them with non-animal alternatives would not only be good for animal welfare, it would also be in the best interests of science and human health, admitting that animal experimentation was a 'highly imperfect model'.

It is all too easy to get disheartened and frustrated with the slow pace of change, but there is much to celebrate in the Lords' Report. The BUAV, which gave extensive evidence to the committee, has been campaigning for years for greater transparency, increased alternatives funding and an independent Home Office Inspectorate, and all these calls have been vindicated in this report.

If the Government refuses to introduce changes now, it will be demonstrating its contempt for democracy, public concern and animal welfare. If any readers would like to read the official statistics or the Lords' Report for themselves, check out www.buav.org .

Wendy Higgins

Campaigns Director,

British Union for the Abolition

of Vivisection,

16a Crane Grove,

London.