Time for new schools consultation

As during the consultation process figures were banded around about what it would cost for the various schools. We were under the impression that the tendering and costs was already sorted out.

Why will Education Leeds now not call a halt to this farce and restart the consultation process from scratch, find out what we, the parents and teachers, would like to see done.

Then find out the costs and come back and talk to us about all the various options and their costs. We now must have serious doubts as to whether or not all the work will be completed on time.

I see that Councillor Fox is quoted as saying: "Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of this deadline." With the number of working days disappearing fast just how can this be assured?

As a parent I want to be certain that if the work cannot be completed on time our children will not miss out on their education.

Come on Leeds, admit you have messed up and start again, or at least postpone the changes until later in the year.

Mr John Ranfagni

99 The Oval,

Otley.

So predictable

SIR, - The problems that the council is facing in the refurbishment of Otley schools, exposed in your report in The Wharfedale Observer, (April 18), were entirely predictable.

It would be tempting to feel smug and declare 'I told you so!' but the consequences for the children of Otley of more uncertainties and, no doubt, a rushed and under-financed job are too serious to contemplate.

Why on earth has the largest, centrally located school been chosen to close when others cannot offer even close to the amenities soon to be lost?

A Allen

18 The Green,

Otley.

No surprise

SIR, - I see from the front page article in the Wharfedale Observer on April 18 that the works for the refurbishment of Otley schools has run into serious difficulties.

This is no surprise. The proposals were always hopelessly optimistic (unrealistic?) in terms of both cost and time. It now looks as if the children of Otley will face even greater disruption than that caused by the plans.

These problems were predicted at the time of the so-called consultations, but were dismissed as scaremongering. That they have come to pass is yet a further illustration of the extent to which the real concerns of the people of Otley have been ignored during this process. .

C Speight

65 Cambridge Drive,

Otley.

Mast anger

SIR, - On April 11 (Residents' anger as new telephone mast appears) you reported on the anger felt by Manor Park residents by the sudden appearance of a 22-metre high Orange mobile phone aerial on the open hillside 300 metres south of the Little Chef.

You quoted Councillor Audrey Brand, chairman of the Ilkley Planning Committee, as saying that 'it is not our duty to go around Manor Park and knock on everybody's door and say 'did you know?'. You quote her as continuing: "Notices will have gone up on the nearest telegraph poles."

I'm afraid not, Councillor Brand. The documents available at the Planning Office at Ilkley Town Hall show that although two notices did go up on telegraph poles, they were nowhere near Manor Park. They were both at the far end of Ben Rhydding Drive. To see these notices Manor Park residents would have had to travel for almost two miles along the A65 to Wheatley Lane, up Wheatley Lane to the junction with Ben Rhydding Drive, and on to the far end of that road.

Councillor Brand is quoted as also saying that 'notification of the plans will have also appeared in the Gazette last year, and I would have thought somebody would have spotted them and spread the word'. The documents in Ilkley Town Hall show that there is a very good reason why the plans weren't spotted by Manor Park residents, and why nobody 'spread the word'.

The plan that was advertised in the Gazette was for Burley Woodhead, some two miles to the south-east of Manor Park, and well out of sight. The actual aerial (now built) is only 600 yards to the south-west of Manor Park, and extremely visible.

Why this plan should have been advertised in such a way is mystery enough, but an even greater puzzle is why planning permission was eventually given for a 22-metre high mast in this location in the first place. Not only is the area green belt, but it is also officially classified as being part of a Special Landscape Area.

Regardless of this, the planning people in Bradford gave the go ahead. The documents in Ilkley Town Hall make fascinating reading.

In recommending that this plan should be approved, an accompanying report from the planning officials states that 'given that the proposal is considered to be unobtrusive in this particular landscape by the council's landscape architect, the mast should not significantly harm the quality of the Special Landscape Area or the visual amenity of the green belt."

The landscape architect's report had stated that he had no objection to the mast's position given that 'the position of the mast is on a steep gentle undulating slope within a wooded aspect which lends itself to screening the mast adequately'.

The Planning Officers' recommendation to approve the aerial concluded that 'the scattered trees and woodlands of the area would all contrive to screen the mast adequately in the landscape' and that 'the mast would be lost against fields and trees in views from the A65'.

This latter view is obvious nonsense as anyone travelling along the A65 will quickly observe. The mast can be clearly seen from the A65, between the Ben Rhydding Sports Club buildings and Burley village itself.

A Manor Park Resident

Burley-in-Wharfedale.

(Name and address supplied)

Seeing the light

SIR, - I was interested to read the report in the April 11 edition of Wharfedale and Airedale Observer, concerning the continuous eight-year streetlight. We have had one on outside our house night and day for more than three years.

I have telephoned the street lighting department on several occasions about it and was told that it would be seen to, but it never has! On one occasion after my second or third attempt to raise some action, I happened to see a lighting maintenance vehicle pull up next to it a day or two after I phoned them.

I thought 'at last, a result!', but no such luck. After three or four minutes it went away, never to be seen again.

The light has remained on ever since. The one thing that apparently emerges from all this is that they just don't seem to want to be bothered by such 'trivia'. However, as anyone travels around, many more of these '24/7 streetlights' can be spotted.

If the amount of energy they are all using were to be calculated it would amount to quite a considerable sum. Perhaps if it were the case that whoever is in charge of streetlighting maintenance had to pay the bill out of his or her own pocket, all the offending lights would soon miraculously work correctly..... Some hope!

D Booth

Yeadon.

(Full name and address supplied)

More questions

SIR, - Councillor McGowan's response (Wharfedale letters, April 11) to John Parkin concerning the £300,000 loan for upgrading Otley Civic Centre leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Firstly, why is Leeds City Council, the owner of the building, making no contribution? Surely, it is the owner's responsibility to make the capital investment needed to satisfy the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

Secondly, what proportion of the loan is for redecoration (which most would regard as a thoroughly inappropriate use of long-term finance) ?

Thirdly, who are the lenders, and what security do they require?

Fourthly, are the cost estimates based on a full professional survey? If not, I fear we can look forward to major escalation as unforeseen difficulties in converting an old building are discovered.

Finally, is Otley Town Council legally entitled to the hoped-for increased income from hiring out premises, or is there simply an understanding which could be abrogated by Leeds City Council if it decided that it needed the money more than Otley?

The proposed 25-year loan is a major, long term commitment, on the face of it totally unsuitable for a subsidiary town council, and the case presented by Councillor McGowan is far from convincing.

Mr M Dodson

High Lawns,

West Chevin Road,

Otley.

Centre concern

SIR, - Regarding the £30,000/£500,000 Otley Town Council loan, I was hoping that my final comments had been made regarding the above.

In attempting to answer two letters at once, Coun Gerald McGowan has made a confused mess. I am not interested in battles between Labour and the other parties involved in their petty inter-party problems. I am concerned about the state of affairs that has led to this situation that means I and my children and their children will be having to pay back in loans and interest for the next 25 years. (and that's just this first loan).

I am concerned that people with disabilities have access to all parts of Otley Civic Centre and have proper facilities to be able to access to all parts of the civic centre and have proper facilities to be able to exit from the building in an emergency situation.

I am concerned that this state of affairs has been brought about by an inter-party battle that will be remembered long after our present 'civic leaders' have left office and even life itself.

John A Parkin

1 Pearsons Buildings

Otley.

Grand theatre

SIR, - On Friday evening in the company of my husband I thoroughly enjoyed an evening of wonderful entertainment. 'Prohibition' was presented by Otley Little Theatre at the Civic Centre.

The producer/director, Marjorie Inman, is to be congratulated on an outstanding musical extravaganza. It would be unfair to make reference to any individual, but some of the performances were just sheer delight.

How fortunate we are in Otley to have such a company that can entertain to the level they do. We must be grateful to those earlier townspeople who planned and built the Civic Centre. It is a superb venue for concerts, dinners and entertainment in general.

If you as a reader did not attend the show then you missed a great night out. There was a limit on the size of audience so maybe next year Otley Little Theatre may perform on more evenings. Perhaps if I can criticise any aspect it is that the price of tickets, programme and drinks were worth far more.

Marjorie Dunn

42 St Davids Road

Otley