Authority must not shirk school responsibilities

The arguments for and against the changes have been raised on many occasions amongst the local Press, in the school playgrounds, at the market, in the launderette and in countless homes. What emerges most strongly from all of this is how passionately the local community cares for the education of our children.

When it is clear that Education Leeds has made these proposals largely as a cost-saving exercise, dressed up as a 'surplus places' issue, the local community is rightly justified in voicing its opposition as fully as possible in order to ensure our children gain access to the educational opportunities they deserve.

It was only last year that I found myself writing to Leeds City Council's then Education Department about my concerns that my eldest child, then in year 4 of All Saints Juniors, was in a class of 35 - far too many I thought. One year later, I couldn't believe that the 'solution' would be to close the school and find space in those schools staying open for the 70 children presently in each year group.

I have recently seen my old middle school in Leeds flattened to make way for housing, and my old primary school, another red brick Victorian gem of a building, is also under threat. It hurts to see the end of such institutions, just as it will pain many people to see the loss of any community building in Otley.

July 18, the end of the statutory period of objection to the school closure proposals, is coming up. On August 22, Education Leeds will meet to pronounce its final decision. Whilst I have continued to urge the reversal of any school closures, I would dearly love to hear that, whatever its final decision, Education Leeds can make the following guarantees:

Class sizes will not exceed 30, all efforts will be made to ensure the children do not lose out on the valuable space they need, the disruption any closures have on staff and children is minimised, and the necessary resources are available to maintain the high standards the existing schools already uphold. The focus ultimately has to be on what is best for our children and how best to manage the period of transition.

Having created such anxiety and uncertainty in Otley, Education Leeds has a duty to ensure it does not shirk its responsibilities for the staff, parents, governors, and children connected with the schools.

Paul Roberts

Mount Pisgah,

Otley.

Farm friends

SIR, - Regarding the Westfield, by Gill Lane, Yeadon, former access closure controversy, it has never been the intention of the Aireborough Civic Society, or myself, to be confrontational - or at loggerheads - with either Bradford authority or any local farmer, on this issue.

Urban farming cannot be easy and I have regarded local farmers as friends and amicable neighbours over many years. One farmer, in particular, now retired, had always been most understanding in the past as regards bonfires and such.

Not have I ever knowingly, or intentionally, abused the use of ancient footways joining folds, settlements, and/or skirting grazing lands.

Having returned to our native Yorkshire after a period in Australia, my wife and I took up residence in Little London, Rawdon, in 1960, immediately appreciating the beauty of location of this conservation (former old Baptist) settlement with its sweeping hilltop landscapes down the Aire Valley, across the Bronte Country hills to distant Pendle Hill, Lancashire.

Its rich woodlands, meadows and fields, although threatened by some vandalism and the hungry eyes of land developers seemed - especially back in the 1960s and early 1970s - a valuable oasis of greenery situated as it was so close to two major industrial cities always seeking more space.

Inevitably, with a UK population density greater than China, ours at some 60 million, inroads and changes have taken place and particularly from 1990 - especially along the nearby A65 and traffic in Apperley Lane. However, all down the years, no objection was ever, to my knowledge, raised against the use of the lane in question in spite of these pressures and rising new estate populations. One would have thought that some 40 years plus permitted walking use would count for something, surely?

That its closure has, coincidentally, added yet another restriction during our, now in its fifth month, foot and mouth nightmare, merely adds a further repression on our doorstep.

Rightly, of course, all responsible walkers and country lovers have shown exemplary discipline in (for open space enthusiasts) a highly claustrophobic situation and one wonders if this has been entirely appreciated.

As regards dog dirt, many farmers wouldn't be without a dog and few working farms are exactly a 'bed of roses' with varied livestock in my experience. Not wishing to make a saga out of this, I sincerely beg the Bradford authority to reinstate the permitted walking access along this attractive and much appreciated old Aireborough district by-way and not, as happens all too often in life, make the innocent suffer for the sick and guilty tearaways who make life much more difficult for us all.

Donald Wagstaff

Secretary of Aireborough Civic

Society 1986-98,

Lilac Cottage,

Apperley Lane,

Rawdon.

Time to object

SIR, - The old Yorkshire Electricity Board site off Back Lane, Guiseley, is still under threat from Persimmon Homes. They now wish to erect 69 dwellings instead of 117.

As this is a new application, number 28/117/01, members of the public have to object all over again should they wish to do so. All efforts and meetings about the first applications do not stand.

The plans are available to view at Guiseley Library and forms can be obtained to list one's objections. We were caught out with the Silver Cross site and can now see our worst fears confirmed re the visual impact. Traffic problems, are to follow so Back Lane will soon become a dangerous thoroughfare.

Another 69 houses/flats will make a bad situation worse. The ball is now in our court again.

A Taylor (Mrs)

18 Renton Avenue,

Guiseley.

What sympathy?

SIR, - For long enough landowners and farmers have led sheltered lives, living as they do in small closed communities protected by public grants and subsidies.

They have avoided economic realities we have faced for years. Now, under pressure from supermarket capitalists, seeking evermore efficient ways of maintaining profits, they have inflicted on us economic, health, and environmental damage and a loss of freedom. Their 'problems' are due to corrupt capitalist and political systems who put profit before food safety and health.

In most cases, farmers' economic 'difficulties' are more imagined than real. It is us who should be crying, not them. As facts emerge on compensation payments, now is the time for the truth.

The total of compensation payouts to farmers is set to exceed £1 billion, with the highest payment to a single farmer being £4.2 million. The average compensation payout is £116,000. The value paid for each animal is well in excess of its market value, so Christmas has come early. When one considers, payouts can be tax free to farmers who decide to either retire early or defer restocking for five years, one can hardly say farmers have come off badly.

Since the average age of farmers is 58, many will be only too happy to take the early retirement option. To be fair, some small tenant farmers have suffered and the propagandists have used this to great effect.

But as always, the big winners are the big landowners whose snouts are deep in the Treasury trough.

Why has there been no means testing or targeting here? Are there other hidden reasons for the cull and was foot and mouth an excuse to realise them? The European Community requires a decrease in the animal population to maintain higher food prices and reduce food surpluses. Could this also be an opportunity to nationalise land ownership?

And last but not least, remember the ticking environmental time bomb due to the joint incompetence of farmers and politician, the BSE prions released into the atmosphere and toxic fluid leaking into water supplies from animal carcasses.

Should we have really have sympathy for those who have inflicted such lasting damage on us and our children.

Malcolm Naylor (Mr)

21 Grange View,

Otley.

Sale supported

SIR, I write in support of the Otley car boot sale which is held every Sunday at the Bridge End market, which my wife and I have attended regularly for many years.

Over the years, we have made many good friends at the sale, which is attended by people from all walks of life, from near and far who visit Otley on a Sunday for this event. It also gives people the chance to make a few coffers for their favourite charity and car booters the opportunity to dispose of unwanted items.

The Otley car boot sale is extremely well organised,with good parking, good toilet facilities. The sellers are well organised, too, both inside and out and there is always a clear roadway throughout for emergency services and at the end of the sale all rubbish is cleared and the market is left clean and tidy. I wish Otley car boot sale every success and look forward to it continuing for a long time.

J M Charnley (Mr)

Claremont,

Prince Henry Road,

Otley.

Can do better

SIR, - Well what an interesting afternoon was had by all in the Market Place, Otley, on Sunday. I guess we should all say 'thank you, Councillor Phil Coyne, for trying with a Mayor's Day which was supposed to be a fun day for the Otley kids.

His words. Sorry, but one small bouncy castle and about ten stalls don't make for a fun day. The entertainment was good for the small kids, but not for four hours.

Next time, how about letting the local schools know so they can tell the kids (best way to get a message out to them). Might even get a few to turn up. Not just hope people will see one or two posters and how about a better location, like the park.

Is there any wonder nobody cares about Otley if this is the best we can do. Yes, we know foot and mouth ruined our show and carnival, but come on we should be able to do better than this.

John Ranfagni (Mr)

99 The Oval,

Otley.