Why housing project is unreasonable

The greater part of their case lay with the Government document PPG3 and the need in Guiseley for affordable housing. In their reference to PPG3 they would have one believe that the Government was laying down rules that they and the council must follow without question.

However, I would like to point out that since this document came into existence, there have been three applications for housing - Greenwoods, Silver Cross and this YEB site - all within a very close area.

I maintain that the Persimmon's proposal is unreasonable. The site is one of 1.48 hectares and they propose 117 dwellings. This works out at 79 to the hectare.

Silver Cross was for 69 homes on a site of 1.85 hectares which is 37 to the hectare and 50 homes are planned for the Greenwoods site which is 2.6 hectares and the density will be one of 19.23 to the hectare.

Also on the Greenwood site they plan to build 20 two-bedroomed terrace houses and 30 three/four-bedroom detached houses.

All the sites have previously been used for industry and to all intents and purposes are brown field sites, so why should Persimmon's attempt to inflict upon us this disgusting proposal? Based on the Greenwoods sire proposed density, a similar proposal for the YEB site would be for a total of 30 houses of which 18 would be three/four bedroom detached houses. I feel that not many people would be unhappy with this.

Persimmon also made great play on the affordable housing issue and a statement was made by the land director that those houses so designated would be sold at 75 per cent of the market price. But when asked what he considered affordable, the figures he quoted did not suggest to me as very affordable to first time buyers which is what he claims they were aiming at

He also stated -that when these houses were resold the same 75 per cent rule would apply. But I cannot see how this could possibly be controlled. Reference was also made that there was a possibility that these properties could be bought by an investment company for letting.

If this were to be so there are several things that should be considered and that people should be aware of. Only recently several Government authorities were looking for properties in various parts of the country owned by such investment groups to let their properties in various parts of the country owned by such investment groups to let their properties on behalf of the Government to refugees arriving from a region of Serbia and I understand that some big money was made by these companies for letting under this arrangement.

The question arises from where will the next group of refugees be coming from?

Finally, it must be appreciated that until planning permission is granted for any building to take place on the site, this remains the property of Yorkshire Electricity and I would ask what has YE got against the people of Guiseley and, in particular, those in the Back Lane area, for them to be party to this disgusting proposal.

I am sure that its board of directors could call a halt to this proposal and would be likely to do so if pressure was brought to bear on them. This should be done by our council and Parliamentary representatives without further ado.

D Conlon

23 Back Lane

Guiseley.

Takeover travesty

SIR, - Mr Mordy's assertion (in last week's Wharfedale Observer letters) that the meeting called by Bramhope Parish Council, a couple of years ago, gives Bramhope a mandate to take over half of Arthington's electorate and put its parish council in jeopardy is a travesty.

A well publicised meeting it was, but the truth is that despite being such a burning issue as this allegedly is, nobody turned up, I am told, from the general public apart from a couple who thought the meeting was about the condition of the pavements.

Of course, it is true that some of the then Bramhope parish councillors were 'whipped' in and dutifully attended as did the Leeds City councillor whose presence had also been demanded. I learned from one councillor present that with the virtual complete absence of any members of the public, the meeting had been rather an embarrassment and a complete waste of time.

No wonder Mr Mordy does not refer to the miserable attendance at the meeting. With nobody there it is hardly surprising that no objections were received to the Bramhope proposals. Arthington parishioners rightly treated Bramhope's meeting and takeover bid with the contempt it deserves and Mr Mordy has as much a mandate to take over Arthington as he has to take over his other obsession, namely the bus service.

Why can't Mr Mordy stop boring everybody with his one-man crusade and leave us alone.

Nicholas Brown

Chairman,

Arthington Parish Council

Hewland House Farm

Rawden-Hill

Arthington.

Fuel unfairness

SIR, - During the fuel crisis Blair's hypocrisy has risen to new heights. His justification for the highest oil tax in Europe, if not the world, are green policies and to raise funds for social programmes.

On the one hand, the excessive tax on fuel is described as a 'green' policy to discourage car use. On the other hand, New Labour gives millions to subsidise car manufacturers and asks OPEC to increase oil output to bring down its price. Is this 'green'?

And if we abandon cars, what alternative transport is available? Privatised public transport is poor, expensive, uncomfortable and unreliable.

New Labour brings out legislation to reduce the price of cars to European levels but makes no attempt to provide a cheaper and efficient public transport system. So what's green about that?

We can have cars at European prices, but not fuel. What nonsense is this?

And with regard to Blair's second excuse; ie, the funding of social programmes, he ignores that direct taxation is a simple, reliable and socially fair way of re-distributing wealth. New Labour's policy of transferring taxation from direct to indirect hits the poorest the most.

Under this system, a millionaire pays the same fuel tax as a pensioner. Since all distribution costs are tied to it, all goods, including basic essentials like bread, are effected by this tax.

This is a tax the poor cannot avoid. Is this fair? If after the Millennium Dome we need further convincing, this is a Government which is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Malcolm Naylor

21 Grange View

Otley.

Petrol caution

SIR, - In all the rush to support the petrol protest, it should be remembered that despite a big majority in favour, the bulk of that majority said if any deaths or accidents had happened in the NHS the support would dry up - just like the petrol.

If the protests restart (a possibility), they will need to be very careful - the public may not stand for the hassle all over again and, of course, as mentioned before, the shadow of damage to the NHS will hang over the hauliers and farmers for a long time.

F Dickinson

Larkfield Road,

Rawdon.

Housing protest

SIR, - I have read the item entitled 'Warning over beauty spot' in your paper.

I strongly object to the removal of green belt from land at Canada Road, Rawdon. I understand it is the field bounded by Markham Avenue, Canada Road and Larkfield Dam.

Billing Hill is one of the best kept beauty points in Leeds, and at present, green belt keeps housing at a discreet distance. The nearest houses at present are the other side of Larkfield Dam, to the east, with gardens down to the dam, quite an attractive site.

Due to the land then dropping away, only a few other houses can be seen beyond. Looking down to the north from the footpath on Billing Hill one can just see the green of the proposed land before the housing starts.

If houses were built on the land proposed to be taken out of the green belt, housing would appear to start at the bottom of the hill.

At present when walking along the footpath to the east of Larkfield Dam in a northerly direction, one can see almost three miles across the Chevin, a marvellous view. It is a picture postcard with the water, giving one the impression of being well into the country.

If houses were built on the proposed land, this view would vanish to be replaced by housing. The dam would seem like another small park enclosed by houses.

Looking across from Windmill Lane in Yeadon, towards the Billing, there are masses of houses leading up to the right of Billing Hill, and you can just see part of the proposed land as green, with trees on the horizon. This gives the impression countryside could exist beyond.

With houses built on this land, the houses would obliterate the trees, and houses would be seen on the horizon, a view of endless housing estates in the direction of Bradford.

I have been using the Billing footpaths for more than 20 years, in all weathers and all seasons. On a sunny day in winter the Billing is surrounded by glistening fields of white snow.

In summer it is green fields, a barrier from encroaching housing. Let's keep the green belt and leave it for generations to come.

I strongly object to the current proposals, and would suggest that any green belt within 500 metres of the top of Billing Hill is retained. Views once lost are never regained.

Anthony Wintle

27 Belmont Grove,

Rawdon.