1,425 acres of green belt will be lost

Leeds are not planning for 28,500 new homes in the next six years as you reported - that was the figure for the whole of the original ten-year plan period from 1991. However, that still leaves approaching 3,000 new homes to be built somewhere in Leeds each year for the forseeable future.

The key point though is that the Leeds UDP still means the loss of 1,425 acres of green belt land for possible future housing development.

In the meantime revised Government planning guidance known as PPG3 states that no green belt or greenfield land should be developed whilst there are previously developed brownfield sites available. Leeds has now had to change its policy in the light of PPG3 so that there is now 'a presumption against the granting of any planning permissions for housing developments on greenfield sites in the district as there are undeveloped brownfield sites in the district'

The 27 acres taken out of green belt west of Pool under the UDP are intended for housing. Apart from a token amount of affordable housing essentially these will be the sort of executive houses we have become accustomed to in Pool in recent years.

The developer would be required to finance a by-pass as a spin-off from the development. If no houses are built there will be no by-pass.

The question arises then, with this new presumption against development on greenfield sites, why take 1,425 acres out of green belt including sites at Pool, Otley, Bramhope and elsewhere ?

Once green belt status is lost it may never be regained leaving doubt and confusion as to the long-term future of the land involved.

Coun Clive Fox

Otley and Wharfedale.

Fait accompli

SIR, I was incensed at your headline on Page 5 in the Wharfedale Observer of August 17, 'Village could get new bypass' when what it really boils down to is 'Housing estate to be built on green belt land with access road from Old Pool Bank to Pool Road'.

In all honesty, can readers really imagine that the lorries, juggernauts etc, whose drivers have no regard for the speed limits, would divert from Main Street through a building estate when Main Street is a more direct route?

The residents of Pool take their lives in their hands trying to cross the road to the school, post office or paper shop and building continues to escalate into the fields and countryside, exacerbating the traffic problems.

We in Pool are being built on at all sides, with no provision for road safety. The Government inspector should be made to come and live here to understand the problem instead of looking at available land on an ordnance survey map and allowing Leeds City Council to sell to building companies.

In my opinion, the whole project is a fait accompli and no amount of objecting or reasoning will make any difference as Leeds City Council is a law onto itself disregarding the needs of the populace.

Anne Yaffe

Rivendell,

Old Pool Bank,

Pool-in-Wharfedale.

Unfair boundary

SIR, - When your case is poor, or non-existent, the only tactic that you can adopt is to refuse to talk about it and to insult your opponents. This is the only tactic that has been used by Councillor Fox and his colleagues on Arthington Parish Council as the only way of maintaining the status quo, which is so unfair to all the residents of Bramhope village.

Coun Fox has now gone one step further by using his new status as a Leeds City councillor to veto discussion on the matter. We are most surprised that Coun Coyne has allowed Coun Fox to get away with this action.

Hopefully, he will now listen to the Community Involvement Team's elder statesman, Graham Kirkland, and support community involvement in this matter. No doubt the residents of Bramhope, whose support gave Coun Fox his enhanced status, will remember, when he seeks re-election, how he acted against their interests.

The present boundaries were fixed more than 100 years ago. They no longer represent the reality of the locations of the two villages.

Arthington village, which is confined to the line of the A659 in the valley bottom, has seen little change in the last century. Bramhope has expanded greatly, and the village has extended into the southern and highest part of Arthington parish - some one and a half miles from Arthington village.

There is no indication that a boundary exists. The residents of this part of Arthington parish are an integral part of the Bramhope community. They have no connection, whatsoever, with Arthington village.

Arthington Parish Council are happy to allow Bramhope Council to provide the full range of services throughout Bramhope village. They do not even bother to provide a notice board.

Four of the five parish councillors live in Arthington village, whilst more than half of the residents of Arthington parish now live in Bramhope village. The Bramhope residents of Arthington parish are, nevertheless, required to pay a large part of Arthington parish council's precept, none of which is spent in Bramhope.

There is a further consequence of this. The Arthington parish residents represent about ten per cent of the population of Bramhope village. This means that the other 90 per cent of Bramhope residents have to pay for all the services provided to all the residents of Bramhope village.

This includes, inter alia, all the costs incurred in keeping clean all the central parts of the village, the upkeep of the children's playground and supporting the Robert Craven Hall for the benefit of all the residents of Bramhope village.

Coun Fox, wearing his hat as a Bramhope parish councillor, is more than happy to vote for this expenditure, from which he and his family benefit. He does not make, as I do as an Arthington resident of Bramhope, a voluntary payment to Bramhope Parish Council of the council tax that I would pay to Bramhope Parish Council if I still lived in Bramhope parish.

The present position is just not tenable. We know that redrawing the boundaries will create problems for Arthington village. But the solution to that can no longer be a subsidy from the residents of Bramhope.

Community involvement might find an answer. Hopefully, commonsense will now prevail. The residents of Bramhope village who now live outwith the parish, including those in 'old Leeds' will be given the opportunity to participate fully in the affairs of the village in which they live.

John Mordy

Chairman,

Bramhope and Carlton

Parish Council,

Wood Top Farm,

Creskeld Lane,

Bramhope.

Not a parallel

SIR, - Whatever the disputes between Bramhope and Arthington, it is wrong for newly elected Conservative Councillor Clive Fox to attempt to draw a parallel between a parochial dispute in his own back garden and that of a conflict that has cost the lives of many, through torture, bombing, subjugation and terror.

The Gulf War may have been over ten years ago but Saddam Hussein is still very much in power and Councillor Fox is not doing his party or his parish any favours by showing such a complete lack of discretion.

I am sure that Councillor Fox, on behalf of his tolerant party and parishioners, will be only too happy to make his apologies as public as his broadsides and think twice before scoring cheap points on the back of serious issues.

Garry Cochrane

32 Orchard Street,

Otley.

Miserly attitude

SIR, - I have read with interest several letters attempting to persuade pensioners that they are better off than they really are. These are merely attempts to defend the present Government's miserly attitude towards pensioners.

The situation at present is that all pensioners have received an increase of 75p per week. I am told that, should I live until the age of 75, I will receive a free television licence. If ever there was a case of 'jam tomorrow' that is surely it

Most people do not live that long. I am also told that, should I live to be 80 years old, I will receive an additional 25p per week. Big deal - hardly enough to buy a copy of The Wharfedale.

Your correspondents would have us believe that all pensioners will receive an additional £150 at Christmas, but that is not the case.

My wife and I will receive only £150 between us, equivalent to £75 each. But this is not new money, we received £100 last year, so we will each be £25 per year better off. Once again it's 'jam tomorrow', we will have to wait until Christmas and thousands of pensioners will miss out altogether because they will have gone beforehand.

At present, I am left with an increase of 75p per week, but Gordon Brown wants a slice of that in income tax, leaving me with about 60p with which to pay for Mr Brown's additional taxes, which cost me about £3 per week. To try to blame the previous administration for all the problems of the present Government no longer holds any water.

The present policy is not just to soak the rich, but to soak everybody, including pensioners who are least able to afford it. Some pensioners still have the capability of thinking for themselves and when it comes to the next election, we will be voting with our walking sticks.

C M Harper

42 Banksfield Avenue,

Yeadon.

Urban sprawl

SIR, - With reference to the proposed deletion of green belt land on and around Banksfield, Yeadon, did not the Labour Government say green belt land should not be built on?

It seems the powers that be can rectify that, with one stroke of the pen, taking any green belt land they want. Fields the children play in, fields people walk in, taking in the wonderful views. What is the aim here? One huge urban sprawl from the centre of Leeds onward.

I watched with interest a television programme about a newly-built housing estate. All of its people were rehoused, then the whole lot bulldozed to the ground(this was in the Leeds area).

What wisdom of the powers that be. Good luck, with the lottery grant for Roundhay Park. However, to quote a phrase from Gone with the Wind: "Quite frankly, I don't give a damn."

I don't want to sit in Roundhay Park. The natural beauty of the banks is our park - you see, we live in Yeadon.

J M Chaffer (Mrs)

54 Haw Lane, Yeadon.