In his letter published on December 12, Richard Askham drew on his planning background to outline aspects of the planning process and argue the case for a substantial increase in the size of Otley.

Most people would agree that our planners have a thankless task – trying to comply with government policy while also reconciling conflicting requirements, differing views and commercial interests.

However, most would probably also agree that the planners do not always get it right – sometimes with serious and long-lasting consequences for communities.

The “latest campaign” to which he refers is directed at a major weakness in the Leeds site-oriented strategic house planning process.

This process has resulted in many of the potential housing development sites identified in Otley being classified as having a high suitability for development. The apparently unintended consequence is that Otley is likely to expand considerably in size.

Ignoring for now if such growth would be beneficial or not, two inter-connected issues are critically important.

First, the planning process appears to have completely ignored the combined effect that several unconnected new housing developments will have on a local community such as Otley. Indeed, the planning documents do not even predict the probable number of new houses in a community resulting from the proposed housing strategy.

Second, the planning process in itself is complex and the practical opportunities for residents to comment has been limited. How many residents were aware of the scale of what is planned for Otley?

If the population of Otley increases the retail sector as a whole will benefit – but just how much will local traders benefit? Most local shops are suffering from the growth in internet shopping and increasing competition from the big supermarket chains.

Otley is fortunate to still have some excellent independent shops. Their future is probably more dependent on the cohesion and the vibrancy of our community than the construction of large housing developments on the outskirts of town. Much the same can be said for our pubs and eating establishments.

We now face the unco-ordinated construction of many additional houses on several different sites without the existence of a master plan for Otley to mitigate the consequences for the town as a whole.

Will our existing infrastructure, including transport links, roads, river crossing, parking, schools, doctors and dentists, cope with the increased demands?

Who will ensure that this is the case and how? Typically the developer of a particular housing site will negotiate individually with the planners and some minor local improvements may be agreed. This is not what is required in this context.

Much was made by Mr Askham of the potential benefits of the new road that is associated with the proposed East of Otley development. The relief road from Stephen Smith’s to the Leeds roundabout will clearly provide an alternative route for traffic travelling along the Wharfe valley.

However, the new road is not designed simply as a by-pass. It has roundabouts to provide access to new housing, which will generate a substantial volume of new traffic. Additionally, the relief road will provide access to allow the extraction of 1.3 million tons of gravel reserves at Midgeley Farm.

Without a detailed study, the combined effect of all the proposed developments on traffic and parking within Otley is hard to predict, but do not expect it to be entirely beneficial as has been suggested.

Certainly they will be a very substantial negative impact on our already inadequate transport links (such as the A660) to the major centres of employment.

The construction of substantial numbers of new housing will not bring “huge benefits” to Otley unless the expansion as a whole is very carefully planned to enhance the long-term viability of the town. This is not what is currently proposed.

What Otley needs is an overall development framework which maintains cohesion by making maximum use of brownfield sites, ensuring that all new housing is well designed (and includes appropriate numbers of affordable houses) and critically by ensuring adequate infrastructure improvements to cope with the increased population.

If you share concerns about the planned increase please sign the e-petition via tinyurl.com/poauxp2.

Alastair Watson, Otley

Grammar School needs to abandon its iPad scheme

As a parent of children at Prince Henry’s Grammar School in Otley, I totally agree with Otley Town Council’s call to abandon the iPad scheme, for much the same reasons held by the councillors, as outlined in your report.

Parents were provided with information by the school (overwhelmingly promoting the scheme) several weeks ago with a response slip attached, which I duly read and responded to by choosing to opt out, giving my own personal views on why the idea should be scrapped.

I did not find this easy to do, due to the very positive spin of the letter and the suggestive wording in the accompanying letter from head teacher Janet Sheriff which made it quite clear that she and the deputy head thought it a good idea, and so then should we!

Even the response slip was entitled “opt in” rather than “opt in/out”.

These may seem like trivial points but I believe them to be subtle ways in which the school’s management are attempting to get parents to go along with their proposal or, at the very least, make parents feel like they are the odd ones out if they disagree, as evidenced in the quote from Mrs Sheriff in your paper that “more than 90 per cent have been in favour”.

What about the ten per cent who aren’t, don’t their views count? And why have only a minority of parents responded? Could that be explained in a similar way to which low turnouts are in general elections; that voters (parents) feel their opinion is devalued and the powers-that-be will have their way in the end anyway?

Belinda Simpson, Otley

After paying for three years, a new iPad contract starts

The information about the iPad costing £360 for each child is very misleading. At the end of the initial three-year contract the school intends to replace each iPad with a new one, starting a new three-year contract, continuously. So a child starting in Year 7, and staying on for sixth form, will be required to pay each month for the full seven years they are at the school, making £840 plus deposits.

In all the information, the school only mentions this once, hidden as part of an answer in the FAQ on their website.

I would appreciate it if you could make your readers, and therefore the parents and future parents, aware of this.

Name and address supplied

Once again, the ‘haves’ could torment ‘have nots’

The Education Act of 1942 enabled the children of working class parents to go to Grammar Schools at no cost.

I, the son of a dustman, was one of the first group to take advantage of this.

Five years later, I was able to go, part-time, to London University, fees paid by my employer, and subsequently had a successful career in industry.

I cannot say that life as a state-financed boy amongst those who had their education paid for by their more affluent parents was easy. I, and others like me, were constantly tormented by those who considered themselves our superiors, both as pupils and teachers.

Thankfully, those days are long gone; or have they?

Now, the head teacher of Prince Henry’s School seems determined to begin again a regime where the haves can torment the have-nots. She must be persuaded to desist.

V G Heffer, St Davids Road, Otley

House building situation is even more problematic

Paul Latham is right to be worried about house building but I am afraid the situation is even more problematic than he suspects.

In the past few years two Government housing ministers, Grant Shapps and Mark Prisk, have told us that their exciting New Homes Bonus would be a “powerful fiscal incentive for local authorities to deliver more homes”.

Yet at the end of November the latest housing minister, our very own Mr Hopkins, stood up in the House and stated that “I am afraid the New Homes Bonus is not about encouraging people to build homes.”

So for anyone thinking that as this government is borrowing ever more imprudently, on unemployment benefit, it might do something useful with the money, they should think again – despite the possibility of a silver lining to the cloud over this valley.

He could wake up to the bonus of telling the planners they might as well scrap the hundreds of unwanted and unnecessary houses planned for Wharfedale – which few in Bradford could afford anyway.

Still for those of an uxorious bent there is the prospect of a whole £2 a week bonus in the pipeline – not that it would make much of a dent in a £400,000 mortgage!

Sandy MacPherson, Wheatley Lane, Ben Rhydding