Dereliction makes grim reading (From Wharfedale Observer)

Dereliction makes grim reading

9:43am Friday 7th March 2008

• Print
• Email
• Share

SIR, - Your front page article about the dereliction which has been allowed to occur in Otley, together with the photos, made grim reading.

As you so rightly point out these are all on the main roads leading into or crossing the town.

However, you have omitted that which is the first eyesore to welcome travellers entering Otley from the north. I refer, of course, to the boarded-up buildings which were once part of the old hospital site and to the front of which, what used to be well tended lawns, now appears to be used as a communal rubbish tip.

Surely Leeds City Council must have some powers, compulsory purchase or whatever, to force the owners of this and all the other sites to put them in order.

Vic Heffer - St David's Road, Otley.

Action needed

SIR, - I echo the concerns of Beth O'Neil and your editorial last week regarding the state of many of the derelict sites in Otley - they give a very poor first impression of Otley to our visitors.

Our Liberal councillors complain that private companies are not maintaining their properties whilst waiting for planning decisions and appeals from the council, happily ignoring the fact that many of the derelict sites are either owned by the council or have been sold off by the council.

For years now, the old annex building on Bridge Street has remained empty. The building is a mess, the grounds are littered with broken bottles and waste, but all is conveniently forgotten when there is fairer game to be had in persecuting private companies.

I am still waiting for answers from the council - it seems that no one knows or wants to know what is happening to the annex.

Our Liberal councillors should lead by example, by sorting out their own mess first and also ensuring that when they sell off property a clause is inserted to ensure that the site is to be maintained until a planning decision has been made.

When are our councillors going to work proactively for Otley instead of reacting to issues raised in this newspaper? They have been on the council for many years, but nothing seems to be done?

We need action for Otley, not complacency.

Ken Creek - Conservative Candidate for Otley and Yeadon, 33 Milner Bank, Otley.

Campaign wrong

SIR, - I have observed with increasing incredulity the objections to the redevelopment of the Summercross Public House in Otley for houses and the involvement of the incumbent Member of Parliament for the area, Mr Greg Mulholland.

Mr Mulholland was elected on a slim majority of just over 1,800 to represent the people of his constituency in Parliament, Leeds North West, on matters of national importance.

It is notable that according to the Parliamentary web site Mr Mulholland has voted in only 67 per cent of votes, which is below average for Members of Parliament, and therefore one cannot help but wonder where he is devoting his time and resources and whether this is an appropriate use thereof. Residents and readers might wish to visit the web site www.theyworkforyou.com We are increasingly being informed that alcoholism and obesity are the two major threats to the health of our nation and yet here the MP is campaigning against the redevelopment, for what we are also frequently informed is much needed housing, of what was an underused public house that is less than half a mile from the town centre of Otley.

A town, whose population of approximately 15,000, is already served by more than 20 public houses as well as many other licensed establishments such as sports and social clubs !

Not everyone whom Mr Mulholland represents laments the closure of this public house. It has been closed on successive occasions and it is incomprehensible to believe that anyone would willingly close a successful business venture that provides a return on investment. My concern centres upon the situation that may ensue if Mr Mulholland and others are successful in blocking this proposal.

Otley Town Council's Community Development Committee (CDC) has already agreed to support the initiative to establish a Designated Public Places Order to help support the already stretched police force combat rowdy street drinking in Otley town centre.

Reopening the Summercross public house will merely encourage those engaged in such anti-social behaviour acts to move on to the area around the Summercross public house to the significant detriment of those who reside close by. An area which will not benefit from the new CCTV cameras.

Of course there is always the possibility that we will be left with a closed and decaying former public house, akin to The Wheatley in Ben Rhydding, where no licensed operator has as yet come forward to operate these premises in nearly two years despite the almost monopolistic opportunity that it provides. Could it be that such establishments rarely survive on purely serving diehard locals unless that is they can obtain extended late opening licenses?

Objectors to this proposal should consider long and hard aout the possible consequences of their actions may produce.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Cart before horse

SIR, - Following Jim Jack's report concerning the proposed multi-million pound plans to widen and strengthen Otley Bridge, ( February 28 issue of the Wharfedale Observer) may I through your column express my views on this matter, as follows: Here we go again, cart before horse style, preparing plans which affect matters of great local concern even before anyone with local knowledge or views has been consulted or listened to. Plans once prepared at great cost create an inbuilt resistance to changes.

Is there no-one in authority with sufficient leadership, vision or understanding of Otley's current problems who can turn this into an opportunity for the town? No wonder so many local businesses are putting their future plans on hold. (Last week's front page).

Proceeding with the current plan will increase congestion and disruption, bring little direct benefit to Otley people and condemn us all to decades of worse to come.

If such funds really are available, then a plan beneficial to the future of both the bridge and the town must be achieved. This once in a lifetime opportunity to address the situation and bring about positive changes should be grasped with alacrity.

Meanwhile the project should pause until properly thought through, before it resembles the failed Leeds Supertram Project. (The meter is already consuming funds!).

For starters my alternative proposals would be:

• Restrict the weight limit over Otley Bridge and defer all but essential repairs.

• Construct a second bridge crossing the river near Otley Mills, feeding into the nearby by-pass.

• Construct a northern riverbank link road from the New Bridge to Billams Hill through the old Auction Mart, and incorporating the Kell Beck improvements.

• Then fully repair Otley Bridge in its existing form with restrictions as to weight and local traffic only.

• Finally, persuade those who reneged on funding the eastern section of the by-pass in the 1980s to complete the job and connect it to the A659 at Knotford Nook as originally planned.

Then we could have our town back.

Fred Whyte - Evergreens, Burras Lane, Otley.

Roadworks thieves

SIR, - I was overcome by deep concern while driving home across the bridge in Otley on Sunday evening, something terrible had happened. After I had taken part in the newly established - but already a popular event - eight-mile queue to cross from one side of Otley to the other, I noticed that the very reason for the queue had been stolen.

The diggers and lorries had been victim to grand theft auto, the workers had all been taken hostage and the health and safety nuisances had disappeared.

All that had been left by the thieves were a few cones and a large amount of temporary traffic lights. They had, however, seen it necessary to fill in any unsightly holes that might make it tricky for a passing car to get across the bridge.

Anyone could have mistakenly thought that the roadworks had finally finished (one week behind schedule), but surely not as the cones and traffic lights - arguably the most tell-tale part of any set of roadworks - were still there causing unneccesary queues.

Could someone tell me if the roadwork thieves have been apprehended or if perhaps, as unlikely as it is, the council thought it would leave a load of pointless cones and red lights scattered about the place to make it look pretty and impede anyone wishing to actually get home.

Ben Wilson - 29 Throstle Nest Close, Otley.

Moving trees

SIR, - As I have already raised in this newspaper, the planning application submitted by Chartford Homes seeking permission to build houses on the site of the Summercross pub contains a major and so far unexplained error.

The plans submitted by Chartford Homes include a tree report. On this, they have plotted the trees in their correct locations.

However, on their plan for their proposed development, most of the trees have moved! All 12 trees in the public park next to the Summercross appear to have been displaced some five metres towards Pool Road. One particular tree, which is located well within the park, appears on Chartford's development plan growing out of the footpath along Pool Road!

So far Chartford Homes have failed to come with an explanation for this extraordinary error. Indeed Chartford MD Chris Thompson tried to throw us a red herring in this newspaper by talking about a separate map.

So let me be clear, what we are talking about are two plans, both submitted by the company as part of this planning application, showing trees in different locations. So by mistake, or by design, the trees have moved.

We now know, having forced it out of them, that Chartford Homes intend to try to overturn a Tree Preservation Order, which speaks volumes about their attitude. However, we still are utterly baffled by the mysterious moving trees.

It seems clear that, if the trees are plotted in the right places, the proposed new houses would touch the protected trees in the park, which makes the development impossible without threatening those trees.

Unsurprisingly, considering the lack of explanation from Chartford Homes, there is considerable speculation about the reasons for this substantial discrepancy in their plans, but one thing is certain: This is not a professional way to operate and will do nothing to enhance Chartford's Homes reputation.

So I am asking Chartford Homes again, to please explain how they came to prepare and submit two plans with trees drawn in different locations and how and why the trees came to be moved on their development plan.

The locals of the Summercross pub, a pub that should never have been closed, the people who live nearby and the wider community of Otley demand an explanation.

Greg Mulholland - MP for Leeds North-West

• Print
• Email
• Share