WITH reference to the letter printed in the paper from Mrs Palmer regarding the recent accident on Kirkwood Drive please let me reassure her that I and my fellow ward colleague, Christine Stanfield, are certainly listening to local residents’ concerns about the layout of the highway.

To take her letter point by point:

Firstly, Mrs Palmer is quite correct. If the estate where the accident happened was built today it certainly would be set out differently.

I have spoken to Kirklees Council and their view is that should a similar planning application be put in today, planners would not be satisfied with the layout.

Secondly, Mrs Palmer says that the council should be proactively dealing with potential danger areas as a general policy, not waiting for accidents to take place before they act.

In an ideal world where the council had limitless funds this should, of course, happen.

Sadly this is not an ideal world and officers and councillors have to make difficult decisions about where to best focus the precious funds they have to work with.

This is why the council works on a priority basis dealing with locations where accidents are actually happening while, whenever possible, trying to make things safer elsewhere.

Thirdly, Mrs Palmer asks why traffic-calming measures were put in place on Cowrakes Road and Moorhill Road which is a section of a larger scheme between New Hey Road and Halifax Road.

In the three years before the scheme was introduced there were 15 accidents involving 27 casualties on these stretches of highways including one fatality which led to the measures being introduced.

Moreover, vehicle speeds had been judged to regularly be in excess of the permitted limits. On Kirkwood Drive, records indicate that no accidents have been reported in the last five years.

Lastly, I completely agree with Mrs Palmer that something now needs to be done to make sure that an accident like this does not happen again on Kirkwood Drive and that this should happen as quickly as possible.

However, in order to make sure that the right measures are put in place, it is vital that a proper investigation is completed both by the council and the police.

I think Mrs Palmer would agree that what the situation calls for is a well thought out and executed response rather than a knee-jerk reaction that could possibly make the situation worse.

I wish those involved in the accident a speedy recovery.

Clr Tony Woodhead

Kirklees Council

Face-to-face over protest

I AM delighted that our MP, Barry Sheerman, is chairing a private meeting between top council chiefs and officials and several people opposed to

Kirklees Council’s plan to close the tourist information centre and relocate it in two parts – information to the central library and ticket sales to Huddersfield Town Hall.

I think the main issues have been well aired over the past few weeks and we can only hope a satisfactory solution can be found.

At last week’s public protest meeting which I organised, three resolutions were passed – a call to the council to rescind its decision, to review its consultation procedures and for the closure to be referred to the Council’s Scrutiny Management Committee.

In accordance with the wishes of the meeting, I have sent these resolutions to the Council’s Chief Executive, Rob Vincent, and to Clr Robert Iredale, Chairman of the Scrutiny Management

Committee.

It would be helpful if members of the public who feel strongly about the issue could also write to them. Letters to Mr Vincent should be sent to him at Kirklees Council Executive Board, Civic Centre 3, PO Box B24, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 1WG and to Clr Iredale at Kirklees Council Scrutiny Office, First Floor, Civic Centre 3, Huddersfield HD1 2TG.

Stan Solomons

Cowcliffe

Fears for green land

THE time has now lapsed in which residents of Kirklees can put forward their comments on the Local Development Framework (LDF) proposals.

The decision on which option is most suitable will be made on October 31, 2009. Formal objections to the chosen option can then be made.

If Option One or Four is chosen, 300 houses will be built to mar the open landscape below Castle Hill at Newsome.

If Option Three is chosen, the same green belt land will accommodate 1,000 houses. Yes, 1,000.

The LDF states Kirklees needs to provide 37,000 houses in total for the period 2011-2026. This is, of course, a Government directive. How are these projections made?

Demographics are complicated stuff, but Government informs us the main shifts in pattern are that there is now a larger ageing population than ever before and a much higher proportion of single people than ever before.

Both groups require housing. The last time I looked not many single people – old, young or middle-aged – wanted three and four bedroomed properties, especially in the current economic climate.

Our planning department states that the only way to achieve the Government’s set target is by releasing some green belt land in addition to using up all brownfield land and suitable public land. Interestingly, they admit that the target of 37,000 houses may not have to be fully actualised, but a provision plan must be in place for such a number.

Modern day housing provision should be planned in an innovative and sensitive manner to actual need as far as possible. Many single people want compact, practical accommodation. Kirklees Council has already shown us that it can be innovative in its provision of such accommodation – local mill conversions, for example. Student accommodation, on the whole, has also been sensitively provided.

However, I agree with Ms Heeley (Examiner Mailbag, April 18). Areas of lower-ranking land appear to have been ignored under the Core Strategy yet the prime green belt land at Newsome is offered up.

Why? Because it’s easy to develop that’s why – and it will sell well. Brownfield land often requires clearance involving a large investment before building work can even begin.

‘Blank canvas’ green belt land is far more attractive to builders in practical and financial terms. One great expanse of good land holds greater potential for big companies than smaller patches of urban land. This is not innovative or sensitive practice and does not support the principals of urban regeneration.

To quieten the battle cries it’s likely the council will slip in a condition that developers must provide ‘recreational areas’ within the complex. Poor compensation indeed, I say.

If the proposals are fulfilled, the residents of Newsome will lost much. Effectively we shall sacrifice a piece of our heritage for a bunch of quick-fix merchants and someone in Whitehall who, in all probability, doesn’t even know where Huddersfield is.

G S ALLAN

Newsome

Not in the real world

WITH regard to the payment made to the Kirklees Council plasterer – Terry Cunliffe (Examiner April 6) wants to live in the real world.

Builders in the private sector earn about half of the £60,000 if they are lucky over 12 months and that is if the customer pays.

Also self-employed builders have to buy their own vehicles and maintain them, provide public liability, pay accountancy fees and provide clothing and tools. On top of that there is no holiday pay, sick pay or pension.

Ideally all Kirklees tradesmen should be restricted to the basic wage.

If they are not happy with this, have a go in the private sector. There will be plenty of unemployed tradesmen ready to take their places.

Self employed builder and council tax payer

Huddersfield

Taxi fee rise unfair

IN the downturn of the current economic climate it is wrong for the Kirklees Council to increase the taxi operators’ licence fee by seven fold (700%) and taxi badges by 60% due to the fact it is going to hit severely the taxi trade which is already struggling.

The unilateral decision to increase the rates was taken last week in the sitting of the cabinet meeting.

Clr David Sheard offered a flimsy argument for the monstrous increase saying that it was necessary to bring fees in line with big cities like Bradford, Leeds and Wakefield except Calderdale which is not a city and Kirklees is also not a city.

Clr Sheard failed to mention that the high fees in these cities increased gradually over the years and did not leap high in one go.

In comparison, the cities are a lot busier than a town and villages and thus are able and better adapted to absorb the high fees.

In Kirklees’ case there is no justification for this precipitous increase. I hope that common sense prevails.

Kirklees Council must understand what adverse circumstances these taxi traders go through – pressure, danger, working long unsociable hours and hardship for what? To provide a public service and earn an honest living and the last thing they want is further hardship and misery.

They must stand up and voice their opinions now.

Finally, I do commend Kirklees Council on focusing on the paramount issue and that is the safety and security of our public in every way, but they must never be complacent.

They must also focus vigilantly to stamp out the rogue few operators who tarnish and give a bad name to us all.

Mohammed Yunis

Fartown