I CAN’T express how upset and horrified I am by the proposals to be voted on at the end of January that dogs will not be allowed in parks without a lead.
I walk my dog daily in Greenhead Park (off lead!) and I always clean up after him.
As an active dog a walk is not sufficient. He needs to run daily.
I could understand maybe if this proposed ban applied to for example peak times in summer– but not a blanket ban!
During the winter I have been the only person in the park at times or accompanied by other people with dogs. Otherwise it stays empty due to the cold and mud.
As for mess in the park, people that use the park cause more mess there than any dog! At the end of a summer’s day the fields are awash with cans, wrappers and takeaway boxes.
My only alternative would be TP Woods which I avoid at present. It is an isolated area and as a women I feel unsafe exercising my dog there.
Clayton Fields has already been lost as an area we could use.
I ask the council not to tar all dog owners with the same brush but for the park wardens to target the few inconsiderate dog owners who spoil it for the majority of responsible dog owners.
K Broadhead
Edgerton
... except guide dogs
I TOTALLY agree with the banning of dogs running free in parks, sports grounds, school playing fields and streets.
As a blind person with a guide dog I have regularly stepped in dog mess on pavements, even in my local area as well as both outside and inside my own gate, and I have to say that the owners of these dogs are well aware that their dog is fouling.
I feel certain that all visually impaired people will fully support the new policy if implemented.
However, I feel sure that banning guide dogs and other assistance dogs from play areas such as the two new play areas in Greenhead Park and including all play areas, must have been accidentally overlooked.
Take the example of a parent or grandparent using a guide dog and taking a child to such places: this could possibly be discriminatory. All guide dog owners are taught in the event of their dog fouling, exactly how to pick up and dispose of the mess in a safe and hygienic way.
It is very sad that my dog will no longer be able to run in the park. My wife, who always accompanies me when my dog is free running, has seen many irresponsible dog owners stand and watch their dog foul and then just walk away even though she offers them the approved disposal bag.
They need clamping down on, as not only is it a health hazard it also ruins the pleasure of responsible dog owners. Shame on them.
I ask for your support in respect of assistance dogs being exempt from this ban.
Stewart Hepplestone
District Client Representative for Guide Dog Owners, West Yorkshire
Why no dog park?
AS a dog owner I can understand why it has come to this.
I class myself as a responsible dog owner. I always carry plenty of poo bags and always pick up dog mess, but there are a lot of people who don’t.
I see plenty of dog poo on the streets and grass areas even though there are plenty of bins to dispose of the dog mess.
I don’t agree with all the regulations that are coming into force but I definitely agree that all dogs should be kept on their leads on public footpaths and dogs shouldn’t be out roaming the streets without their owners.
I know there isn’t much money in the council coffers but I think they should consider opening a dog park where dogs can run free in a confined area without being a nuisance to members of the public or young children who don’t like or are scared of dogs.
Even if there was a small charge for the use of the dog park I think dog owners would use it. It is OK people saying walk your dogs in the woods, but these days it is not safe to walk alone in the woods especially a woman on their own.
Angela Sharry
Oakes
Let’s have more bins
I BELIEVE responsible dog owners such as myself are being discriminated against just because of a few bad owners.
I can agree with keeping dogs on a lead in school grounds because there are children, some of whom may be scared of dogs.
They should be on a lead in large crowds.
But in recreational areas and rural fields I can’t agree with a ban on dogs being let off to exercise.
The recreational areas/fields are intended for the use of every one in the community. By not allowing me to let my dog off the lead in such areas you are limiting me to where I can exercise my dog off the lead.
If I wish to let my dog off the lead I would have to walk her in an unlit wooded area which is highly worrying for a female walking alone, especially in an evening when it is very dark.
In Netherton it is only within the last six months that a bin specifically for dog waste has been provided.
Kirklees Council has to take some responsibility for dog waste disposal and should provide enough bins for people to do the right thing.
Not doing so is forcing people to carry smelly bags around sometimes for over an hour before finding a bin or getting home and putting it in our own bins.
Michelle C
Netherton
Health hazard
GREAT! Not before time. Local sports fields and pavements are covered in dog excrement. Also, I see local dog owners exercising their dogs on Holmfirth High School’s playing fields.
This is a real health hazard and most unpleasant, and something needs to be done about it.
Hugh Allen
Holmfirth
Got a lot of bottle
I WAS surprised to see how much it costs us to collect bottles from householders. If these bottles are not to be collected then presumably they will go to landfill.
This will inevitably cost Kirklees Council more in the consequent charges and add to the ‘green taxes’ incurred for doing so.
ŠOthers may have the same thought as me. Surely a profit can be made by collecting glass?
The same goes for collecting bulky items. Does the council believe charging £25 for three items will not encourage fly-tipping?
Surely some bright spark can turn a profit for him/herself by doing it for free.
If one looks at some of the changes put forward to the Kirklees budget, it looks as though some things have been deliberately put forward to raise the hackles of the electorate and hit the poorest the hardest.
No doubt the ruling Labour group will blame the nasty Tories. Wrong. Look at the budget again, and see where money can be saved. I have given two examples, and look at where deliberate hits to the most vulnerable can be avoided.
Unless, of course, these figures can be changed and good old Labour can save the day? That could be classed as political fraud.
Who said no bowling at the new Sports Centre and then who claimed to have saved it? Who said no bowling pavilion at Greenhead Park and then found money for it? Could there be a pattern emerging?
Bernard McGuin
Marsh
Unloved Kirklees
THAT, in my view, “monster” of a building now nearing completion at the top of Chapel Hill is costing at least £74m – a new home for the Tech, and this when half the town is standing empty.
What is the sense of all this at such a time of financial stringency, and when Kirklees Council is aiming to cut its budget by £80m!
Why build new at such enormous cost when all that perfectly usable space is standing empty, especially as the outcome will be yet more vacant space (the old hospital site).
Or have I at last got to the nub of the matter? Huddersfield Tech, which had a fine reputation, is replaced with Kirklees College; yet another nail in the coffin of the hated Huddersfield and its replacement with the stolen name of this unloved Council which will soon disappear for ever.
Arthur Quarmby
Holme
Costly democracy
IT HAS now been confirmed that, due to resignations, Kirkburton Parish Council is to hold by-elections in Kirkburton (two vacancies) and Shepley (one) on February 16,
We have to ask why they could not be held on the same day as the Kirklees local elections in May.
The extra costs, probably more than £3,000, will be incurred because they are ‘one-offs’. This will have to be borne by the all the council tax payers of the Kirkburton Parish Council area.
In this new age of austerity when parish councils, as well as Kirklees and, indeed, government departments are taking a big financial hit, why do we need to spend this?
I understand that the public has a right to representation and I believe that parish councils can be an important part of the democratic process of local government, but what is gained by not waiting until May?
Both wards already have two councillors each who remain in place to represent them.
Secondly, whilst local elections usually attract a low poll, and by-elections even lower, these parish council by-elections will be voted on by a very small proportion of electors.
If they were shared with the Kirklees elections there would have been a higher poll and a more democratic outcome for us all.
Who will gain from this? Certainly not the people of Kirkburton Parish Council who are paying for it.
Mike Greetham
Secretary, Kirkburton Labour Party
Empty homes
REFERRING to Stephen Priest’s letter about empty homes (Mailbag, January 21): powers exist to deal with these.
The Housing Act 2004 allows councils to get Empty Dwelling Management Orders to take over empty properties where the owner will not do anything.
The problem is that only 60 or so have been used since 2006. In Kirklees the Cabinet gave the go-ahead to get an interim Empty Property Management Orders (EDMO ) in May 2008 on four properties, one of which was in Lindley.
Three years and eight months later the property in Lindley is still empty and no EDMO has been Šapplied for. There are apparently legal reasons for this, though.I am not sure what they are. Š
Knowsley Council got an EDMO on a similar property in June 2011 without any problems. If the Council will not use all its powers the problem of empty properties will not be solved. Tony Woodhead
Lindley
Everybody loses
SO Richard Huddleston thinks the traders of Holmfirth are self interested (Mailbag, January 24). What a crime, trying to earn an honest crust.
Along come Tesco giving us rock bottom prices at the expense of small and medium producers, suppliers and sellers.
This is short termism, and ultimately everybody loses.
Russ Elias
Slaithwaite
