THE REALITY of David Cameron’s determination to regenerate the economy, through a building boom, came home to the people of Scissett and Clayton West when Redrow homes unfolded a scheme to build 200 new homes in the few remaining green fields around the village.

This is in addition to the nearly completed development of over 90 homes on adjoining fields.

It’s fair to say the developer’s team were left in little doubt that local people do not want another large development in their village.

Residents of Skelmanthorpe should be just as concerned as our neighbours about this proposed development because the plans clearly show the developers would like to expand their project to cover much of the land bordering Pilling Lane.

If they succeed Skelmanthorpe would finally be joined to Scissett and Clayton West.

At the same time as the people of Clayton West and Scissett were learning about this latest development, residents bordering Strike Lane, Skelmanthorpe, received a letter informing them of a proposed development of 30 houses on Strike Lane.

This development will have further serious consequences in terms of traffic volumes on Station Road, which have already been increased significantly by the business park and 90 homes recently completed on the former coal screening site.

It also poses a real threat to the residents of Parkgate, bordering Baildon Dike, which is already unable to cope with water volumes at times of heavy rain.

The Dike has flooded local homes twice since the new business park and adjoining houses were built, as all the run off water from their roofs and roads is allowed to drain into the Dike.

These large developments are proposed for our villages before the new Local Development Framework, passed by Kirklees Council a few weeks ago comes into effect.

Under this long-term development plan Kirklees intends to build some 20,000 new homes and our villages are earmarked to get a significant proportion of them.

It would seem the council hasn’t entirely dropped an earlier proposal to create a new town based on the four villages in our valley, despite this proposal being roundly rejected by local people.

The new planning minister has already stated that people who oppose building on green fields are Luddites holding back the tide of progress.

He might like to reflect on the fact that in villages and towns threatened with large scale, unwanted, developments the majority of the population would appear to be Luddites. What’s more these Luddites have votes.

Where is the sanity in deciding to build yet more houses in the small Pennine villages where there are already large numbers of houses for sale, which can’t be sold?

Where is the economic logic in adding even more houses to the stockpile when despite house prices being the lowest for over 10 years and mortgage interest rates at their lowest in our lifetime, there are huge numbers of homes which can’t be sold?

It’s not a shortage of houses causing our problems it’s people lacking the money to buy them.

No affordable homes for our young people, just more homes for commuters.

When plans are put forward to increase the size of local villages by up to 30% with developments like these, it’s obvious to all it has nothing to do with meeting local needs.

There is a demand for a small number of affordable homes for local youngsters wanting to get a foot on the property ladder. Sadly for them the government is about to remove the requirement for developers to build affordable homes as part of their projects.

So what do local people get out of developments like these if they don’t even get new homes for local youngsters?

They get all the mess from the builders as they concrete over the green fields. All the additional traffic as the new homeowners commute to work in Leeds, Wakefield or Sheffield. More pressure on local schools, which are already overflowing.

Worst of all they lose the feeling of being part of a village, for how can it be a village without green fields around it?

As one resident put it: “The countryside is a fantastic tonic. It can make you feel glad to be alive. A sprawling, unnecessary housing estate in its place makes me want to weep.”

Richard Graham

Scissett

Campaign goes on

I THOUGHT Clr Jim Dodds was unfair to criticise Barry Gibson (Mailbag, September 10) for his latest Examiner article about the current Library Consultation.

The first part of the consultation was ill-conceived and inevitably caused a great deal of suspicion and negative feeling.

Thankfully, the idea of volunteer-run libraries has bitten the dust!

After his good experience at the Skelmanthorpe Library Open Day, Clr Dodds seemed to have nothing but praise for the Library Service.

But the questions remain – can you get more for less and is this a genuine attempt to consult with people towards achieving a library service fit for the 21st century?

At the very least, Clr Dodds may now be won over to the idea that cutting libraries is false economy.

Everyone should do their best to make their views known at the open days, and online www.communitykirklees.org.uk/events/your-library-your-voice

The Marsden Library Open Day was well organised and well presented. What is now needed is an in-depth exploration of how its services and facilities can be extended so that it will appeal to wider sections of the community.

Whatever happens, there is no case for cutting the Library Service.

Support the lobby of Kirklees Council on Wednesday October 24 when the petitions with over 8000 names are to be presented to the full council.

June Jones

Marsden

Visionary view

AM I the only one who is very, very disappointed that the new building at the University of Huddersfield has been ‘dumbed down’ to please those without vision?

Am I the only one who is thrilled to bits to see the visionary Huddersfield College down Chapel Hill?

Without extra-ordinary dreamers of the past breaking the mould, the beautiful buildings we have in Huddersfield that have been built over the last couple of centuries would not be standing now and delight in innovative architecture a dream of others in the land of far far away

Bruce Hanson

Huddersfield

Housing questions

TONY Woodhead (Mailbag, September 12) responds to my letter about the shaky economic foundations underpinning plans to develop green belt land, by shifting the argument towards an alleged need for at least an extra 130,000 houses per year to meet the needs of an expanding population.

Fair enough, but that does beg the question of why our ageing population is expanding so rapidly.

For the real reason behind UK population growth, perhaps Tony Woodhead would like to consult the website of the Office for National Statistics.

The truth is that population expansion, and with it a supposed “need” to tear-up green land for housing, is driven by open-door immigration policies.

Put bluntly, we have a choice between limiting immigration and developing green land.

Mr Woodhead conveniently ignores a recent report by the Local Government Association.

This states that permissions have been granted for 400,000 new houses, yet development has not started on these sites.

The report concludes that “unlocking frustrated demand, not increasing supply” is the real problem in housing provision.

In other words, we have a mortgage shortfall, not a dearth of available housing or land.

Put all this together and we need to limit absolute demand by restricting immigration, whilst finding some way to loosen the mortgage constraints to allow the take-up of houses and building permissions which are already available.

Under EU law, we are restricted in our choices on both fronts (EU freedom of movement on the one hand, competition laws limiting government intervention in the financial markets on the other).

We do not, on the “needs” argument, require yet more green land to be given over to developers.

We do need decisive political decisions to limit that “need”.

Bill Armer

Deighton

Cameron’s dilemma

VINCE Cable’s Mansion Tax, and Nick Clegg’s Wealth Tax, remind me very much of the Soviet-style taxation and economic policies pursued by the 1945, post-war Labour government.

Those were the days when the “rich” paid tax at 98%, and some “super-rich” paid tax at 105%. Mr Clegg sounds as if he can’t wait to get back to them!

Why is David Cameron in Coalition with somebody who prefers to act as if he is Leader of the Opposition, rather than Deputy Prime Minister?

Much has changed in our system of government in the past two years. The principle of Cabinet responsibility for one.

Why are policies “Minister’s policies” and not “the government’s policies?”

Especially as it is the Conservative part of the Coalition government that is attempting to actually govern, and getting the blame for the failings of the Lib-Dem Coalition rump.

Equal partners they ain’t, nor should they be. Why, oh why, didn’t Mr Cameron have the bottle to run a minority government? He would still be there, and would have got through all his important policies to save the economy.

To have opposed them would have meant national bankruptcy, and not even Messrs Clegg, Cable, or Balls, have got the bottle to have taken us down that path.

Alan Carcas

Liversedge