LAST Friday, news of a new plan to build 300 homes on the green field site at Lindley Moor was on the Examiner’s front page.

The last application to develop this site was rejected at a public inquiry in February, 2001 when the government inspector ruled that brown field sites should be developed before green field sites.

In the Kirklees Local Development Framework explanatory leaflet, which was allegedly delivered to every household in Kirklees, yet was not received by people in Honley (Jason McCartney MP), the Colne Valley (KCAN members), in Lindley (LMAG Members), and residents in other districts, stated that it is the intention of Kirklees MC to encourage the development of brown field sites before green field sites.

Kirklees MC proudly promote this fact in the LDF to project their ‘green credentials’ and state that they have already identified enough brown field sites for the construction of 12,350 homes.

If this is not hypocrisy, why are the Kirklees Policy, Planning and Investment departments so desperate to obtain planning permission for 300 homes on the Lindley Moor green field site, when many brown field sites are available?

What is the urgency and strategic importance of this Lindley Moor green field site to Kirklees?

The answer is a housing scheme for Lindley Moor is the key that unlocks the door to construct a proposed industrial park/data campus at Lindley Moor.

The 2009 application from Stirling Scotfield to construct a ‘data campus’ on the Lindley Moor Crosland Road site was rejected on June 14, 2010 by councillors on the Kirklees Highways and Planning Committee, despite the professional policy and planning officers’ recommendation in favour of the application.

The defeated applicant has had to lodge an appeal to the Government Inspectorate at Bristol to seek to overturn the decision.

Many reasons to reject this application were put forward by Lindley Moor Action Group at the 2010 planning meeting, most notably that it was a departure from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), the massive wasted electrical energy needed to cool the servers (if the mythical data centre was constructed) was contrary to the Government, the European Union and Kirklees green policies, and that only a handful of permanent jobs would be generated, not the 150 claimed by the developer.

Following the decision by the Planning Committee it then took Kirklees MC six weeks to send out the rejection notice to Stirling Scotfield which detailed only one reason for the rejection that it was a ‘departure from the UDP.’

The developers quite rightly want profit on their investment.

Kirklees MC need the development, not so much for the houses – there are plenty of available brown field sites – but because the Lindley Moor industrial site is one of the largest in Huddersfield, and is a key part of the questionable Kirklees LDF jobs and homes strategy.

The residents of Lindley, who are almost unanimously against the development of these green field sites, must shake off their apathy and before February 13 register their objections to the Kirklees’ LDF proposals, and at the appropriate time, be prepared to oppose the applications of the developers to keep the Lindley Moor green field site intact, otherwise Kirklees’ long-standing objectives will be successful, and Lindley Moor will be lost for ever.

Peter Schofield


It’s a given ...

THERE should be NO building on Lindley Moor. Lindley Moor was given to the people of Huddersfield.

Andrew keys


Moor means less

LOCAL people don’t want these homes, infrastructure and nature doesn’t want these homes on Lindley Moor. Planning permission has been refused before. No means no. Why don’t the politicians and councillors back the people who employ them?

A top planning officer says it will bring new jobs. Who for? Out of town contractors. I am one of those silly people Clr Stansfield refers to that can’t accept the need for housing. Industry, yes, but there are plenty of other eyesores that could be developed.

Come on Huddersfield, use your common sense, what you gain in rates will go on benefits. I must go now and find a way through the thousands of homeless and unemployed waiting for these houses to be built. Š Š

David Peace


A waste of money

IT is with dismay that I read in the Examiner that council tax is to be increased by 3% for Huddersfield pensioners.

It is scandalous that vulnerable groups should be targeted in this way.

Although it is understandable that our council has to save money somewhere, perhaps a fairer alternative would be to consider avoiding these huge and in my view wasteful housing ‘modernisation’ programmes.

Whilst I fully accept that for many people these modernisation programmes are very welcome and in some cases needed, I think tenants should be consulted on whether they wish to take part in the modernisation process.

Here’s a personal example: a few years ago my flat was subjected to one of these programmes. A perfectly good solid bath was removed and an inferior plastic one put in its place. A perfectly good and relatively new shower was also replaced by another almost identical shower. My high-level chain-pull toilet was replaced with a low-level toilet. Central heating was also installed which was not requested and to this day has never been used.

Why replace things that are in perfectly good working order? Why not wait until a replacement is requested and only modernise the houses or flats when the tenant eventually vacates the property? It must have cost a small fortune to carry out these programmes, which in my case was completely unnecessary.

Robert Nicholls


A cut in salary

COUNCIL chief executive Adrian Lythgo was quoted in last Tuesday’s Examiner as saying: ‘It’s important for local people to give us their views as soon as possible.’ This is mine.

Why doesn’t he announce he will take 5% less salary? That is a very good start and people will listen to him with some respect.

M Taylor


Good in an emergency

SIX weeks ago I awoke at 6.30am, almost unable to draw breath. Not knowing who to contact at that unearthly hour I rang 999.

They were soon here, eased my problem and took me to HRI. They too, in Ward 5, were wonderful and two days later I was home.

I had the same trouble at 6am one day last week. Once more I rang 999 and once more they took me to HRI. They too were wonderful and I am back home the same day. Bless you all.

Jennie Boothroyd


Please wipe your feet

LIKE your Netherton reader (Mailbag, January 25) I also am annoyed when people do not wipe their feet on the door mat provided (back and front) of my house. I always do so at other people’s homes.

It must be second nature to me. I cannot remember being told when I was much younger. Perhaps telling the children will have the desired effect for the next generation.

Mrs e Taylor


Sharing resources

RATHER than cut back on its invaluable World Service, the BBC needs to look at how it covers sport on local radio.

For example, was it necessary to have Radio Leeds send a team, all the way to London, in order to cover the FA Cup, fourth round tie, between Arsenal and Huddersfield Town, when the match was being broadcast by Radio London?

It would have been more cost-efficient for Radio Leeds to plug into Radio London, so avoiding duplication, more sharing of resources is needed, rather than cuts.

a Shipman


Praise for honesty

MAY I, through the letters page, say a big thank you to whoever handed in my wife’s purse, which she had lost outside Gregg’s bakers at Aspley?

By your honesty you provided a glimmer of light and optimism on a grey winter’s day. Thanks also to the staff at Gregg’s.

John Langford