Please just clean up after yourselves

SIR - I retired in December 2016 and from early January 2017 I have been a volunteer with the Canal and River Trust, working on the Leeds to Liverpool Canal.

What I find amazing is the truly ingenious ways that some dog owners go to to hide their animals’ droppings. I have found the pretty coloured plastic bags packed into dry-stone walls; hidden behind contractors’ cabins; stuffed up rainwater pipes; hung gaily from trees and bushes and even hidden in quick-food containers.

All of these methods make it a real pleasure to try and keep our countryside and footpaths clean and fit for everybody to use - without the fear of standing on, or touching, somebody else’s dog mess.

Hiding the stuff under snow, or grass cuttings, are other ploys.

I have heard all the excuses, particularly the ones: “I’ll pick it up on the way back” and “It’ll be safe in the bag.” Some others I can’t repeat in a family newspaper.

However, litter is not the exclusive of certain dog owners. I have also collected babies’ nappies (used) and somebody’s recent Marks and Spencer’s shopping bag complete with old bra and panties (unwashed) and the remains of their ‘dinner for two’; which was a nice thought, but I’m not sure which menu includes vomit!

Drinks cans and glass bottles are another hazard.

All litter is the sole result of human beings, not animals, and in my opinion it is our responsibility to clean up after ourselves. I am aware that certain members of the human race don’t give a damn about anybody else, but I wish they would go and live on another planet and leave this one to those of us who do.

Paul Emsley, Newton Way, Hellifield

Ashamed of roads with so much litter

SIR - I am delighted this year that I have no foreign friends visiting because if I had I would have been too ashamed to take them out on the litter-strewn roads of Craven.

Dr J H Saywell, Lister Croft, Thornton in Craven

Explanations for development ruling

SIR - Regarding ‘Reduction in affordable homes agreed’ (Craven Herald, March 15).

So, there will be less affordable homes on offer to those in the community seeking to get on the “housing ladder” as part of the Wyvern Park development?

This fictitious ladder will be running out of rungs at this rate.

Perhaps Cllr Sutcliffe, Chairman of the Planning Committee, or Neville Watson, Planning Manager, could help me, and no doubt others, as to how they end up in this almost comedic farce – except that for many it is not at all funny.

Hamer Boot, of Henry Boot Developments, says “(that) building 40% affordable homes is not viable because of costs associated with the development and that it is supported by the district valuer”.

Are we meant to believe that when the committee sit down to make a decision on the planning application at the very beginning, Henry Boot, the Planning Committee and Mr Watson are fully aware that the 40% affordable homes figure is unachievable?

How come Boots are encouraged to put in a bid for the job with them knowing that “it was not viable because of costs associated with the development and is supported by the district valuer”?

I am aware that part of the problem is the lack of the much heralded Local Plan.

Methinks that there is also a lack of a sensible planning procedure which can be respected and understood by the community.

Perhaps a statement to this newspaper by some or all of the parties involved to clarify these curious machinations?

Tom Clinton, Netherghyll Lane, Cononley

* Neville Watson, Craven District Council’s Planning Manager, responds: “The original outline planning permission was subject to a condition to provide affordable housing ‘which shall consist of not less than 40 per cent of housing units unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority following an assessment of financial viability’.

In this particular case the applicant submitted a Development Viability Assessment that was independently reviewed by the District Valuer.

“The conclusion was that the development would not be viable with 40 per cent affordable housing and would only be viable with 20 per cent.

“If the planning committee were to ignore the independent advice of the District Valuer they would leave the council open to an appeal which we would certainly lose, and which could cost the tax-payer tens of thousands of pounds.”

* A spokesperson for Henry Boot Developments responds: “Once completed, the Wyvern Park proposals will deliver significant economic benefits and there is clear demand for new space within Skipton to allow local businesses to grow, without the need to relocate out of the district.

“It is accepted by the local authority that a ‘high-value’ land use, such as housing, is needed to enable the delivery of this new employment space.

“This variation of the planning approval will mean that 36 affordable housing units will still be delivered, but without jeopardising the financial viability of the entire project. Without the housing development, the commercial development will be unable to come forward, as it funds the necessary infrastructure required to ‘open up’ the site. Therefore the viability of the housing development is critical to the success of the scheme.”

Are there other rail route plan options?

SIR - In recent correspondence, members of SELRAP have claimed that there are no serious engineering problems to the completion of the single track line from Colne to Skipton and that this could be built to complete a new East/West strategic route across the Pennines.

Ms Wood then goes on to say that modern fast trains could then continue from the Airedale line into Burnley. Mr Walsh, in his letter, states that there will be no level crossings on the route.

In my opinion fast passenger trains competing with heavy slow freight trains on a single track can only lead to this becoming yet another ‘jammed solid route.’

On reaching Skipton, the freight trains would have to compete for paths with the frequent fast passenger services. There are, of course, still only two tracks available as the slow lines between Skipton and Leeds were removed many years ago.

Additionally there is that level crossing at Kildwick.

Has SELRAP included the cost of electrifying the line from Skipton to Burnley and the level crossing problem in the estimate of £100 million for the work?

There is a much cheaper option. In the thousands of pages produced by SELRAP there is no mention of the double track, well-maintained strategic route from Hellifield via Clitheroe to East Lancashire and the West Coast mainline at Preston.

It is obvious that the trains would have to reverse at Hellifield to access the UP line to Leeds but sidings are available alongside both up and down lines to accommodate the longest of freight trains.

A recent article in ‘Rail’, issue 845, January 13 2018, by Steve Broadbent, a founder of SELRAP, describes the thirteen-and-a-half mile double track railway between Clitheroe and Hellifield as “fully operational but rarely used.”

He then added that “it is believed that reversing at Hellifield could be done if modest signalling improvements were made.”

Jack Ayrton, Ashton Court, Hellifield

Let the study identify the pros and cons

SIR - The clue is in the name.

SELRAP stands for Skipton East Lancs Rail Action Partnership.

The Skipton to Colne link will make train journeys quicker from points between Burnley and Colne, to points between Skipton and Leeds.

Such journeys are “possible” now, but Northern Rail says that Skipton to Colne would take around three hours and cost £35. Nobody does it! It would be faster to walk and costs too much!

Government figures tell us the majority of all train journeys are commuting, so “local” traffic matters.

A commuter makes over 450 journeys a year for work. Pendle District Council Local Plan shows commuting between East Lancashire and Yorkshire, in both directions.

If the train was an option, these commuters might leave the car at home, reducing congestion and pollution.

Onward journeys may benefit (Manchester Airport is only one option) but that depends on other rail improvements beyond Burnley. These are not a part of our campaign.

None of the earlier reports include freight, because freight starts and finishes outside our area.

In recent times, Drax and Peel Ports have given their support because they see possible benefits for freight.

Since Drax has its own trains specially designed to carry bio-mass, and Peel Ports’ business is heavily involved with moving containers, and both companies have ploughed many millions into this issue, we defer to their expertise.

It seems to me that dismissing their views on freight needs more solid evidence than simply waving them away as “absurd”.

Long lists of engineering issues are often aired, perhaps in a well-meaning attempt to avoid us wasting any more time on the subject.

May I say thanks for the contribution, but the ground has already been covered by numerous reports (see www.selrap.org.uk).

These reports were written by recognised rail professionals. These professionals have stood at the key points to see for themselves what the engineering issues are.

The last such report identified a benefit of over £43 million annually from the project.

The study approved by the Secretary of State will detail all the issues - engineering, environmental, social etc. It will propose options for solving those issues and put a price tag on those options.

It will get the most accurate assessment of benefit possible.

Finally, it will make a judgement on whether to rebuild.

As a final point, that study will be commissioned by Transport for the North. This is a body set up by the government to look at all transport requirements, both road and rail, across the whole region from Cheshire through to north Lincolnshire, up to the Scottish border.

If Transport for the North believes the money is better spent on access to Manchester, they will say so.

SELRAP believes that Transport for the North will recommend rebuilding. From the flurry of recent hostile letters, it seems our opponents agree.

David Walsh, Western Road, Skipton

What does it mean to discharge a patient?

SIR - I feel that clarification is needed concerning a patient’s discharge from an acute hospital.

One would imagine that when a patient is discharged as “medically fit”, this means that they are ready to go home. What it actually means is that assessment, investigation and treatment have taken place or put in progress.

It does not mean necessarily that they are able to get out of bed, walk to a chair, go to the bathroom, dress themselves, be safe with a kettle, warm a meal and do all the activities for normal life.

For older people when confidence in their physical abilities is lost, it needs constant help to restore it. With the best will in the world, being visited twice a day, being dressed up and put in incontinence pants, sat in a chair, warming drink in hand and left until put to bed will rarely help anyone become independent.

When Castleberg Hospital reopened last time, in-house physiotherapy, often several times a day, enabled a person’s activity to be gradually increased at a pace to suit them until they became sufficiently confident to return to independence. Surely we can bang a few heads together and do this again?

Frankly, to me, it’s a total no-brainer.

Scottie Brewster, Thornber’s Croft, Town Head, Settle

Mangled phrase has become meaningless

SIR - The Food page headline last week got it wrong with ‘The proof really is in the pudding’.

The adage ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating’ implies the way to judge the quality or appropriateness of something is to put it to its intended use: i.e. eat the pudding.

The modern mangled version ‘The proof is in the pudding’ is meaningless.

H J Hill, Settle

Thankyou, and please keep on supporting us

SIR - There is a lot to be proud of since we were founded in 1961.

Seven in ten people now survive a heart attack; the idea of heart transplants is now a reality and the majority of babies born with congenital heart conditions now live on to adulthood.

We want to say thank you to everyone who has donated to the BHF over the years – your money has helped to make these breakthroughs and save millions of lives; we simply wouldn’t have come so far if it wasn’t for your generosity.

But unfortunately, heart disease and circulatory disease isn’t a done deal. In Yorkshire and The Humber, an estimated 620,000 people are living with cardiovascular disease, and every year around 13,600 people die from these conditions. By donating to the BHF, you will be helping around 1,000 research projects. Please visit bhf.org.uk/thankyou.

Simon Gillespie, Chief Executive, British Heart Foundation