Sir - The issue of lorries travelling through the narrow streets of Settle is a very contentious one, as is illustrated by the letter from Councillor Welch, of Giggleswick (Letters, December 21).

The Settle District Chamber of Trade is very much in favour of a weight limit through Settle and diverting heavy lorries to/from the A65 via Buckhaw Brow.

This policy is one of a number published in our "Call for Action" in January 2007 which have the collective objective of helping regenerate the economy of both Settle and the surrounding district - an objective shared with Craven District Council, North Yorkshire County Council and Yorkshire Forward, the Regional Development Agency.

The Chamber believes that as the traditional industries of farming and quarrying continue their decline, the economic prosperity of the district must increasingly be built around tourism.

Our district has much to attract visitors - a wonderful landscape, beautiful villages, welcoming and friendly people. Settle is the hub of our district and is the focal point for people visiting the area.

Settle town centre is an attractive area. It has a wonderful market square and a collection of old and unusual buildings. Retail premises, banks, cafes, pubs and restaurants are located around the market square and on either side of Duke Street, the main route through Settle.

Duke Street is very narrow, as are the footpaths on either side. Heavy lorries, often travelling faster than the 20mph limit, are in very close proximity with pedestrians who invariably find them intimidating, frightening, noisy and unpleasant. The lorries also damage the infrastructure of buildings close to the road.

The lorries' presence detracts from our ability to promote Settle as a pleasant and safe area to visit and hence compromises our efforts to regenerate the local economy.

The road over Buckhaw Brow provides a more suitable route for the lorries. It avoids the town centre and is much safer. The disadvantage is that it adds 4.2 miles to the journey of a lorry travelling towards Skipton on the A65.

A simple hazard analysis illustrates the relative safety and suitability of the alternative routes.

The current route from the Horton-in-Ribblesdale junction through Settle town centre to the A65 roundabout features a large number of hazards and obstacles to the safe passage of lorries. A significant part of the route (approx 0.9 miles) is through a commercial/residential area.

The route passes through a busy part of Settle which many pedestrians use (including school children). The road and footpaths are very narrow in parts and there are three pedestrian crossings.

There is a chicane in the town centre which only allows traffic through in one direction at a time. Lorries have to wait while belching exhaust fumes.

There is an acute narrow bend (by the Post Office) where lorries regularly demolish bollards positioned to protect pedestrians. The low bridge on the outskirts causes heavy lorries to move into the centre of the road.

In contrast, the alternative route over Buckhaw Brow features very few hazards. Only 0.4 miles of this route is through a developed area and only a limited number of buildings close to the road.

Settle Bridge is narrow and would probably require additional traffic management measures. The route passes relatively few business premises. It passes two schools, but lorries could be restricted during the times children are arriving and departing.

The road and footpaths are much wider and there are far fewer pedestrians using the footpaths and crossing the roads.

There are no pedestrian crossings, low bridges or acute bends and few junctions.

We recognise the route over Buckhaw Brow will incur additional costs in fuel and time for lorry owners, but strongly believe their economic interests should not be placed before the economic interest of the Settle district businesses and regeneration.

Steve Amphlett, Chairman, Settle District Chamber of Trade, c/o Town Hall, Settle

Fumes danger

SIR - Re recent letters regarding the re-routing of heavy goods vehicles through Settle.

Concern is not only for the potential for accidents, as real as they are, but for the health of all who are unfortunate enough to be constantly breathing in the exhaust emissions from diesel engines and who, as a result, are in even greater danger of developing life-threatening lung diseases which can even be carcinogenic.

Heavy goods vehicles do perform very important work, ie roadworks etc, but surely a balance of risk should be maintained.

Why was the Settle bypass built in the first place if not to take away through traffic from a populated area?

We constantly sweep and wash away deposits of thick soot from the front of our shop in Settle; it no longer comes from smoking chimneys these days, it can only be coming from close-encounter exhaust fumes.

We are all breathing in these pollutants to our cost.

Philip A Warren, Duke Street, Settle

Wall of silence

Sir - The letter, in November, from Jean Robinson about the housing development at Burnside allotments site was very forthright and deserved a response from Craven District Council.

All we have had since is a wall of silence.

Her letter questioned the decision to put 41 houses, some with three storeys, crowded on a site at risk of flooding.

She rightly complained that the developers had the advantage of lawyers using an appeal system which seems to be rigged in their favour. On the other hand the local objectors have no legal aid and no right of appeal.

The council planning rules do not consider such very real objections as loss of view, devaluation of adjacent houses and the disturbance, noise and dirt caused by the construction.

These are justified objections that need to be taken into account.

I think CDC should answer these points. After all, they are supposed to represent residents' views, not those of the developers.

Geoff Hoyle, Burnside Crescent, Skipton

Local service

Sir - I am writing to pass on a very positive Christmas experience in Settle.

There has been a lot of negative correspondence over recent months regarding the future of retail in the town and our experience demonstrates how local businesses can compete very successfully.

My parents, both in their 70s and hard of hearing, went into our market square electrical retailer, Garnetts, before Christmas for a new television set.

They were advised about a suitable set which was promptly delivered.

Unfortunately the sound reproduction when turned high was appalling and even made my teeth hurt!

Garnetts were contacted and were happy to spend a considerable amount of time, just a few days before Christmas, adapting the sound system to ensure both my parents can easily listen to the television; better than ever before.

Many local people do really want to use local businesses, but we live within a world where anything can be bought quickly and conveniently at the click of a mouse.

Something a mouse cannot compete with is the quality of service provided by Garnetts to my parents this Christmas.

Steve Finch, Chapel Street, Settle

Thanks to all

Sir - May I, through your pages, thank colleagues and borrowers alike for their cards, gifts and good wishes on my retirement from Gargrave Library.

The presentation on Saturday, December 22, was a complete surprise and I was overwhelmed by the generosity of the contributors.

Gargrave is rightly proud of its library and I am proud to have been a part of its success.

I hope to do nothing for a while at least!

Bernadette Atkinson, West Street, Gargrave

Building concerns

Sir - I was somewhat alarmed to read in last week's Craven Herald of two new proposed large developments, ie, headquarters for Bentleys and the 280 new houses to be built by Skipton Properties.

These are in addition to the also mentioned HML project.

There are several reasons why I am concerned: 1: The HML and Bentleys projects are both on Gargrave Road which, for most of its length, is a residential/educational area. The introduction of these two businesses would inevitably increase the traffic flow on a road that is so often crowded with young people. Do the planners consider the risk to these young people is a risk worth taking in order to please HML and Bentleys by allowing them to build in this unspoilt area of Skipton? There is already a business area beside the Keighley Road, well away from "old" Skipton.

2: The three developments will cause further "urban creep". Skipton rightly prides itself on being an historic market town that is, in addition, "The Gateway to the Dales". Are we to abandon this concept and make Skipton into another Keighley, Burnley or similar? If so, Craven District Council should come clean and tell us that this is their ambition.

3: This is green field land being sold to HML, Bentleys and Skipton Properties. They are not charities. The motive is commercial gain and, in the case of the Gargrave Road sites, empire building in an inappropriate area. The exercise is certainly not for the benefit of the majority or, with the exception of affordable housing, the disadvantaged in Craven.

4: The proposed design of the new HML buildings is not remotely compatible with old Skipton and the Dales. For at least half of the year the buildings will be clearly visible to those visiting the Dales from Lancashire and the M6.

Dr T W Gibson, Stirton