Sponsored by
Letters, Thursday, July 3, 2008
Readers write to the Times & Citizen and Bedford Today.
Don't expect taxpayer to fund your 'traveller' lifestyle
SIR – I fully support P Brown's stance reference the letter (T&C, June 19). The thorny issue of travellers has dogged this country for years because spineless politicians fail to address the situation in a logical way.
Anyone who chooses to live in caravans and travel from place to place should be entitled to do so.
However, if the law was changed to make it simpler and quicker to remove 'travellers' from land, be it public or private where they are not entitled to be, this would surely get the point across: live in caravans if you wish but, with designated caravan sites around the country, there are plenty of places where you can park up subject to paying the site fees in the same way that holidaymakers with caravans do. Don't expect the taxpayer to fund your lifestyle.
J Bloom
Kimbolton Road, Bedford
****
Cheaper to send a note to the doctor
SIR – In reference to your article 'Doctors ripping off patients with premium rate call line' (T&C, June 26, unfortunately, I am one of these patients. I believed some time ago that this was happening. My
practice nurse notified me some months ago that the practice was changing its phone number; the new number would be via a call centre and would be more efficient. I suggested the charges to patients would be more but she assured me they would remain at they were, and charged at local rates.
I used the number a couple of times and realised calls were being put through a call centre as the operator kept you on hold by asking unnecessary questions, then passing callers on to another operator to be connected to the surgery.
If it is not an emergency and you live near your doctor's surgery, or someone is able to take it for you, it is more cost effective to write a note stating your requirement – be it for medication or an appointment, and wait for the surgery to call you back.
Name and address supplied
****
'Geographic' solution to cost of calling doctors
SIR – I write in response to the article on the subject of some
doctors' surgeries adopting 084 telephone numbers (T&C, June 26).
The 'official' reason given for this by the Department of Health is to assist in funding for updated telephone systems in surgeries.
Councillor Attenborough is perhaps a little incorrect in describing these as premium rate numbers. They are what are referred to by BT as lo-call numbers, and call costs are similar to normal local calls.
However, most telephone packages now include free calls to geographic numbers (in some cases only evenings or weekends) which don't apply to these numbers. There are another set of numbers (starting with 087) that are more expensive to use, while the 'real' premium rate numbers start with 090 and can cost upwards of 1 per minute. These are normally used by companies providing a service of some kind.
There is a way around this, however. All businesses using non-geographic numbers such as 084 and 087 still connect to the telephone
system using a normal geographic number. In most cases this will
probably be their existing telephone number. A very useful website, www.saynoto0870.com, lists many geographical number alternatives for telephone numbers starting with 084 and 087. A quick check on the site shows Dr Basra's surgery in Victoria Road, Bedford, which is listed in
Yellow Pages as an 084 number, also has the geographic number 01234 359366.
The above website relies upon members of the public submitting the alternative numbers, so some new 084 and 087 numbers will not yet be included. Possibly the 'customers' of the surgeries mentioned in your article could add the alternative numbers, when they know them, to the above website as a service to all.
Brian West
Rotten Row, Riseley
****
Marston Vale has done its bit for environment
SIR – Councillor Tom Wootton says that "creating energy from waste is the best solution for Bedfordshire". Coun Wootton is wrong.
He would say that as he has already made up his mind that the incinerator should be built and where it should be built. I have no political affiliation so my opinions are those of an unfortunate resident of the Marston Vale, preferred choice of eco-towns, incinerators and such like which I find a very strange mix of people and pollution.
Burning waste produces pollutants, increases C02 levels (the greenhouse gases which will soon be taxed, adding to costs) emits toxic materials such as dioxins and particulate material which adds to atmospheric pollution and are widely dispersed. They produce solid wastes of up to 33 per cent of feed material which has to be disposed of and the bottom waste is classified as toxic and has to go into landfill.
Dioxins are persistent, toxic and accumulate in the food chain. They have been described as the most toxic chemical known to human society and are linked to both increases in cancer and birth defects.
Incinerators are very inefficient at producing energy and the more material that is separated the less efficient they become. This will become a disincentive to recycle.
Incinerators are large industrial buildings, operating 24 hours a day. They have tall chimneys and will make a visual impact. They will increase traffic volumes, noise levels and light pollution.
People, once they know the facts, do not want to live near a waste incinerator and, as the people of Marston Vale are for the first time in 100 years are enjoying an atmosphere without chimney fumes, I for one would wish it to remain so. As I have already said, we have done our bit.
Now, I am sure that we will be told that the emissions will be strictly controlled, best use of technology etc, but I am very sceptical. After all, would they tell us any differently? I have yet to hear any mention of toxic waste from waste incineration by the advocates of this solution.
We must oppose this solution to waste and change our approach to waste management; short of that, I suggest a site is chosen in Mr
Wootton's constituency.
Steven Lonsdale
Marston Moretaine
****
Strict guidelines are followed on 'travellers'
SIR – I read with dismay Patrick Hall's latest comments accusing those authorities responsible for managing illegal traveller encampments as being soft. This is simply not true and he at the very least should know this. The council and other responsible bodies are required to follow strict Government imposed procedures. Perhaps Mr Hall could tell us which point of the law, passed by his Government, we should ignore to secure a faster eviction?
S Field
Chief executive,
Bedford Borough Council
****
Support helped our 'planning' cause
SIR – We would like to thank Bedford Borough Council for listening to the people of Bromham who opposed the proposed development of four houses in the rear of three gardens in Grange Lane which back onto the rear gardens of Neville Crescent.
The applicant appealed to the Inspectorate in Bristol after being refused planning permission by the borough council. We are pleased to announce the application was dismissed.
Thank you to all the Bromham people who wrote letters of objection. Forty-four letters were received by the borough council and 51 letters, all in triplicate, were received at the Inspectorate's office.
We would also like to thank MP Alistair Burt, Coun Roger Rigby, Bromham Parish Council, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and the Bedfordshire Wildlife Trust for their support.
Thanks also to the Times & Citizen for allowing us to alert fellow villagers through your Opinions page for your support. It is very much appreciated.
Sandie Simpson, Neville Crescent, Bromham
and Mary Morris Grange Lane, Bromham
****
Christians recognise good in all
SIR – I would like to assure KS Northwood (T&C, June 26) that my letter of the previous week was in no way intended to imply that "Christians have a monopoly on goodness".
The Faithworks campaign itself seeks to recognise the contribution people of other faiths can make to society, and to work with them where possible. It is a common misconception that Christians "do good ... to get Brownie points", rather they want to share the love and goodness of the God they serve.
They recognise that humanists and other philanthropic people naturally have some of that goodness in themselves, as does every human being of whatever creed or race.
To suggest that people should keep their personal beliefs private, as some recent letters seem to have implied, would be to rob society of the driving force behind much good and would preclude such benefits as the excellent organ donor survey of which Bedfordshire Humanists are justifiably proud.
Mrs J Sancto
by email
****
On right road to improve safety
SIR – I am delighted that Harpur ward residents have been given the chance to voice their opinions on introducing a 20mph speed limit in the Black Tom area.
Many residents I speak to tell me that the streets are becoming increasingly unsafe and both councils should be doing more to cut death and injuries on our roads.
I have been campaigning for some time now for the speed limit to be reduced from 30mph to 20mph in the Black Tom area.
I believe this would help cut the number of crashes, encourage cycling, cut pollution and create a greater sense of community disapproval towards speeders.
In any case, why should people have to risk their lives every time they go to the shops?
Winning the battle to launch a residents' parking scheme in Black Tom should only be the start. If we really want to improve road safety in Harpur ward, we need proper speed enforcement.
I hope local residents will come forward and give us the support we need to make this scheme a reality for Harpur.
Coun Brian Dillingham
(Con) Harpur ward
****
Plans much more than creating bigger Tesco
SIR – In the light of the report in Times & Citizen (June 19) I think it's necessary to clarify Mid Beds' position on the Flitwick town centre redevelopment.
The scheme has always been much more than creating a bigger Tesco store – the proposals also include a range of smaller retail units, new homes (up to 300), a new or improved library, a new or improved
village hall, accommodation for a youth facility in the town, additional car parking for shoppers and a new multi-storey car park at the station, a new transport interchange at the station, a new foot/cycle bridge linking the new development to the High Street and providing lift access to the station platforms, a revised road layout providing additional capacity for traffic and improvments for pedestrians and cyclists, and a new petrol filling station.
Other partners are involved besides Tesco, including Cowlgrove (a local developer) and Network Rail. Many of the improvements listed above could not happen without the commercial development, including the new Tesco store.
At last week's Executive meeting, councillors made the point that landowners, including Tesco, could put forward their own separate sites for development with the risk of fewer community benefits being available. But these partners have chosen to work together with local councils to ensure that comprehensive improvements are developed and delivered for Flitwick.
The agreement to the planning framework and indicative masterplan marks an important milestone in the process and gives a clear guidance to the
partners who now need to move forward to the next stage, working on the preparation of planning applications.
Finally, proposals for the enhancement of the High Street area, led by the town council, are to be revived with the aim of bringing forward improvements for this part of the town centre.
I hope this clears up some concerns about the proposals and makes it clear that working with major partners within the town is to everyone's benefit.
Ken Matthews
Planning portfolio holder,
Mid Beds District Council
****
Lack of consultation is the just the pitts
SIR – There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the current county council project for an incinerator at Rookery Pit, Stewartby.
It appears the county council has chosen the site before actually consulting the public in any measurable way, thus ensuring the eventual planning application gets a rocky reception and quite possibly spends years in planning appeal, by which time the authority responsible will be a memory.
Also, the county council cannot actually seem to decide what it wants.
Firstly, it looked at what is called an MBT facility for 180,000 tonnes, the same high quality type of waste facility being promoted by our neighbours in Cambridgeshire and Milton Keynes.
The council then changed its mind and was now looking at two smaller sites of 50,000 tonnes each.
Then 18 months later the size of the facility it was considering had gone up to a 145,000 tonnes per year incinerator, with a subtle hint that it may be bigger, producing heat and power for many thousands of houses to be built nearby.
Both MBT and the various forms of incineration have positives and negatives, but what seems to be missing here is any form of publicly available evidence that all types of technology have been fully
evaluated before reaching an ultimate conclusion.
In addition, to add to the lack of consistency, the headlong rush to develop the Rookery Pit site, throwing the baby out with the bath water in the process and then having a well-meaning but ill-informed portfolio acting as a media apologist, doesn't really inspire.
Name and address supplied
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Bedford
Tuesday 14 February 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: 4 C to 8 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: North west
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 3 C to 10 C
Wind Speed: 21 mph
Wind direction: North west
