Last updated 19:42, Thursday, 10 July 2008

IN October 2005 international news teams reported on the flooding of Bridgefoot. Scenes of the aftermath were broadcast all over the world by BBC News 24.MAY I take this opportunity to publicly applaud Allerdale council’s planning officers.IT was interesting to note in a recent article “No more wind turbines on my patch says MP” (Times & Star, June 27) that local MP Tony Cunningham was prepared to make a stand against any further growth of wind turbines in this area.THE RECENT report of anti-social behaviour regarding Allonby boys amazed me. That has not been my experience at all.

Friends contacted me from the UK and abroad to ask if we were okay. Thankfully we were. During that terrible time it was good to know that people were thinking about us.

At the same time the Melbreak Hotel was progressing a planning application for land adjacent to the hotel at Crossbarrow.

The proposal is to locate 60 log cabins, a leisure centre, and hotel extension on what is now agricultural land.

The developer plans to form a large lake, and this will be used to collect and dispose of surface water.

The proposal is ongoing. Residents have objected and challenged Allerdale council on acceptance of the proposal.

The proposal contradicts the Allerdale Local Plan, Allerdale Strategic Flood Risk Assessment report, Government guidelines, and most recently the report “Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods" by Sir Michael Pitt.

So it goes against much published advice not to permit development which could exacerbate flooding in nearby settlements.

The biggest concern is the increased risk of flooding to the ancient settlement of Bridgefoot, which is in a high flood risk zone 3.

Within the Allerdale Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, October 2007, it states: “The council will be required to prioritise the allocation of land for development in ascending order from Flood Risk Zones 1 to 3. “Where development is allocated within medium flood risk zone (Zone 2) or high flood risk zone (Zone 3), PPS25 requires the council to demonstrate that there are no other reasonable alternatives for development in lower flood risk zones."

A similar facility is approved for construction at Lowca (around 300 units), there is an approved scheme for a 100-bedroom hotel at Winscales, and most recently someone has bought the Westlands Hotel and would like to redevelop that site.

So it is reasonable to say that there are plenty of alternatives to this type of development.

Some Bridgefoot residents can trace their family homes back more than 100 years and recall serious flooding only since 2005. The Lostrigg Beck level rose over 10 feet.

Houses were wrecked by floodwater and residents had to move into temporary accommodation until repairs could be carried out. This meant they were not in their own homes for Christmas.

Allerdale council has been repeatedly asked why the proposal is being considered when it contradicts so many of its own and other key guidelines on flood risk areas.

They have never answered the question.

Objectors have failed to find sufficient information in the planning files to allay their fears of increased risk of flooding.

The developer, architect Day Cummins, has requested in a letter to the Allerdale planning officer that objectors should prove they have technical qualifications in drainage design and flood risk management in order that their objection should be considered.

Does this mean the people whose homes and families may be tragically affected by flooding do not have a right to ask sensible questions?

It is an unreasonable request, and I have not heard if Allerdale planning department has accepted it.

Councillors will potentially be making a decision which could cause increased flooding in Bridgefoot and misery and heartache for residents.

If the lake overflows or fails, and causes extreme flooding to Bridgefoot, who is responsible?

Is it Allerdale council? Is it the Melbreak Hotel? Is it the architects?

But the damage will have been done by then, to the people, their families, the community - and you can never turn the clock back.

IAN ELLIOTT

Old Post Office

Bridgefoot

Workington

Who else but this dedicated band of people, who must have an extraordinary knowledge of local beauty spots and outstanding scenery, would have the foresight to realise that once the Robin Rigg windfarm development is in place, visitors to Maryport Marina will want to turn their backs on the once-spectacular sunsets over the Solway.

Thank heavens our planning officers realised this and acted in time to prevent a proposed “blot” on Maryport’s eastern skyline.

I refer of course to the dreadful planning application to erect a telecommunication mast on top of Maryport’s Masonic Hall (Times & Star, July 4).

I am led to believe this structure was intended to be the size of a flagpole!

Deplorable that anyone could even begin to think of erecting such a structure to block an otherwise excellent view over one of the highest points in Maryport.

One can only assume that these blinkered entrepreneurs of telecommunications giant O2 have never entered West Cumbria via the A595, or they would know that our planning officers would never allow anything to obstruct an otherwise perfect skyline (five wind turbines on top of Bothel hill, just in front of a magnificent view over the fells!).

May you, Mr Outhwaite and your merry men, carry on making the varied and “oh-so” entertaining decisions that make it a delight to live and work in the borough of Allerdale.

JOHN PERCIVAL

Croft Crescent

Dearham

I WAS interested to read your front-page article and comment column regarding the potential loss of pay-phones in our area (Times & Star, July 4).

As was pointed out, BT is now a private company, however it may have some obligation to provide a level of payphone service.

But remember that as BT is a private company, so too are all other companies who “provide" a phone service.

If you are to criticise BT then don't forget the likes of Carphone Warehouse, Virgin, Sky, who all “provide" residential phone services; how often do you see their pay-phones?

If it is felt that BT should keep up the loss-making pay-phones, then perhaps these other companies should also be made to have some obligation to have pay-phones in little-used locations as well.

I use the word “provide”, as with these other companies you will probably find that should you require any work done, it will in fact be a BT engineer who does it.

Recently there were comments from government about gas and electric companies doing more to help those on low incomes deal with the increases in prices, as heat and fuel is vital to people.

A reply I heard from one company spokesman was to the effect that supermarkets are not asked to reduce prices of their products to those on low income, so why should power companies?

If the government wants to to control the price of fuel then it would need to nationalise all the companies, but it also wants competitiveness to keep prices down.

They can't have it both ways. This applies to all utilities.

You can't have all these private companies running things and then expect BT or British Gas to help out those in need.

If help is needed, then there should be regulations in place that put responsibility on all providers within the industry.

Or maybe MPs could donate some of their extortionate expenses to a fund to help the vulnerable in society.

ANDREW PAYNE

Devonshire Street

Workington

Wind turbines may be a visual irritation to some but only a tiny minority are suffering mental anguish over their presence.

However, the fluoride that is added to our local water is slowly damaging the health of most in the local communities.

As national opposition and knowlegde of fluoridation grows it will also act as a deterrent to visitors who currently are unaware that the excellent water from Crummock Water and Ennerdale which serves this area is being contaminated with a chemical ‘by product' of the fertiliser industry.

So it is to be hoped that, while he is making this rare stand against Labour policy, he will also actively represent the opposition of the many in this area who object to being experimented upon by drinking water which is being with treated with a chemical that has never been tested or thoroughly researched for human use - fluoride.

When the issue of water fluoridation came before Parliament a few years ago Mr Cunningham insisted that it would only have his support if local communities could decide for themselves.

The reassurance from the Department of Health and others that this would be the case proved to be a deception and local people continue to drink unknown quantities of fluoride with no choice or knowledge of the impact on their health.

Mr Cunningham can remedy his failure to be vocal in this area. A Bolton MP has personally polled his constituents through the regular newsletter he sends to all households he represents. On receipt of over 700 responses opposed to the proposed use of fluoride he is actively campaigning to keep this chemical out of his local water supply.

As Mr Cunningham has been unable to hold the DoH to their promise of consultation then he could undertake a local poll into how local people feel about the forced introduction of this chemical into their water and then work more actively upon their behalf.

DIANNE STANDEN

Cumbrians against Fluoridation

Maryport

I have always found them polite and respectful, and they are kind to dogs, which goes a long way in my book.

Expect the worst, and that is what you will get.

MRS F A B GEORGE

Allonby