LETTER: No personal attacks in Laneshaw Bridge School debate

How sad it is that supporters of the school are stooping to the level of making personal attacks against people.

This shows two things to me. Firstly, a lack of intellectual rigour to debate the planning arguments and, secondly, a sense of frustration that this planning application is getting full public scrutiny, rather than being swept through under the radar.

Throughout this process, I have never made personal statements or attacks and have concentrated wholly on the planning issues (and, yes, sustainability is one of them). Should anyone wish to debate all of the very many planning issues, I am more than happy to do so.

I have no objection whatsoever to children from outside the village attending this school, but only up to its capacity.

Every building has a maximum capacity, no matter what its use, and building additional capacity just because the school is over-subscribed does not make either economic or planning sense when there are other very good local schools with immediate availability.

Parental choice of school is a preference, not a right, a fact which seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the school and its supporters in all of the statements and arguments put forward. For the record, I work out of my Leeds and Manchester offices and if you look on a map you will see that Laneshaw Bridge is pretty equidistant between the two – if it’s anyone’s business, but mine!

If NIMBY means standing up to try and protect open countryside from a development which is of a scale unsuitable to the infrastructure of a village, then by all means use this term. It does not cause me offence - quite the opposite!

MARK RAWSTRON

Laneshaw Bridge