I RECENTLY presented to Silsden Town Council a three-page document highlighting my concerns regarding the production of the Silsden & Steeton Neighbourhood Development Plan.

My first concerns were raised when the working committee (comprising of mostly councillors) asked for help within the community to aid its production. Three e-mails later offering my free help I still had no reply. During the past couple of years, various drafts have been submitted, which I took time to try and read through.

The first draft in November 2015, like its subsequent draft in February 2016, was shockingly put together. Text and figures were unreadable. Use of a seraph font, maps were of unknown scales and low quality made actually reading the document unbearable, so it was hard to decipher if there was actually any substance in the document at all. It needs to be done in an accessible communication format. Gloomy photographs. There is also regular use of the words ‘we’ and ‘our’, which is wrongly used. Despite all these amateurish mistakes, sadly, a year later, few changes have taken place and the document is still unreadable.

My other concerns were, why is the document trying to re-do professional documents that already exist? Why don’t they simply adopt the Silsden Town Design Statement 2001 or the Silsden Conservation Area Appraisal 2006 and Steeton Conservation Area Assessment October 2005 etcetera? All are superb documents and equally relevant today. I know other councils are looking at this approach because it’s easier and more practical.

It’s meant to be a vision of our future and it should be concentrating on that. We don’t want planning mistakes from the past.

Councillor Whittaker told Silsden Town Council the plan was been ‘done’ by a professional planning company, but when I contacted them they refused to say either way. I don’t believe it was produced by a professional planning consultancy; their name is not on it. I have asked Silsden Town Council to have a shadow meeting to evaluate whether this document is presently fit for purpose. We need proper scrutiny and evaluation and a document we are proud of.

PAUL REDSHAW Silsden