Letters to the Editor

SIR, - My attention has only just been drawn to a brief report tucked away on the inside back page of the Gazette a fortnight ago.

This claims that the route of the proposed Wharfedale cycleway in Bradford's revised Unitary Development Plan, diagonally through the field to the rear of Wheatley Lane, has been renegotiated by the parish council to take a route up one side of the field.

The report quotes Audrey Brand to the effect that they were pleased that the path was no longer to cut across the field and that the lighting would not affect the residents.

Even though most of the objectors to that part of the route accept that a cycleway per se may be a reasonable proposal, the idea that it should cut through green belt and the highest grade of agricultural land in the district, on the single and most critical site in the district with that designation, is nothing short of a betrayal.

Any element of the built environment introduced into that field would simply be the thin end of the wedge and a potential disaster for the retention of the green belt between Ilkley and Burley-in-Wharfedale.

Audrey Brand and the parish council urgently need to revise their approach and make a submission to the public inquiry, making it clear that they oppose any intrusion into the field. They should not meekly accept some marginal alteration to the route through the field.

At the last planning inquiry, we discovered that this field was owned by Hallcroft Developments of Addingham. Why did this development company not propose that the field be designated for housing in the current UDP process as they did ten years ago?

Simple answer: Let the plan go ahead and at the next revision of the UDP their long-term investment strategy can be realised by the simple matter of offering to finance the cycle track - no matter which route it is eventually designated to take - as long as they get the right to develop the field.

As I pointed out ten years ago, it would then be goodbye to the green belt and 'Bulkley' here we come if that happens. As we have learned over the years, developers will pay handsomely for development rights, but in this instance our planners are apparently doing it for free.

The rear of Wheatley Lane forms a clear break to the urban area, as recognised in previous planning decisions, most notably the inspector's recommendations after the green belt inquiry in 1985, where he stated: "Development would erode significantly the strip of open land between Ilkley and Burley, encourage coalescence of these settlements and adversely affect the level of access to the countryside at present enjoyed by the residents of Ilkley to the east ...while also resulting in a marked adverse effect on the character of Ilkley, which in this sector is established to a considerable extent by the sweep of open land up to the houses in Wheatley Lane."

Previous to this, in a decision by the then Secretary of State in 1972 (rejecting an appeal against refusal of planning permission for development on this site) he stated that 'separation of the farm buildings from the housing on the east side of Wheatley Lane emphasises that open countryside flows up to the rear of the houses on the east side of Wheatley Lane. These dwellings give a well-defined and strong boundary to the urban area of Ilkley'. There were more than 100 objections to this particular part of the proposed cycleway and Ilkley Civic Society is putting together a submission for the public inquiry session on the proposal.

As well as objections, there were positive alternative suggestions for the route. For instance, if the footprint of the old Middle School is eventually given over to housing, then the cycle route could be taken round the edge of that site and the developers would need to pay for it, as the UDP's policy makes clear.

Otherwise, Council Tax payers would have to pay for it, if our worst fears are not immediately realised, as the route through the field would have to be paid for - perhaps through an expensive CPO.

Anyone who has made an objection to this part of the cycleway, and wants to make a written submission to the inquiry, needs to do so by February 14. Anyone wanting any help on this should contact either myself or the Civic Society.

SANDY MACPHERSON

33 Wheatley Lane,

Ben Rhydding,

Ilkley.

Council dilemma

SIR, - Your editorial (January 16) is correct to draw attention to a dilemma facing the whole Ilkley Parish Council in respect to Menston. What should their future be whenever the people of Burley are allowed to form their own Parish Council?

Quite a lot of Ilkley residents are unaware that their parish encompasses both Burley and Menston. The dilemma arises as a consequence of Ilkley setting a local tax to be spent on their favourite causes, and because Bradford MDC has now adopted the usual UK practice of not subsidising the running expenses of their subordinate Parish and Town Councils.

For the first time since formation in 1974, electors throughout our area have a real political choice. Choices that have prices attached them. It was the novelty of the unexpected local tax that appears to have precipitated opinions in Burley.

Many people in Burley have reacted to the Ilkley tax by asking that they

should be able to make their local money decisions by becoming a separate parish. A wise Ilkley Parish Council would have accepted the advice of councillors right across the political spectrum, not to frustrate or denigrate that wish. After all, most of the parishes around the North of Leeds and Bradford have some common interests and they should foster good relations with their neighbours.

The Boundary Commission does not need to be involved here - the formation of parishes does not require their intervention and the process could begin right away.

Menston people have three choices. They can do nothing and continue to pay their tax to a distant Ilkley parish. That would be an unusual set-up in parishes formed since 1974, but has many precedents in our history and around the world.

Menston people could decide to be like other similar areas and do without a parish altogether - which has the further merit of cutting out the local tax needed to pay for the parish council.

Or, they could ask for their own arrangement, and elect parish councillors to supplement the three district councillors and community council they already have.

I've always supported the proposition that Ilkley should have a precept, and to pay for its own expenses because local decisions that have no price are usually inadequately considered. This resident of Ilkley wishes that his fellow electors in Burley-in- Wharfedale should be allowed by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat administration in Bradford to hold their formal referendum this year, so that the people's wishes can be fulfilled.

Andrew Dundas

2 Pines Cottages,

Parish Ghyll Drive,

Ilkley.

Traffic issue

SIR, - As someone who drives from Addingham to Ilkley I fully agree with D H Palmer's letter in last week's Gazette. It is only a few cars turning right from Skipton Road into Victoria Avenue that cause the long tailbacks.

If as suggested in the letter a 'no right turn' into Victoria Avenue sign was an acceptable solution to the problem that would be much better than traffic lights.

Turning right into Easby Drive is safe and the main road wide enough to allow through traffic to flow into Ilkley uninterrupted.

G M McArthur

Addingham.

Bet on bookies

SIR, - Some people can do the most difficult crosswords; it is a matter of learning how the author thinks. Betting on horses requires a similar skill. Having lost about £40, it is clear that I do not have that particular skill.

The pleasure of winning revolves round beating the bookmakers at their own game, but this is a delusion because the bookmakers never lose no matter which horse wins.

Channel 4's explanation of why bookmakers always make a profit was not an explanation of how it is done. It is not rocket science: just simple arithmetic. It could be done in the following way.

For any race, this is what the bookmaker does to ensure that no matter which horse wins, he gets the same profit.

(1) All the money put on all the horses is added up, call this total 'T'.

(2) From T, the bookmaker sets aside a percentage for the tax due and another percentage for his profit. Typically the two add to about 50 per cent. T/2 is therefore left to be paid out to the people betting on the winning horse.

(3) T/2 is then shared in proportion to each person's stake. Call the total stage money 'S' and a person's stage 's'.

(4) A person with a stage 's' will win: s/S of T/2.

If £10,000 is bet on a race, T/2 will be £5,000. If £500 has been bet on the winning horse, then a person with a £5 bet will win 5,000 x 5/500 = £50.

This means that the starting price has to be '10 to one', which is what the bookmakers says it is.

WILLIAM BOOCOCK

17 Wheatley Lane,

Ilkley.

Lights raise cash

SIR, - Following our festive display of Christmas lights and nativity effects to our bungalow on behalf of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance charity which The Wharfedale Observer and Ilkley Gazette kindly published along with photographs.

We are pleased to say that a sum of £1,381 was donated to the cause. My wife and I feel the results would not have been so great without your co-operation and the expert wording of your feature.

However, we would like to take this opportunity to request that our many thanks go out to all who have contributed, in particular to the generous donation given by a 'well wisher' after having read o our appeal in the Gazette. We look forward to being able to repeat the display in December 2003.

Peter and Gwen Hope

5 Hawksworth Drive,

Menston.