SIR, - With regard to the report printed in your newspaper on Thursday, June 7, 2001, concerning the foot and mouth outbreak at Ilkley:

I have been awaiting written confirmation of the results of blood tests before contacting you to set the matter straight.

As owner of the sheep which your report said some farmers thought could be the cause of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease at Hill Top Farm, Middleton, I would like to make the point that our livestock at the farm (both sheep and cattle) and indeed that at the home farm in Thorpe (slaughtered because we were a contiguous premises), proved negative to the foot and mouth virus.

The livestock was moved to Hill Top under licence issued by Trading Standards, and (in accordance with that licence) inspected by a vet. They were moved on May 6, 2001, some four days before the first outbreak in the Settle area.

I would also like to make the point that I had not visited Hill Top Farm for a fortnight before the outbreak, as a neighbouring farmer had kindly offered to check the stock for me.

The report has caused a great deal of anxiety and anguish to Mrs Ruth Brown, owner of the fields rented by me. The information pertaining to my animals was speculative.

Anthony Schindler

Hardy Grange Farm,

Thorpe,

Skipton.

Moors: No choice

SIR, - May I use your pages to inform the ramblers, traders' associated with walkers and residents that I derive no personal pleasure or satisfaction for the enforced closure of Ilkley Moor.

There has been no choice or decision taken on this on my part. The reality is that the closure and allocation of the Protection Zone around the Middleton outbreak is due to the actions of DEFRA or MAFF.

The moors in some parts come within the three-kilometre zone. The advice given by DEFRA is that footpaths and grazing land within a Protection Zone must be closed.

If any part of a larger area falls within the Protection Zone, then the whole of the area should be treated in the same way.

Counsel's advice was taken recently on various associated matters. It confirmed that the council's actions on Ilkley Moor were correct according to Ministry guidance.

The length of time of this closure, and the lack of action in the secondary disinfection of Hill Top Farm (which has not taken place as yet) can be blamed only on the Ministry.

The credibility, justification or sense of MAFF's actions during the past six months is for all to judge. For this reason we should all be calling for a public inquiry to be instigated.

Coun ANNE HAWKESWORTH

Environment Executive,

Bradford Council.

UDP concern

SIR, - During the course of the last Unitary Development Plan (UDP) you published a number of my letters concerning some of the more damaging proposals in that plan. Unfortunately it is once again necessary to return to the fray.

While the replacement UDP demonstrates a refreshing alteration of approach there are obviously still a number of proposals which are a cause for concern - Bolling Road, Ashlands, the Ilkley Grammar School sites, among others - which local people are campaigning on and I hope will still take the opportunity to object to, as they have until August 8 to do so.

However, there is one seemingly innocuous proposal which, on closer inspection, will I believe prove to be an insidious wedge into the most sensitive part of the precious green belt around Ilkley and pave the way to the destruction of a large part of it.

This is the proposal to route an 'Improved Cycle Way' (K/TM20 A65) directly through the green belt and the centre of the field to the rear of the houses in Wheatley Lane.

I am all for providing safer routes for a healthy and sustainable form of transport such as cycling, but this particular proposal is not only bizarre and incongruous, in itself it conflicts with a whole number of stated policies in the plan, in that it would involve the destruction of visual and countryside amenity and introduce unacceptable visual intrusion and incongruous landscape elements.

It would entail the loss of some of the best and most versatile agricultural land in the district and undermine policies on diversification of the rural economy.

Moreover there is a more suitable alternative route only a few hundred yards to the west which the plan's policies (TM8) insist on. (Policy TM8 - "The Council will require provision where appropriate of new cycle links through development sites.")

Why not beside the land allocated for housing development on the soon to be ex-middle school site? Or is there somewhere else to be pulled out of a hat and classified as a development site?

Why I am so alarmed about this? Well, for one thing I have to say I no more trust Bradford planners now than I did nine years ago and probably with more justification now, having spent a number of years on the planning committee and watching them pull some amazing strokes which too many of my erstwhile colleagues fell for, despite my protests.

Who is going to pay for an expensive compulsory purchase of this piece of land which is still, to my knowledge, owned by developers who, I could almost guarantee, have already applied for this field to be deleted from the green belt and allocated for housing. I think we should be told what private discussions have taken place between planners or politicians and developers.

For another thing, the route would have to be signposted, laid out with tarmac or something similar, and lit. This through the middle of a field at present used for exercising and grazing horses and cattle. What will prevent motor cyclists and scramblers using it - or worse?

I know, and I know that Bradford planners know, that this will inevitably lead to all the problems associated with and categorised as Urban Fringe intrusions into the countryside - broken fences, rubbish dumping, intrusions on to, despoliation, isolation and eventual degradation of the pasture land. All of which would lead to an acceptance that if the land was spoiled then it may as well be developed anyway.

I will conclude by reminding your readers of the words of a previous inspector in stressing that any development on this field would totally undermine its function and the emphasis that 'the green belt here flows right up to the rear of the houses on Wheatley Lane'.

If there is a need or justification to continue the cycle way provision then why is it not taken into the envelope of the town by the side of the new development and the town centre sign posted via the much quieter Valley Drive route.

To all who supported the Ilkley and Ben Rhydding Action Group (IBRAG) over the last UDP please object to this proposal while there is still time.

SANDY MACPHERSON

33 Wheatley Lane,

Ben Rhydding,

Ilkley.

Preserving trees

SIR, - Can we urge your readers to help preserve a fine collection of local trees surrounded by well-grown hedgerows, all within the confines of Ilkley.

Residents in Valley Drive and the estates bordering on the former Ilkley Middle School already have a special interest in the new Unitary Plan, for when Ilkley Grammar School have moved out, part of the site is designated for residential purposes.

Currently there are more than 20 well-grown trees on this site, including oak, ash, sycamore, cherry and old hawthorns. In addition there's a mature beech hedge with a fine, tall hedge of hawthorns at right angles to it.

What we'd like to see are proper safeguards built into any developers' contracts, so that these trees are preserved and the established hedges kept as a natural protection for all those who'll be coming to live in housing on the site. Any worthwhile builders, we hope, would see the advantages for attracting potential residents. Current residents, too, have a right to be considered.

We hope all your readers with a pride in our local amenities will agree about this. If so, there's a simple way of keeping the planners aware of our feelings.

Write direct to the council, using the forms provided at the library, or simply put your point of view in a short letter.

John and Jenny Dixon

Paul and Hannah Dutton

Peter and Julia Jordan

Alison Thompson,

Sandy McPherson

Roy Fox

Ben Rhydding,

Ilkley.

Namibia trip

SIR, - As many residents of Ilkleymay know, a group of Ilkley Grammar School students (myself included) is hoping to embark on an expedition to Namibia, Africa, in the summer of 2002.

Once there we will be helping the local community of the town we are staying in. This could involve building sports facilities, teaching and many other things that will be decided upon by the people that we will be helping.

This trip will be a fantastic experience for us - not only will we be helping people who don't have the luxuries that we take for granted, but we'll be staying in one of the most breathtaking areas of the world.

Getting to Namibia won't be easy though. Each of the 18 people taking part has to raise £2,500 in order to go - and we need all the help we can get to reach this target! I'm appealing to everyone who reads this to help all that they can so that we can help these people.

We're searching for sponsors - we're willing to do anything! You can come along to our sponsored events - last week we helped out at the Addingham Open Gardens event and very gratefully received £750 (thanks to everyone involved). Any tiny bit of help will be received most gratefully.

And finally, can I say a big thank you to everyone who has helped us, in any way, to raise funds so far. We wouldn't be going without you. Thanks for all your support.

LOUISE BOX

Wine Beck House,

Bolton Road,

Addingham LS29 0RF.

Darwinism?

SIR, - Does the answer to 12 across 'primates' in the Ilkley Gazette crossword of July 26, 2001, give a new slant to Darwinism?

The question: 'The highest order of mammals including man and donkeys'.

Rodger Alcock

3 Skelda Rise,

Ilkley.

FOOTNOTE: Obviously our crossword compiler has made an ass of himself this time. The word should have been 'monkeys' and we apologise for any confusion which arose.