Letters to the Editor

SIR, - Having just read the article about proposed building at the Hare and Hounds, at Menston, I really believe the lunatics must be running the asylum, (or would be if we still had one!)

Who are these faceless wonders who sit on the planning committees and make such idiotic proposals which seem to get carried through to completion, however crazy they are?

An annexe of 35 bedrooms attached to the building cannot now be built as the expiry date has passed. So let's build a separate hotel on the car park of the original pub, which is still very much in use. (Have they not seen how full that car park becomes on special days like Mothering Sunday, to name but one, when you can't put a bicycle down on it for cars parked bumper to bumper?) - and to show there's no ill feeling, we'll put on an extra ten bedrooms and make it 45.

Hang on, though. It's a busy road. And we'll have all that extra traffic from the new High Royds estate,. Was that 500 houses, and at two cars per house, on average, let me see, is that an extra 1,000 cars down that road each day at rush hour?

(Silly name really. I mean, rush hour! With all that traffic, who's going anywhere?)

We don't want any more traffic turning right. Tell you what, we'll ask the drivers to go round an extra 20 miles to get back to where they ultimately want to be. (As if!!)

And the worst yet - a building design on the lines of the adjacent Hare and Hounds has been thrown out as being unsuitable! What architectural monstrosity will I eventually find facing my unbelieving eyes when I pull my curtains each morning? I dread to think.

I had been under the impression that the whole harebrained scheme had died a natural death some time ago, and that the planners had listened to the (at the time) weight of public opinion and thrown it where it belonged, in the wastepaper basket.

It's hardly rocket science, is it? Avoid all the traffic and other issues and reject the whole scheme. Is this the silly season, or what?

Elizabeth Sharp

'The Gables',

48 Bradford Road,

Menston.

Bridge right

SIR, - As a newcomer to Burley-in-Wharfedale, I have read the Burley Bridge correspondence with interest.

One vital point has been overlooked - the crossing is a designated public right of way, and I believe there is a statutory duty to maintain safe passage. This is nothing to do with self-interested ramblers - it's public access at stake.

Currently it is impassable for most of the year - this is analogous to the right of way (road) to one's house being similarly impassable!

As for "90 per cent of villagers not wanting a bridge" or "ramblers being selfish" I understand a properly conducted survey showed 75 per cent in favour.

In respect of selfishness, as a public right of way, linking to others on the north bank, the public has just that - a right to cross (safely) and enjoy. At present only a few, particularly those with fishing rights, enjoy both river banks.

Private rights v public rights - for some that reverses the selfishness argument. Personally I feel there should be scope for both sectors to enjoy their rights to the full.

It would be a useful temporary measure to improve the stepping stones, but with rapidly rising river levels that would be only short term. However, anyone who has crossed perfectly good stepping stones across wide, deep, fast flowing water will know what an unbalancing experience that can be.

As the growth in walking is chiefly among the 50-plus age group, a bridge has to be the only long-term solution.

From its source to confluence the Wharfe has some 39 foot or road bridges, and is beautiful along the whole length. Burley is the sixth largest community along the Wharfe but doesn't possess a single bridge. As for despoiling beauty, as suggested, which of those 39 bridges is an eyesore and should be removed?

As for going to the 'toll bridge' (when was it that?) at Ben Rhydding 'like the rest of us', why should we want to add up to six road miles on to a 12 to 15-mile walk?

Or 'leave the car at Askwith' - I'm sure Askwith residents will be pleased. The object is to leave the car at home - either for Burley residents, or those arriving by bus or train.

Finally on the subject of footpath signage - that is another statutory function, and Bradford Met, and many others do an excellent job. Ramblers groups in their own time and expense do a stalwart job voluntary assisting in maintaining stiles, etc.

TONY BURKITT

11, Greenhow Park,

Burley-in-Wharfedale,

Plan deplored

SIR, - As the Wheatley Hotel is one of the most prominent buildings in the Ben Rhydding Conservation Area, I deplore the proposal to partially demolish the building, which 'stands in evidence of a significant age in Ben Rhydding's development and testifies to the economic, social and religious changes of the day' (Bradford Council's Ben Rhydding Conservation Area Assessment Summary).

With its links to Ben Rhydding Hydro, the Wheatley is a prime example of Victorian architecture, its class system, its tourism, transport and medicine, and must be retained in its entirety if it is to continue to make a valued contribution to modern day conservation and education.

The proposed new roofline will degrade the retained section. The building's original architects, a renowned and respected firm responsible for much of Bradford's civic architecture, has taken pains to blend the roofline of the 1896 addition with that of the original 1876 building. I wish this could be said today.

Any demolition, even that which proposes to retain a faade in an attempt to alleviate its disastrous effect, will diminish the building's historic and architectural value.

The Wheatley reflects an era when architectural integrity was given at least equal weight to commercial gain. A salutary lesson.

Kathryn Soames

3 The Old School,

Albert Simmons Way,

Burley in Wharfedale.

Congestion

SIR, - I would appreciate someone in the traffic department of Bradford Council explaining how the recently introduced traffic lights at the junction of Skipton Road and Victoria Avenue 'helps to ease congestion in Ilkley town centre', as stated on the prominent sign, located on the main road travelling towards Ilkley.

I use Skipton Road every day and the level of traffic builds on both sides of the lights, especially the Skipton side, where often one vehicle turning right up Victoria Avenue blocks several cars progressing.

In my opinion, there should be no right turn at the lights because traffic can use Easby Drive (a short distance past Victoria Avenue) to turn right, with little inconvenience.

JOHN PHIPPS

1, Westwood Rise,

Ilkley.

Hunting issue

SIR, - In the Gazette of September 9, Ilkley MP Mrs Ann Cryer, who seems to be knowledgeable on every topic which surfaces, asserts that there is tremendous popular support for a ban on hunting with hounds.

Whoever does her research for her must be on another planet. All the factual figures that I have read in the press and on the internet show the complete opposite to her findings.

Figures I have taken from the internet this evening, (September 12) indicate that in an internet poll for The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday" 59 per cent are against a ban, 35 per cent are for a ban and six per cent are in favour of licensed hunting. That suggests to me that 65 per cent are not against hunting. Hardly a sign of tremendous popular support.

Before any of Mrs. Cryer's adherents is tempted to calumniate, I am not a hunting man although I am a countryman and do shoot clay pigeons.

It seems to me that not only is the motorist criminalised, but countrymen and women, following their centuries old traditions to hunt and to work at jobs which sustain those traditions and the countryside, are to be criminalised also.

Victor M Bean

114, Skipton Road,

Ilkley.

Precept folly

Sir, - The Ilkley Gazette plays an important part in the community by keeping the people accurately informed, and some time it takes up a cause when it sees an injustice.

I speak of the injustice of Ilkley Parish Council demanding a tax without giving the community real value for that tax. Your paper has shown once again the danger of a parish council that has no plans for what it intends to do with the tax it has imposed,

The chairman of the parish council is quoted in your report as wanting to meet with representatives of a private enterprise which is seeking £5.000 of public money to preserve a chapel in Ilkley Cemetery and then sell it on to private ownership. This shows the danger of councillors with no experience of how to handle large sums of public money and who have not budgeted for the tax they demand.

The chapels in Ilkley Cemetery are the responsibility of Bradford Council and it is to them that the Bradford Preservation Trust should be applying to for funding. Ilkley Parish Council should not even be considering their application.

Ilkley Parish Council has no legislative powers, nor does it have any delegative powers. It cannot raise a precept itself; it has to go through Bradford Council. What I don't understand is, why Bradford do not inquire as to what Ilkley want the precept for and demand a budget from Ilkley Parish Council.

Perhaps it is because Bradford is a Conservative- controlled council and Ilkley is also a Conservative-controlled council. It just rubber stamps whatever Ilkley applies for. If that is the case, they are both acting illegally.

Peter Cheney

10 Crossbeck Road,

Ilkley.

Precept protest

SIR, - As Councillor Brian Mann suggested in a recent letter to the Gazette that he had not received many complaints about the parish precept, I have written to him the following letter:

"Dear Councillor Mann, Following letters in the Ilkley Gazette, in one of which you recently mentioned that very few people had contacted you personally about the parish precept, I am writing to inform you that I object to the increase in the parish precept.

"I would be grateful if you could let me know why there is an increase at all when there is already a surplus and why the increase is so large.

"Also I would very much like to know what the money is to be used for. I would appreciate the opportunity to choose not to pay the precept if it is not being used for anything useful to the people of Ilkley. I could donate the money to a charity which would know how to make the best use of it."

Other readers may be inspired to write individually to Coun Mann who does not seem to be impressed by petitions, however many parishioners sign them.

Connie Bedworth

19 North Parade,

Ilkley.