There is no method in this madness! Here is another example of the Labour-controlled Bradford Council’s cost-cutting initiatives that doesn’t save money but penalises families for no good reason.

As a ward councillor I feel it is my duty to highlight the absurdity of the current policy for awarding free school transport to children in Burley-in-Wharfedale. Successive Education Acts have stated that children should receive free school transport if they live more than three miles from their nearest school, along the nearest available walking route. In Bradford, until last year, discretion was used to allow children free school transport to go to Ilkley Grammar School, even though technically is not the nearest school for some parts of Burley. However, all the children in Burley-in-Wharfedale live within the catchment area for Ilkley Grammar School and most children go there. The school is also the nearest school in the Metropolitan District (4.6 miles according to the AA Route Planner from my home on Hill Crescent).

Children already at the school will not be affected but new applications will be compared with the nearest school, which happens to be Guiseley School in the Leeds City Council area, 3.2 miles from my home on Hill Crescent according the AA Route Planner.

You will notice that children going to Guiseley School would still be entitled to free school transport from Bradford Council because they live over three miles away. But should they decide to go to the school that everyone has traditionally gone to they will receive no help. That is where the savings come from!

As a parent I can appreciate how unsettling it would be to make a child go to a different school than their peers, but perhaps this is Bradford Council’s way of dealing with the shortage of school places? I jest! I am sure that someone on the Labour Council’s Executive understood that parents will find the cost of school transport to Ilkley, even if it puts pressure on their finances, because they want their children to be happy.

The old system understood that this is a nonsense and unfair to families. The saving comes not because it will be cheaper for children to go to Guiseley School but because parents and children will choose to go where they have always gone.

Councillor Jackie Whiteley, Wharfedale Ward

A week left to comment on local plan core strategy

Residents of Ilkley have but one week left to make comments on the local plan core strategy to Bradford Council.

The Civic Society encourages everyone to make their views known to the council. While there are many good things in the plan, the arguments against it have been well-rehearsed, including the loss of green belt, the lack of infrastructure, the large number of houses to be accommodated and the inherent contradictions in the plan.

You may have made comments in the last round of consultation in 2012. However if you feel these have not been fully addressed in the latest version, you need to make comments again.

This time, the comments are being made to the planning inspector who will examine the plan.

Anyone who is having difficulty in putting together their comments may contact the civic society for help by leaving a message on 07592 561214. We will call you back.

Helen Kidman, chairman, Ilkley Civic Society

Shambolic treatment of traders in lead-up to Tour

While I congratulate those that have enabled us to witness the cycling event in July, I cannot be anything but disappointed by the shambolic treatment traders have received by the powers-that-be on the lead-up to this event.

Many traders have seen a very dramatic drop in trade, in my case over two weeks, with an overall loss of 40 per cent – this can never be reclaimed.

When it became apparent that these roadworks were needed why on earth was there not a consultation process between councillors and traders, to minimise any inconvenience, not just a note through the letter box? Not everybody has access to e-mail – a point worth noting.

Why were roadworks suspended on Fridays/Saturdays? What about the shops the rest of the week? It would seem we all work together when it suits, but suits who?

On top of this Otley Business Improvement District has begun sending bills out for the local businesses to send in their money. When taking a hit in trade where do the leaders of these organisations think the money is coming from?

It would be nice to have just a little empathy during what is such a difficult time for businesses large or small. Organisations please note, we traders love our town, but it is not a bottomless pit.

Sandra Threlfall, Chevin Health Stores, Otley

Challenging the Council on spending can be dispiriting

Ilkley Parish Council can be notoriously dismissive of criticism of their decisions. In the March 6 Ilkley Gazette, council chairman Mike Gibbons seeks to defend the large percentage rise in this year’s precept, which is mainly to finance an unnecessary £20,000 spend on the Tour de France.

In his letter, Mr Gibbons states that anyone who tries to raise objections to the councils spending plans is either “silly” or “politically motivated.” Not only is this contemptuous of genuinely-held views but is also wholly out of touch. Even his fellow Conservative, MP Kris Hopkins believes that the increase in the precept is wrong.

As one who has attended many parish council meetings, I can testify that challenging them on matters of spending is a dispiriting experience. They seem extraordinarily reluctant to listen to alternative views on how the precept should be spent. Indeed, at the last full meeting on March 3 the unseemly jabbing of fingers and raising of voices towards a member of the public does little to dispel the widely-held view that this council is both arrogant and unrepresentative.

Mr Gibbons seeks to praise himself and his councillors and demands plaudits from the town for their self-sacrifice. Can I remind him that it is for the electorate of the town to decide what, if any, accolades they truly deserve. Sadly, our parish council will not have to face the electorate until next year. However, district councillor Mike Gibbons will seek re-election this coming May. Perhaps, we should use this opportunity to pass judgment on both his and his parish council’s achievements.

Edward Wild, Alexandra Crescent, Ilkley

50 years ago, roadworks did not cause any disruption

With reference to the front page story of the traffic disruption on Westgate, Otley (Wharfedale Observer, March 13), I worked for the old West Riding County Council as a young man about 50 years ago.

I remember working as a general labourer on major roadworks when we were re-surfacing Westgate, from the traffic lights to the Cross Pipes pub. Westgate was closed from 9pm to 6am for four nights, causing no disruption to the traders at all during the day. 

Keith Jackson, former Otley resident, now of Cliffe Road, Keighley

Where are all the facilities promised by developers?

Over the past decade or so under what are called 106 Agreements, communities have been promised by developers all manner of mitigation measures against large-scale developments.

A 106 Agreement is in essence a “legitimate bribe” from the developer to the local council to offset any negative impact on a community whilst at the same time supposedly improving the environment and sustainability of that community.

Money is the key to this, with large sums promised for projects such as provision of health clinics, doctors, dentists, chemists etc while also promising increased provision for schooling and education. To allow for all these improvements the promised infrastructure usually incorporates better road and transport systems. Where is the evidence this actually takes place and what happens to the money if things do not go to plan?

Take Leeds City Council’s agreed High Royds development in Menston for example. Where are all the promised facilities which were agreed under the 106 Agreements?

  • The designated area for a doctor’s surgery which was promised has now had a change in use to living accommodation.
  • The new premises for the Sports and Social club appear to have been abandoned.
  • The access bus to Menston railway station is about to be withdrawn.
  • There is no or limited provision for pre-school/nursery.
  • No shops, hairdressers or newsagents
  • No heathcare provision.

With a proposed increase in houses in the region and none of the above promises being fulfilled, who will believe a developer when the designated funding is reimbursed to the developer if the projects are not carried out?

A classic example of this is the promise of an extension to the car park at Menston Railway Station under the current 106 Agreement signed off by Bradford MDC at the end of 2013 in relation to the Derry Hill and Bingley Road developments. As a community we know this is unachievable, hence the money will never be forthcoming.

In addition at the meeting held on Tuesday, February 25, in Menston, and reported in the Wharfedale Observer, about road mitigation in relation to the above, how many promises can any community rely on?

It is apparent to me having worked in the NHS for most of my career that unless there is an increase in future provisions within Menston and Burley-in-Wharfedale with the proposed housing allocation from Bradford MDC under the Core Strategy Development Plan, there will be an ever-increasing waiting time to see doctors and dentists.

Access to local educational facilities is currently limited and is deteriorating each year. What guarantees under the 106 Agreements can be given to provide our children with the education they are entitled to? Hollow promises will not help the communities of Menston and Burley-in-Wharfedale if and when the housing proposed takes place.

Dr Steve Ellams, chairman, Menston Community Association