As published in the Ilkley Gazette on 8th September 2020, Councillors Hawkesworth, Green and Gibbons have released a statement opposing the application for bathing water status in the River Wharfe at Ilkley. Their main concerns appear to be the conflation of bathing water status with cleaning up the river, the dangers of swimming in the river and the antisocial behaviour sometimes displayed by users of the river, but I do not agree that any of these reasons are strong enough to justify their positions.

They repeatedly state that efforts have been made to "merge" and "confuse" cleaning up the river with bathing water when they are not related, but designated bathing water status does directly contribute to cleaning up the river. When bathing water status is granted the Environment Agency is then obligated to conduct regular testing of the water quality, produce pollution risk forecasts, and hold Yorkshire Water to account when levels go past the legal limit. Yorkshire Water have confirmed that if bathing water status is granted, they will begin working to update the sewage treatment works in Ilkley to reduce the spillage of raw sewage. In contrast, if bathing water status is not granted the Environment Agency have said that the problems in Ilkley will likely not be investigated until the 2030-2035 period. Currently there is no obligation to perform regular water quality checks on Wharfe in Ilkley and it is only through citizen testing that the extent of the issue has been recognised.

They then detail concerns about the dangers of swimming in the river. It is a fact that many people already swim in and play around the river (proven by the evidence submitted in support of the DEFRA application) and I would first like to reiterate that bathing water status is not about encouraging more people to do this - it is about improving conditions for those who currently do. While it is true that there will always be an associated risk to these activities, I do not see evidence of the "many, many occasions" in which they claim there has been loss of life or near misses. Within the area proposed for bathing water status, the Yorkshire Post identified four 'near misses' within the last ten years in response to Councillor Hawksworth’s statement, far less than are reported in many other locations.

Furthermore, many people pay for licences to fish in this area and if the river is as dangerous as they suggest then I would certainly question why this is encouraged. In twenty years growing up in Ilkley and regularly swimming, walking and playing around the river I have never had difficulties myself or seen anyone else get into difficulties, despite regularly making use of the areas which are now being proclaimed 'high risk' due to currents and cold temperatures. Care should certainly always be taken around the river, but I do not see sufficient call to deny bathing water status for this reason.

Finally, they talk about antisocial behaviour by the river, in particular over this summer. This is undeniably a problem, but not one that should be mixed up with bathing water status. As the councillors themselves stated, these are issues that have been particularly severe over this summer, so they are clearly going to take place irrespective of whether bathing water status is awarded. While to a certain extent the circumstances this summer were exacerbated by Covid19, it is true that there are annual issues with crowding, parking, and littering. However, denying bathing water status does not solve them, it simply avoids addressing them and guarantees that they will continue. Several businesses in Ilkley are reliant on tourism and the town council is currently trying to encourage increased tourism with the discover Ilkley campaign. Parking, littering, provision of public toilets and other anti-social behaviour are issues that are only going to increase and that the councillors and others in positions of responsibility must address regardless of bathing water status. In fact, designating bathing water status should give further opportunity and control to the authorities to promote responsible use of the river and condemn antisocial behaviour.

As a local resident these problems certainly concern me, but they are not a good reason to deny bathing water status which is designed to protect and improve the lives of local residents who use the river. The many, many people who make use of the river responsibly every year should not be punished for the actions of the few who do not.

Isla Lury

Ben Rhydding, Ilkley