Letters to the editor

SIR - I consider it outrageous that the one hour car parking fee in Skipton has been increased this month from 60p to 80p, viz. 33 per cent. A year ago the same fee was increased from 40p to 60p, viz. 50 per cent.

The majority of people who park within a one hour period are local, consequently they are being penalised out of all proportion to charges made to longer stay visitors.

In their 'wisdom' the council would no doubt suggest that locals obtain a parking permit but we all know that areas where these are applicable are very restricted. Within the Skipton town area the local populace needs to be encouraged to make their brief shopping trips in order to support the small shops and restrict the extension of subsidised charity establishments, albeit I do not wish to undermine the good work they provide.

Additionally, our historical Skipton market is a great attraction to visitors but due to this increasing 'short term' parking penalty, the local population will obviously further resort to the supermarkets.

Currently the Co-op credit their car park fee for in-store expenditure over £5, an attractive gesture to encourage internal shopping. However, I wonder for how long they will extend this privilege now that this unjustified one hour increase has been imposed. Indeed, did I overlook it, or was there a statement in the Craven Herald as to the local council's intent regarding an increase in car parking charges?

During the last few months the national Government has made numerous 'U-turns' after popular objection within the country.

I, no we!, the population of Skipton and local areas, suggest a rethink is neccessary due to this unjustified imposition and urge for a reprint of 60p labels to restore our confidence in the 'wise' on whom we rely to protect the best interest of the locals.

Albeit there is valid cynicism in the last paragraph, I respectfully urge the council to take note of my views, if not publish a formal reply within the Craven Herald either to acknowledge an adjustment in favour of the local populace or to justify their one hour 80p 'localised' imposition.

Clive Ridyard,

Moorland Close, Embsay.

Ridiculous fee

SIR - I am writing regarding Craven District Council putting up the car parking charge for one hour to 80 pence.

I work in Skipton and twice a week I have to use the car park in order to pay my bills etc. I am usually only half an hour and I think 80p is ridiculous.

Putting the rate up to 80p will force many people into parking on residential streets, which I am sure the council and residents do not want.

What is the council doing with all the revenue it is raising from car park charges? It certainly doesn't appear to be maintaining its car parks if the one at the side of the bus station is anything to go by!

Please Craven Council, think again. If shoppers in Skipton don't want to pay the car park charges then come and shop in Barnoldswick where it's free.

Sally Lambert,

East View Terrace,

Barnoldswick.

Amenity threatened

SIR - In writing in support of Mrs Kinder, who has recently taken a stance against Giggleswick School's attempt to overturn long term council plans on development, housing plans and needs in our immediate area, I have to add that there are other pressures previously unreported on the residents of Station Road and Bankwell road, Giggleswick.

House purchase in the majority of cases represents perhaps the single largest investment made by a family, and much care and consideration is taken in making the most suitable choice of house type and location within particular financial restraints.

The location is particularly important in relation to the needs of the prospective family, and amenity is high on the list for consideration.

This takes into account aspect-openness of country views, density of local road traffic, access and availability of essential services etc.

I am certain that the residents in question have chosen to live in this quiet part of Giggleswick for all the above reasons and the long term development plans which specifically preclude any form of additional residential development.

Readers may not be aware that within the last few weeks, Giggleswick school have without reference to local residents, completely fenced off the whole of the Lords field, part of which field they wish to develop for housing.

In the main it is the same residents under threat from the potential housing development who now find themselves deprived of access across the Lords field: a facility which has been enjoyed for many generations.

Part of this twentieth century enclosure involved the blocking of several ancient 'squeeze type' stiles, and local opinion is that a right of way exists and I understand this is being investigated with the Footpaths Commission.

Giggleswick School would be well advised to consider their position in the community, as local opinion is now increasingly hostile.

In particular, they could well consider instead of housing on Lords Field, the provision of short term temporary car parking for the parents, teachers and friends, on the occasions of school sporting events. At the present time, indiscriminate parking in Bankwell Road is a source of potential danger to other motorists and pedestrians, and a severe inconvenience to local residents who are unable to have access to their own homes.

There is still a further threat to the same residents, in that a prominent councillor is pressing for the strengthening of Penny Bridge, which has a current loading capacity of 7.5 tonnes. This is presumably to enable a decision to be taken to re-route heavy road traffic along Station Road, immediately outside the homes of residents whose other amenities are threatened by Giggleswick School.

I would add that I personally, would not be adversely inconvenienced by the various proposals, but I do sympathise with the beleaguered residents who are directly affected and deplore the actions of any individual or organisation which unilaterally attempts to make major changes to the living conditions of established residents, against their specific wishes.

MW Ham,

Independent candidate,

Craven District Council elections,

Sandholme Close, Giggleswick.

An issue for all Craven

SIR - Mrs Canaway (March 27) accuses me of being "nimby" - let readers decide - but perhaps Mrs Canaway has an interest which she ought to declare?

I personally have no objection to new housing in Giggleswick provided that it is part of Craven District Council's democratically decided scheme, produced after due consideration of the housing needs of the community in its care.

If the Inspector of the Environment decides to overturn the well argued case which the CDC's Planning Committee has put in their objections to Giggleswick School's plans and allows change of use for Lord's field, then it is up to the whole of Craven to rally behind our council to fight for the Local Plan, which most assuredly will be destroyed if the council does not win its case against an adverse judgement from the DoE.

That means plans for housing in Skipton, Grassington, Embsay, and indeed every part of Craven will be put in jeopardy.

The council will have bowed to the dictates of powerful sectarian business interests who will have snatched a sizeable part of the building allocation for the Craven area.

The whole just and democratic process by which our council decides house building priorities will be in tatters.

This is not a Giggleswick village matter; it is a matter for the people of Craven to understand that they could have one enormous fight on their hands.

Indeed, this case impinges strongly on the national debate not only about endangered "green site" land but, more seriously, on the justice and concern for community principles in which we British have taken great pride. What is "nimby" about that?

By a strange coincidence, I am also echoing the sentiments of the leader of the same issue of the Craven Herald which was expressing the outrage felt in Skipton at the overturning of the CDC's decision not to allow more housing at Overdale Park.

Somehow I feel we have not heard the last of this and other related matters. These are pressing concerns and all citizens have a part to play in deciding their outcome.

Mrs Kathleen Kinder,

Station Road, Giggleswick.

Discouraging

SIR - The decision by Craven District Council to cease giving a discount on the issue of senior citizen railcards sits oddly with the Government's declared intention to encourage people to travel by train. I hope it is not too late to ask the council to reconsider its decision - or do they not support the Government on this issue?

Stanley Hall,

Chairman, Craven group,

University of the Third Age,

Stone Beck, Coniston Cold.

Sensible solution

SIR - May I endorse the Rev JH Richardson's recent letter to your newspaper. It was, in my opinion, one of the most sensible ever written on the thorny question of HGV traffic through Settle.

I would like to suggest, additionally, that some traffic calming measures are considered by the appropriate authorities. For example, at the Harts Head/Belle Hill curve on the B6480 some clearer signing warnings be installed of the egress of The Mains and Belle Hill on to the main road, together with an increased speed restriction, ie, to 20mph.

HGVs and indeed, many other vehicles drive into Settle round that blind bend and down the speed-tempting hill past the schools at dangerous speeds.

Probably the drivers haven't even seen the existing signs. The 30mph sign, or 20mph, should be moved further away from the junction and the limit maintained through Church Street and the town. I have followed HGVs along Church Street when they were exceeding the current speed limit.

Further, consideration should be given to the "convoy" rule. It is a common sight, more than two vehicles in line, particularly quarry vehicles. Can their departure from the loading quarries be staggered to ensure that only one vehicle at a time passes through the town?

Hopefully, quarry and vehicle owners will, by better practices, show their consideration of the townspeople as the latter do of them.

Incidentally, this is not a Nimby letter. If the Rev Richardson's proposals come to pass, more vehicles will pass our house, empty, rattling ones at that.

Arthur Cookson,

Yealand Avenue, Giggleswick.

Cycling memories

SIR - I was interested to read that the McCartneys have sponsored the first "veggie" cycling team (Craven Herald, March 27). My old memory box started to spin and came up with the fact that the Vegetarian C&AC (Cycling and Athletics Club), London-based I think, used to field a very successful time trial team in the 1930s.

If I am right, the McCartneys sponsored team can only claim to be second, more than 60 years after the first - or was it the first?

Perhaps the word veggie makes it different, or the fact that it is sponsored. Admitted there were not many sponsors about in the 1930s, times were hard and money scarce in the depression. The dress for time trialling rules were strict - to make one inconspicuous? It was black jacket, mostly cotton or alpaca, and black tights. Sleeves could not be rolled above the elbow. Things were tough alright; there were plenty of worn and patched jackets about then, in fact, I owned one and somewhere in my bits of memorabilia I have a photo to prove it.

But it was a great life and we had lots of fun, until Hitler upset everything in 1939.

However, cycling is a great pastime and sport, I could only approve any sponsorship it gets. Good luck to the team.

Mr T Parsons,

Fells Farm, Tosside.

Low cost homes should be Craven's priority

SIR - The photograph with the report on the outcome of the appeal into building houses between Skipton and Embsay (Craven Herald, March 27) was misleading and fuels the misunderstanding of some residents that the development includes the land to the west of Overdale at the junction of Skipton Road and Harrogate Road.

Your readers would be better informed if they read the appeal decision letter itself, which is available at the council's planning office, free of charge.

Of course, it is disappointing that the inspector on the latest appeal declined to follow the earlier appeal decision of 1994 but there is no precedent in plannning.

Craven's planners put up a well argued case but they had a steep hill to climb to overcome the fact that the Highways Authority had no objections, as you report.

With the greatest respect, what you and the others who commented have failed to emphasise is that the piece of land to the west of Overdale is now extremely vulnerable. As I understand it, this piece of land is specifically featured in the draft Local Plan awaiting approval.

The intention is to argue for a "green wedge" on the approach to Skipton from the east.

That is all very laudable and fine but it will not stop a determined developer running a strong appeal for residential development, there being residential use to the south and east.

We know that there is a strong demand for housing. Would it not be sensible and more realistic for the planning authority to concede this site but to concentrate its policy argument on the type of development?

You see, the crying need is for low cost starter homes. The Conservatives demonstrably did not give a damn about homelessness but there is some, may not be much, but some suggestion that the present Government is taking a different view. Local young people are being forced away from the locality because they cannot afford the upmarket type of housing which will soon appear on the Overdale site.

The district council would do well to consider now a long stop alternative to the "green wedge" environmental argument, commendable though that is.

They might, for instance, embark upon some discussion for a partnership with one or more housing associations to produce much needed low cost housing for the young and the elderly on fixed incomes.

Again, your leader of March 27 tells us what we already know, it offers nothing constructive which might encourage local people to urge the district council to engage in a debate to find some long term solutions without being reduced to the expensive lottery of speculative developments and planning appeals.

John Fidler,

Skipton Road, Embsay.

Use post offices

SIR - If Coun Joan Ibbotson's claim that Craven District Council was community focused ('Taking the council to the people' Craven Herald, March 27) was justified, then it should, many years ago, have taken away the need for people to pay a fee when paying their rates or council tax at a local post office.

Sub-post offices are ideally situated for people to pay their various bills, but, naturally, folk have objected when in attempting to pay Craven District Council bills they have been informed that a charge would be levied. The district council could have negotiated away the need for charges to be incurred when their bills were paid at post office counters.

The council could have saved the expense of maintaining community payment offices and now the provision of buses with all the attendant problems of security etc, which such a bus service entails.

Perhaps too, a decision to encourage the use of the local post office facility would have helped prevent the closure of many rural sub-post offices. That would be community focussed.

Henry Gillett,

Broughton Road, Skipton.

Useful lesson

SIR - We have recently discovered that by feeding unwholesome food to our cattle we can produce the disaster of BSE. At the time when the epidemic started, we were innocent. However, with hindsight, we now see that we should have been more careful.

Can we learn a useful lesson in another field? We presently feed ourselves, our children and young people a cultural diet of violence, on television, cinema, videos and other media.

There is no proof that this will lead to violent behaviour, but it is not healthy food better than diseased food in every case?

Television programmes where the immediate response to any problem is to open fire with machine guns cannot do us good. I recently heard of a young man who accidentally trod on someone's foot when getting off a bus, and was beaten within an inch of his life as retribution.

How can we produce a generation where kindness, consideration and unselfishness are valued and brutality and hatred are shunned?

John A Rose,

The Mains, Giggleswick.

No more pupils

SIR - Having read recent reports in the press that Threshfield School has been granted funds and planning permission for a new building, I am concerned that the headlines are misleading.

Whilst the staff and governing body are delighted with the plans for our long overdue extension may I point out that the number of pupils attending the school will remain as they are now (this year we have 84 on the roll) and in no way will the school "double in size" - at least as far as numbers are concerned.

The new building which will be in keeping with the original, will provide a hall, two new classrooms, new indoor toilets, a serving area, offices and improved storage facilities.

Our main objective is to get rid of the temporary class rooms which not only stand on rented land but have been "temporary" for at least 20 years; too long!

Our new building will therefore ensure the future of the school as an excellent centre of learning for the children of Threshfield and Linton parishes which is exactly what Matthew Hewitt intended when he founded the school 324 years ago. His bequest was, after all, for a school not a listed building. I hope this will make clear that the intention of the governing body is to provide the best education possible for Threshfield's pupils and not to increase the number of pupils on roll.

Barbara Slater,

Chairman of governors,

Threshfield School,

Wharfeside Ave,Threshfield.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.