10:20am Saturday 19th December 2009
Sir - During my long interest in conservation of natural resources, I have never ceased to be fascinated by the ability of opposing lobby groups to draw conflicting conclusions from the same common body of evidence.
In considering the efficacy of wind turbines, I am very impressed by recent communications by responsible campaigners against the installations, based on excellent, reliable data and supported by well-considered argument.
My own personal ambition to power my domestic appliances by wind power came to an abrupt end decades ago when I soon realised that it simply was not a viable economic venture.
More recently, in researching the relevant aspect of global-warming carbon dioxide, I realise that wind turbines produce more CO2 during their lifetime than they save, if the manufacturing and the installation are fully accounted.
So the wind turbines industry contributes to global warming rather than protects us against it. But perhaps the worst iniquity is that the Government ensures that the grants and profits received by this industry are paid by all of us as increased prices in our electricity bills.
For my part, I have never veered from energy-saving practices that I learned during World War II and am convinced my “carbon footprint” is minimal. I am therefore astonished to learn that the Government considers the provision of an additional runway at Heathrow Airport is “in line with their carbon-emission targets”. If they have set their targets so low, why are we being exhorted to make tiny contributions such as turning off television sets? This contradiction seems consistent with Mr Brown’s record during the last 12 years when his policies and actions have so often belied his words.
Does all this help to explain why scientists at the University of East Anglia saw a need to manipulate data?
JR Jones, Kirk Lane, Eastby
Sir - The education review in Craven you reported (Herald, December 3) is a significant issue in this area.
Though there will have to be cost savings made in the months ahead by the county council, it is imperative that these are made with the long-term, rather than the short-term, in mind. Though initiatives such as head-sharing between small schools, and even hard and soft federations of small schools are sensible ideas, the closure of small rural schools which form the hub of small communities can only ever be considered as a last resort.
Furthermore, the Government’s Rural White Paper: “Our Countryside: The Future – A Fair Deal for Rural England”, brought into force in 2000, makes it mandatory that all new policy should be “rural-proofed”, so that any long-term implications for rural areas are fully taken into consideration.
Though a combination of falling rolls at this precise moment in time and a climate where cost savings are attractive may cast into doubt the survival of many of the area’s smaller schools, the county council must consider the long-term effects on our rural communities in terms of sustainability. This education review is definitely one to watch for all who have an interest in the general health and vitality of our countryside, as well as for those who have young families.
Helen Flynn, Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for Skipton and Ripon, Low Lane, Darley
Sir - Perhaps the smaller schools in North Craven could remain open (Craven Herald, December 3) if the Tories at County Hall did not spend nearly £200,000 (their figure) on the 11+ system.
There are many other areas where they could save money, such as not repeating the same A-level study at three different institutions on Gargrave Road. Time for a sixth-form college?
And, yes, according to Councillor Jim Clark the county’s primary schools do very well indeed (“Craven schools above average in league tables”, Craven Herald).
Why, then, destroy that momentum by telling the majority of Skipton’s children they have failed the 11+, made worse by importing so many children from out of Skipton?
It is a strange life lesson for our children that access to the grammar schools is about how much the parents are willing to spend on coaching rather than how hard they work at school.
Graeme Hitchen, High Bank, Bradley
Sir - Last week’s Herald carried a front page story headlined “Damning report on council spending”. It outlined the verdict of the Government’s Audit Commission on Craven District’s dysfunctional council, according it the lowest possible rating for the second year running.
Two days prior to this report, a majority of this shoddy crew voted themselves an increase in pay!
Sixteen of our 30 elected representatives (all but one Tories) awarded themselves a hefty leap in their annual allowances (which vary according to responsibilities). Leader Chris Knowles-Fitton set the trough-trend by upping his own wage by 25 per cent.
To their credit, 10 members voted against; six of them Liberal Democrats, the remainder Independents. One Conservative councillor took the coward’s way out by abstaining, while two other Conservatives and one Lib Dem were “strategically absent”.
In a mix of despair and revulsion, I have written to the councillor who represents my ward and to my county councillor (who also sits on Craven District Council for another ward). I hope the letter, reproduced below, will encourage Herald readers to make their own feelings known to their elected representative.
Dear XXX and XXX,
I have just read council Minute POL.256 (Review of Members’ Allowances Scheme) relating to the full meeting of CDC members on December 8 and note with bitter disappointment that – along with 14 other members – you voted in favour of raising your own allowances.
That you took this step coincident with the publication of the Audit Commission’s second appalling report on CDC’s management and finances is bad enough.
Worse, you did so at a time when CDC decimates public services, closes public lavatories, slashes or withdraws grants to charitable bodies and issues redundancy notices to many CDC staff.
Your respective decisions to support increases in councillors’ allowances display crass insensitivity to the above events and an unbelievable indifference to the public mood during the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.
I am appalled at your decision to put self before community, betraying thereby the concept of leading by example.
Much was made in the council chamber debates preceding this decision that the upping of allowances is simply a re-distribution of public money and will not increase the overall cost to the electorate.
But you and I know very well that’s a scarlet herring. You and your colleagues had – and chose to ignore – an opportunity either to reduce council expenditure or reallocate the cash to other, worthier, causes, the resuscitation of Craven Voluntary Action for example.
I am not and never have been a Tory. But, like many others, I voted for you because you are who you are – irrespective of your political colour.
In writing to you to express my disillusionment, I am probably in a minority of one. But don’t be misled into believing that I am alone in my views.
Herald readers can find out which way their own councillor voted by visiting http://covertcraven.wordpress.com.
Peter Scott-Smith, The Green, Long Preston
Sir – Our councillors should be ashamed. They want paying for what? They put themselves forward to serve the community. It is not employment.
Hundreds of ordinary people give their time and money working for charities, organisations, parishes and citizens’ advice without financial reward.
At Craven District Council all the hard work has been done. Our forefathers produced roads, bridges, reservoirs, sewerage, council housing, refuse collection and toilets serving the community for the honour.
The only payment was for loss of earnings through meetings in working hours. This self-gratification must be costing the ratepayers over £150,000. Are they worth it? Do we need them?
They are full of blather about public participation, but councillors are afraid to speak, forbidden to speak, with just two or three making major decisions. When asked for information, a councillor replied: “I do not know. I presume we are supposed to read the Craven Herald to find out what we are doing.”
A disgrace! May I suggest you reintroduce the old, honest, well-tried system of chief officers in command of their department.
The present structure is not fit for purpose. Councillors should make the policy. All councillors must be able to take part in committees and should do the work under the guidance of the relevant chief officer which should then go forward to full council, allowing all members to contribute and vote. It is called free speech.
Men were burnt at the stake for the right to do so. The senior officer should see the decision is carried out. Delegated power should only apply to planning issues, with decisions reported to full council. Now we have no full-time financial officer, but a chief executive with directors.
The chief executive will have a very hard job to get Craven District Council under control. I wish him well.
ND Simpson, Calton Lodge, Airton
Sir - Skipton Yuletide Festival v Grassington Dickensian? Well I know which one I would rather go to regardless of the crowds.
Grassington for me is the outright winner and the organisers of Skipton Yuletide Festival could certainly learn something from the very authentic Christmas market that Grassington holds.
Skipton’s attempt at creating a Yuletide theme seemed lacking. Just another traders’ market, for me, with the stalls turned around to gain maximum sales with a few expensive rides thrown in for the children to extract more money from their hard-up parents.
Couldn’t Skipton look at returning to the medieval theme and include the castle and its grounds?
Skipton’s brass band was very good and added a touch of Christmas outside Craven Court. Don’t knock Grassington - they have it in the bag.
Sally Hall, Main Street, Carleton
Sir - After reading last week about the Dickensian festivities and, over time, hearing moans and groans about the event, I felt I had to say: “Please enjoy it”.
I have lived in Hebden for 40 years and well remember the first event. Over the years people have moaned about the increasing number of visitors. Yes, I agree some shops don’t benefit, especially food outlets, but who buys groceries on a day trip? Many businesses are glad of the out-of-season trade. Numerous charities that man stalls are more than grateful for the much-needed revenue.
As regards the locals, surely they can do what shopping they need on the Friday and stay home if they don’t like crowds. We are only talking about three Saturdays out of 365 days.
It is a shame those who criticise cannot see what benefit it gives the local economy, charities and I think, above all, the joy and memories it has given to those who take part and who visit the village. They go away with life-long memories of a magical Christmas Grassington.
A big thank you should go to Stuart who for nine years has swept Grassington village clean on Dickensian Saturdays and left the square spick and span after the day’s activities.
Pat Hodgkins, Mill Lane, Hebden
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/trade_directory/