Sir - Your article on Barbara Castle saving the canals (May 2), reminds me she was also responsible for saving many of our local passenger train services.

Her Transport Act of 1968 created Passenger Transport Areas in the major conurbations, including the West Riding, and they were headed by Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs). British Rail had to hand over to the PTAs all policy decisions, including fares. This led to the full-scale involvement of local authorities, who had historically shown little interest in rail and not a little animosity towards it.

Surprisingly, the bus men in PTEs (the executive arm of the PTAs) rapidly became very pro-rail and, as the PTAs controlled bus services in their areas, were well-placed to co-ordinate bus and train services to the best advantage.

It has been hugely successful and it is ironic that Skipton, at the tail-end of the Leeds service, should be just outside the PTA area and unable to reap the benefit of cheap fares. Either NYCC should make a financial contribution to that part of the line which is outside the PTA boundary or the boundary should be revised to include Skipton.

Barbara Castle was one of the best Ministers of Transport we ever had and her foresight saved many local passenger train services.

Stan Hall, Brackenley Drive, Embsay

Sir - John Sheard eulogises Barbara Castle for being, allegedly, the saviour of the waterways through Skipton but fails to mention that she was responsible for a great act of vandalism back in 1970!

When Minister of Transport at that time she sanctioned the closure of the Skipton - Colne railway, the same line which campaigners are now having to raise very large amounts of money to re-open.

This line closure was not part of the 1960s Beeching plan, indeed Beeching specifically said it should be retained. Had it been so it would have helped Skipton's railway communications over the years since - therefore Skiptonians should have mixed feelings about the lady!

John Heaton, Ickornshaw, Cowling

Openness plea

Sir - Skipton in Craven Civic Society was right to urge Craven District Council to defer a decision on selling council-controlled land on Skipton's western approach to J N Bentley Ltd.

Arguments were wisely noted and it was agreed to wait until councillors had studied the finalised consultants' appraisal on Gargrave Road as a whole. Was this one of their better days?

Recent meetings have been held at council offices to discuss development in the area with targeted consultees, referred to as key stakeholders, to further Local Successful Business Policy rather than concentrating on developing policies which reflect a sensible appreciation of the landscape and character of the area or implications of development on the quality of life generally. Residents and taxpayers are stakeholders too and, surely, are as important as business for the long-term sustainability of the district.

The approval for development of land in north west Skipton for new CDC and Skipton Building Society offices and for potential approval for Bentley's relocation raises issues for planning in Craven as a whole. The public needs to know what is going on. Individual businesses and developers should not be encouraged to feel that their applications for building will be safe in spite of existing planning policy or before the new Local Development Framework is adopted.

The public need assurance that impartiality and consistency of councillors and officers is in no doubt when policy is applied to applications and that the communities' long-term interests are being upheld when "our" land is sold and planning permission is given. If "exceptional circumstances" cannot be unambiguously defined, the phrase should not be used in planning policy. Town planning is about enhancing and conserving local distinctiveness, safeguarding the long-term future of Craven as a whole and preventing the worst consequences of piecemeal, short-term development gain which has plagued Skipton and elsewhere.

Good planning with open democracy will minimise, perhaps prevent, surprises like sprawling private business car parks on beautiful hillsides such as that proposed by Craven District Council and Skipton Building Society, harmful overpowering buildings, flooding and traffic congestion with their accompanying disruption to business and quality of life generally.

Come on CDC, we need to know. Where are the exhibition boards in towns throughout the district explaining development proposals for the next 20 years? Where is the protected land? Where are development sites? Let's see if your objectives fit the people of Craven's expectations before the Local Development Framework is submitted to the Secretary of State. Poor, undemocratic planning does not make delightful places.

G Randell, Gargrave Road, Skipton

It's a farce

Sir - The planning antics of Craven District Council are as unbelievable as a Whitehall farce. After granting to Skipton Building Society and themselves permission for offices on the greenfield Gargrave Road site it now appears they have belatedly realised the parking problems this is likely to cause, to the extent that one of their number has proposed the laughable solution of an odd/even day limitation on cars using the site.

Why was this problem not foreseen before the planning permission was granted and why was planning permission granted before the expensively commissioned traffic report was received? I note that the planning application made by Bentleys has been postponed until the report is to hand, but why did the Council consider such a report was not necessary in their consideration of the Skipton Building Society application?

So unintelligible is their conduct in these and other matters that the question raised by your correspondent Peter Longbottom of "just what is going on in the inner sanctum of Craven District Council" should be asked and asked again by the ratepayers of Craven.

In the meantime we should not be surprised that the Audit Commission has labelled the Council's performance in how well it achieved value for money for the community as only of minimum standard.

John Weatherill, Heronwood, Flasby

Wrong loyalties

Sir - The statement by Councillor Carl Lis that "as leader of the Craven council it is his duty to protect the councillors and officers" (Craven Herald, May 2) is proof indeed, if such were needed, that the last thing on his mind is the electors who voted for him.

His attitude is arrogant and appalling, but no more than we at CRAG have come to expect from one who seems hell-bent on pursuing the concreting of Skipton against the wishes of the electorate. An ambition in which he has been aided by Councillor English, his deputy, who seems hell-bent on transforming Skipton into a miniature Bootle.

It is to be hoped the new leader of Craven District Council, when elected, will take time out to explain to fellow councillors where their loyalties should really lie.

Perhaps then we will notice some of this much vaunted, but little seen, openness, transparency and accountability from Craven District Council and even end up with a council both listening to the people and acting on their wishes, instead of being dutiful to its employees instead.

Alan Perrow, Chairman CRAG, Bannister Walk, Cowling

Duty to electors

Sir - Doesn't it say it all? Commenting on a complaint laid against a senior council officer (Craven Herald, May 2) the CDC council leader Carl Lis summarises in a single sentence - as revealing as it is damning - everything he and his political coterie have stood for over the past several years.

To quote the Herald verbatim, Coun Lis said that: "As leader of the council it was his duty to protect the councillors and the officers and that the matter was an internal one that was being properly dealt with."

So Coun Lis believes his foremost duty is to protect the interests of councillors and officers, eh? Not the interests of the Craven electorate?

Come on Coun Lis, remember who put you into your plethora of publicly-funded positions. How about your duty to truth, openness and honesty - of which you and your ilk have emptily and loudly boasted over the past several years?

Tell the electors of Craven with whom your primary allegiances lie.

Peter Scott-Smith, The Green, Long Preston

Brought to book

Sir - After three years of our library provision being provided by the "Supermobile" in Grassington, are we satisfied?

Initially we thought it a temporary measure but then, via the autumn 2007 Craven Forum, we heard that North Yorkshire County Council "were not interested in pursuing options to mobile provision".

From other NYCC publications it appears money is being invested in the library and information service in stock, buildings, longer opening hours and services throughout the county and a government-funded survey shows that over 95 per cent of NYCC library users are satisfied. I don't remember being asked.

But back to Grassington - the hub of Upper Wharfedale. Many of us continue to use the service, although we do not like it. That gives the impression that the van is a great success.

The opening hours are equivalent to the old hours in total but, to my mind, they are less convenient. We used to be able to visit four times a week if we read a lot or if we chose badly.

We are told that the floor area is greater than before and is a more adaptable space. It certainly does not feel like that to me as I edge my way up and down the van trying not to push into other borrowers.

We are told that evening use is negligible. This could be due to the siting of the van, OK in the daytime but a dark and lonely place in the evening, and, perhaps, because the only evening it is open is a Friday.

IT provision is available but does not always work due to satellite problems. North Yorkshire's website tells us that at our libraries we can access Ancestry.com. We can't. As IT is one of the services being offered by the Library and Information Service, this seems to be a serious gap in our provision.

I ask again, are there others out there still feeling disappointed and dissatisfied that the NYCC's investments in the library and information service does not include Grassington?

Margaret Pritchard, Skirethorns Lane, Threshfield

Footpath protest

Sir - I was surprised and saddened to see some of the villagers who were protesting about the "blocking of a footpath" in your edition of April 25.

I would have thought that having tried and failed numerous times over 30 years to prove this was a footpath that they might have found something more worthwhile to do.

I was "fortunate" to live in Stainforth, at Holly House, for over 20 years. We bought the land it stands on in the early 1980s and applied for planning permission for one house.

As part of planning consent the North Yorkshire highways department put on a condition "that the land outside the wall, which you own, be blocked off so that it cannot be used by vehicles using it as a short cut, which would possibly cause an accident when you emerge through your gates".

We duly did as we were told, erecting posts and chains, after consultations with the highways department.

Even though the previous owners sent a sworn statement stating they never allowed anyone to park on their land and had only allowed villagers to walk on it with permission, it was still claimed it was a public footpath even though it had never appeared on the definitive map.

Despite many investigations and a public inquiry, where villagers completed statements at the expense of NYCC, it was never proved a footpath ever existed over this private land other than with the permission of the owner.

It was actually claimed this small piece of land was driven over, parked on and walked over all at the same time!

As a gesture of goodwill, we erected a swing gate in place of one of the chains and let people pass over the land with permission, but without designating it as a right of way. It seems to me that whenever someone new moves to the village, some of the locals prompt them into taking action over this piece of land without giving them all the facts.

If I were Mr and Mrs Akin, I might be tempted to erect a wall around the rest of my property and take away permission to walk over my land (or even erect a stile which is what is normally put on a "footpath"), thus solving the problem once and for all.

Helen Bentley, Tetbury Lane, Leighterton, Tetbury

Labour thanks

Sir - All Labour candidates are most grateful for the support received from hundreds of voters in the local elections.

We understand that at least one "Independent" has now indicated for the Tories and they are taking political control in Craven. This is the logic of the large majorities gained in the recent elections: we congratulate them.

The question is, will we now see policy changes from the Tories, who are so "green" at national level; will they really protect our wonderful environment in Craven?

The changes needed in Craven are:

a) Stop building on local farmland for businesses or for more big detached houses. There are plenty of these large expensive houses here already. There is unused "brownfield" land. The world food shortage means richly deserved improvement and prosperity for agriculture and the associated industries. No more building on farmland in Craven;

b) Stop building on the flood plain;

c) Drive harder for small houses and flats to rent to young people and the elderly. The Labour Government has compelled some changes locally, but Craven must now "catch up" to meet local needs;

d) Reduced fares by rail to persuade drivers to leave their cars, save money for travellers and to free up our roads;

e) Better bus services, especially in our villages. We want the Tories' pals on North Yorkshire County Council to take notice of Craven now;

f) North Yorkshire has an appalling record in dumping waste - about the worst recycling in England. Get cracking on cleaning up;

g) Bring employers here with higher quality, well-paid jobs. Currently Craven wages are below national averages;

h) Road safety must be improved. We cannot ignore the high rate of fatal accidents here. North Yorkshire must catch up with the rest of England to reduce speeds on main roads and in our villages. No driver likes speed cameras, but they save lives. Speed limit signs are routinely ignored with impunity here.

A big "thank you" to all our supporters. Our party will challenge local Tories on their record next year in county council elections.

Duncan Hall, Bob Holland, Chris Rose, Paul Routledge and Ted Saunders, Skipton and Ripon Constituency Labour Party

Bill's treat

Sir - Bill Bryson, who is currently president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, launched an anti-litter campaign a couple of weeks ago. He is trying to find time in his very busy schedule to visit his old stomping ground in Craven.

In order to distract him from the astonishing amount of litter dumped along our roadsides and into our canals, I suggest the Craven branch of the CPRE treat him to a meal from Westmoreland Fisheries in Skipton. There he will not only find wonderful fish and chips, but a business that has committed itself to being environmentally friendly.

In this they are unique.

While others have tried and dumped biodegradable cartons for takeaways, Westmoreland have persevered and, though the cartons might get a little soggy as did newspaper, the ecological pay-off is worth it.

They are in good company. The winners of Best Fish and Chip Shop 2008 were cited for sustainable practices, thinking of the future and encouraging their customers to try something new. This is exactly the message Bill Bryson is taking with him around the country on his (and our) anti-litter campaign, Stop and Drop.

Bruce McLeod (member of the Craven CPRE), Otterburn

Two schools

Sir - Re the article in last week's paper, May 2, about the proposed 280-home scheme at Elsey Croft. As a resident of Moorview Way, I am not particularly in favour of the development, but let's not base our arguments on untrue facts.

The quote, "There is only one serving primary school in the area and that is oversubscribed" is simply not true. There are two schools which serve the area and Greatwood School is one of them and, while we are almost full (no-one locally has asked the question at Greatwood are we over-subscribed), given more funding and time to prepare we would happily take more children to enrich our outstanding school (Ofsted 2006).

I wholeheartedly agree that this development should not be rushed into, but please don't blame the lack of school facilities without proper consideration.

Tony Foster,chairman of governors, Greatwood Community Primary School, Skipton

Successful day

Sir - As organiser of the Chernobyl Children's Project annual fair and cafe at Skipton Town Hall on Saturday April 19, I would like to thank all the volunteers who helped in making our day so successful.

We raised £1,393.89 and we could not have done this without the help of them and other supporters who kindly donated home baking, tombola prizes and monetary donations.

Special thanks to Gilda, Georgia, Christine, Pat, Diane, Brenda, Brenda C, Rosie, Marilyn, Kath, Suzanne and her Mum, Bill, Liz, Susan, Ben, Keith, Kathy, Jean, Adrian, Alec and Ellen who all worked so hard on the day. Thanks also to the stall holders and the public who visited and supported us.

Joan M Godfrey, Stoneycroft, Glusburn Bridge, Glusburn

Get your facts right

Sir - Re Fred's statue. There have been a couple of letters printed in The Craven Herald stating that Fred "left Yorkshire" to play for another county.

Fred retired from first class cricket at the end of the season in 1968.

Derbyshire County Cricket Club invited Fred to play in some of their Sunday League matches in 1971. He did not take part in many and I do not remember him playing against his old side "Yorkshire".

I understand if people object to offering ratepayers' money towards his statue, but I would suggest, before they put their objections in print, that they check the facts.

Veronica Trueman, College Fold, Rathmell

9:16am Friday 9th May 2008

Print   Email this