Readers' Letters

Sir - Opinion polls suggest very high levels of public hostility towards paid street fundraisers, with as many as 80 per cent of those interviewed being against them. To my surprise and, frankly, to my disgust, chuggers arrived last week in Cross Hills Co-op, and, I gather, in Keighley Airedale centre.

These particular chuggers represented the Woodland Trust, a fine green organisation, albeit not always the best organised. Their tactics for getting into conversation with shoppers anxious only to get home was to ask said shoppers their name, shake hands with them and then start up what sounded like the kind of pre-written spiel that American sales reps were once obliged to use with every new “prospect”.

On their fourth day in store, one of the three chuggers did nothing all afternoon bar sit and draw squares with lines between them (looking remarkably like pyramid selling diagrams) which he would occasionally show to the other male colleague.

The attitude of this latter youth towards women shoppers was discourteous to put it mildly – you don’t loudly call women strangers “darling, doll, sweetheart,” and other choice expressions regarding their appearance. And someone should tell him that standing by the tills whistling and chucking his pen in the air is both irritating to staff and the sign of someone who is bored with his “job”. This pen chucking was also practiced by a girl the previous day who was over made-up, noisy and aggressive.

I know for sure that a very large number of customers were annoyed by these idiots. I’m told one customer was asked for her credit card details. The good name of the Woodland Trust has sunk to the depths locally after this grotesque exercise in money-grabbing. Will this exercise be repeated? I and the majority of Cross Hills shoppers would rather it weren’t, thanks very much.

Allan Friswell, Cowling

DUCW memories

Sir - I am responding to a letter ‘DUKWing the question’ dated June 21, 2012. I found this article very interesting as I was a DUKW driver during the war in the 297 coy, training at Towyn.

In June 1944 on the D Day landings I found myself crossing the Channel on a coaster along with the DUKW I was to drive. As I had been loaded on last, I was the first to embark on the beaches at La Riviere, Normandy, and a terrifying moment that was as I drove into the sea with shells and mortars exploding all around me.

My friend who was following signalled for help as the rudder had been damaged on his DUKW and he was unable to steer, we pulled alongside and threw a rope to give him a tow to shore. Unfortunately for the third DUKW embarking he was now in the lead on the race to the beach, he hit a mine killing the driver and injuring the rest of the crew. My good deed had saved my life.

I continued to drive the DUKW throughout Europe for the rest of the war and became very attached to my vehicle naming her the ‘Normandy Beauty’.

It is strange to think that another Dales lad has a story to tell about these amazing machines.

Ronnie Frankland, High Bentham

Laughable statements

Sir - Long Ashes Holiday Park has this week re-submitted previously thrown out plans to extend the park onto two hay meadows.

The application makes some very bold statements in its claims and many I feel are completely laughable.

The application includes a section which attempts to “Overcome the previous reasons for refusal”. This makes a number of wild statements but some of the better ones are as follows.

“There are no views into the site from the B6160” – A blatant untruth unless there was a thick fog, anyone heading north out of Threshfield on the B6160 has a full view of the meadows that they would like to ruin.

“The proposal will not adversely impact on the special qualities of the National Park” – How can 49 static caravans, 64 touring caravan sites and 22 camping pods (which as far as I can tell are just large wooden pig arcs) that can be seen from footpaths, hills and the road not impact on the special qualities of the National Park?

“Served well by public transport” and “The development will not give rise to any unacceptable increase in traffic” – I don’t know of anyone that has ever seen a passenger on a bus or train with a caravan sat next to them or in tow. The vast majority will travel in cars; it is the nature of this kind of holiday maker.

The application also talks of the impact on wildlife and the land itself. Sympathetic grass and tree planting will be undertaken to compensate for the loss of the meadows and a butterfly conservation area built. Their words are truly beautiful. The author should not be wasting time on planning applications; their talents would be better served writing scripts for David Attenborough’s next BBC project.

My last point would be that if the hay meadows were turned into a camp site, the land would move from green belt to brown field. This would then allow a variety of different planning applications to be made in the future.

The consultees end date is July 31 and I would encourage anyone opposed to the application to write to the YDNP mentioning application C/71/112R. The correct address is Planning, Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, Yoredale, Bainbridge, Leyburn, North Yorkshire, DL8 3EL Paul Brennan Threshfield Little bit of loving Sir - I recently visited Skipton and came face to face with your town crier. Did I get a welcome, a good afternoon, a smile, or even eye contact? Did I Nellie!

I also noticed he had a badge on his costume saying ‘I Love Skipton’. So, ‘Mr Town Crier’, why not live up to that and spread a ‘little bit of loving’ to the many visitors who help keep the town alive.

Oyez, Oyez, Oyez!

Janice Wilson, Tosside

Deserve our thanks

Sir – Mr and Mrs Coates who turned down the offer of £275,000 from EnergieKontor deserve the thanks of all in Craven. The money was apparently offered to them if they would write a letter of support for a proposed wind farm near Gargrave , and - Oh yes! Signing a confidentiality clause! But how many would turn down such a juicy offer?

EnergiKontor, a German owned company, after some 13 years in this country has managed to build just six turbines, and produced two leaflets about Brightenber Hill in which they claimed certain amounts of generating power. Those claims of power production were rejected by the Advertising Standards Authority on May 30 this year, as ‘misleading.’ As far as job creation goes, it appears that the company employs just six people.

Whilst no one should doubt the need for alternative energy sources, and preferably ‘greener’ ones, this whole business is getting sidetracked by the Government’s Feed in Tariffs which give money to the owners of these wind farms, money provided by the big 6 generating companies, and money which comes from those who have to buy their electricity ‘normally.’ That’s such as you and me.

It is to be hoped that our MP Julian Smith, having seen the lengths to which EnergiKontor has apparently gone in order to try to gain planning consent, will now try to get the present alliance to stop these feed in tariffs, and instead look for a more reliable method of generating electricity for people, not money for companies.

We need electricity, we do not need to send any more of our money to Europe – they already get more than enough from us.

Alan Perrow, Craven Ratepayers’ Action Group, Cowling

Simple answers

Sir - I was disappointed but not surprised to read Richard Ednay referring to Friends of Craven Landscape’s “...twisted agenda...” and “...underhand tactics...” I say, not surprised because Mr Ednay’s choice of words are mild compared to his personal abuse of me on a pro-wind energy Facebook page.

For our part, FOCL respects the rights of others to hold opposing views and that is how we will continue. But let me say this: by supporting Energiekontor’s way of doing business, Mr Ednay defends the indefensible.

Within the last few weeks we have learned of Energiekontor’s dodgy data and their beautifully understated, “...pre-contractual talks...” which involved harassment of a local landowner coupled with offers of huge financial payments.

Mr Ednay mentions Energiekontor’s community fund but then becomes woolly. He talks of a “...legal agreement that is already in place...” What legal agreement, Mr Ednay? Who are parties to the agreement? Does it involve Energiekontor? Does it involve a payment of money? If so, how much? What project does it fund? Who is spearheading this unknown project?

Simple questions respectfully asked, sir. How about simple answers delivered in a similar manner

Chris Emmett, Friends of Craven Landscape

In support of plans

Sir - I write in support of the Brightenber Hill wind turbine proposal. In your columns Duncan Faulkner recently expressed dismay at the parochial outlook of opponents of the scheme. I share his dismay. I also share his underlying belief that there are many in Craven capable of viewing the plan for three turbines in a wider perspective and with a proper sense of proportion. The global crisis is greater, and the negative impact of the Brightenber project smaller than its vociferous opponents allow.

We routinely appeal to others to get things in proportion. When they won’t, we ask: “Which planet are you on?” If I asked that question of the opponents of the Brightenber scheme, I trust I would not receive the reply: “I live on ****** (insert name of Craven village as appropriate), a small moon in orbit round the planet Skipton”. It takes imagination to picture Earth as a speck of matter in a vast galaxy. It shouldn’t require quite the same mental effort to recognise that our immediate area is a corner of a fragile planet threatened by potentially destructive environmental change. True friends of the Craven landscape are those who recognise that we cannot insulate ourselves from what is happening on a planetary scale.

In this, we can only be guided by scientific understanding. MPs were recently circulated with a briefing document from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment entitled ‘The case for and against onshore wind energy in the UK’. This takes a balanced view of onshore wind as a renewable resource. It acknowledges that “local environmental issues are ultimately a constraint” on the overall extent of onshore wind projects, but it is also clear that they have a role to play in the development of a low carbon economy. The key issue from the point of view of visual amenity and environmental impact is whether a project is proportionate to its surroundings. The scaled-down Brightenber project meets that test.

Approving Brightenber would represent a significant contribution on the part of this district both to the fulfilment of the Government’s legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions and to its policy of economic regeneration.

To put this case requires political courage. For a politician it is easier to make a populist gesture than to confront prejudice: I recently turned straight from the Craven Herald’s report of one local MP demanding the reduction of subsidies for wind farms to a national newspaper’s account of William Hague and two cabinet colleagues quietly writing to the Prime Minister advising him to boost investment in low carbon energy and green infrastructure.

My appeal is to the many people of this area who see the future of their locality as inseparable from the future of humankind. There are those whom no one will convince that human activity contributes to climate change. Those sceptical of that link are certainly going to doubt the scientific hypothesis that relates the increasing frequency of extreme weather events to man-made climate change.

Their methodology and professional integrity compels scientists themselves to be the greatest sceptics of all. So, when they reach a conclusion based on the balance of probability, we should listen. Of all scientific bodies, the Meteorological Office is the most cautious; when its senior officers declare that they are becoming increasingly convinced of the link between extreme weather events and human activity – as they have done this week – we should take heed. In the wider scheme of things, there is a clear connection between international scientific consensus and a modest proposal for a small hill in Craven.

Professor Glyn Turton, Long Preston

Desperate developers

Sir - Letters in recent issues comment on the lack of supporting evidence against wind power (like them, I’ve only 600 words!) while not providing any evidence themselves – other than re-iterating the standard wind industry propaganda!

In response to their comments: No harmful side effects from wind farms! Apart, that is, from health issues (many recorded), substantially increased electricity costs, consequent job losses (as jobs are exported to coal powered China), destruction of the countryside and consequent removal of amenity value (for locals and visitors alike).

Opinion polls are an interesting phenomenon – usually carried out on behalf of the wind industry and often with weighted questions to select groups; ask the right questions and you will get the answers you want. As for power cuts, I did not say they would occur when the wind drops. Many of our existing power stations are nearing the end of their lives – they have not been replaced because of government emphasis on wind power.

A naïve comment was made that peak wind generation occurs at peak demand (cold, wet and windy). What about the long spells of very cold but windless weather that often covers the whole UK and the continent in winter?

Interestingly, this week, with wet and windy conditions caused by low pressure, output from all UK wind power has been well below the average three per cent of total generation when it would reasonably be expected to be above. Wind power output is extremely variable (due to the chaotic behaviour of wind) across the whole UK and is not easily smoothed out. Hence fossil fuelled power stations have to be kept up and running ready to be switched in (automatically) at a moments notice – there is no clear evidence of reduction in fossil fuel burning.

True, wind production provides power for 70 per cent-ish of time, averaged over a year. But output is exceedingly variable averaging less than 25 (of theoretical capacity) per annum. Yes, wind is a free resource, but the costs of building turbines is very high per unit of electricity making wind power extremely expensive, hence the need for exceptionally high subsidies (paid for through ever increasing electricity bills).

Again, the myth that wind power requires fewer pylons is perpetuated. Wind farms have to be connected to the Grid. That means many more pylons. Witness the huge pylons being built across the Scottish Highlands to connect the wind farms in the North of Scotland to the South. And rumours of similar linking our East coast to Lancashire via?

It is true that our landscape has been continually changed by human activity. However, does that mean that we should now despoil large areas of high quality landscape with industrial machines to provide relatively minimal power? Have we a right to deny future generations the benefits of that rural heritage?

It is true that replacements for fossil fuels have to happen over time. However, money needs to be spent developing them and making better use of current technologies – far better to spend on this than building near useless wind turbines.

Having followed the burgeoning wind power industry for some time, I have noticed those who support local wind farms often regret this once they are built.

A measure of how desperate developers are to take advantage of the massive profits, available as a direct consequence of the huge subsidies, is their ability to pay landowners in excess of £40,000 pa per turbine and to (legally) bribe objectors (one offered £250,000 as headlined in a recent paper - who else?).

Terry Goodison, Lothersdale

Private decision Sir - I was disappointed to read your report of the axing of school crossing patrols in Craven this week. Half the story was a quote from the bureaucrats at North Yorkshire County Council who made their decision before the people affected had even had chance to make their case. Democracy at the County Council would seem to have disappeared.

A petition in Hellifield against the removal of a human presence at the school crossing attracted 329 signatures, a considerable number for a small village. Despite this the bureaucrats decreed that a higher number of signatures is needed before the issue can be discussed at an Area Committee.

The decision to axe school crossing patrols in North Yorkshire was taken in private by three individuals – the Head of Highways plus two councillors, neither of whom was from the Craven area. They agreed a report which was submitted by an employee of the county council. For it to be discussed by an elected committee six county councillors would have had to sign a letter requesting this. This did not happen despite Councillor Barrett’s protestations in the newspaper.

There are seventy-two County Councillors with an Executive of only seven. These seven appear to make most of the decisions. In this case the matter was not even discussed by the Executive group, despite the support given to those opposing the changes by the MP Julian Smith, County Councillor Richard Welch and Craven District Councillor Chris Moorby, and of course the 329 people who signed the Hellifield petition.

Is it any wonder we have apathy towards politics in this country when even local matters are dealt with in this way? How have we reached a position where employees of the County Council are deciding what should happen without adequate consultation with electors and their elected representatives?

We need to take back our democratic systems and act in accordance with the expressed wishes of local people, making decisions in public after democratic consideration and using elected representatives in the way in which they were originally intended to be used – to represent us.

Angie Pedley, Hellifield