Village Web Site Forum

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 22, 2012 12:21
Thompson's Field - why you MUST protest on 31st October
Despite being protected by Policy BE3 of the Saved Local Plan, Craven District Council decided to keep Thompson's Field on their list of greenfield sites potentially available for development.

In addition to Thompson's Field there are a dozen other sites earmarked on this list and if the Thompson's Field application is approved at the planning meeting on Wednesday, 31st October it will be a green light for subsequent development on all the other sites. I'm aware of rumours that property developers have already visited two of the other sites on the list.

I'll post details of the other sites under threat in separate posts below.

If you care about the future of the village of Sutton-in-Craven please attend the planning meeting at 1:30pm on Wednesday 31st October 2012 at South Craven Baptist Church. Please pass this message on to as many people as you can, and if you can't attend yourself try and arrange for someone to go in your place. If you use any social media sites (eg Facebook, Twitter), please share this message on there too.

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 22, 2012 12:22
sites under threat

316 West of Holme Lane, south of Holme Beck and north of Baptist Church, Sutton (Thompson's Field)

317 West of Holme Lane and north of Holme Beck, Sutton (Alvic Field, also known as Dog Field) 15 dwellings

315 West and north of Hazel Grove Road, south of Holme Beck, Sutton (fields on the top side of the path above Thompson's Field) 108 dwellings

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 22, 2012 12:23
sites under threat

306 Woodturners site, Holme Lane, Sutton - already developed

305 East of Holme Lane, north of Holme Beck and south of playing fields, Sutton 123 dwellings

304 Land between the beck and the Clayton Hall Road estate 104 dwellings

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 22, 2012 12:26
sites under threat

307 Land and premises, south of Bridge Road, Sutton (Sand Park) 12 dwellings

308 Salt Pie Farm and land south of Sutton Lane, Sutton 57 dwellings

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28
sites under threat

309 Greenroyd Mills, High Street/ Main Street, Sutton - already developed but how many dwellings are currently unoccupied?

310 North of Bay Horse Inn, south of Wet Ings Lane, Sutton 15 dwellings

311 Gott Hill Farm, east of Ellers Road, south of Greenroyd Drive and Bay Horse Inn, Sutton 27 dwellings

Paul Wilkinson
Monday, October 22, 2012 12:30
sites under threat

312 Works and land at Low Fold, Manor Way, Sutton (brown field site) 8 dwellings

313 South-east of Crag Lane, adjacent to Crag Close and Willow Way, Sutton 57 dwellings

314 North-west of Crag Lane and south of Bent Lane, Sutton 169 dwellings

Sylvia Dowgill
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 08:37
Will there be notification of this in the Craven Herald and posted around the village by the Parish Council, for all those who dont access this great website?
Nikki Barrett
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 08:44
This is Really Scary!!! There is going to be nothing left of our lovely village after these hungry parasites get their mitts on it!!
Paul Wilkinson
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 09:20
Sylvia - I can't speak for the Parish Council, but there's a leafleting campaign on the go at the moment.

Nikki - it seems those in charge of planning at Craven District Council have a vision for a concrete dystopia, merging the villages of Sutton, Cross Hills and Glusburn into a town ("service centre" in their parlance) they have named South Craven. Parasites need hosts to feed on and we wouldn't be in this situation if those privileged to own the land refused to be seduced by the offerings of property developers.

Paul Wilkinson
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:02
CDC has released the following agenda for a site visit prior to the planning meeting. Anyone attending the planning meeting might also want to gather by the Holme Lane entrance to Thompson's Field at about 11:45am to let them know how against this development we are and remind them that the land is protected by Policy BE3.



31st October 2012


Please note that the Committee will visit the following site on Wednesday, 31st October 2012. Members are asked to meet at the South Craven Baptists Church, Holme Lane, Sutton-in-Craven (which adjoins the site) at 11.45am or alternatively at the Belle Vue Square Offices car park no later than 11.30am.

66/2011/12210 Outline planning application for the erection of 54 no. dwellings (maximum), a car parking area, landscaped riverside walk, wild flower meadow and structural planting ( amended layout and additional information submitted, land to the west of Holme Lane, Sutton in Craven.

Note : Refreshments will be available following the site visit.

Agenda Contact Officer:
Chris Waterhouse, Committee Officer
Tel. 01756 706235
Skipton, 22nd October 2012

Planning Committee Site Visit Procedure

A. On arrival, the Chairman will call the Members of the Planning Committee, any Ward Representative(s) and others invited to be present to order. The Chairman will explain the purpose of the site visit so that all are aware that it is a fact finding exercise only and that no decision will be taken until the Committee meeting.

B. The Chairman will then ask the appropriate officer to describe the proposal to Members, identify relevant features of the site, and raise the principal planning considerations. The Officer may also draw Members’ attention to the relevant points regarding objections/observations received.

C. The Chairman will then ask any other officer, e.g. Highways Officer, Environmental Health Officer, to address the Members.

D. Members will then be invited through the Chairman to ask any questions or seek clarification of facts from the Officers present. Members should not direct these questions to the applicant or others present. Any matters not to hand will be reported at the Committee meeting. Discussion on the merits of the application will not be permitted, and Members should refrain from making comments on the proposal.

E. A representative of the Parish or Town Council or Parish Meeting will be invited to advise Members on matters of fact relating to the application site.

F. The applicant and others present will not be allowed to speak unless he or she is specifically asked by the Chairman or a senior officer to

~ point out particular matters on site, or

~ to clarify or respond to Member’s questions in respect of particular factual matters, relevant to the site of the planning application/planning matter.

Applicants/agents will be given prior notice of the time and date of the site visit.

G. When the Chairman considers that the purpose of the site visit has been achieved, (s)he will declare the site visit finished and Members will promptly leave the site.

H. Whilst conducting the site visits Members will have due regard to the health and
safety of themselves and others and will follow appropriate safety instructions on
site, including any guidance on parking and access. Under no circumstances will
Members or Officers enter a site without wearing the appropriate safety equipment (if
any) required.

I. A note will be taken by the appropriate officer of those present at each site visit.

J. Members should be aware at all times that site visits mainly take place on privately owned land. They should be careful not to damage any property or do anything that may cause problems for or distress to the landowner.

K. Where arrangements have been made for a site visit to take place on land which does not form part of the specific area under consideration/application site, the appropriate officer will have sought the necessary permission from the occupier of that land in writing.
John Sherburn
Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:41
Once again this issue will not go away. Craven District Council are well aware of the huge wave of local objection to these plans. Yet they persist in pursuing them.

We do not want our village turning into a "service centre".

Am I being cynical or was the timing of this meeting a coincidence? 1:30pm on a Wednesday when many Suttoners will be at work and so can not attend.
Paul Wilkinson
Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:03
Planning committee meetings are usually held in Skipton, I suspect that due to the number of people opposed to the development CDC has decided to hold it in a larger venue in Sutton and taken the easy option of combining the site visit with a follow on planning meeting.

All we can do is make sure as many people as possible are made aware of the meeting and its implications so that those who are available can attend. Anyone who can't attend could try and get someone who doesn't already know about it to go along.

John Sherburn
Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:20
I'll have a word with my next door neighbours. They're both retired with far too much time on their hands. ,-)
Liz Kildunne
Wednesday, October 24, 2012 17:09
Hi Paul - I can't attend the meeting, as with many others, I'm working. I can spare a couple of hours later on Sunday afternoon though if you need a hand with leafletting? Send me an email to let me know. Liz
Adam Stares
Sutton in Craven
Wednesday, October 24, 2012 21:12
Surely it is wrong to refer to developers who are just doing a job as parasites, or indeed people who sell their own private land to other people as hosts of parasites? Also hundreds of people in the local area are land owners, and own their own homes and property. It is not for anyone else to say what a person can do in their home regarding decorating or design, so why is that any different when a private person wants to build on their own land. Additionally, although there has been a relatively large number of complains, the majority of people either don’t care or have no interest, and so the council shouldn't be forced to act on the word of a vocal majority. Do not believe that everyone in Sutton/CrossHills/Glusburn is as actively opposed to building as the people who use this site. Unless a majority of people oppose planning and the council knows that they do it is not in the people's best interest to but blocks on the freedom of private business. I am in no way affiliated with the planners or council, in fact I can't buy a house in Sutton on Thompsons field or otherwise. But I am from Sutton and I do not see why the owners should not be able to do as they please with their land, if other people cared so much they could have purchased it themselves.
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Thursday, October 25, 2012 09:16
Hi Adam, constructive debate is healthy and is an essential part of any democratic process, so your point of view & contribution to this discussion is certainly valid.

Your statement “Do not believe that everyone in Sutton/CrossHills/Glusburn is as actively opposed to building as the people who use this site.” is undeniable, as there will always be opponents and opposing points of view in any debate or dispute.

Perhaps be a little mindful when making sweeping statements such as “the majority of people either don’t care or have no interest”. Unless you are able to substantiate such a claim or have evidence to support this assertion then these types of statements lack credibility as I’m sure you would agree.

You are correct in that people can decorate or design the inside of their homes as they please (in some cases I believe there can be restrictions when altering the outside of homes). You ask the question “why is that any different when a private person wants to build on their own land”. Well in the case of land there is often legislation that restricts housing development in certain areas (green belt areas for example). The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness”

I grew up in Sutton and intend returning to Sutton one day to retire (if I’m still alive & kicking at that point!). I personally would like to see the three villages of Sutton, Crosshills & Glusburn remain as separate entities, complete with all the spacious green fields outlined on the maps above, as opposed to being merged into some sort of concrete jungle. I’ve lived the town & city life before and it wasn’t for me.
Nikki Barrett
Thursday, October 25, 2012 09:37
WELL SAID Andrew!!!

Nobody can presume that people don't care or are not interested about Sutton-in-Craven, there are a great deal of people who live in this village because they care and love the place as it is!!

Also they live here because its a ......'Village'... which if this concrete growth continues this concept will soon disappear!

I am fourth generation in this village and feel very passionate about where I live and where I come from and I do CARE what happens to the village!

Just another note... (to quote) "It is not for anyone else to say what a person can do in their home regarding decorating or design, so why is that any different when a private person wants to build on their own land."
First of all its not a private person wanting to build on their own land - they are selling it to developers! It's not just an odd dwelling here we are talking about? Also what a strange comparison of decorating/designing your house to building 108 dwellings in the middle of a village? to me these are two completely different entities?

Dawn Stebbings
Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:16
Anyone who thinks it's just a small minority who are opposed to overdeveloping Sutton, Crosshills and Glusburn - here's a small reminder of how many DON'T want it - and these were just the people who COULDN'T get in to the school!
Adam Stares
Sutton in Craven
Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:16
If the issues which have been bought up during the campaign are the schools and health centre places, and flooding and drainage, why doesn't somebody approach the developers and owners of Thompson's field to ask for funding to improve Sutton? Don't get me wrong I do not want to see urban sprawl, but according to findings by other pressure groups, the chance of overturning a planning decision this far down the line is low. Therefore wouldn't time be better spent by working with developers now, for funding towards increasing school size, improving flood defences, etc...? To put it bluntly someone with a large sum of money is in the village, and is most likely going to build houses on Thompson's field, if there is co-operation the village may gain something - most large businesses have a form of corporate responsibility fund. Developers is the just the name of a type of company. It so happens that we have a free market. Many people will also benefit from the increase of trade, increase in Council and Poll taxes as well as the benefits to firms building the houses. I hope that at the public meeting both sides are seen and people can make an informed choice. I am sure that Sutton has changed a lot in the last 5 generations and there will be more changes in the next 5, not all change is bad.
Paul Wilkinson
Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:31
Adam - you are entitled to your opinion (and there could well be people in the village who are in favour of this and all other potential developments), but the 1000+ people who signed the petition against the Leeds City Region Growth Point bid in 2008 would disagree.

All the green field sites surrounding and separating the villages must be protected if Sutton is to retain its identity as a "village".

Thompson's Field has been farmed for hundreds of years - the archaeological survey carried out by the developers found evidence of medieval farming - and long term thinking should be to protect prime agricultural land (try googling world food shortage).

There have been several developments of brown field sites (the Woodturners site, Greenroyd Mill to name a couple of recent examples) - these could be compared to your redecorating analogy, and nobody has complained about those. It's the unnecessary over-development of the village that we are against.

Senior planning officers at CDC have been obsessed with the target of building 250 new dwellings every year in Craven (outside the YDNP) but their own report published earlier this year has shown this figure to be totally inaccurate and not have any basis in reality. The actual figures show that between 2001 and 2011 the population of Craven (outside the YDNP) increased by 1300. That's 130 per year, and a conservative estimate of two people per dwelling creates a requirement for 65 new dwellings per year across the whole of Craven (outside the YDNP). At a recent planning policy meeting councillors agreed to a new target of 160 dwellings per year, which is an improvement over 250 but still way over the actual requirement. The report also states that the local population is shrinking and will continue to shrink, and the new dwellings are required for net national and international inward migration, primarily from Leeds, Bradford and Pendle.

There is no actual need for this development. Why should beautiful rural environments be destroyed needlessly?

YDNP = Yorkshire Dales National Park
Adam Stares
Sutton in Craven
Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:50

Thank you very much

I completely understand you argument and side of things. I have not yet made a decision whether I support the building or not, I intend to first go to the planning meeting, where both sides have a chance to speak.

It is good that we can have a civil debate on your website, but for now I just wanted to put forward a view which is different to most people who use this site. I agree with most of what is said, but people must also look at the other side of an argument to get a full understanding.

Finally, you are right that there will be people in the village who agree or disagree or have no preference to the development, but it is important that everyone has a say and that the council considers the best interests, because otherwise what would be the point of having an elected council?
Liz Kildunne
Thursday, October 25, 2012 18:56
Dear All. Be mindful that there are only a limited number of spaces available - I received a letter from the council today, advising that only 150 people are permitted (and that will be including councillors, etc) due to fire regulations. Beware that during the Growth Point Bid fiasco and the South Craven School meeting where many people were (literally) left out in the cold, they counted people in - babies and small children also counted to the total number of bodies permitted. I expect the same will be true this time. They have at least seen fit to extend the length of time allocated to supporters, opponents and the developers - each party will be allocated upto 20 minutes to speak, which is an improvement on the usual pathetic 5 minutes. Hopefully, all those who are going to speak against the development will be liaising to make every second count.
Save our greenfields, develop on brownfield sites only.
Brenda Whitaker
Queensland Australia
Thursday, October 25, 2012 22:24
HI everybody - it is a very interesting debate going on here and confirmation of the usefulness of this site - Adam's contribution has served to focus the points already made whilst putting forward a different viewpoint. I think his contribution has been helpful by doing that and has served to galvanise the group opposing this development. Dont be put off by the ..150.. only - it is a powerful message to have a pressing crowd - however it would be useful to ensure that some of the erudite and outspoken are included in that 150. Like Andrew I am at the other side of the world but maintaining the 'village' is very important. Hopefully Halloween is not an omen. Good luck.
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Friday, October 26, 2012 02:53
That’s an excellent point Brenda not to be restricted to 150 just because the CDC has chosen a smaller ‘bear pit’ this time. If the crowd swells and spills outside then this will be picked up by the media which will, as you say, send a staunch message that additional housing development in the Craven area is not needed or wanted by the local community.

With regards to the earlier comment “people must also look at the other side of an argument to get a full understanding”, is there seriously something we are missing? To my understanding a local historical icon of Sutton with important archaeological significance (Thompson’s Field) will disappear for ever under a sea of concrete and be converted into 108 dwellings.

This could well signify the beginning of the end of 'Sutton the village' as we know it, as it would (as Paul has already said) set a precedent for further green-field development in the area. Once the juggernaut is unleashed it will become unstoppable and will be merciless in its destruction. Therefore this is the time to act, before the hand-brake is released.
Maurice Atkinson
Friday, October 26, 2012 08:29
Wow! "Thompson's" an icon! Historical significance! and there was me thinking it was just a farmer's field!
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Friday, October 26, 2012 09:04
It may not be 'just' a farmer's field for much longer Maurice!
Brian Talbot
Friday, October 26, 2012 10:37
I notice how everyone is being so nice about this planning proposal. Is there anyone who is violently opposed to this building of over 50 houses in the heart of Sutton? I have lived opposite Thompson's field for nearly 40 years and unfortunately am now over 75 and too old to take much of an active part but I think it is time we stopped pussyfooting about ! These builders are being serious for God's sake! If this planning application is approved the floodgates will be opened. There are another half dozen sites just waiting for the same treatment. The council Planning Officer will then use the ploy of "precedence" and wave all the other applications through. We are being invited to a meeting that will be held when most people who would like to object will be at work ! we are being told that we cannot speak for longer than 5 minutes, but the applicants can speak for 20. The planning department have obviously to kowtow to the Government instructions to provide housing, at whatever cost, it seems, and group of householders trying to object will be trodden underfoot by these huge building companies. It is time some thought was given to when,, and I repeat - when, this application is approved. What will we do then? Stand meekly by and allow these green fields to be taken over. Just how much money does Mr. Thompson need ! I can't afford to buy this land myself, but I could afford to hire a couple of bulldozers to knock down any attempt at building!
Paul Wilkinson
Friday, October 26, 2012 14:33
Brian - I would not advocate violence or any type of illegal activity, but your post shows how strongly you must feel about the proposed development which, as you say, if approved would set a precedent for approving development on the other sites under threat. I trust you will be at the planning committee meeting and/or site meeting.
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Friday, October 26, 2012 22:44
I’m just curious, how is it decided who will be speaking on behalf of the opponents of the development at the planning meeting on the 31st Oct? Is it just a free-for-all on the day or will there be some coordinated attempt to identify articulate passionate speakers with pre-prepared speeches to get the message across?
Brenda Whitaker
Queensland Australia
Friday, October 26, 2012 23:33
The legend of Jenkin Hole - AKA Thompsons Field which dates to 16th century is quite significant - in countries where indigenous people and folk lore is sacrosanct, building would not be allowed and even walking the hallowed ground would be suspect - yeah - a bit over the top but a fact nevertheless - in the UK where tumble down old barns become historical monuments - I watch Grand Designs of course...!! it begs the question of of why building on this land should be allowed
I support Andrew's question - has a spokes person or persons been selected to plead this case?.
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Saturday, October 27, 2012 04:57
Indeed, the grizzly legend of old Jenkins & his wife being buried alive in Thompson’s Field is historically significant to the village, together with the fact that 17th century black plaque victims were (are) reportedly buried on the same piece of land.

More recently of course Thompson’s Field hosted the Sutton Country Fair and the Chapel bonfire for many decades and has been an ideal snow sledging slope for children in winter for as long as I can remember.

Aside from the park, the Clough and the cricket ground I cannot think of another piece of land in Sutton that has been more utilised for recreational purposes over the past 100 years than Thompson’s Field.

Paul Wilkinson
Saturday, October 27, 2012 09:15
I received a letter from CDC yesterday stating the following:

"I would draw your attention to the fact that the normal procedure allows only one person to speak on on behalf of each of the following interested parties: -

i) The Objectors

ii) The Supporters

iii) The Parish Council/Meeting

iv) The Applicant

However, given the level of interest in this application the procedure has been relaxed to allow up to four people to speak on behalf of the objectors and up to four people to speak on behalf of the supporters at the meeting.


Please note that each of those speaking in objection or support has up to five minutes to speak, in the interests of fairness the applicant will be allowed up to 20 minutes."

The speakers are being co-ordinated, it won't be a free for all. The letter also states:

"The Council's Officers are impartial and this impartiality should be maintained. As such I regret that they are unable to advise anyone about what they should say when addressing the committee."

I wonder who it was that advised the applicant to resubmit an amended application earlier this year to increase the likelihood of it being approved?

Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:47
An 'impartial' Council Officer perhaps???......not that anything underhand such as a backhander could possibly have occurred in the interest of impartiality being maintained of course!!!
Liz Kildunne
Saturday, October 27, 2012 18:23
Its also interesing to read in the depths of the planning papers how various objections raised have been referred back to the developers already, and answers/resolutions pre-prepared. Example - insufficient places in the schools for certain key stages. Solution - developer provides money. The "impartial" Council Officers have recommended approval - how is this impartial??? Seems like a farcical whitewash to me.
Paul Wilkinson
Saturday, October 27, 2012 19:19
The "Pre-Application Advice" section of the original "Application for Outline Planning Permission" form submitted towards the end of last year (subsequently allocated Application number 66/2011/12210), completed by the developer states:

"The planning and development team met with Mark Moore on the 23rd June and discussed a range of key issues associated with the site".

In January this year I submitted the following Freedom of Information request to CDC:

"Please provide a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on the 23rd of June 2011 between Mark Moore (Principal Planning Officer) and representatives of Dacres Commercial and/or Barratt and David Wilson Homes."

The response:

"Further to your Freedom of Information request, I can inform you that no minutes or notes were taken of the meeting referred to so the Council holds no information."

It appears the developers were advised on key issues by CDC's Principal Planning Officer before they even submitted the application.

Seeing as the developers have spent a considerable sum on various detailed surveys related to the application, the logical conclusion would be that they were advised to proceed.

Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Sunday, October 28, 2012 09:05
So on the one hand CDC assert that “Council's Officers are impartial and this impartiality should be maintained”. Yet on the other hand CDC's Principal Planning Officer met with the planning & development team in June 2011 and discussed IN PRIVATE a range of key issues associated with the site - then conveniently omitted to take minutes or even notes on what was said & discussed! People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing – this doesn’t even begin to pass the sniff test.

Is this not a breach of CDC protocol concerning the apparent impartiality of Council Officers? Does the term ‘collusion’ come to mind?

This type of secret discussion undermines the whole democratic process, not least because it can, although not always does (got to cover myself here) involve kickbacks and can offer an unfair advantage to one of the parties involved - in this case the Developer
Paul Wilkinson
Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:01
Hi Andrew, I don't know if the meeting was in private or not, or who else (eg legal representatives) may have been present - I can only go by the response to my FOI request, but it certainly seems to fly in the face of their comment that "The Council's Officers are impartial and this impartiality should be maintained".

The "SaveOurCravenCountryside" (SOCC*) Facebook page has a very apt comment this morning...


*SOCC group is fighting against ill-conceived and over development of the Hellifield Flashes

Peter Barton
Monday, October 29, 2012 19:27
I have lived in this beautiful village of ours for 72 years and seen green land disappear rapidly over the past 15/20 years, now is the time to call a halt and tell the powers that be that we cannot put, or anyone else for that matter a quart into a pint pot. Sutton has given over more than its fair share of land to housing. Look elsewhere?
allyson wiseman
Monday, October 29, 2012 19:47
I am posting my comment on this forum, in the hope it may make a difference, although am probably wasting my time. I, like many oppose the building of yet more houses within our local community. Why do we NEED more houses. There are many on the market in Glusburn, Sutton, and Crosshills. The roads are busy enough. The schools are full. The sewerage /water systems are overwhelmed. Yet some people in offices somewhere feel it necessary to over burden these vital services. The problem I personally have, is the provision of HealthCare. I have worked many years in the National Health Service. I worry about how overstretched departments are at present. How can these planners say more houses wont effect waiting times/available appointments, and good provision of care. We have a large ageing population,who moved to our villages for peace and paid possibly higher prices for their homes. I am aware of many locals, who are struggling to come to terms with these plans to build on their doorsteps. PLEASE think about how you would feel and WHEN are you, who plan these ridiculous new builds, going to listen to local communites?? NEVER !!! IS THE ANSWER I FEAR. Please remember, our villages are growing too fast for the health provision in place at present.
Ian Park
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:15
I was born in this village 55 years ago and have seen many changes, some good and some bad.
I know we have to change with the times but taking the countryside away from us is not the solution, we are a countryside village in the yorkshire dales, not a thing for the council to use just to ease the problem of overcrowding in leeds.
We dont want to become a metropolis, one big place and i dont think crosshills and glusburn do.
I played in the sand park when i was a nipper and i know it's run down but with a bit of T.L.C it could be some where proud for the locals to go to.
I am all for progress, but building more houses and over stretching local resources is not the answer.
These fields keep our independance as a village and some where people can go and walk and be proud to look at our beautiful countryside.

Ian Park
allyson wiseman
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:11
Well said Ian-- we have certainly seen a huge difference in the three small villages over the past 10-15 years, some good, some bad. The building just has to be STOPPED and the sooner the better.
Re- Mr Stares--referring to land..."if other people cared so much they could have purchased it themselves"....personally i find this a rather immature statement to be fair. We have bought into these villages because we like "green" space. People move into cities, to enjoy busy lives. People move to remote areas to enjoy privacy. You shouldn't have to buy a "space" around you to stop development in our countryside.
Just wish people would see the whole bigger picture, and look after what we all enjoy locally,- good neighbors, a safe and functioning set of local amenities, and beautiful views outside our back doors.

Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 13:07
Ditto, well said Ian (how are ya buddy?) and others. Spoken straight from the heart with passion and real concern about the future prospect of losing open green spaces in and around the village.

I’m afraid I can’t make the planning meeting tomorrow as I’m out of town. However anyone who can, should make every effort to attend if at all possible. This is literally crunch time, realistically there will be no second chances if things go wrong tomorrow. The hungry developers already have one foot in the door and their hands are within reach of the prize.

The councillors on the planning committee tomorrow NEED TO BE CONVINCED that preservation of the green fields currently earmarked for housing development is the overwhelming choice of the local community. If only a handful of people show up it ain’t going to look too good. Easy for me to say cos I’m out of town and others will be working, but a big crowd is going to send a powerful message of village solidarity against the developments, and this could ‘just’ (cos it’s likely be close) sway the voting in favour of the objectors.
Brenda Whitaker
Queensland Australia
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 20:35
From another 'outa towner' - a copy of many of these messages wouldn't go amiss either. This is one forum and there must be others around the village with similar views. It is really important as many as possible go along - I understand from this forum item there has been a leaflet drop so that should have created interest too. for everyone who reads this forum and cant go - do you know someone you could persuade to go who hadnt intended to do so?
Good luck with the meeting - sadly you are - up aginit !! you will be getting plenty of strong and helpful vibes from downunder. Heh Andrew?
Paul Wilkinson
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 21:12
Thanks for all the messages on this topic, all we can do now is hope that word has got round the village and enough people turn up to the meeting tomorrow.
Hazel Martell
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 14:34
Along with quite a lot more people, I went along in the hope of getting into the meeting this lunch-time, but was turned away by the bouncers as the room was already full to its safe capacity. In fairness to the bouncers, they were very polite and did offer to open the windows to the building so that we could at least hear what was being said. Unfortunately, as the windows were firmly locked, this couldn't be done and so eventually we all drifted away.

That means that the number of people who wanted to be there was well over 150 - and that's not counting the ones who probably also would have liked to go but had other unescapable commitments such as work, childcare etc in the middle of a weekday in the middle of half-term.

However, I'm sure there'll be some reports on the forum from those who were lucky enough to get in and I'll look forward to reading them in due course - just hope they're not too depressing!

Camille Askins
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 15:58
I'm another who was refused entry to the meeting.
Paul Wilkinson
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 16:23
Sorry you couldn't get in Hazel and Camille, it was over half full when I got there at 1pm and standing room only by 1:20pm. How many would you say were outside?

Liz Kildunne
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 17:04
Congratulations to all on this initial victory. No doubt there will be more battles to come. We are already aware of a potential plan for development of another of our green field...more details to follow if it materialises. Please all, keep vigilant and stand together. Save our Sutton!
Mrs S McNeil
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 17:08
Would be interesting to know which Councillors did not oppose the build. Well done to all who managed to attend the meeting during a working day during a half term week!!!!
Camille Askins
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 17:15
The security people said there had been about 10 people in total who couldn't get in, although there was no one else there when I was.

What happened at the meeting?
Janet Hargreaves
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 18:15
It was good to see a triumph for common sense today but I doubt this is going to go away!

I note no one mentioned:
The impact of all the recent new homes with regards to Policing and Public Safety and the views of the relevant Committee.
Would anyone be able to get sensibly priced insurance on the planned houses which are set to go on the flood plain regardless of whether it is a 1,2 or 3 risk.
Is the Play zone planned large enough to meet EU regs on recreational land as it is seems close to the houses - I have personal experience of the disruptions these areas cause to everyday life.
Why is this deemed necessary in view of the close proximity of the beautful Park.
What provision is to be made for the tweens and teens
Where are the Retail outlets - there are less outlets than there were 50 years ago. Sutton had 2 Co ops in those days!

Well done everyone - as a Suttoner by birth and education and with family buried in the Chapel
I still hope it can remain a village with a 'heart' and be prevented from becoming part of the commuter belt
allyson wiseman
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 18:42
Well done to all those who managed to attend--disgraceful timing for such an important meeting--HALF TERM-PARENTS VERY BUSY WITH CHILD CARE--WORK DAY HOURS-MANY WANTED TO ATTEND-BUT UNABLE TOO-- very good timing to avoid massive crowds/opposition.
Good planning eh?? as usual!!-- PLEASE listen to the villagers--the infrastructure cannot, and WILL NOT cope with more people/neighbours AND PATIENTS--PLEASE PLEASE listen to locals,,,no more building of houses--look elsewhere!!!
Hazel Martell
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 20:15
A great result, but I'm sure they'll keep trying. So, as Liz says, we must keep vigilant and stand together.
Also, a small group of us stood outside for about half an hour and in that time I'd estimate that between 15 and 20 people (including us) tried to get in to the meeting, but many just turned around and left as soon as they found the hall was full.
pat whitaker
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 20:55
I went to the meeting about Thompson's field, I arrived 15 minutes early and was told it was full. No-one was taking names of or even counting how many people were unable to get into the meeting. They did reluctantly let one person in as he was a councillor. As someone in the queue remarked it was sheduled mid week, in the middle of the day and in the school holidays making it very difficult for most working people and those who had no childcare facilities or were on holiday.
I have lived in this village for 34 years and moved here because of the green spaces for my family. My mother-in-law was born here as was her mother and hers before her so we do feel we belong and have some say but I am now wondering how many decisions have already been made after reading through the Forum. It is quite frightening.
Enough people must have turned up for the meeting as it was full but will it be enough? I sincerely hope so.
Andrew Monkhouse
Hanoi, Vietnam
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 20:59
I’ve just hastily read all the comments posted since the meeting with wide-open eyes.

Liz, you say “Congratulations to all on this initial victory. No doubt there will be more battles to come. We are already aware of a potential plan for development of another of our green field”

INITIAL VICTORY - So what was the actual outcome? Has the proposed development of Thompson’s field been defeated temporarily?, permanently?

Very well done to everybody by the way for what was obviously a victory on the day. I look forward to hearing the details.
Liz Kildunne
Thursday, November 1, 2012 11:50
Hi Andrew - its a temporary victory - no doubt there will be resubmissions and/or appeals - we saw it happen at Green Lane, Glusburn over many years. Developers have deep pockets
Brian R Clough
Sunday, November 4, 2012 19:48
Pat, the person they let in was a councillor: Councillor David Ireton from Chapel-le-Dale. He was one of the seven that voted against the proposal. In his discussions at the meeting he said that he was later than expected because it took him 10 minutes in the conjestion up Station Road! Well what a surprise.
The councillors that voted for the proposal were Ady Green (Cowling), Alan Sutcliffe (Coniston Cold) and Richard Welch (chair)(Giggleswick). Councillors Brockbank, English and Mason did not attend the meeting. Councillor Philip Barrett was a substitute which made up the 10 that were present.
On the front page of this weeks Keighley News it states there will be a full report in next weeks paper.
Neil Palfreman
Sutton in Craven
Thursday, November 29, 2012 13:23
Has anyone noticed that Barrett/David Wilson have appealled the Council decision
and any further objections have to be lodged in TRIPLICATE before the
31st of December. Am I being cynical or is this an attempt to sneak it through
during the Xmas period. I understand that this weeks floods in Northallerton
have been greatly exacerbated by new housing close to Friarage hospital
Don't these people ever listen to local opinion?

Liz Kildunne
Friday, November 30, 2012 08:09
I don't think you're being cynical at all, we have had to fight other green field developments over the xmas period - sure it won't be the last time developers pull this dirty trick. You mention "further" objections - does that mean that all earlier objections are still relevant or do we need to resubmit?
Paul Wilkinson
Friday, November 30, 2012 10:45
Thanks for the update Neil, I've just searched the Planning Inspectorate site and found the following...

There's a link at the bottom of the page to submit comments as an "interested party / person".

The original application was timed (not coincidentally I'm sure) so that the consultation period included last Christmas and New Year.
Paul Wilkinson
Friday, November 30, 2012 10:57
I've started a new thread for posts relating to the Thompson's Field appeal.

Please add comments to new thread not this one.

Elaine Polshaw
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 05:31
We are looking at buying a house in Sutton In Craven as we both love the village and it's whereabouts. We are in the process of viewing properties at the moment, but we would reconsider if planning goes ahead to build up the village. I feel that it would alter it's character and also as previously mentioned I would worry about flooding if all green sites were built on. Could you please let me know if planning permission has been given the go ahead or not.
Paul Wilkinson
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 08:24
Hi Elaine - at the moment planning permission has been refused but the developer has appealed to the Planning Inspector. A decision will most likely be made in January.

  Posting to the forum is de-activated due to lack of use.

  You are welcome to browse through posts but cannot add comments or start new topics.