Village Web Site Forum

Wednesday, October 22, 2008 23:07
The right kind of development?
I found tonights meeting at skipton town hall very interesting but also worrying because an undeniable fact hit me square in the brain NO MATTER WHAT WE DO DEVELOPMENT OF SORTS WILL DEFINITELY TAKE PLACE IN SOUTH CRAVEN. So for me this only leaves one option and that is to control the type of development that ensues.
Now it is totaly clear that no one wants to see a deluge of new housing within the stupid vision of us becoming an outer suburb of Leeds but the council clearly need a new vision that will attract new funding from central government to deliver our real needs in terms of roads, transport, policing etc... So what is the right type of development? how do we steer the council away from its recent crazy ideas to gain new government money? One idea may be to play to our strengths. Ok, so we all agree that our local villages are rural, beautiful, benefiting from lots of surrounding greenbelt land and also many very interesting places of notability. I understand there are many lead mines around the area?Of course there is Lunds Tower and the Pinnacle? What other places of interest are there in the area worthy of a mention? Is it possible that we could claim a definite identity as a place of interest and become more of a tourist center? A center that would need to preserve its strengths that make it as such? Preserve our green land, develope new attractions that guarantee land remaining open such as golf courses or nature reserves? This would definitley help the local economy, local businesses and also create a real reason for the heritage department in central government to seriously consider making public money available for this end. If we could engage the council to have a better vision for us with just as strong a reason to go after new money then do we tame the beast in our favour to some extent? How do people feel about this idea? is it workable or flawed?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 23:30
That there will be some sort of development has been obvious for some time. Yes, there are many reasons why building for Leeds is a bad idea, just as there are many reasons why keeping Ingleton clear is no justification for developing here.

But there are population pressures. In many cases people are staying single longer (if they're marrying at all). They're living longer. The divorce rate at least has been relatively high even if latest data suggests it is falling. All these tend toward larger numbers of smaller households.

On the other hand, some of this is balanced by other things. Younger singles are generally better served by cities - particularly given the attractions of shared occupancy of the sort many are introduced to as students. Many divorcees remarry, and so on.

Then there is general population growth, of which we've had some figures here in the "Maths" thread. There is some degree of "immigration" (and, I will admit, that includes me and my family, 4 years or so ago, although my wife is relatively local, as we moved here from Hertfordshire).

Blanket refusal to allow anything won't work. It will rouse the powers that be into doing something stupid such as either going over our heads, or deciding that they really do want to extend the M65 to Kildwick after all. Blanket refusal is also somewhat counterproductive. OK, maybe they haven't sold them all yet but they do seem to be doing a tidy job of Greenroyd - and the CE school did reasonably well out of it. And that absorbed 90-odd dwellings, I'm told, out of the total. There is the Woodturners'. or maybe that land behind the drama hut (beside Aire Valley Glass).

We achieved what we did in the past couple of weeks because we scared the hell out of the council's elected members. We might also have put the wind up some of the officials, too, given that they've so obviously screwed up. We won't be able to do that again in such a way both because it isn't easy to keep up making several hundred people available to keep the council honest, and also because the council will begin to discount the reaction.

But what was achieved happened because of public involvement. That needs to be maintained and it doesn't need hundreds at every meeting. It needs a few at every meeting, reporting progress and events, and providing reasoned input. And hundreds as and when they're needed.

I'm going to go (getting back from my nephew's first birthday allowing) to the meeting in Glusburn Institute on Thursday. I know about the agenda, and I'm not going to raise any difficult questions. But I do want to see how these things work - so when it is needed, there is information available on how to use the system. I recommend that some others do so, too. As Liz K says, we need to keep it up. There are quite a few willing and able to do it, and we've plenty of ways to share information.
Liz K
Thursday, October 23, 2008 07:04
I'm off to the meeting at Glusburn too, so we can get some ideas as to how to move on the next step - I see this as reducing the RSS from 250 down to a more reasonable number (was 170/180?), and getting the % allocation significantly reduced. In order to do this democratically, it may be that the council needs to do another survey consulting properly with the public and explaining what impact audience participation has.
PS Chris Knowles-Fitton did send me an e-mail at 16.59 yesterday afternoon saying that my name would be on the door - unfortunately, I'd left work early to make sure I could get to Skipton in time for the meeting, so didn't pick it up until today!
Thursday, October 23, 2008 08:16
Can I suggest that we now put pressure on the council to now do an accurate assessment of local housing need so that (as I've said before) they can't just pull figures out of a hat. Could we also push them to use a company with a good reputation for surveying and analysing this kind of information.The sample used last time in 2005 was very small and exclusive and the analysis was unbelievably bad, as have been the repercusions from it.
Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:20
Yes John this is now the most important of issues. It was shown at last nights meeting that it cost 20,000 to obtain a new Chief it will be a necessary task and an expensive one....we need to lobby immediately to make sure it is done WELL....broad, far reaching, imaginative and 'fit for purpose....
The campaign now needs to turn towards this issue and new letters and e mails must accrue in another pile at Granville Street.

Basil...I do not think this area has a problem with supporting course (a joke surely)....tourism traps and amusements (phwwws)....

I too should be at the Institute tonight.
Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:00
Also there is a need to lobby re (as said at last nights meeting) ....for CDC to contact other Govt Depts besides Housing, such as....Transport, Defra, Enviroment, Hertitage to solicit funding....

IS there a TARGET DATE for SHELAA to be completed and presented ?????

Is this the some total of CDCs commitment re CONSULTATION.

HAVE the 74 houses at Green Lane been pushed through' or is there still time to input ???? Is there a village website ????

There is a need to involve other villages. Does anyone have a clear view of this any of the other villages have websites or contact points????

Do we need to create /are we able to create a web site which can cover the SHELLA issue for all villages and get reported and advertised in local media.... a Craven wide reaction would be incredible

THanks to anyone who answers any of these questions....
Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:03
Re 74 dwellings off Green lane - meeting will be 6.30pm Tuesday 4th November - at South Craven School.

I believe there are 25,830 homes in the Craven area (probably 800 empty) and 13% of which (3366) are in the Glusburn, C/Hills and Sutton area. Projected growth is 0.7% per annum = 180 houses needed in Craven area - 23 in G/burn, Sutton and C/Hills.

How many houses have been passed by planning but not yet built and if houses off Green Lane do go ahead - does this mean no other plans will be passed for 3 years??

Can someone confirm my maths is correct?
Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:29
I'm Dyscalculate so I wouldn't know re maths....

As I said on another thread....The area of Craven District Council excluding the Yorkshire Dales National Park is approximately 142.86 square miles (or 370 km2)...thats CDC why do our 4 sq miles take such disproportionate quantity (easy access to Leeds and Bradford I guess)[if you call traffic jams and late crowded commuter trains EASY]....

You would have though that there should also be a FORUM for all the Parish Councillors to get together to discuss this at length....but I do not think there is....then again there may be rivalry and grudges between Parishes, WHO knows????

Certainly, excluding the Green Lane site....recent deveopments (Corn Mill, Greenroyd, Silent Night, Thompsons, +several existing large houses being converted to several dwellings [ie corner of Station Road])....have all been on existing or brown field sites....
Thursday, October 23, 2008 16:24

Do not know if this has been covered already but the above link will take you to the 06.08.08 meeting minutes of the Spatial Planning Committee....which talks of SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment....which might be a bit like you were talking about John....

Thursday, October 23, 2008 19:00
Thanks Tim. That's brilliant. This is a pretty good line:

"That the local Housing Needs Survey 2005 needs to be reviewed accurately,"

What I would like to know is why they let this document stand and used this for supporting the levels of housing need and justifying building? Especially when the councillors (and as far as I'm concerned they are all as bad as one another ) obviously knew it was wrong!
Friday, October 24, 2008 01:21
Tim. My point was that it would be hard to build houses on land that has been designated as a golf course. Im trying to encourage a little thinking outside the box. The less land that is actualy available the better. So why not make proposals for our areas that plays to its strengths ie open space?

Liz, Do you think we need a new website for Shella? ? or maybe we should update the NODISC site to reflect the present needs?
Friday, October 24, 2008 12:20
Basil....[ok]....get back in that box while I sellotape it shut .... place in a dark place....etc etc....[wink]
Friday, October 24, 2008 19:56
Basil. No building is as bad as too much building. We need building that meets our local needs. No building is bad because it will leave our children with nowhere affordable to live and Sutton turning into a ghetto of rich people!

As for the developments at Greenroyd and Holme Lane affordable housing is supposed to be of the same standard as the rest and not tucked in a little corner away from the more afluent housing. They are not a success, they are a poor compromise by our council.

If we need affordable housing lets make it right!

Saturday, October 25, 2008 14:35
brilliantly put john . bazzzlad lay off the cheese
Sunday, October 26, 2008 11:08
I think you guys are missing something very important. CONTROL. If you do nothing then the open green areas of Sutton will forever be up for grabs anytime the council or central government get a notion to quickly knock up
30,000 houses. Any amount of control we take as residents can only help. Im not saying dont build anything, of course we need housing but if we were to identify as residents the areas where WE believe building would be acceptable and then find creative reasons to tie up the sites we want left open then this amounts to control IN OUR FAVOUR. Tim, it will take a lot more than sellotape to render me useless! Steve not sure about the cheese idea, it seems to find me!
Thursday, October 30, 2008 18:34
I have learned after doing some in depth research that there is a reliable way to obstruct the Green lane developments. It is essential that the next council meeting on the 4th of November at South Craven school be given close attention over the next few days. If this vote on the 4th is not stopped then Green lanes getting planning approval opens the gates todevelopment on all the fields in that area and would lead to an inevitable building of over 600 new houses. thats approx 2000 new inhabitants. The fact is that this request for planning permission was actualy overturned once in the past already on the basis that the council decided that there was more than enough areas allocated for development in the local area already. The reason why the council had since earmarked this area for development was because it believed it would be going forward on the Leeds City growth point bid. NOW TRHAT THAT IS NO LONGER HAPPENING IT LEAVES AN AMBIGUOUS SITUATION OVER THE COUNCILS PRESENT POSITION!

There is two things we can do to stop the development happening altogether.

1. We need as many people as possible to email the planning department at Craven district council to request clarification of how the withdrawal of the Leeds City Growth point bid effects the councils position on planning requirements in particular with reference to the Green lanes sites. They should ask also if these sites have EVER been SPECIFICALY identified as potentialy developable DESPITE thje Leeds City Growth Point Bid.
Also it may be a good thing to also request any information on previous applications to develope this land and the councils decisions on those occasions if any at all.

2. We need as many poeople as possible to get to the School on the 4th and demand the above.
Glusburn (ex Suttoner)
Saturday, November 1, 2008 06:20
basil do you happen to know if there will be a P.A system at the bonfire?
if so would it be possible for the orginisers to make announcement of tuesdays meeting at 6.30 at south craven.
this way anyone who does not get a flyer about the meeting will know about it.
last year about 3000 turned up for the bonfire
Green Lane
Paul Wilkinson
Saturday, November 1, 2008 07:20
Hi Graham - yes there is usually a PA system at the bonfire extravaganza. There's a contact number on the poster on the news and events page.

Note also that the field where the bonfire is held is marked on the SHELAA map as a proposed housing development site (Ref 316) from Holme Bridge all the way up to the 1900 Bridge.

After the brilliant initial reaction by residents, the Green Lane meeting on Tuesday is the first test of the ongoing resolve of NODISC campaigners. As many as possible must attend the meeting at South Craven School.

Monday, November 3, 2008 02:42
Damn, I only just saw this post , AFTER the bonire. That was a good idea. Unfortunately I got distracted this week by visitors from London and only got back to normal tonight. I understand there may be more news regarding the Green lane development tomorrow night so I will wait till then before contemplating a next step. Needless to say I will definitely be at the meeting on Tuesday.
Liz K
Monday, November 3, 2008 10:32
Us too, we'll be at the Green Lane Meeting - Don't forget Parish COuncil meeting tonight guys and gals!
Paul Wilkinson
Monday, November 3, 2008 10:59
Yes, the Parish Council meeting starts at 6.45pm. The Agenda is now available on the Parish Council's website, and contains the following items...

8. To receive the Clerks Report and Correspondence

a) To report on the Leeds City Region Growth Proposal Bid, Core Strategy and Local Development Framework

10. Councillor and Resident Items

a) Flood Risk Mapping Study - Report

Liz K
Monday, November 3, 2008 12:28
Hi Paul
Do you know the address for the PC meeting? I have "Senior Citizens Centre", but don't know where that is! Thanks
Paul Wilkinson
Monday, November 3, 2008 12:36
Hi Liz. Yes, it's on North Street. The Post Office is at the top of North Street, the Senior Citizens' Centre is on the left as you walk down, just set back a little bit.

  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.