“Cowling did an excellent job in turning out on Monday evening - Craven District Council can be left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling in the village regarding this proposal. The District Councillor, the Leader of the Council and the Property Dveloper who attended (and stood together throughout the meeting) should not underestimate the power of DEMOCRACY! - Watch out - the "little" people are here!”

Posted by Dawn | 23/04/2009 09:58:50

“The meeting was indeed a victory for local democracy and must have made an impression on our District Councillor, the leader of CDC, the housing association, and the developer. I am puzzled as to why Cllr Green contacted the local press early the next day to tell them that the meeting was a waste of time. Does anyone out there who went to the meeting agree?”

Posted by andrew lynch | 23/04/2009 16:31:13

“I am perplexed as to why Our District Councillor would ring the newspaper and tell them the meeting had been ‘a waste of time’!
Whose fault is it that CDC failed to come – why would he feel the need to defend CDC?
Whose question couldn’t be answered? Our District Councillor didn’t answer a question that was directed at him as it would ‘compromise his position on the Planning Committee’ – fair comment, and true.
But… I fail to see whose ‘best interest’ he had at heart when he picked up the phone to ring the Craven Herald to say the meeting had been a waste of time. Obviously not the 140 Villagers who attended the meeting; the people he so vehemently ‘claims’ to want to represent! Surely in ringing the newspaper, he has belittled the voice of many who showed they genuinely care about our village? Ever heard of singing from the same hymn sheet?!”

Posted by Darren | 23/04/2009 21:43:07

“The fact that Adrian Green and Brian Verity chose to stand together at the back of the Village Hall speaks volumes - they cast that hymn sheet aside a long time ago!”

Posted by Dawn | 23/04/2009 23:00:02

“Bit sad, but the newspapers always seem to pick out the most sensational line, whether it is right or not? Kly. News seems more true than Craven Herald these days, used to be other way around! Best reports are Darren's above and on the Cowling Council site. Have posted our "good old fashioned letter" (very brief but to the point) as June asked us to do. A v. good meeting and thanks to all those from "down the road" who supported - we should do the same for them! Acre Field is only the tip of the iceberg I think, quite a few of our fields are earmarked for further development.”

Posted by Joan T. | 24/04/2009 11:31:20

“The meeting was most certainly NOT a waste of time. The largest number of people I have seen attend such a type of meeting in this locality was when around 400 turned out to tell Craven District Council what they thought of the 'Renaissance Project.' As Craven has around 60,000 voters this equates to well under 1% of the voting population, yet was stated by the Craven Herald to be a 'huge turnout.'
Cowling sent around 7% of its voters, around 11 times as many pro rata, and it was a magnificent achievement!

Regarding any statement that the meeting was felt to be a waste of time because questions could not be answered, I believe there were only two questions concerning CDC's attendance on the panel. The first was 'Where is CDC's representative' answered by 'Not here.' The second was 'As we pay our council tax, why not?' and this was answered by Cllr. Knowles-Fitton, the leader of CDC, stating that he didn't know, but that he would find out and let us know. When the answer arrives we shall publish it, but it should be noted that the Parish Council clerk asked the Chief Executive of CDC for the attendance of an officer, as did our County councillor.
The response of the officer dealing with the site discussion was that until an application was made he felt that any contribution he could make was negligible, which may help to explain that absence.

Villagers should also know that two representatives from CDC had agreed to attend the meeting on the date published before we approached Firebird Homes and Manningham Housing, a fact which can be verified by the mails published on the council's website and further verified that evening by Mr. Nigel Guy of Manningham Housing.
A later e-mail cancelling their attendance some two weeks after acceptance stated:
"Unfortunately on this occasion none of the Housing Team will be able to attend the meeting on the 20th April 2009 because of unforeseen evening commitments."
This was coincidentally around the time that approval was given to Skipton Properties for 14 four bedroom houses on Acre Mill with no requirement for affordable housing.

All the relevant e-mails and the press report are available on the council web site, on
WWW.Cowlingcouncil.co.uk
and it is to be hoped that anyone saying that the people of Cowling have been wasting their time might see fit to apologise with a good grace to those villagers.

The Parish Council is very grateful to all who attended, and also those who completed a questionnaire; there can be no doubt as to the feelings of the villagers on this subject, with not a single person voting for the affordable housing development on Acre Mill.

The next subject for public debate is likely to be the village hall.
Full details will be published, and not less than one month’s notice will be given in order that the maximum number of residents can attend.”

Posted by Alan | 24/04/2009 14:03:02

“It seems there is a "gagging" order regarding the Craven Herald's report of this meeting in which Councillor Green declared the meeting a "waste of time".

On Thursday evening I posted a reply on the Craven Herald's website under the "your comments" section, regarding this article. I stated that Councillor Green was wrong to suggest this meeting was a waste of time, and the people who attended definitely didn't think so, when lo and behold, come Saturday my comment has been removed and replaced with the words "comments are closed on this article".

I did not write anything libelous or untrue (and if that was the case, surely only my comment would have needed to be removed!). Is this a case of "it's not what you know, it's who you know?".”

Posted by Dawn | 25/04/2009 15:15:58

“just for the record - my comment has now re-appeared - not quite sure what is going on there!”

Posted by Dawn | 25/04/2009 17:45:42