It was disturbing to learn about a potential overspend on a County Highways scheme (not too much of a surprise considering that the average highway project overruns its costs by 44%). The A684 Bedale/Aiskew/Leeming Bar Bypass scheme (situated in division of NYCC leader of Council John Weighell), originally estimated to cost £25 million, has now risen to £39 million according to a report presented to the council’s Tory-led Executive on the 29 September.

Council Tax payers could be asked to find between £6 million and £15 million and maybe more to complete the scheme which will not start until 2012. As the Government will fund 90% of the costs, this increase alone will cost the County Council an extra £847,000. However with the possibility of cost overruns (see above) and the fact that central government will only agree to fund half of any extra costs up to a certain level. This could leave the County Council with a bill for £15 million.

This is a huge sum for the taxpayers to stump up, bearing in mind the economic crisis. At the last Budget Seminar the Director of finance painted a dire picture for the Council’s finances over the next few years ahead and the impact on delivery of services is a concern.

Whilst I was a County Councillor I was constantly asking for extra consideration for villages in my division to get adequate gritting for winter conditions. I was asked (as part of a county scrutiny review of winter maintenance) what local factors should be considered when setting gritting priorities - There were several roads serving villages in the Airedale division that I suggested should get a higher priority so that commuters could access main road network,buses could access the villages for travel to work and school, and busy routes be made safer. All suggestions were welcomed and then promptly ignored by the “Executive” at County Hall (who have the final say-so on such issues). These suggestions (along with some others made by fellow Craven County Councillors) would have been rejected on cost grounds - not enough in the highways budget to allow these sensible and beneficial changes.

Think how better prepared and how much safer the roads would be this winter with just some of that £847,000 channelled into better gritting of our villages. Parts of Cowling not far from the A6068 were stranded, Bradley pensioners marooned, areas of Cononley cut off, Lothersdale was snowbound for days last winter, during this spell the school bus sightings were as rare as a fully inclusive public consultation by Craven Council…

No-one disputes the need for major highways projects (those that live in South Craven are well aware of the long battle for a bridging scheme at Kildwick crossing - scuppered by, no surprises, the tory executive at County Hall), but not at the expense of a bare minimum service for all of us of being able to use the road network in winter conditions. It happens in many other places around the world with far worse conditions, why not North Yorkshire?

Unless we make NYCC reconsider its gritting priority policy then it is likely we can look forward to more travel misery this winter. Contact North Yorkshire and ask them to change their priority routes to include roads serving your village. If they say it would like to do it but there are budgetry restrictions preventing them, then point out the contradiction of the seeming willingness to find some money for the Leeming/Bedale/Askew bypass scheme, but not for solving the regular problem of snow/ice on local roads.

Given the council’s track record on its control of contracts, can we take the risk of pursuing this scheme?

Apologies for lack of updates recently - due to family pc and laptop not working. Repairs been done so normal service will be resumed.

Some of you may have noticed the appearance of these tubes on the road at the entrance to your village. These have been put down by North Yorkshire Highways Department as part of a traffic survey. (details below)

Traffic surveys are being carried out in Scarborough, Harrogate, Knaresborough and in the Skipton and South Craven area. during September and October to look at ways to improve traffic flows in the areas. The surveys have been commissioned by North Yorkshire County Council to assess travel patterns in the local areas.   

Police will be stopping traffic at a number of places for staff to ask a few questions about peoples journeys. In order to reduce congestion and delays staff may also give out a short postage-paid questionnaire for drivers to return rather than ask the all the questions directly. 

The information collected will be used to develop traffic models which will help to improve future traffic management and transport infrastructure and to test the impact of future developments in local areas.

So if you think they are there for immediate solutions to long standing traffic problems - think again. As always, any traffic calming scheme will be scored according to the LTP priority points system and will wait its turn and that is a matter of years - ask Farnhill - whose scheme has been on the list for 8 years and is probably another 8 years away and its scheme is in the top 20 for Craven out of 150! The highways department is constantly looking to stretch a budget that is forever being cut by the Tory controlled County Council.

The story so far…..

Despite public speculation the next stage in the process of the proposed move to Belle Vue Mills was ticked off at a quiet and poorly attended planning meeting in Settle on 24/8/09. You may have not been aware of this as the application was in the name of Mr Andrew Phillip. Irony upon irony is that the reason the application was on the agenda for consideration by the planning sub committee was because of public interest. The determination date for this application was early October so why the hurry to put it to Committee in August when it could have been debated in September in Skipton? Even stranger was that when I along with other councillors asked for greater public consultation on this scheme we were told that this would naturally happen as part of the planning process. So Skipton residents why weren’t you in Settle at 1:30pm on a Monday?

So where does this leave us?

I asked for a rough estimate of what Craven District Council has paid out to get to this point since the start of Skipton Developments. That figure is approximately £901,000 less the vague and nebulous figure of £218,000 known as central administration recharge brings the figure down to £683,000. This includes £120,000 for external solicitors, £336,000 for consultants fees, £152,000 for Staff costs, and £88,000 for consultant engineers.

This is where the officer/member brinkmanship comes into play. The gambit of “we have spent so much to get to this position that it would be irresponsible to pull out now” will be thrown into the debate by our officers. I have heard this frequently over the years but there comes a time when the expression about “not throwing good money after bad” also should be heeded. The deal that could tie the council into a lease taking us into the next millenium is considered good business . So why are some councillors feeling as if the council is painting itself into a corner? 

We have been advised by our officers -

1. If we abandoned the Skipton developments scheme there is no certainty we could get bidders for Granville Street and 9 High Street sites.

2. There is a certainty of a capital receipt (no matter how diminished it is compared with the original proposal).

3. Costs incurred so far.

4. Financial position of the Council.

5. Economic benefit for Craven (not qualified).

6. Loss of car-parking income is not a significant factor.

7. Risk to reputation of Council if we pull out.

The assertion that loss of carprking income is insignificant is hard to take; moreover the impact on loss of carprking spaces is also an issue. Based on the current set-up (all those areas affected by Skipton developments) Craven has 1256 spaces earning an estimated income of £930,372. If we go ahead with the proposed Skipton developments scheme there will only be 1109 spaces – this equates to a deficit of 147 spaces with an estimated loss of income of £142,026. We will also lose an additional 30 free of charge public parking spaces and 102 staff and contract spaces. This leaves us with a potential annual loss of income of £160,000 and a substantial number of vehicles displaced onto the streets of Skipton (less, of course, the lucky 32 recipients of a golden ticket for a space at Belle Vue Mills).

The scrutiny review of car parking in Skipton in June 2009 stated “we accept the main conclusions of the Mouchell report that there is a current need for an increase in off street parking in Skipton” It highlighted a shortage of 122 spaces and potentially a future loss of 528 spaces by 2018. How can anyone call this aspect of the Skipton developments inconsequential? As a footnote to this North Yorkshire Highways Office are reserving their final view on this scheme (officers report on planning application) until a traffic impact assessment has been commissioned, although they say they are happy in principle (so good news for the residents of Broughton Road).

Of course if we go ahead with the proposed Skipton developments it is likely to differ from the original offer. That was –  

1. Granville Street - residential purposes

2. Horse Close – residential purposes

3. 9 High Street – commercial/residential purposes

4. Skipton Town Hall – cultural hub retained by Skipton. 

The new deal on the table as I understand it offers no guarantees for significant parts of the original bid. 

I am unable to give any figures due to gagging by local government act 1972. However there is a risk that if the whole package (see above) is not taken up then there will be a substantial call on capital reserves to fund the move to Belle Vue Mills – I believe this includes a call in excess of £1,000,000 from the pension reserve.  If we back out of the scheme then there could be significant six figure costs incurred. If we just refurbish Granville Street then we are looking at a capital spend of £1.6m which could include the £700,000 set aside in the capital plan for lease and fit out of the office move to Belle Vue Mills. This could be topped up with the proceeds of the sale of council assets.  

The council have been frantically selling off assets to realise a substantial capital receipt that will go in the pool to fund move. Remember these assets are yours – the residents of Craven – perhaps you would rather see such proceeds enhance our recycling prior to introducing fortnightly collections, or even shore up the council finances. Whatever your view don’t you think you should be consulted on how the council spends such a vast sum of money, as well as how it is going to alter the parking dynamics of Skipton. 

For what it’s worth I have consistently opposed this move, I believe there is life left in the Granville Street building and funds available to fix the problems (that is if you believe the scale of the problems being touted). It is not great having some of our staff working out of pre-fabs, but then thousands of Craven children have been educated in such structures over the years and North Yorkshire Council seem to think that’s ok. There have been a number of concerns raised about the move to Belle Vue Mills by staff - these have been addressed with the usual “it’ll be alright on the night” generalised answers that have not allayed reservations and seem to typify Craven these days.

We don’t need to move. It’s a risk, it’s expensive and it’s not necessary.

North Yorkshires 2nd Local Transport Plan (LTP2) comes to an end in March 2011. For the residents in South Craven it can’t come quickly enough. Despite representation to NYCC, The Regional Transport Board, and constant reports from The Area Committee - the Kildwick crossing scheme was thrown out by the Tory Controlled County Council.

For those that are not sure what the LTP is. This is a major policy document from Councils outlining strategies for improving and maintaining all areas of local transport - a 5 year plan. It includes bids for major highways schemes as well as replacement/improvement of bridges and structures. LTP3 runs from April 2011 to March 2016. There is an opportunity for all residents to contribute to the process of putting forward schemes for inclusion. I cannot guarantee that the suggestions will be adopted - after all the Kildwick crossing scheme was put into LTP1 and LTP2 and unceremoniously dumped by the Tories at County Hall - However if we do not ask again then we stand no chance.

So please get involved and put forward suggestions - I suggest The Kildwick Crossing Bridge scheme to start with…..

Just access North Yorkshire County Council website and type in Local Transport Plan in the search engine. Look for LTP 2011 - 2016 and you will be directed to a questionnaire. The deadline is September 30th 2009. Lets tell NYCC what we really want and ensure they take notice. 

At The Craven Area Committee on 29/5/08 members discussed and voted on the proposed schemes.

What a stitch-up! Considering the geographical area of the study and number of schemes discussed at 1st stage it was a blow to see proposed schemes distilled down to so few and in such a reduced area (just Crosshills and Sutton).there were  bus/public transport infrastructure bids(not just moving of stops on a629) thrown out - but depressingly for me similar proposals in Settle study progressed to proposal stage.

 I have been advised by highways area office that Jacobs are looking at a cheaper scheme re. A629 bus stop issue and I would hope that this could be reinstated on the study proposal(as only reason for throwing it off was cost - a whopping great £100,000. Just to move a bus stop!). 

Other schemes seemed inexpensive and practical - traffic calming on grange road Kildwick, pedestrian safety accessing bus stops on Cononley lane end, road markings a6068 cowling - Lancs border - in light of fatalities). Whereas some of schemes that were put forward look pretty lame and possibly overpriced.

If there cannot be any movement on schemes then I would hope that there might be some movement to accommodate the rejected projects on the general highways list of proposed schemes.

background 

The Metro Ticketing Scheme, administered by METRO, provides unlimited rail and bus or bus only travel in West Yorkshire.  The area is divided into 5 zones that are centred on Leeds and the cost of the ticket varies depending on the zone you want to travel from.  The most expensive ticket covering zones 1 to 5 is approximately £1,000 pa.  The first “quick win” of the Leeds City Region was to expand the METRO Ticketing scheme to a new zone 6 which would cover Cononley to Gargrave and also to Harrogate and Knaresborough.  The central aim of the Leeds City Region is to remove the barriers within a coherent economic area to allow for growth.  The most important of these is the flexibility of the labour market and the removal of barriers for cross border travel both into Leeds/Bradford etc and also into Craven. 

Funding of a Zone 6 

The aim of the Zone 6 development was to make the scheme cost neutral as the basis of the scheme is that revenue from the ticket is divided between bus and rail operators based on the proportion of usage.  Growth in the scheme for Zone 6 would increase the revenue for the operators.  Total revenues for 2007/8 were £28m. In developing a zone 6 there needs to be a balance between attractiveness for the public and also for the operators.  A key issue here is the price differential between a rail season ticket for Skipton to Leeds (35.60 pw) and the expected cost of a rail only zone 1 to 6 ticket (£36.50).  If bus was then added the operators would only accept a zone 1 to 6 rail plus zone 1 to 5 bus at about £43.30 pw.  The key question here is why switch from a rail season ticket to rail only metro card and would the inclusion of buses in zones 1 to 5 be prohibitively expensive? If a public sector subsidy from NYCC was introduced this could make the product both more attractive for the public and the operators therefore delivering the labour flexibility and a possible shift away from the car.  NYCC have said that they will look at any proposals and discuss the costs and benefits of a subsidy. 

Alternative Products 

It is not certain whether creating two products, a zone 1 – 6 rail only, and a zone 1 to 6 rail plus 1 to 5 bus would be taken up by the public or would it be largely symbolic.  There is the opportunity to develop different more specific products that could support businesses, students, tourists, the social excluded or groups that can travel off peak all at discounts from the main offer.   An example of the business product could be that a company purchases 20 tickets at a 15% discount for any of their staff to use therefore reducing car usage etc.  Students currently pay £5.50 per week for METRO tickets and this could be expanded to zone 6 so allowing students from West Yorkshire to come to Craven College or for outdoor pursuits in the Dales but also Craven Students to go to other colleges and universities and leisure activities in Leeds etc.  The tourist card could allow travel anywhere in the City Region plus discounts to attractions for a week.  

Next Steps

METRO are aiming to introduce a Zone 6 on the 1st January 2009 although what that will comprise of is uncertain.  They will be developing a range of options based on the issues set out above and this should be produced by September. So watch this space for further developments.

Rumours about the cessation of another local bus route have reached me. There are to be changes to some routes in South Craven that will come into force on April 28th. The utilisation of community transport to fulfil routes that were dropped by commercially run Keighley and District will be good news for South Craven villages that are now missed out by the express A629 route between Keighley and Skipton. It will be a service that is very different to what we are used to but it will be better than the service provided before  - more flexible and better suited to the villages of Aire Valley. There is more to come, I am negotiating with the operator to put an extended service for 1 or 2 hours after the school run (16:00 - 18:00) every day monday - saturday. This will be announced when all partners have agreed costs and details.

In the meantime here are details of the new service…

South Craven Village Bus The South Craven Village Bus replaces the current journeys run between 0900 and 1500 by Keighley and District from Monday 28th April 2008. 

How will the South Craven Village Bus run? The South Craven Village Bus will be run as a demand responsive Community Transport service operated by Little Red Bus.  

What is a demand responsive service It is a service where the journeys are only operated  as needed and therefore travel has to be pre-booked. The route and times of journeys will vary according to the journeys booked by passengers and the need to bring together a group of passengers.  

Where can you travel on the Village Bus The area has been split into two zones, Zone 1 covering Lothersdale and Zone 2 covering Farnhill and KIldwick. Please see map over for details of area. You can travel wholly within a zone, between the zone and a connecting point in Croshills for the local bus services to Keighley and Skipton. Some journeys can be run through to Skipton Bus Station or Rail Station. 

 When does the South Craven Village Bus run? Journeys can be made between 0930 and 1500 on a Monday to Saturday.   

 The Booking Arrangements As a Demand Responsive Service passengers must pre-book their travel and to make your bookings contact Craven Voluntary Transport on 01756 701045 between 0800 and 1700  Please remember that journeys are provided on a first come first served basis so it is better if passengers book a day or two before they wish to travel. 

Timed journeys These times are a guide to help passengers to book their journeys. The times are not fixed and can be varied but must start and finish within the time that the Village Bus runs. 

Lothersdale Zone 0945 Lothersdale to Skipton and to make connections with bus to Keighley at 1010 from Crosshills1125 Skipton and Lothersdale and connection with bus from Keighley departing at 1120 in Crosshills 

Farnhill & Kildwick zone 0915 Farnhill and Kildwick to Crosshills for connections to Keighley and Skipton.1135 Farnhill and Kildwick to Crosshills for connections to Keighley and Skipton.1445 Farnhill and Kildwick to Crosshills for connections to Keighley and Skipton. 1000 Crosshills to Kildwick and Farnhill1220 Crosshills to Kildwick and Farnhill with connections from Keighley and Skipton. 1005 and 1225 Kildwick and Farnhill to Skipton 1125 and 1435 Skipton to Farnhill and Kildwick 

Concessionary Travel As a Community Transport service the South Craven Village Bus does not fall within the Concessionary Travel scheme. Passengers who hold a concessionary pass issued by Craven District Council can travel free. Please advise at the time of booking and you must present your pass to the driver when travelling. 

It  was brought to my attention recently that there were issues over bus operator Burnley and Pendle not accepting free passes from Cowling residents on the 08:55 Colne to Skipton(3 people turned off the bus this week).

Craven District Council assured me that the concessionary passes should be honoured. Any bus driver on this route who might be reading this - you really should be accepting these passes. Not to do so is wrong and just plain mean spirited.

Craven will ensure that this mix up will not happen again. Lets hope this will be the last time this issue is raised again. Life’s tough enough without having to fight and argue for what you are entitled to!

The study has reached consultation stage and residents will shortly receive the list of schemes and the option to rate them. For those people in Cononley, Farnhill and Kildwick there are two schemes that would benefit them and it is vital that the response forms are returned.  If you want these schemes to be approved please lodge your views with the consultation team.

1.  Provision of a footway link along Cononley Road

2.  Re-siting of bus stops on the A629