Such a formidable trio are unlikely to have much empathy for anything with as little bottom-line value as a protected greenfield landscape – whereas giant office blocks are very much their cup of tea – or perhaps champagne!
The document and recommendations before the Planning Committee was prepared by a commercial specialist, handpicked and briefed by the small group of officers and councillors who run the show in Craven District. It states, as it legally is obliged to, any objections to the development.
There are very many.
Firstly the public, out of 139 letters regarding the development, there are 137 AGAINST it and a mere 2 FOR.
Then there are the professional bodies.
Environment Agency- The Agency objects to the proposed development as submitted on the following grounds:
The proposed means of foul drainage poses a risk of pollution of surface waters in an area that has public sewers in the vicinity. Plans to discharge treated effluent to the nearby minor watercourse appear unsuitable. There are foul sewers within approximately 600m of the site.
The Highways Agency – On 24th January 2007, the Highways Agency (on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport) directed that, under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, the planning authority shall not grant permission for the application.
Local Plan Policy EMP5 states that, outside development limits and established industrial areas, the construction of buildings for industrial and business uses will not be permitted. In exceptional circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be essential for the social and/or economic needs of the community, permission may be granted for development where there is no suitable alternative site within the development limits of a nearby settlement or an established industrial area and the proposal meets a number of criteria, including where the proposal:
1. will not create conditions prejudicial to highway safety;
2. is also located near transport routes other than road, such as rail, where these can be realistically utilised;
3. respects the scale and level of activity in the locality;
4. will not unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the countryside;
5. will not have an unacceptable impact on the character or setting of local settlements or the amenity of existing residents and/or neighbours;
6. will not have an adverse impact on sites or nature conservation value or archaeological or historic importance;
7. is for buildings which are of a good standard of design and satisfactorily blend into the landscape in terms of their design, siting and materials;
8. will incorporate high quality and appropriate landscaping;
9. is served, or capable of being served by cycle/pedestrian routes and is served, or capable of being served by public transport.
As is very obvious, most of the above have been breached in this application.

 Then there is the strange manipulation of figures. Consider the following statement from Urban Vision Partnership: at Para 9.29 of the application:
    A total of 42% of HML’s employees in Skipton reside within Craven District, with the majority (29%) living in Skipton itself. The applicants assert that this represents 15% of the total number of jobs in the town, and 2.6% of the jobs within Craven.

Now what exactly is it that represents 15% of the total number of jobs in the town?
 Is it the 29% of HML’s total 742 employees - 215 people, or the 42% of those employees - 312 ?