AN INQUIRY in to the council’s decision to reject a controversial 225 housing development will begin later this month.

The Government Inspector will begin the inquiry on October 28 in to the appeal lodged by Gladman Developments Limited earlier this year after the council rejected plans to build homes on land at Westfield, Kirkbymoorside.

The developers then lodged an appeal against the decision made in February at a public meeting.

The inquiry, due to be held in the council chambers at Ryedale District Council is expected to last between two to four days.

Kirkbymoorside Town Council will be making representation at the inquiry to draw the inspector’s attention to points raised in previous submissions and town Mayor Coun Chris Dowie said that she will be attending.

She said: “I hope that the inspector will take onboard the feelings of local people and the views that the town will be expressing.

“We are representing what local people have said to us and we continue to oppose the application as strongly as possible.”

Coun Dowie went on to say that since supermarket giant Tesco announced in September that they would be abandoning their plans to bring a store to the town, the land at Ings Road would now be put back on the market, a site which she said would be much more suitable for housing.

She said: “There is a local plan in place which the district council agrees with which says small to medium housing sites for Kirkbymoorside and this one is large.

“Our stance on the Gladman development has not changed and we hope that Ryedale District Council has got some good advice and that they are putting a strong case forward as well.”

At the time the appeal was lodged a statement from Ryedale District Council read: “Officers have sought independent professional opinions from a Planning Consultant and Landscape Consultant and legal advice on the reasons for refusal.”

A list of reasons for refusal was released shortly after the decision to turn down the project was made. Amongst the reasons was that the development would have caused “significant and demonstrable harm” on the form and character of the town in addition to altering the “distinctive character of the wider landscape.”