THE long-running saga over plans to build a new supermarket and petrol station in Malton and the financial costs involved flared up again at a meeting of Ryedale District Council.

The issue came to a head over the costs submitted by the Fitzwilliam (Malton) Estate following a judicial review involving their application to develop the existing livestock market with shops and housing.

At the beginning of the saga the council had backed a plan by a development company to build the supermarket on the Wentworth Street car park and had rejected the application by the estate involving the mart.

A public inquiry followed and a planning inspector backed the estate – a move challenged by the council in the form of a judicial review.

A judge sitting in Leeds called a report by officials to the council’s planning committee misleading but at the same time stressed there was no evidence to suggest they had intended to mislead.

The council heard that Milton (Peterborough) Estates Company, trading as Fitzwilliam (Malton) Estate had submitted a claim for £166,549.47 because of the legal costs involved. The council had offered £90,000 and some £50,000 has been paid.

The final cost is unknown as the council members were told that the council was waiting to see if the estate would accept that offer.

The formal motion at last week’s meeting was to “note” the outcome of the judicial review and that any costs should come from a special contingency emergency fund.

But the subsequent debate re-opened wounds between supporters and opponents of the car park scheme.

When it was first mooted by supporters some years ago it was stated that its sale could bring in up to £5m into the council’s coffers.

But critics have argued that the overall legal costs could involve several hundred thousand pounds by the time the issue is resolved.

Attempts were made at the meeting to submit amendments calling for an end of the saga by abandoning any further action in relation to the sale of the car park including any further planning applications.

But this was thrown out by chairman Councillor Val Arnold following legal advice from the council’s solicitor Anthony Winship that the proposed amendment was not specifically related to the issue and the main motion before them that evening.

A majority argued that it was up to the planning committee to determine whether any application that came before it should be agreed or thrown out and it would be wrong for the council to pre-determine what could or could not come before it.

Councillor John Clark, who submitted the amendments, said it would be a “disgrace” to do nothing and hope the problem would go away.

But Councillor Caroline Goodrick argued they could not take such a decision now, as suggested by Coun Clark, as this could have further financial and legal implications.

Councillor Robert Wainwright, chairman of the audit committee, pointed out that consultants KMPG had been appointed auditors to consider the issues raised by the judicial review.