MAY I first of all congratulate Richard Young for asking the pertinent question, I too would like to know the answer to the question - who has in fact got their foot on the brake pedal stopping proposed development at Eden Camp?

I can and will only date the facts and truth relating to the development of the new livestock market. We, the Livestock Market Company, as of May this year, after three years of meetings, negotiations etc, find the build cost has risen to nearly £2.5 million due to rises in material prices.

We the market company have funds from various sources - £500,000 from the original 106 agreement (originally £1 million was lodged by the developers but subsequently they applied for £500,000 of this to be used for infrastructure work, roundabout and access roads etc) £400,000 from potential shareholders, £300,000 from the auctioneers - Boulton & Cooper Stephensons and Cundalls and most recently a £170,000 grant had been made available from Ryedale District Council. Making a total of £1,370,000.

Without stating the obvious still £1 million short of the target. To use the sporting simile - I find it very difficult to “score a goal” when the goal posts are moved, without warning and by unknown parties. On the positive side, we will get there and Ryedale will have its new livestock market with an adjourning educational facility. We have moved forward over the last eight to 10 months, thanks in part to MP Kevin Hollinrake and district and county councillor Lindsay Burr’s unwavering support.

The original promise made to the Market Company directors of a fully serviced five-acre site at Eden Camp is still there. However, the developer, and or, the applicant, is not prepared to assign the deeds to us for the site until we have raised and secured the total build cost.

What or who is delaying the relocation of the market to the new site? It is certainly not the Livestock Market Company or any of its many supporters.

Pat Foxton, chairman Malton and Ryedale Farmers Livestock Market Company Ltd

Embrace ideas

I WOULD like to respond to Mr Batty’s letter regarding the position of RAAP. I have lived in the Malton area for nearly 30 years and have opposed the idea of fracking for the last five years.

I can sympathise with RAAP’s opposition to the inconvenience of protest in the Ryedale area.

However, we are in a position where the democratic process is constantly being undermined by the Government regarding fracking.

They have overturned local planning decisions, allowed for drilling anywhere under our land, and are now seeking to roll out fracking under the guise of “permitted development” as you would require for say a garden shed. It is not surprising that many local people are trying to make their voices heard.

And the problems of fracking may not just be local, a contaminated aquifer may affect the water supply to people living some miles away.

Fleets of lorries servicing the fracking sites would inevitably impact upon communities en route. Air contamination could spread some distance, and treating and disposing of the contaminated backflow water could again pose a risk to others.

And there is no need for this; shale gas will not give us secure, clean energy and may even be as bad as coal in harming the climate.

The Government continues to provide sweeteners and support to shale gas and yet drops its support for clean energy projects.

Onshore wind generation is now the cheapest form of energy supply that we have. There are cleaner and healthier ways of providing our energy, I just wish that our Government would embrace them.

Glyn Wild, Swinton

Make them pay

I HAVE just received the Citizen Link Paper produced by the council and one of the items reported in there was the concerns about the amount of plastic waste that is now being produced and left to litter the environment, one of which was singled out in the report to be the one use, plastic lined, coffee containers consumers receive their drink in.

A thought struck me that Malton likes to promote itself as the food capital of Yorkshire and has many cafe, restaurants, coffee shops and public houses that get a certain amount of trade associated with this claim, so I ask if public houses can serve drinks in containers that are multi use and cafes and restaurants likewise, why is it that the coffee houses find it impossible to do so?

The public are continually asked not to litter, to put litter into litter bins, which is a losing battle.

So why not increase the business rate on premises/businesses that continue to use these one use containers?

If public house, cafes, restaurants can wash and reuse the drinks containers they use, why not coffee shops? If they will not, make them pay for this particular litter collection the council has to make.

Do not listen to the whinge and whine these multi-run franchised owners make; the prices they charge already covers this proposed cost.

R Jones, Settrington