IN answer to Mr Barraclough’s letter in the Gazette & Herald on February 26: The reason another superstore would be a disaster for Malton, and I suggest neighbouring towns, is because, according to Ryedale District Council’s consultants, there is no room for two new superstores in Ryedale, and the inspector at the livestock market inquiry accepted this and decided that the best and most appropriate site (or to put it in planning speak, “the most sequentially preferable site”) is the livestock market site.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that the new store will attract many new shoppers. Many Ryedale residents live nearer superstores in York, Scarborough, Beverley and Thirsk than they do to Malton.

Yet Ryedale and GMI Holbeck, the applicants for the Wentworth Street car park site, say that 85 per cent of all Ryedale residents should shop in Ryedale, instead of the 68 per cent who already do.

However, what is proposed for Wentworth Street car park is little more than a bog standard Tesco store, which can only be accessed through the historic narrow medieval streets of Malton and Norton.

Are any new shoppers really going to come all the way to Malton, and all through the town’s narrow streets to get to a bog standard store, when there are loads of other bog standard superstores nearer them in York, Scarborough, Beverley and Thirsk which all have better access?

The only way the proposed new superstore can succeed is by taking trade from other outlets, killing Malton’s historic town centre, and damaging neighbouring town centres.

There is plenty of footfall in Malton.

The problem is that most of it goes to Morrisons, which is not in the town centre. The answer is to have an “anchor” store, which is in the town centre, and this is why Fitzwilliam (Malton) Estate (FME) want to build a Waitrose or Booths-type store on the cattle market.

This would attract new shoppers to the town centre. People will travel miles to get to a Waitrose or similar store – they won’t do that for a bogstandard Tesco.

Mr Barraclough suggests the proposed new store on the cattle market site will undermine town centre shops by selling “high-end” products.

It is true that many Malton shops do sell “high-end” products. However, he knows very well that Ryedale is a low wage area, and that Malton shops depend for their bread and butter on meeting the needs of the low wage market.

What Mr Barraclough’s proposals amount to is a new bog standard Tesco-type store, which will target exactly the same market.

Further, to take an entirely cynical view FME, which owns both the cattle market and most of the town centre shops, have a reputation for looking after their own financial interests. I cannot imagine how they could ever sanction a development on their own land without retaining the necessary legal powers to ensure that their town centre interests are protected.

As regards car parking, what is required is somewhere where traders and staff can park for free all day. Mr Barraclough’s proposals only allow for free parking for three hours a day.

Councillor Paul Andrews, Malton

 

• LOOMING on a not too faraway horizon there appears to be yet another confrontation between Ryedale District Council and various interested parties opposed to the council’s plan for the sale of Wentworth Street car park. Tomorrow,(Thursday) may once again see the first shots fired.

We’ve been there once, and the council’s failure to win a high-level inquiry involving highly-paid legal minds, cost the council (that is its local tax-payers) more than £200,000.

Simply as a council tax-payer, and a neutral on the subjective arguments either side of the divide, I’d rather this didn’t happen again. But on the subject of the democratic process of fairly elected representation on councils; election of their chairmen; and the election of designated committees and their chairmen; the focused debate and work of those committees, and majority decisions taken therein, I am decidedly not neutral: for that’s the proper normality of local government. Now it appears to exercise and impress their own particular views on this divisive issue, a small group of councillors is deciding to try to change normal due process, and, by their action, also change the recognised and accepted procedures of local democracy.

According to the Local Government Ombudsman, councils have the right to dispose of their assets (such as land or buildings), and they have fairly wide discretion to do this in any manner they wish, and Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 enshrines the statutory duty on local authorities to achieve best value in land disposals. In this case, I believe, clinching the sale would boost the council’s finances by £5m.

Edward Raine, East Heslerton