WITH regards to Ryedale District Council’s meeting on March 6.

I attended the meeting to hear what council members had to say about a motion on local democracy.

The motion pointed out that the planning application relating to Wentworth Street car park, (being sold by the district council) in Malton, was to be judged by the planning committee consisting of 10 members of the council out of 30 members.

The motion went on to say that only one of the 10 planning committee members represented Malton and Norton (regarded as one town by the council).

The planning duties of the council are delegated to the planning committee, so the full council could accept responsibility for the judgement and have approved the motion.

You might expect, therefore, that a motion for the planning application to be heard by the whole council giving the towns’ representatives the opportunity to vote, would be democratic and well received.

Several supporters spoke eloquently in favour of the motion, but then a number of others spoke saying that it was an abuse of democracy, a lack of trust in or an attack on the planning committee, or ultimately that the planning committee could l Continued on facing page not be trusted to act in good faith. It was nothing of the sort, it was about democratic principles.

Worse, when a supporter quoted the council leader as having called interested parties, “the moaning minnies of Malton”, she was quick to address the public gallery, saying that she never said that. She did - so please read her article in the Malton Gazette & Herald on November 10, 2010, in which she said, “And before it is mentioned, yes the Scouts and the Rifle Club will also be well looked after if the moaning minnies in Malton are not successful in stopping this exciting development going ahead”.

The motion was lost, so we are entitled to conclude that a majority of council members are not interested in the democratic process.

Denys Townsend, Malton