IN this open letter to Tobias Burckhardt, Fitzwilliam Estate, we ask that you share our vision to subject our planning to democratic input through the housing allocations in the Twin Towns Neighbourhood Plan, rather than prejudicing it by grabbing all the housing allocations first for yourselves.

By jumping in with major development proposals before the Neighbourhood Plan is in place, (which is subject to local consultation and then a local referendum), you are not sharing your vision, you are imposing it. By inviting comments before and during applications direct to yourself, you are bypassing the democratic process, which is the only legally binding one. Comments should be sent to dm@ryedale.gov.uk and the planning committee and, hopefully, to the Neighbourhood Plan committee once it is ready for consultation.

You say No ifs no buts concerning 1,500 houses for Malton and Norton over 15 years – sorry, but if there is valid planning grounds to turn down a development, such as insufficient traffic capacity or visual impact on the Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONB, (to name but two), then this and other developments can and should be turned down, on planning grounds.

I am afraid that if you read the assessments from AONB officer Paul Jackson on perverse visual viewpoints, and the report by North Yorkshire County Council traffic officer James Kennedy on the inadequacies of your traffic survey taken on one unrepresentative day from only two locations, and the police report into the crimewave (including drugs raids) that your beloved Poundbury is suffering thanks to blindingly obvious poor design, you will see that this site and this design on this scale is not right for Malton.

Perhaps allow the Neighbourhood Plan committee, which includes our elected town council representatives, to consult with us first.

Also perhaps the district councillors might consider amending the Local Plan when it is shown in the next Transport Strategy that Malton and Norton really cannot shoulder 1,500 houses over 15 years with the current infrastructure.

That allowing some further development where local communities want it (the democratic element is crucial) in “non service villages” (not tied to local occupancy clauses) might assist them to maintain vibrant communities and the services they do have, such as school, shop or pub and other local businesses.

I hope this application will bring the district councillors to their senses so they realise that concentrating so much development in their plan in Malton and Norton (half of new development in Ryedale, but with a quarter of existing population and an already overloaded infrastructure) is not only not in the best interests of Malton and Norton, but not in the best interests of Ryedale, and all its vast space and different communities, with their own needs and balances between conservation and development. Let the people speak.

Ian Conlan, Malton