ATS response

I am sorry to see Luke lves is playing politics with planning and showing his ignorance of the established procedure. In addition to the duty of members on the planning committee to determine the outcome of an application, under Ryedale District Council’s constitution, there are arrangements for the public to speak for three minutes in support of or against an application. On this occasion two or three people from the public gallery spoke against the ATS application and I spoke for it: there was no impropriety in this.

For many years when I was a member of Ryedare’s planning committee, I always voted for or against an application – not for or against the applicant, after all, it is the application that really matters.

My chief reason for speaking in December was the housing opportunities that are offered to young people on this brownfield site. At County Hall, I chair the overview and scrutiny committee for young people and children and duringthe past months, I have met people in their late teens and 20s who are looking for a home of their own.

The concern for so many is the lack of small accommodation units for rent, particularly in town, and also the chance to purchase a property at an affordable price.

Your correspondent Luke lves should remember that the vote on this planning application was made by a cross-party decision of Independent, Liberal and Conservative members: moreover the majority of that committee belong to his own Tory Party.

Finally, I wish to point out that last year I spoke strongly in favour of preserving the green area around a special barn in Norton and against any further development in Langton Road. As I also said then, we must not cover every green field we possess with bricks and concrete and I will repeat that as often as necessary.

Elizabeth Shields, county and district councillor for Norton

• IN defence of Councillor Lindsay Burr, she, like other motorists, has the right to park legally anywhere in Commercial Street. As a fellow shop owner, (Norton Video Centre) I choose to walk to work, thus freeing a parking space for a potential customer, resident, hair academy worker or anyone else.

A partial solution to customer parking would be to alter the status of the two parking spaces outside the academy from 24-hour to limited waiting, in line with the other parking spaces outside shops further elsewhere in the street. A temporary solution would have been for the applicant of the ATS development to have carried out what was stated on the plans, to demolish the first workshop, ie to provide parking places for the residents of Commercial Street.

Also in last week’s Gazette, did anyone notice the coincidence that the author of a letter in support of the ATS development was the same as the Ofsted inspector praising the academy. Is this the same coincidence as the names on letters for approval of the site having the same names as workers at the academy?

As a resident of Langley Drive, I look forward to hearing the thoughts of Councillor Elizabeth Shields and Coun Burr to the proposed development of land at Sutton Grange. Don’t be shy – it is an election year.

Steve Arundale, Norton

• I WOULD like you to know that I am sick of reading about the ATS development. I respectfully ask that you stop printing Luke Ives’ comments, which are uncalled for and personally attack Councillor Lindsay Burr.

Mr Ives must remember he was elected to represent all his electorate. He is aware that the application had as much, if not more support for the development from residents and shop owners. Mr Ives chooses to ignore all this. He also chooses to ignore the planning process, which was carried out democratically and voted through by Conservatives, Liberals and independent councillors.

Mr Ives obviously has no respect for a democratic process and through your paper has disgraced himself by publicly attacking a well-respected councillor and process.

I find his comments distasteful. He has had many column inches and I feel the matter should be closed now.

Gutter politics should not be tolerated and we will remember this at the next elections.

Name and address supplied

• I, ALONG with other residents of Commercial Street, Norton, were horrified when we learned about the controversial planning application on the former ATS site. One of our first actions was to email our local county councillor Elizabeth Shields to voice our concerns and ask her for support in opposing the application, but she didn’t respond. Yet at the committee meeting, Coun Shields turned up to speak in support of the applicant and applicant’s husband.

I think under the circumstances if she could not have supported her local community then it would have been better to say nothing.

Angela Wardale, Norton

• READING about the plans for the former ATS site, I do feel there is a need, particularly in Norton, for more ground-floor retail premises suitable for businesses such as opticians and dentists because people such as myself often find it a difficult task to find somewhere that will accommodate us.

The ATS development is in an ideal position to make available two or three of these types of units which I do think Norton is crying out for. Commercial Street is increasingly losing out on its name.

D K Mennell, former mayor and Norton town councillor, Norton