COUNCILLOR Linda Cowling finds it bizarre that two different judges can come to different conclusions on Wentworth Street car park supermarket.

Let me enlighten her: Jeremy Sullivan, the appeal court judge, was before he became a judge, a respected QC who was well known to the public service. Years ago I consulted him on several occasions on behalf of the authorities I was working for – including Ryedale. On the other hand all I know about the judge who dismissed the application for judicial review as having no merit is that his written judgement did not make sense to me.

It’s not just the appeal court judge who has ruled in favour of the Estate. In 2008, the council’s own consultants dismissed the car park as a suitable site for a superstore (they changed their minds later); Sainsbury’s were asked to look at the site (twice) and didn’t think it was suitable, and two years ago a government inspector ruled against the council, and awarded costs of £148,000 (equivalent to almost four per cent of Ryedale’s share of the council tax).

The developers are still looking for a superstore chain interested in the site.

Coun Cowling hypocritically welcomes Booths interest in the town. She knows that Booths are unlikely to proceed with their scheme while the council continues to pursue the car park saga. She knows there is a risk that the saga could put Booths off. She knows that a superstore on the car park will damage Malton Town Centre, whereas a Booths store in the cattle market area will help the town to prosper, but she comes from Pickering and once referred to Malton residents as the “moaning minnies of Malton”.

Malton already has Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, Saisnsbury, Costcutter and Heron. It does not need another low or medium range superstore. A high-range store like Booths will complement Malton’s supermarket offer, and bring more customers and prosperity to the town centre.

The Estate cannot be criticised for defending their own interests: the town needs their investment, and that will not be forthcoming if the council continues to undermine.

If the council was a commercial concern, and its directors were to lose four per cent of its revenue because of a decision for which there was no excuse and were to still carry on regardless as if nothing had happened, heads would roll. On May 7, voters have the opportunity to show exactly what they feel and make heads roll. They should use it.

Councillor Paul Andrews, Malton Ward

 


• It seems that the planning application for the supermarket in the Wentworth Street car park is, after all, to be the subject of a judicial review. This gives the council the opportunity either to see sense and drop the whole matter, or else to throw good money after bad by continuing to promote and defend this plan. I think most of Malton council taxpayers will hope they do the right thing and give up this project as lost.

Whatever the original rights and wrongs of this specific plan, the commercial logic of building these new supermarkets now seems to be a busted flush. Most supermarket companies, far from pushing forward with expansionist construction projects, are struggling to maintain volumes and profits.

Indeed Tesco (much mooted as the likely party) have recently taken the extraordinary decision to leave some newly built stores empty and unused, and they have cancelled building plans across the country. So, that fox seems to have been well and truly shot. In any case, the proposal to build here was controversial to say the least- there were already many reasons not to do this, and significant local opposition.

That leaves an interesting question – what to do with the space? It does cry out for some attention. How about a plan to build a low-rise multi-story car park and a development of starter and social apartments and small houses? Just a thought.

David Hoggard, Malton

 


• So, Councillor Linda Cowling finds it “bizarre” that two independent judges could come to different decisions regarding a judicial review of Ryedale District Council’s decision to grant itself planning permission for a supermarket on Wentworth Street car park (WSCP).

What I, and I suspect those Coun Cowling described as “the moaning minnies of Malton”, find bizarre,is that in March 2012 Tory councillors including Sanderson, Goodrick, Hope, Cussons, Arnold and Windress voted for a supermarket on Wentworth Street car park and against one on the livestock market site. One of the reasons they gave for refusing the livestock market site was the “cumulative impact” of two supermarkets.

Fast forward two years to April 2014 and those same six Tories voted once again for a supermarket on Wentworth Street car park despite the fact that the livestock market site had been passed at appeal. Not one of them raised the cumulative impact of passing the Wentworth Street car park.

Six Councillors from Coun Cowling’s party completely flipping their arguments on a decision that benefits the council without any explanation.

Now that is truly bizarre and worth a judicial review.

Councillor Tommy Woodward, Pickering East ward