I WAS disappointed to read the comments made by Councillor Paul Andrews in the Gazette & Herald on July 15 and July 22 in relation to the judgement of Mr Justice Dove in quashing the district council’s decision to grant planning permission for a supermarket and fuel station at the Wentworth Street car park Malton (WSCP).

I made clear in my recent press release that the judgement is not challenging the appropriateness of the development, but has considered the process of reaching the decision. Against that background I was disappointed to read that Coun Andrews made the comment in the Gazette & Herald of July 15 that, “WSCP is not a good site for a superstore”. I believe that is misleading in the context of the judicial review case.

In addition, as a matter of fact, there appears to be a disagreement between Coun Andrews and Peter Village QC, the barrister for the Fitzwilliam Malton Estate, on the suitability of WSCP for a supermarket and fuel station.

The minutes for the Examination in Public hearing at Ryedale House on May 22 in relation to the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy record that “Peter Village QC made the point that Wentworth Street car park is a more attractive site for a supermarket operator and needed to be “strangled at birth”.” Those were his words.

In my opinion what the above quote from the barrister for the Estate makes clear is that an important motivation for the judicial review action against the district council is the protection of the private commercial property interests of the Fitzwilliam Malton Estate. It is not about the appropriateness of the car park for a supermarket and fuel station.

Councillor Linda Cowling, leader of Ryedale District Council

 

I WAS disappointed to read the letter from Denys Townsend in the Gazette & Herald on July 22, demanding the immediate resignation of the leader of council and officers of the council.

He is condemning others in a “Sentence first – verdict afterwards” way. A simple sense of ordinary fairness should guide Mr Townsend’s response.

The context of the judicial review case is that every planning decision of a planning committee in every principal council in England and Wales is capable of being the subject of a judicial review. There are very many judicial review cases against the planning decisions made by councils nationally each year. Ryedale District Council has only experienced two judicial reviews in more than 25 years. This is the first and only judicial review case that has succeeded in that time.

The grounds for judicial review were complex planning law challenges, which in most cases can only be put forward by barristers specialising in planning law and which in most cases can only be heard by a judge equally knowledgeable in planning law.

Readers can also be advised that the barristers who acted for the Fitzwilliam Estate have also acted for the Sam Smiths Old Brewery in Tadcaster, which has pursued many judicial reviews against the planning decisions of Selby District Council in the last 20 years or more, to exert influence on development in Tadcaster and the Selby area.

Judicial review is part of the territory for local government. To expect resignations for one case is unreasonable and is not a proportionate, measured and balanced response.

Councillor John Windress, chairman of Ryedale District Council planning committee

 

I READ with interest the criticisms of Ryedale District Council (RDC) planners by Peter Lawrence and Denys Townsend, and the likelihood of huge legal costs against RDC as a result of the Wentworth Street fiasco, which would be better spent on local services and amenities, and of which public funds Councillor Cowling is expected to be the guardian.

Some residents of Kirkbymoorside have not forgotten RDC’s management of the Gladman planning saga, which culminated in the inquiry last October, with huge costs against the council, and the tragic approval for more than 200 houses on productive green fields.

The council lost at the inquiry despite powerful local opinion, and violation by Gladman’s scheme of many criteria in the Local Plan – merely because the planning department could not prove a five-year supply of land. This could have been avoided, as RDC had just been “minded to approve” the development near Eden Camp – a trade-off for the Malton Livestock Market relocation.

However, RDC refused to bring the enhanced housing figures to the inquiry because of the continuing Wentworth Street wrangle. So Kirkbymoorside’s character and surrounding green fields may have been needlessly sacrificed.

All RDC’s planning officers and legal team should now resign in view of this waste of public money as a result of their historic faulty decision-making and unsafe opinion.

BR Hewitt, Kirkbymoorside

 

Explosive issue

ARE your readers aware of the use of high-velocity explosives in the process of fracking? Naturally, this will include transportation and storage in Ryedale of these explosives.

Once the well has been drilled, the production tube has to be perforated to hydraulically fracture (frack) the shale rock to allow gas to flow out. This is done with another tube inside the production tube called a perforation gun, which holds the explosives, called shot. Each shot has the explosive power of 30,000 pounds per square inch (psi). It appears that they can apply 27 shots per foot (300mm). Therefore, a fairly normal length horizontal frack of 2,500m (as routinely drilled in the US) will have 112,500 tons of explosive power. The patent for this process also mentions depleted uranium. Hopefully, the stringent safety regulation promised in this country would not allow that.

There is a strong possibility that Third Energy will get permission from North Yorkshire County Council to do this under your house or farm. I sincerely hope the council knows all about this, and who will be both in charge and responsible if anything should go wrong.

The company likely to be sub-contracted to perform this process is Halliburton, the firm responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

P Gammon, Pickering

 

I READ with interest your article about local businesswoman Lorraine Allanson, who has set up a Facebook page in support of fracking called Friends Of Ryedale Gas Exploration (FORGE).

Her main message seems to be: “Trust Third Energy, as they are the experts”. Would it surprise Ms Allanson to learn that Third Energy have no experience in fracking? Fracking is not the same as conventional gas extraction – which Third Energy do have experience in – and it is disingenuous to pretend that they are the same. In fact, not too long ago Third Energy told our former MP Anne McIntosh that they had neither the intention nor technology to frack in Ryedale. They have made it clear that if planning permission is granted they will subcontract the drilling – probably to Halliburton – which was responsible for the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Instead of telling people to listen to the paid lobbyists of a company who intends to profit from fracking, surely it would be better to recommend that visitors to her Facebook page do their own research? I did, and the more I found out, the more disturbed I became. A good place to start would be the website of David Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics at the University of Glasgow.

Fracking has already devastated large areas of the US and Queensland in Australia (see the video Voices from the Gasfields on You Tube). Do we really want beautiful Ryedale to be next?

Stephen Hall, Coneysthorpe