RDC’s Jabberwocky

“ONE two, one two and through and through his vorpal blade went snickersnack”.

I suppose this aptly describes how the legal beagles laid waste to Ryedale District Council’s Wentworth Street Jabberwocky. I am sure, from a legal perspective, our legal beagles have followed the letter of the law.

It all leaves me with concerns though. Why do we elect councillors to make decisions for our communities then ask an outsider to do it? It may be a legal approach, but is it a community solution? Was it simply driven by those with vested interests?

Certainly there are those who disagree with the development of Wentworth Street car park as a supermarket. Existing retailers do not want it, the Fitzwilliam Estate does not want it and the public who support the smaller retailers do not want it. You could hardly say that the majority of those voices are impartial. There are many in Ryedale who would love to see a new, shiny supermarket to compete with Morrisons, Asda, Sainsburys and Lidl. I personally did not wish to see it developed because of the potential traffic problems, but as a retailer I am somewhat impartial otherwise.

Without Wentworth Street being developed we will probably see the animal market as the home of a “Booths” or similar. From my perspective as a retailer that is simply the same wolf in different clothing. Truthfully, I do not fear further supermarkets. There are already enough in Malton and Norton to destroy the existing small retailers if they choose to, so more will not make any difference because we offer something people want to buy. However, it does get more difficult to find a “niche” market as major players seem to offer everything every day.

As for those who wish to go galumphing back with Councillor Cowling’s head as a prize, I would give it some thought. Coun Cowling and the other 29 councillors represent the whole of Ryedale and not just Malton. It is the responsibility of a council to deliver the very best for the entire area. There are occasions when the democratic process will impact on some more than others, but that is what community management is about. You can’t please everyone. Perhaps Ryedale District Council got it wrong on this occasion, but no-one is perfect and failure is no reason to stop trying.

Stephen Shaw, Norton

 

COUNCIL leader Linda Cowling’s letter suggests the council is “punch drunk” on keeping the legal profession in business. It would make a good joke for the old “Carry On” series – if only it wasn’t so serious. Ryedale seems to be a council that can do no wrong. Isn’t it strange how the inspector, the judge and everyone else can get it wrong and only Ryedale can get it right?

Linda writes: “The judgement does not challenge the appropriateness of the development.” Has she forgotten the decision in the livestock market appeal in 2012 with Inspector Wildsmith, when the arguments on the supermarket issue were thoroughly debated? The council’s witnesses under cross-examination admitted that the cattle market and not Wentworth Street car park was the right site for a new food store.

This was supported by the planning inspector at the examination, in public, of the Ryedale Plan. He referred to an agreement by the council to update the policies and text of the draft plan to reflect Inspector Wildsmith’s comments.

Does Linda need to be reminded that the judge in the judicial review found that the committee report had misled councillors in regard to Inspector Wildsmith’s decision?

As regards the suitability of Wentworth Street car park for a superstore, this is a matter of opinion and not just mine: Sainsbury’s rejected the site twice in 2008, and in a statement to the Gazette, the firm said it was not a suitable site for one of their stores.

In 2014, the council’s consultants DTZ said they considered Wentworth Street car park “whilst close to Malton’s commercial town centre boundary, lacks prominence, has poor access and is dislocated from the existing retail area in the town centre… It is inferior in terms of prominence and quality of access for customers and service vehicles”.

No one denies the Estate has a vested commercial interest in protecting the town centre. Their interests, in this instance, coincide with the interests of their tenants and the wider public. On the other hand the council has a vested financial interest in the car park sale, and does not care about Malton town centre or its businesses.

Linda’s letter clearly suggests the council is going to have another go. If she cannot accept the court judgement and Inspector Wildsmith’s decision, she should be made to resign.

Councillor Paul Andrews, Malton ward

 

RECENT headlines have referred to a £400,000 or thereabouts bill to Ryedale council tax payers as a result of verdicts from, firstly a Government planning inspector, and later a High Court Judge, who found major fault in the manner in which Ryedale District Council reached the decision to approve planning permission for Wentworth Street car park.

The true cost to the taxpayers is well over £1,000,000.

The judgement found that members were “significantly misled” and that Ryedale District Council was culpable. Many who have the best interests of Malton at heart would suggest that a core of Ryedale members wished to be, and were happy to be misled, as long as the required result was achieved. Advice and expert opinion was purchased, with taxpayer’s money. The leadership of the council acted recklessly with taxpayers money, and is intent upon continuing to do so if Councillor Cowling’s initial responses are anything to go by.

She claims that officers and members were advised all the way. Professional officers are hired, and well paid, to offer their advice. Appearances might suggest that officers, on occasion, might have been pressed to give or support advice which was not appropriate or accurate. The abrupt disappearance from the process of the two officers who presented on the first occasion, and the officer who presented at the rerun leaves many uneasy.

Someone must be held accountable. The executive leader of the council has presided over this project from the outset. The current political leader of the council has been full square behind this project throughout. These two, at the very least, must take responsibility and vacate their respective positions. If they are unwilling to do so, then the council must do it for them.

Crucial to the justification for approving planning permission at the second attempt were the advice and predictions of retail expert Dr John England. On behalf of the council tax payer the council should take appropriate steps to recover the sum paid for his hugely misleading and frankly ridiculous contribution.

A final thought is the cost to Malton of all the development opportunities stalled since 2007. Where might we be today if the council had managed all the processes fairly, and in the best of interests of Malton and the council tax payer?

Mike Knaggs, North Yorkshire County Alderman of Malton

 

ON November 10, 2010, a letter from Linda Cowling, then deputy leader of Ryedale District Council, appeared in the local press. In it she expressed her hope that “the moaning minnies in Malton are not successful in stopping the exciting development (a superstore on the car park) going ahead”.

On March 7 last year, she categorically denied at a public council meeting that she had ever made the remark, despite the fact that it was in print.

Mrs Cowling, now leader, has spouted much in the press these last weeks – “the council is a public body which tries to do its best for the public of Ryedale…the district council have been motivated by acting in the wider public interest…the council has a long-term vision to encourage economic growth in Ryedale…members and officers tried to do the best for the district of Ryedale…we were well advised all the way through…the planning officers’ recommendation was guided by the national advice and professional retail planning advice”.

Yet she admits that, “the reason for the costs award (£148,000 in 2012) was the misapplication of the retail planning policy sequential test”, one of the crucial considerations in town planning, for which the rules are crystal clear.

About the costs which her council has brought upon taxpayers in Ryedale, the best she can say is, “most regrettable”. The cost of this wild goose chase so far (and the council doesn’t look like stopping) is at least £150,000 for the latest judgement, £148,000 for the 2012 judgement, the council’s legal bills, the price of all the commissioned reports, plus the countless hours of officer time. But it’s all someone else’s fault.

Their leader even expresses “disappointment” at criticism in the press and with “the judgement which considered the process of reaching the decision”.

The High Court judgement found that planning officers misled councillors “significantly”, but Mrs Cowling says not. Were they “not misled’ because they intended from the outset to give the car park site permission?

Mrs Cowling expects to have the last word: “... I have no intention of resigning. I have been involved in local politics for 24 years and I have never come across anything like this before, it is unprecedented.” What is? Being held to account at long last?

Emma Brooksbank, Menethorpe

 

FOR over five years the saga of Wentworth Street car park has been dominated by a small cabal of Conservative councillors on the planning committee of Ryedale District Council.

This group, with an overall voting majority, has effectively held the Fitzwilliam Estate’s plans for the old cattle market to ransom.

This despite the findings of a Government planning officer and now a High Court judge, who both overruled Ryedale House. What more will it take Councillor Linda Cowling and her obdurate councillors to admit defeat? Surely we, the electorate, vote for councillors who should act as public servants, not masters. Does the council represent democracy or autocracy?

Coun Cowling, the council’s leader, says she will not resign and continues with her mantra of a superstore on Wentworth Street car park, which she apparently still believes “Joe Public” deserves. Does she live in the real world when for several months it has been blindingly obvious that Tesco or indeed any other superstore will even consider building on the car park?

She says the council is a public body which tries to do the best for Ryedale. Due to the council’s reckless disregard for the huge costs involved in trying to promote their own agenda, I suggest “the best” she and her acolytes can now do for Ryedale is to move on and co-operate with the Fitzwilliam Estate’s plans for Malton and Norton.

Ann Cleverly, Settrington

 

I WOULD like to correct a misleading impression given by Mr BR Hewitt’s letter in the Gazette & Herald, July 29, when he makes a comparison between the High Court judicial review decision quashing the planning permission for a supermarket and fuel station on Wentworth Street car park and the Gladman planning inquiry in relation to residential development at Kirkbymoorside. His letter contains a surprising number of factual inaccuracies.

Firstly, Mr Hewitt refers to “the inquiry last October, with huge costs against the council” in relation to the Gladman appeal. In fact, the planning inspector for the Gladman appeal made a limited partial award of costs against the council relating to the withdrawal of reasons for refusal. The council has made no payment of costs to Gladman on that appeal. Accordingly, Mr Hewitt’s comment on costs is wrong.

Secondly, Mr Hewitt ventures his opinion on a highly-complex area of planning policy relating to the calculation of the five year housing supply. He makes the unfounded allegation that the council “refused to bring the enhanced housing figures to the inquiry because of the continuing Wentworth Street wrangle”. The facts are that the planning inspector decided that a resolution to approve another development was not relevant and took a restrictive view on calculating the five year housing supply. The district council’s position on the Gladman appeal relating to housing had nothing to do with the retail case on Wentworth Street car park. Mr Hewitt’s comments about the five year housing supply are wrong.

While I appreciate Mr Hewitt’s disappointment at the outcome of the Kirkbymooside appeal, his demand for immediate resignations of all planning officers and legal team is not a proportionate, measured or balanced response. His letter is a classic example of inappropriate comparisons leading to wrong conclusions.

Councillor John Windress, chairman of Ryedale District Council planning committee

 

COUNCILLOR Linda Cowling is right to expect good planning advice and service from council employees. Malton is not the only victim of a poor service, but consider these facts regarding the planning department’s handling of the Gladman applications in Kirkbymoorside.

Firstly, the available land supply figures were not produced for the appeal despite being vital. Then at the October 2013 special council meeting (application two), the planning officer said that the absence of material planning grounds had been agreed after an extensive debate in June on application one. This debate lasted 12 minutes (for nine of which he spoke) and barely referred to planning grounds. Further, he should have known that each application must be treated independently.

The planning officer’s report undermined residents’ concerns over damage to the landscape. He then proposed this as one of the main grounds for the rejection of application three. The planning officer supported the maximum site size of 100 in the Local Plan, but he then said 100 was only an indicative size, so 225 was acceptable.

No criticism of planned access was made until the inspector refused this. Permanently limiting the school capacity to an additional 300 houses was accepted, but the planning officer has already asked for 360 houses. Councillors clearly expected when they refused Gladman three that council employees would present a case for them on appeal. This did not happen, resulting in the planning inspector blaming them for being unreasonable and awarding costs against the district council. How much did this cost?

Ann Gray, Kirkbymoorside

 

Explosive topic

REGARDING P Gammon’s letter on fracking and the high explosives used, yes he is correct these will be used to perforate the casing in the well. In fact they are used in every well drilled everywhere in the world as the casing is cemented into the ground at several stages.

Once the casing is set then the explosive “guns” are brought to the well site and run into the hole, they are not stored on site. A radio silence around the rig site is usually implemented until the well is perforated.

In almost 40 years in the drilling industry I have never witnessed any mishap with this procedure. His outrageous claim that Halliburton (alone?) was responsible for the Deepwater Horizon is ridiculous. Judge Barbier in his report ruled that BP was 67 per cent responsible, Transocean 30 per cent and Halliburton three per cent. This is from the official report in the Guardian newspaper.

Halliburton operates successfully and without mishap on thousands of rigs throughout the world. It is this sort of misinformation, lack of knowledge and scaremongering that is causing such a big issue on fracking. I would like to suggest that Mr Gammon and anyone else do a bit of research before spouting opinion.

Neil Milbanke, Thornton-le-Dale

 

PERHAPS it’s time Ms Allanson took off her rose-coloured spectacles and read the report on fracking by Government department Defra. The Government finally issued it in full (without the redaction) following a Freedom of Information ruling. Anyone who thinks this will help the local economy is living in cloud cuckoo land. The only people who will get rich are Barclays. It’s a long report, but Defra’s summary is: Fracking is likely to wipe up to seven per cent off house prices and deter tourists, according to an internal Government report that ministers battled to keep secret. Houses within five miles of shale gas sites could face higher insurance premiums due to the risk of explosions and residents’ health could suffer due to noise and pollution.

David Thornley, Slingsby

 

WITH reference to Steve White’s letter regarding Lorraine Allanson. We are writing to show our support for her and FORGE (Friends of Ryedale Gas Exploration).

Lorraine is a hard-working dedicated person and the comment in the Yorkshire Post that Mr White was referring to was in fact a bold defence of our farming industry in Ryedale. Lorraine stated that the anti-fracking movement was questionable in how much they actually do support the agricultural industry. The removal of the comment by that newspaper we can only assume was because FFR were afraid of how it made them appear. Lorraine has more vision for Ryedale than the anti-frackers ever could have and we’ll happily support her and FORGE.

Paul and Pauline Gill, Pickering

 

What a show

I WOULD like to say a big thank you to Angela Kirkham and the hard-working team for putting on Showtime at Norton College. The dancing, singing and the costumes were, as ever, a very high standard and the result of hours of hard work and dedication. We have so much talent in our young people and are so fortunate to be able to enjoy their shows. Long may it continue.

Joan Lawrence, Malton Mayor

 

Happy days

I WAS interested to see the picture of the Ryedale Show in your “Weekend” section, dated July 8.

I thought you might be interested to know that seated in the boot of their car are my parents, Boris and Molly Garside.

The two children sitting on the rug are my children, Victoria and Anabel.

Boris and Molly lived in Lastingham for many years. They are both buried in the graveyard at St Mary’s. At the time, Mike and I lived in Oswaldkirk.

We lived in Ryedale for 18 years and I was the Helmsley correspondent for the Gazette & Herald for some time. I also worked as a sales rep for the Whitby Gazette for a short while.

Mike was the MD of Herald Printers, in York, and I was the editor/owner of the Yorkshire Advertiser.

I am now retired and living in the Loire Valley, in France. Your article brought back many happy memories.

Gillie Bowen, France