I WOULD appreciate the opportunity to correct a misleading impression given by Ms Ann Gray (Letters, August 5) when she referred to the handling of the Gladman planning inquiry in relation to residential development at Kirkbymoorside.

Her letter contains a surprising number of factual inaccuracies.

To state planning officers did not properly defend the Gladman appeal is not an accurate characterisation of the actual position.

To properly defend the appeal it was essential to focus on the strongest reasons for refusal. It also reduced the district council’s exposure to the risk of a costs award which Gladman Developments Limited applied for.

At the planning inquiry on October 28 and 29, 2014, Ms Ann Gray and other local residents had the opportunity to put their views to Mr Nixon, the planning inspector appointed to consider the appeal.

The views of Ms Ann Gray and other third parties were taken into account. The planning inspector did not ignore the views of Ms Ann Gray and the other objectors. He just attached different weight to them in the decision making process.

Planning officers involved in the processing and determination of planning matters and defending appeals are required to act in accordance with the council’s Code of Conduct for Officers and their professional codes of conduct.

As a result, planning officers’ views, opinions and recommendations will be presented on the basis of their overriding obligation of professional independence, which may on occasion be at odds with the views, opinions or decisions of the committee or its members. Very often these opinions are based on their interpretations of national planning policy statements issued by the Secretary of State.

In relation to Ms Ann Gray’s question about costs, 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 district council has made no payment of costs to Gladmans on that appeal.

While I appreciate Ms Ann Gray’s disappointment at the outcome, her allegations that planning officers did not properly defend the Gladman appeal are unfounded.

Cllr John Windress, chairman of the planning committee, Ryedale District Council

 

Fracking concern

I WOULD hope that the debates about fracking in Ryedale could be conducted based on evidence and not on personal attacks.

I oppose fracking, but not because of ignorance as the pro-fracking contingent is so quick to suggest. My father was a petroleum engineer and a geologist who worked in the oil industry in Texas. He was very concerned about fracking, as am I, because of issues such as the contamination of groundwater due to necessary use of additives such as biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and hydrochloric acid, and the storage of the resulting, often radioactive, wastewater.

He was also convinced significant subsidence had been caused by pumping out the millions of litres of groundwater required. Emissions of hydrogen sulphide, formaldehyde, benzene, and ozone are some of the significant airborne hazards associated with fracking that raise serious health concerns.

Rural areas in the US often have smog levels worse than downtown Los Angeles due to emissions. The issue is not about “defending the farming industry”, it is about fracking and its consequences.

To suggest anyone who is opposed to fracking does not support the agricultural community, as FORGE supporters allege, is unnecessarily inflammatory as well as simply wrong. Those of us who have reached a considered conclusion to oppose fracking fully support our farmers, as well as the rest of the residents of Ryedale, all of whom will share the consequences and should have a say in determining our collective future.

Jean McKendree, Westow

 

Plea for support

I REFER to the article in the Gazette & Herald (July 15) stating “A campaign to ban heavy lorries from using Sutton Bank on the A170 has been scuppered by Helmsley Town Council”.

Sutton under Whitestonecliffe Parish Council had written to several local parish councils, including Helmsley Town Council, highlighting our campaign and seeking support.

We have not received a response from Helmsley Town Council but trust we will do so in the near future. We are certainly not aware that they have scuppered our campaign.

The proposed traffic regulation order (TRO) is designed to reduce the number of blockages by HGVs unable to ascend the bank, which then results in substantial time delays and fuel costs to all other motorists.

A solution is the combination of the proposed TRO, together with the implementation of recommendations in the Faber Maunsell Report, commissioned by a Freight Quality Partnership of North Yorkshire County Council, North Yorkshire Police and the Freight Transport Association.

The proposed permit system would not apply to local hauliers and regular hauliers who have no problems in ascending the bank.

We have been monitoring the blockages on the bank by HGVs for two years, and the vast majority are caused by hauliers from afar, often from Europe, who are not aware of the hazards on Sutton Bank.

If you wish to support our campaign, then please go to Petitions24.com Sutton Bank on your search engine.

Cllr John Sharp, Sutton under Whitestonecliffe Parish Council