Letters round-up

Councillor Cowling does not have to tell us what everybody knows. Of course, the application was not made by the council, but then the developers were compelled to make and pursue the planning application by a clause in the contract of sale which set the money the council would receive when planning permission was granted. So why is she trying to pretend that the council does not have and never has had any control over the developer’s decisions to apply or not to apply for planning consent?

The council is in this up to its neck and is working hand in glove with the developers. As the inspector said, “there is no excuse”. Councillor Cowling, as leader, never consulted members about the progress of the court case or of the invitations to discuss the matter made by the estate. She is therefore primarily responsible for the catastrophe which many of us believed was inevitable once legal proceedings had been commenced.

She repeats, like many council officers do ad nauseam, that the car park is an “underused asset” and that a superstore on Wentworth Street car park (WSCP) would stop the leakage of trade out of the district. She should know by now that these are both bogus arguments.

If WSCP is underused, this is the council’s fault for two reasons: firstly because it is inadequately sign-posted - particularly for visitors - and secondly, because the council’s “long-stay” charges have been raised yearly at rates in excess of inflation, so that the car park has been priced out of the market. Some years ago there was a fees trial, and charges for all day parking were reduced to £1.50. It took a while for people to get used to this low tariff, but by the end of the trial more money was being received than had been received under the old tariff. However, the council decided the trial was a failure because over the whole period of the trial, less money had been collected overall and put the charges up again. The matter was reviewed by the council’s scrutiny committee, which did not agree with the council, but the committee’s findings were ignored.

As regards “leakage” there is no evidence for this. In 2007, according to a consultant’s report, the “retention” of “convenience” trade (ie food and other items included in one’s weekly shop) was 66 per cent, and the last time retention rates were looked at, the retention was greater than 66 per cent - not less. The council keeps telling us that we should aim to “retain” 85 per cent of all “convenience” trade within Ryedale. This is a daft idea, bearing in mind that Ryedale covers a huge area and people who live closer than Malton to York, Scarborough, Beverley, Thirsk and Easingwold are not going to be attracted to Malton by a new bog standard Tesco-type superstore in WSCP, when there are other stores and shops nearer their homes.

The truth is that the council wants the money, and this is made very clear in Councillor Cowling’s letter. She wants to be able to act like Lady Bountiful and be seen to be distributing Malton’s money for whatever pet projects she favours. The fact that in doing so, she would (if she had succeeded) have put many Malton businesses out of business and many shop workers out of work did not bother her in the slightest.

She shows no remorse – just a determination to brazen out her errors and repeat her folly. It is time for her to go.

Councillor Paul Andrews, RDC, Malton Ward

Thank you for help

MY husband, myself and my grandson holidayed near Snainton in June of this year. My husband chasing steam trains (the museum at York and the North Yorkshire Moors Railway) were amazing, my grandson sharing the driving and me hunting out my ancestors - my grandad Richard Stubbs was born in the area in 1974.

Through your newspaper I would like to thank Sheila Clayton, churchwarden at Ebberston Church, Brenda Green of Yorkshire Ancestors, Kath at Snainton Post Office, Mary Jones and Chris Evans, at Brompton, for the time and help they gave me trying to trace my family.

It was much appreciated. We met some lovely, friendly people and stayed at lovely holiday homes in Stillington and Ebberston station. The search continues.

Fran Butler, Pembroke

Poor treatment

RYEDALE councillors have lost taxpayers a lot of money over Wentworth Street car park, not it appears realising the retail value is nearly nil.

Instead of paying proper attention to the needs of Malton whose industrial parks flourish but where people cannot find affordable homes, or the demonstrable fact that Malton is dirty in streets and alleys, its sewage system stinks. Tory councillors hold a ring of power in Ryedale, but serve the population very poorly.

Jill Knight, Hovingham

Planning wrangles

COUNCILLOR John Windress asserts that my letter regarding the council’s poor handling of Gladman’s three applications at Kirkbymoorside “contains a surprising number of factual inaccuracies” but only ever addresses one point. My statements are based on reliable documents in the public domain and Ryedale District Council’s (RDC) recording of council meetings.

Councillor Windress’s reply relates only to the Gladman three appeal. My concerns relate to the total handling from Gladman one to the present. I acknowledge that it must be difficult for any planning officer who has to defend an appeal against a decision they previously opposed. Others at the time highly criticised the council’s presentation at the appeal.

The planning inspector stated that one key council witness “provided insufficient objective reasoning” and lists unaddressed supporting issues.

Councillor Windress’s letter only serves to confirm my concerns. He states the council’s reduction in reasons for refusal aimed to “reduce the district council’s exposure to the risk of a costs award”. He then states the costs award against the council were “relating to the withdrawal of reasons for refusal”. Costs were awarded against RDC, but nothing has been paid. Would he please explain why. What is the bill likely to be?

I am aware that there are different methods of calculating land availability figures but fail to understand why the planning committee start a meeting without their own current figure, never mind going to an appeal.

Ann Gray, Kirkbymoorside

Frack questions

I MUST agree with Neil Milbanke that we all need to do more research on the subject of fracking, although it’s interesting that he doesn’t dispute the use of depleted uranium.

It would be nice if Third Energy came and explained what they are going to do by attending our meetings, but it has refused despite being invited.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster was cited by the US government as “a culture of corporate recklessness”. Halliburton’s work on the Maconda Well is quoted as being poorly designed, not properly tested and paper work not in order. They were found to be negligent and also found guilty of destroying evidence, ultimately paying $1.1bn to settle legal claims.

I am not impressed with Third Energy using this contractor and also unimpressed that Caudrilla’s well in Lancashire failed – the only example of a High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) well in this country so far.

Paul Gammon, Pickering

‘Poor’ decisions

IN her letter, Linda Cowling tells us that “RDC has never submitted an application for planning permission for WSCP; the planning application was submitted by GMI Holbeck.” She also tells us: “The council is trying to sell an under-used asset for the best possible price.” There can’t be anyone in Ryedale who doesn’t already know those two facts.

The problem here, as she well knows, is that when you wear two hats (selling your own site subject to planning permission and also being in a position to award that permission), the process must be scrupulous, objective and transparent.

The process of awarding this permission, on two occasions, has been quite the opposite. The whole of Ryedale must surely be aware that through the council’s spectacular irresponsibility, they have run up huge bills to be met from public money. Furthermore, RDC still has to “determine” this planning application, which will require yet more consultations and reports – and yet more cost to ratepayers.

There is no way of concealing the fact that the The district council has from the outset been determined to push through this planning consent. They doubtless wanted their officers to ‘mislead’ them, they commissioned reports which said what they wanted to hear and they shut their ears to anything or anyone with an opposing view, including a Government Planning Inspector.

The misinformation continues. The council solicitor’s report to the planning committee for their meeting last Tuesday omits the fact that planning officers ignored the rulings of Inspector Wildsmith. He does not mention that they neither applied the Wildsmith Report’s conclusions nor provided reasons for disagreeing with those conclusions.

The High Court Judge particularly criticised officers for not providing members with a copy of the Wildsmith Report before the evening of the planning meeting itself, thereby ensuring that its contents could not be read before the meeting opened.

That failing by officers is matched by the failure of planning committee members who did not make it their business to obtain a copy to study themselves. None of them could have been unaware that the report was centrally relevant to the WSCP application which they were to determine.

This review of RDC’s conduct by the High Court has exposed some colossally poor decision making at RDC and provokes a serious question. Officers and councillors are making decisions on all manner of things; is this likely to be the only example of mismanagement? The only way that confidence can be restored is for wholesale change at Ryedale House.

Fiona Croft, Old Malton

Coverage ‘shame’

IT is fantastic news that Ryedale tourism is on the up and booming as reported in the Gazette & Herald.

As a local resident and business owner, I think all things positive about Ryedale should be promoted. We should be shouting about how fantastic this area is for both locals and tourists alike.

But I do find it troubling that one lone campaigner called Lorraine Allanson is given so much media coverage to promote fracking in Ryedale. The potential damage to the tourism industry could be disastrous for Malton, Pickering and Ryedale.

This tiny “friends of Ryedale gas exploration” Facebook group only serves one real purpose, and that’s to promote industry spin and line the pockets of Third Energy. In fact, she has clearly stated in the FT that Third Energy stay at her establishment and fund her business. It seems to me that her main objective is to make sure she is okay while the rest of us have our glorious area put at risk.

I wish our little Facebook group “Love Ryedale”, aimed at promoting local news and businesses and already has many more supporters, could achieve the amount of coverage Mrs Allinson gets for promoting such potential harm to the Ryedale. Shame on you.

Steve Mason, Malton

Crime concerns

AS a resident of a low crime area, I read with some concern that Fitzwilliam Estate is questioning the judgement of the police officer’s report, regarding the proposed High Malton development of 500 houses off Castle Howard Road.

In particular, it appears that his crime was to question new urbanism’s attachment to pedestrian alleys, rear parking courts and open space, which in his professional opinion are breeding grounds for crime when positioned away from the fronts of property, and where there is no clear ownership of the space.

I would rather trust the concern of a police officer to reduce crime than the concern of a developer who has committed themselves to a particular design model. As a keen pedestrian and cyclist, I am in favour of footpaths and cycle paths, but ones designed safely and listening to police concerns where crime is concerned. The developer has had a year to digest and address police concerns: it is disappointing that this is now their first response.

Ian Conlan, Malton