SO Councillor Keane Duncan claims he is going to make sure that Toisland View is not forgotten when officials review what needs to be done to prevent future flooding in Norton and Malton” (Gazette & Herald, February 24).

Interesting then that at last week’s Ryedale District Council scrutiny meeting, Coun Duncan voted against a proposal to carry out a review of the flooding problems faced by residents in Norton, Malton and wider Ryedale.

As a member of this committee I argued strongly that this review needs to take place alongside the report produced by the North Yorkshire County Council, to look at a variety of solutions to tackle the flooding across the district.

The review, which the committee did agree to carry out, will investigate how Ryedale District Council can work with its partners at the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water, parish councils and local people to prevent and tackle future flooding.

I have already talked with Yorkshire Water about the most recent flooding and requested information from the Environment Agency on the issues at Priorpot Beck. I am continuing to press for work under the railway line near Church Street to be carried out urgently to make emergency pumping easier, which will mean that the road will not need to be closed for long periods in the event of another flood.

It is unacceptable that having spent £10.3m on the main flood alleviation scheme that protects Norton, Malton and Old Malton we still have problems on the “dry side” of the defences and the review is an important and necessary part of the process of finding the solutions needed to properly protect local residents.

Councillor Di Keal, Ryedale District and town councillor for Norton West

 

Mature talks in private meeting

KEVIN Hollinrake is being subjected through publicly-written letters to unfair criticism insofar as he arranged to meet privately, executives from the fracking industry to continue his search for knowledge.

This is an acceptable way to seek knowledge. His motives are laudable and when he considers any matter warrants a public meeting then he would call one.

Everybody knows the difference between public and private meetings. In the former it is natural for people to become excitable, often aggressive, in private ones there is the opportunity to have mature conversation.

I make no comment supporting or opposing fracking. I only wish to make a plea that a good man trying his level best to handle a difficult situation can be allowed to go about his affairs with our respect, understanding that not every matter can be discussed and debated in public. If this were the case heaven help us all.

Whether it be political, medical, environmental, artistic, or whatever a country would become ungovernable if every single endeavour had to be so handled.

Ashley Burgess, Thornton-le-Dale

 

Fracking decision should be in area

HAVING lived and worked in Ryedale most of my life, I feel connected to the landscape around me. And I don’t want to see it changed or damaged in any way.

The strong evidence that is coming out of US and Australia cannot be ignored, whether it is the methane released, the chemicals in the land, the noise or pollution.

The threat that fracking proposes is real for all of us to see and should be decided by us who have to live with the consequences of someone else’s decision.

I feel that Mr Hollinrake, who was voted in to be our representative in Westminster has failed to represent the majority of his constituents who are against this industry coming to our area. I fear our democracy is being eroded away by this government, with the constant changes in legislation to ease the way for the fracking industry.

I am concerned that should North Yorkshire County Council refuse the application for Third Energy to begin fracking at Kirby Misperton, we will be subjected to the same treatment as Lancashire County Council with the final decision on the application being made out of the area by Greg Clark.

Anne Nightingale, Helmsley