COUNCIL chiefs at Ryedale House have this week been studying the impact of a planning inspector’s decision to give the green light to the multi-million pound development of Malton Livestock Market.

Council planners had refused to grant permission but the Fitzwilliam Malton Estate had that decision overturned at appeal.

The council insisits it is now taking a positive view of the town’s future but has warned that ‘wish-list’ projects could be at risk.

Council leader Keith Knaggs told the Gazette & Herald: “It is in the interests of all that the development is a success now that it has received outline consent.”

The decision to allow “upmarket” retailing on the livestock market site as part of a comprehensive scheme drawn up by the Estate puts the spotlight on the controversial Wentworth Street car park site.

The council has already agreed in principle to sell part of the car park for a possible supermarket development, garnering £5 million for the council.

But planning inspector David Wildsmith said in his decision notice that the council must reconsider the application to develop the site.

If the planning committee overturns its previous decision to allow development, it would have an impact on the council’s capital spending programme, said Coun Knaggs.

He said: “It would mean that any projects not already in the council’s capital plan would be funded either from the sale of council assets – and both the car park and the Norton Bowls Club underline that this can be unpopular – or from borrowing, which pushes up council tax through interest charges. Or it just doesn’t happen.

“The Milton Rooms in Malton and Pickering flood defences and support for relocating the livestock market are potential projects which immediately come to mind as being at risk,” said Coun Knaggs.

He said it was “widely accepted” that the car park was under-utilised.

“There could be scope for some alternative development,” said Coun Knaggs, when asked if such things as workshops, leisure facilities, housing and retailing might be considered.

“Of course, the proposed supermarket provides more car parking space, and the loss of parking implicit in most alternatives has to be a factor.”

Janet Waggott, the council’s chief executive, said of the costs of losing the appeal: “The proportionality of the costs claimed is a key consideration since it is a central principle to any assessment of costs. The amount claimed must not be disproportionate to the fact that the planning inquiry only lasted five days.”

Ms Waggott said that once the costs are known, a report will be presented to councillors. She, too, believed the money would come from the authority’s reserves.

“It will not impact on the level of council tax,” she added.

Ms Waggott said the council had expected “not less than £5 million” from the sale of part of the car park.

“However, this money had not been allocated to specific schemes ahead of its receipt,” she said. “The net result if the car park scheme does not go ahead will be that the funds available to invest for the benefit of Ryedale residents will be significantly lower. In future, major schemes such as Brambling Fields junction upgrade, Malton School Sports Centre and investment in the Harrison Collection will be more difficult to progress.”

On the livestock market, Ms Waggott said: “We look forward to seeing the reserve matters progress quickly and encourage the Estate to bring forward its detailed application.”

 

Council told to pay ‘substantial’ costs

RYEDALE District Council could be hit with a bill of up to £200,000 after Fitzwilliam Malton Estate won its appeal to allow the livestock market in the town to be redeveloped.

And the council’s corporate director Paul Cresswell has confirmed there is no budgetary provision for such a bill.

In his capacity as chief finance officer, Mr Cresswell issued a statement at last week’s council meeting pointing out there had been an award of partial costs against the council on two of the four reasons for initially refusing the planning proposals which were for a medium-sized supermarket plus other retail units linking in to the nearby town centre.

Mr Cresswell said: “The finalisation of these costs is likely to take some time.

“However, I would like members to be aware of this situation and the potential substantial costs for which there is no budgetary provision.”

He added he would bring forward for members’ approval some proposals on how to finance the costs from the council’s reserves “at the appropriate time”.

Although no figure was given in the formal statement, it is understood the costs could amount to between £130,000 and £200,000.

Coun Tommy Woodward (Lib) called for a discussion on the issues, including the Wentworth Street car park plans for a major supermarket, which were approved on the same evening that the livestock market proposals were thrown out by the council’s planning committee.

Coun Paul Andrews asked if the figure of £200,000 could be confirmed and suggested the council’s leader, Coun Keith Knaggs, should resign over the matter. But Coun Knaggs (Con) replied in relation to the costs: “I cannot and will not confirm any figure. Apart from the award, I don’t feel it is in the best interests to say anything at this time.”

After the meeting he told the Gazette & Herald that the costs awarded against the council to the Fitzwilliam Estate could be “substantial” but said it is likely that the potential six-figure sum would come out of reserves.

He added: “A partial award of costs is difficult to determine and involves a legal process which itself will take some time.”

 

Farmers in talks

FARMERS and hauliers are in talks with the Fitzwilliam Estate and other parties over the future of the livestock market.

Pat Foxton, chairman of the Malton and Ryedale Livestock Company, said: “There are talks going on behind closed doors but we cannot say any more at present.”

He added that it was hoped to make a statement in about two weeks.

One plan is to build a new livestock market in the Showfield Lane area of Malton, on the outskirts of the town.

 

Council actions ‘clearly resulted in unnecessary expense’

THE report last week of the reversal by a government planning inspector of Ryedale Council’s refusal to allow a proposed redevelopment of the Malton livestock market was as important for what it did not say as for what it did.

The inspector in fact disagreed with all four of the reasons that Ryedale District Council gave for refusing planning consent. This is not a case where an inspector took a different view “on balance” or on a technicality. The inspector disagreed profoundly with the reasons given for the refusal.

Indeed, he found two of those reasons to be so unreasonable that he has decreed that the council must refund the Fitzwilliam Malton Estate’s costs incurred in having to appeal them. It is most unusual for a planning authority to be required to refund costs and reflects the inspector’s view that the council’s actions have to be viewed as unreasonable and have clearly resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense. These costs will inevitably be borne by the public.

It is significant that, half-way through the hearing, when the council had admitted in front of the inspector that their reasons were flawed, the Estate made an offer to settle and concede the recovery of costs to that point, in return for saving further costs and time.

The council refused that offer and required the hearing to continue in the knowledge that substantial further costs would be incurred.

Roddy Bushell, Estate manager, Fitzwilliam Malton Estate