Letters round-up

There are misconceptions which I believe should be addressed. Firstly, Ryedale District Council (RDC) has never submitted an application for planning permission for WSCP. The planning application was submitted by GMI Holbeck. The judge has quashed the planning permission that was granted by RDC, not because he believed that the application was without merit, but because he believed that the planning committee had not been seen to have adequately considered the decision made by a planning inspector who granted permission for the livestock market site.

Indeed, Fitzwilliam Malton Estate’s (FME) own barrister stated that the WSCP was a better site. RDC defended that decision, which was made in light of extensive legal and professional advice. If the planning application is withdrawn it will not be reconsidered.

However, if GMI Holbeck wish RDC to determine the application then RDC has a duty to do so. RDC cannot pick and choose which planning applications it will determine. Secondly, the decision to sell WSCP has cross party support.

As leader it is my job to ensure that all members have sufficient evidence on which to base their decisions. I have no power to make unilateral decisions, once members have made a decision it is part of my role to ensure that decisions are progressed.

Thirdly, I have been asked who RDC is working for. The council is trying to sell an underused asset for the best possible price. The capital realised would have given RDC funds to reinvest in infrastructure - roads, broadband, mobile connectivity, economic development, apprentices, all to help boost business in the district.

We have very limited funds and this would have enabled us to do so much more. Every pound we invest tends to draw in much more from other sources - as with the £2.1 million for the new cattle market.

So my answer is that the council is trying to do the best for the whole district. The roles of the district council and the FME are very different. FME are doing what is best for their own financial interests. The district council has to consider what is beneficial for the district as a whole based on the best advice available. In the long term, Malton is going to need another food store to provide competition for Morrisons, to stop leakage of spending out of the district and to serve many local working people.

So to answer the calls for resignations – I believe that my resignation would give the appearance of running away from a difficult situation. For officers to resign would be wholly disproportionate. The advice on which the planning decision was based was given by some of the most experienced legal and retail planning experts in the country – not by our own officers.

Councillor Linda Cowling, leader of Ryedale District Council

Independent probe

IT WAS very surprising to see the terms of Councillor John Windress’s defence of his planning committee in the Wentworth Street car park decision on the letter page of the Gazette & Herald of July 29.

He appears to seek to deflect criticism by focusing on Ryedale’s record with the judicial reviews, but omits to mention the much more relevant Ryedale District Council (RDC) trace record that this is the second time in close succession that they have tried to pass an unlawful planning consent for the same application on the same site and crucially, it is a site for which the RDC are both owners and planning authority, It is a case where they should have been particularly cautious to be seen to get it right.

To compound the council’s position, we have now been told by the leader of the council the decision of the High Court did not do Coun Windress’ planning committee justice, when in fact, the court’s decision gave his committee benefit of the doubt by finding they had been misled by the officers’ report.

We now learn from the leader of council that “committee members were not misled”. What does she mean? Is she denying the court’s judgement?

I think the people of Ryedale deserve an independent investigation.

P W Beanland, Malton

Uneven fracking

I WENT to a meeting at Lady Lumley’s School, with an open mind, hoping to hear a balanced debate about the pros and cons of fracking.

Instead, the arguments about why fracking should not be allowed were presented by two indifferent speakers and the moral case against was made by Bishop Graham Cray. At no time did anyone attempt to set the argument in the context of a strategic energy policy or to advance a case for fracking.

The following are inconvenient facts to take into consideration: l That 83 per cent of the UK’s domestic heating is fuelled by gas, more than 21 million homes.

l Electricity is nearly three times as expensive as gas – and is therefore not a substitute for gas.

l Because of declining North Sea output, by 2020 the UK will need to import 90 per cent of its gas requirement[assuming no fracking].

l Norway can supply about one third, but the remainder will have to come as LPG in tankers from Qatar or via the Gazprom pipeline from Russia: neither of these are suppliers in whom the British government or the British people can feel entirely confident or secure.

Now this information does not in itself make the argument for fracking – but it does I believe make an argument for having a balanced debate, which allows the case to be made by the developers and people’s concerns to be sensibly debated.

John Morris, Malton