Letters round-up

Most of the time these are benign attractive features, however residents are all too aware that they can rapidly become raging torrents, capable of causing flooding and misery to both homes and businesses alike.

At the recent Ryedale District Council (RDC) scrutiny committee, officers made it clear that district councils have no statutory responsibility for flooding. Consequently, we have no officer expertise to draw on and any commissioned review that we undertook, would have to buy in this expertise.

Moreover, a report on flooding in Malton and Norton had recently been commissioned by North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) and was brought to the December Ryedale Area Committee. Some members thought a review by RDC would be a duplication of work already in progress by the lead flood authority.

Local knowledge is a valuable asset and with this in mind, I have supported the formation of a group in Thornton-le-Dale to address flood prevention and water quality improvement.

My hope is that we eliminate duplication, get some efficient work completed and ensure that we have local accountability for current allocated funding. We can then adapt and adopt this model for other villages.

The other substantive item on the scrutiny report was a review of the council's property-related assets. A subject for which we have full responsibility, has no additional financial implications and could potentially create efficiencies within our budget. With limited officer time it surely makes sense to direct it towards something that is our responsibility rather than something that is not.

Of course, this does not mean we ignore the flooding issue, our officers are doing a sterling job coordinating multiagency work and are very hands-on during times of crisis. NYCC as lead flood authority along with emerging local groups are looking at preventative measures.

Councillor Di Keal has, for years, highlighted the issue surrounding flooding in Norton, but does she really believe we need another commissioned review with associated expense to the public purse.

Surely this is now the time to direct any further financial outlay towards the proverbial “man with a shovel” so he can get on with the job.

Janet Sanderson, Thornton-le-Dale

Get the ball rolling

I REGRET having to respond to Councillor Di Keal’s letter, but I feel it is necessary to provide a reply to her attempt at political point scoring.

There is no one size fits all solution to the district’s various flooding issues. However, one thing is clear – a further review is certainly not the answer. It is clear what needs to be done in Malton, Norton, Brawby and other parishes that have experienced problems. All that remains is to actually do it.

Last year, North Yorkshire County Council produced a comprehensive report about Malton and Norton at the cost of at least £70,000.

While this important work needed to be done, the additional review by Ryedale District Council may cost tens of thousands of pounds more, runs the risk of replicating existing studies and, most importantly, offers a further excuse for the various agencies to hold off actually taking action.

What is more, Ryedale has no in-house experts to add any new knowledge that may promote the completion of the necessary schemes, including the much-needed new bridge across Priorpot Beck in Norton.

Instead of this all encompassing and unnecessary review, I would have preferred Ryedale to explore the possibility of offering an amount of initial capital, however small, to “get the ball rolling”.

Instead of spending more money talking about the measures, RDC should be working to secure the funding that is so desperately required to complete them. We are in a very good position to liaise with parishes, the county council, our MP, the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water. We need to start fighting our corner before a repeat episode and I will continue to support these agencies in any and every way I can.

Coun Keal may prefer to keep talking about it. I would rather crack on and do something. I hope Ryedale council and other agencies take a similar approach. Let’s do more and talk less.

Councillor Keane Duncan, Norton East

Goats for milking

READING about the problems Dale Lowther faced as a goat keeper (Dales Diary) brought back memories of being a smallholder, keeping suckler cows and calves and two goats, mother and daughter, while my wife was quite successful running a B&B.

The mother goat was flush with milk, which we used extensively, especially for porridge, but we always bought cows’ milk for the visitors.

I never let the goats out until the visitors had gone out for the day and then brought them back in early.

One afternoon the visitors landed back earlier than usual and while we sat on the low wall in front of the house enjoying a cup of tea, both the goats came chasing into the yard and into their box.

Not a word was spoken but for the rest of the week nobody wanted cereals for breakfast.

Douglas Punchard, Helmsley

EU farm subsidies

IT APPEARS from letters and articles that farmers fear a vote to leave the EU would mean their loss of subsidies. At least to those farmers who have received their payment.

However, I feel a longer term approach needs to be considered. Despite the UK being a net contributor to the EU, the money given to the CAP looks set to decrease as the number of recipients gets larger.

Bulgaria is the most recent country to have applied to become a member of the EU, supported by London and Berlin.

New countries that continue to join the EU are poor enough to be net recipients of the EU budget and therefore dilute the funds available for the UK.

As the Euro currency continues to fail, payments have already been shrinking and will continue to do so with a weak single currency. Effectively, British farmers have suffered pay cuts for the last two years.

Prior to joining the Common Market (which the UK public originally voted for – not political union headed up by unelected Commissioners) British governments of all persuasions supported agriculture, it is not a unique EU concept.

A common sense approach would be for The government should set out a manifesto detailing how they would govern if in the event the public voted to leave (which is what the current polls indicate) and how they would invest the £55 million per day which British tax payers currently pay to be a member of this “club”.

Emma Lund, Broughton

Fracking no-votes show the need for credible policies

LAST Tuesday, a strongly Conservative controlled Ryedale District Council voted overwhelmingly to reject Third Energy’s application for fracking in Kirby Misperton, pictured, after listening to many arguments for and against.

The vote was based on a deep concern about the risks from this industry to the environment, existing local tourism and agriculture, traffic, noise and light pollution, waste water, air pollution and many others.

There was also a deep mistrust of the regulatory regime and promises of “Gold Standard Regulation”, with little evidence to back those claims.

Incidentally, those are precisely the promises given in the USA and Australia prior to the industrialisation of vast tracts of land and a host of proven problems.

Most town and parish councils local to this site have also voted for bans or moratoria on fracking. A significant majority of local councillors and residents have spent countless hours closely scrutinising this industry and found the risks greatly outweigh the benefits.

Now we must wait to see if North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) councillors will similarly do their homework – far more likely now fracking licenses have been granted “in their back yards” too.

If, contrary to the highly-paid lobbyists of industry and government, the facts lead NYCC into also making the “wrong” decision, I have no doubt government will call it in and change it to the “right” decision, thus making a total mockery of democracy, their own Localism Act and their own climate change targets.

A credible energy policy would be a good place to start.

Councillor Mike Potter, Pickering