Letters round-up

Others will no doubt disagree.

The big corporations have one thing in mind – maximum profit at minimal cost – and our public bodies, like the Environment Agency, don’t have the resources to monitor them. The regulations are being weakened by government in this “Dash for Gas”. George Osborne’s austerity cuts have seen to that.

The Green Party is stuck on the risks’ narrative. The Liberals and Labour are mixed up on the issues of fracking and support for renewables.

But the Lib Dems have moved forward with the evidence. Their main opposition to fracking, as the federal conference states, is that the climate impact is unacceptable in the light of post-Paris 2015 goals and our existing commitments to achieving a zero carbon Britain by 2050.

Without any requirement to justify opposition on the risks of the technology, the Lib Dems are opposed on the simple requirement to meet climate targets and break us from our fossil fuel addiction.

Baroness Lynne Featherstone summed it up very well, saying: “We need energy security. We need sustainable energy. We need to meet our legally binding targets. Fracking will not deliver any of these. But it will deliver greenhouse gases. We must now come up with ways to rapidly reduce demand for gas, so that it declines at the same rate (or faster) as conventional domestic supplies. That is the task for Lib Dem policy development."

No Lynne, that is the task for us all.

Steve Mason, Malton

Continue rejection

RYEDALE residents and others opposed to fracking anywhere will take heart, both in Ryedale District Council’s decision not to recommend to North Yorkshire County Council’s acceptance of Third Energy’s application, and in the poverty of the arguments to which its proponents are reduced and which were advanced in the council chamber.

Third Energy appealed to the common sense of Ryedale councillors who were supposed to be so impressed by the company’s good works in Ryedale and by its long record of safety while not fracking in the neighbourhood that they would recommend it be allowed to frack, while Forge advanced the attractively conclusive argument that as “Armageddon” (sic) had not arrived when natural gas was first extracted conventionally in Ryedale, so, axiomatically, it was impossible while extracting gas unconventionally – fracking.

Armageddon? But you know what they mean. Let us continue to work for rejection of fracking, here in Ryedale, in the UK, anywhere.

David Cragg-James, Stonegrave

Bankruptcy woe

WE HAVE heard much about the effect of the 2016 Budget on industry and personal taxation.

Nothing much has been said about the parlous condition of the UK economy.

In the 11 years, 2005 to 2016, our National Debt has risen from £0.5 trillion to £1.53 trillion, an average annual increase of 10.7 per cent. Whereas our Gross Domestic Product has risen from £1.316 trillion to £1.735 trillion, an average annual increase of 2.5 per cent.

If these rates continue, this country, in or out of the EU, will be technically bankrupt by 2019.

As things are, there are six other countries in the EU. Twenty-eight which have a National Debt to GDP ratio greater than 100 per cent. Let us not be number seven.

Is anyone concerned?

D Loxley, Hartoft

More fly tipping

I CAN’T be the only person who has noticed the huge increase in fly tipping since the charges were implemented for disposing of trade/household building waste.

Driving through rural Ryedale I have been shocked at the amount of rubbish just chucked out in the hedgerows. I would beg the council to review the charges at the waste disposal/recycling centres.

Monica Gripaios, Hovingham

Why do we bother?

A GREAT deal of time, energy and money was put into making a superb mountain biking track and picnic area for youngsters in Newbridge Wood, Pickering.

By way of gratitude the area is now litter-strewn, with picnic tables overturned, remains of fires and holes punched in the notice boards.

I would also liken this behaviour to that of the strange people in Pickering who diligently pick up after their dog and then throw the bag into a hedge or simply leave it on the ground for us all to enjoy.

The correlation here is – why bother when someone else will mend it, replace it or pick it up?

P Hukin, Pickering

Floods: The facts

OVER the last 15 years I have successfully campaigned for the provision of flood protection in Malton, Norton, Old Malton and Pickering.

On that basis, I must completely refute the claims by Councillor Keane Duncan in the Gazette & Herald (March 23). He accuses me of talk rather than action, so I have to remind him of a few facts:

Following a major flood in Malton, Norton and Old Malton, along with my husband Howard, I launched a major campaign to protect the towns from flooding;

The campaign led to the building of the £10.3 million flood alleviation scheme that now protects our towns;

I proposed and, with Howard, gained, cross-party support for a £1m “pump priming” grant from Ryedale District Council that led to the scheme protecting Pickering;

I have pressed the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and other agencies since the flooding in autumn 2012 for further measures to protect Norton and Malton.

Just days after being pictured with flood victims, Coun Duncan refused to take the opportunity to act on their behalf when he voted against a review into flooding – talk designed to result in action to protect homes.

My support for the Ryedale District Council scrutiny review into flooding is about holding the county council and other agencies to account as to what they are going to do to prevent repeated flooding.

The county council showed no sense of urgency in compiling its report on flooding and has taken three years to write it – in which time the towns have faced the latest flood over the Christmas period last year when I was out in my wellies on Boxing Day supporting residents.

A review by the district council is a low-cost way to bring pressure to bear on the responsible agencies to carry out essential work to prevent flooding.

This isn’t about political point scoring, it is about working effectively for the community.

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

Litter blight

I’M not a country girl. From the east end of Leeds to the east end of London, I have lived with the sounds, smells and litter of a city until embracing the delights of God’s County in my post-60 years.

But what a disappointment and embarrassment some parts of our county are. I refer to the detritus which adorns the roadside of the A64. Plastic sheeting and carrier bags festoon the trees and hedgerows and rubbish of all kinds blooms in the verges reflecting our throw-away consumer society.

Who is responsible for caring for these areas?

Is it the local councils or is it up to volunteer groups or those charged with completing community service?

By comparison, highways and byways in countries such as France, Germany and Belgium etc, seem much cleaner and less spoiled. What can be done to improve the appearance of such a wonderful county in which we are all fortunate to live?

Linda McCarthy, Old Malton

Housing objection

RE: Proposed housing development – Peasey Hills, Malton and Manor Farm, Old Malton.

With reference to the public exhibition held recently by Pilgrim PR, there are some compelling reasons to object to this proposal.

Increased flood risks. Old Malton has problems with flooding from surface water. This is not being helped by the cattle market and other businesses at Eden Camp where the original plan has already been extended and more absorbing farmland lost to concrete. There is already planning consent for houses at Westgate, Old Malton. More housing at Peasey Hills and Old Malton will only make the flooding problem worse.

Traffic congestion and safety. Highfield Road and Town Street are already congested at peak times. When the Eden Camp cattle market with its 600 employees takes off, traffic will increase even further without this proposed new development. It is difficult for pedestrians to cross the road with traffic levels as they are, without an increase.

Manor Farm. The proposed development on land off Manor Farm is not within the Ryedale Plan and should therefore not be given planning consent.

Jim and Ann Nolan, Old Malton

Fracking debate

AFTER speaking at the Ryedale District Council (RDC) planning meeting on March 15, I feel informed enough to respond to Councillor Mike Potter’s letter (Gazette, March 23) for the purpose of setting the record straight.

Coun Potter’s letter is another example of trying to mislead the public by opponents to shale gas. He failed to mention that the environmental health officer (EHO), who is the most qualified person at RDC on environmental matters, did not object to the application in his professional capacity.

Furthermore, RDC’s planning and housing manager, who is the most experienced person at RDC on planning matters, approved the application.

In addition, some committee members failed to disclose they had obvious pre-determined views. Evidence being: holding placards at demonstrations, previously declaring to the media that “I am particularly against fracking” and reading out a pre-written letter against the application – are perhaps not the cleverest of ways to show “open mindedness” and a non-pre-determined mind set.

Unfortunately, some of the questions asked by the committee members revealed they may not have read the officers’ report as thoroughly as it merited, bearing in mind the high public interest.

The most striking memory of the evening, however, was that some of the council members stated that their reasons for voting against the application were not actually related to the application itself, but due to their fears for the future, revealing a lack of understanding of the planning process, as well as their roles within it.

Councillors should only vote on the material facts in front of them and not consider future development. Their actions seriously failed both sides of the debate.

Coun Potter and I do agree on one thing, this country needs a credible energy policy. And this credible energy policy, will need gas as a cornerstone of the energy mix to act as a bridge to renewables and a swing producer when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

Lorraine Allanson, Allerston

Setting out the facts

AS A town councillor in Helmsley, I am aware that it is not always easy for local people to access clear factual information about plans for fracking in the immediate area – especially without easy access to the internet.

So I would like to tell readers that Helmsley Town Council will have an information stall in the town market on Friday (April 8), where residents can see maps of the local licences that have been awarded, a table showing which villages are affected by each one, and information about the level of commitment to drill in each licence area.

There will also be information about what happens next, and guidance about how residents can have a say in the planning process.

After the display, the same information will be available in a file in Helmsley library.

The library staff are also happy to help people to access the Helmsley Town Council website, where they will find a fracking section that includes a number of links to a range of factual content and opinion (both for and against fracking).

I would myself be very happy to meet with any resident to help with queries, or to assist with online access, and anyone interested is welcome to phone the town council on 01439 772572 and leave their contact details so that I can be in touch with them directly.

Councillor Erica Rose, Helmsley

Why do we need a man-made park?

RE: Proposed housing development Peasey Hills and Old Malton.

I attended the consultation meeting about this proposed development and came away very worried about the impact it will have, if it comes to fruition.

Impact on drainage and flooding – Old Malton regularly floods. The fields that form part of this proposed development often have standing water during times of heavy rain.

The run off from an additional 300 homes can only make this worse. We already have an additional 30-plus homes approved for the Coronation Farm development and the development at Eden Camp, all of which will increase the risk of flooding in Old Malton.

Impact on safety – The proposed access at Manor Farm is near a dangerous bend and visibility is restricted for turning in and out.

The proposed access off Highfield Road is also dangerous, close to the sharp bend off Town Street and the bottleneck of the bridge over the old railway line.

The excess traffic from the proposed 300 new homes will surely increase the safety risk to the children accessing the primary schools in Highfield Lane. The increase in traffic from the 600 employees of the development at Eden Camp will add to the flow through Old Malton. Pedestrian safety will be compromised even further by the traffic from additional homes.

The Highfield Nature Park – The proposed park is being marketed as a green belt and a buffer against any further development towards Old Malton.

The houses proposed for the fields next to Manor Farm are on the Old Malton side of the rural footpath and back directly onto houses on Town Street. This is exactly the opposite of creating a buffer. This land does not form part of the Ryedale Plan and development here should not be permitted.

We already have a green belt – the fields the developers want to build on, the Gannock and the riverside. Why do we need a man-made park when we already have natural, rural beauty surrounding us? I urge people to think carefully about the impact of this proposal before it is too late.

Margaret Middlebrook, Old Malton