Unjust decision

After a prolonged one-sided debate, Teesdale District Council, as reported (Aug 8), approved Wimpey's planning application for the Montalbo Road development.

Councillors, who had not been party to previous debates, voted for this proposal in the face of consistent opposition from fellow councillors and apparently with no heed to the factual and cogently argued objections of the local residents' group.

None of our democratically elected representatives said a word in favour of this development, except Coun Coates who stoutly asserted his support for affordable housing that he maintained the development will provide.

This was an appalling act of flagrant injustice.

After a lengthy session behind closed doors, one councillor described what was to follow as "an act of pure theatre".

What we saw was a faceless, silent majority waiting with studied indifference to perform their bogus ritual of a named vote to overturn the rejection of Wimpey's application; a rejection that had been confirmed twice by a committee with local knowledge and delegated authority.

To add insult, we learnt the council had commissioned an independent planning consultant to prepare a report on its case at appeal. It was apparent, from Coun Wood's comments, that this report had been the focus of the lengthy discussion in the meeting held in camera. This report, we understand, is based on information from planning officers whose advice to approve Wimpey's application had been rejected twice by local councillors.

A copy of our submission to the appeal inquiry, which wholeheartedly endorses development control south committee's decision to refuse planning permission, is available in the planning section.

We doubt the consultant was given this file to read. She would have found a carefully argued case, with documentary evidence, against the approval of Wimpey's development on the grounds of excessive density, based on erroneous planning information, and the resultant inappropriate design. How can the consultant's report be thorough and independent, based as it is on incomplete and biased information?

For example, in the council debate, planning officers failed to provide adequate answers to key questions such as what is the actual area of the development site? Critical distinctions in national planning policy guidelines, such as the difference between incidental open space and informal public open space, were confused. Statements from the Teesdale local plan were quoted out of context in support the proposed development, which taken in context provide evidence of its erroneous density.

This is the evidence we would have made public at the appeal inquiry. We

could have discussed it with the independent planning consultant. We understand s/he was willing to meet with residents. We could have provided the backbone to the defence of the locally supported decision of the development control south committee.

Our councillors and community have been misled and badly served by council officers. The voices of objectors have been ignored. This issue should not be allowed to rest here.

IAN GRAYSTONE, PAM GRUNWELL & TERRY WILLITS

Wellington Road,

Barnard Castle.

Planning plaudits

Sir, - I am the owner and developer of Croft Barn, Hardraw, the subject of much debate and several articles.

Obtaining permission to develop it has been long and difficult but, as reported last week, planning has now been granted for three houses including one local needs house.

This follows a great deal of discussion with neighbours in Hardraw, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and Coun John Blackie.

The planning process and its officers are often criticised. I have not always agreed with YDNPA; I have been unhappy with some procedures at committee meetings and site visits, and have made my disquiet known.

There can be few staff at Bainbridge with whom I haven't had dealings, and from receptionists to chief executive, I have found them all brilliant. They have been helpful, courteous, efficient and (a rarity nowadays) actually seem to care about what they do and how they deal with the public.

An example: I sent a letter of complaint relating to my application. I received an e-mail acknowledging its receipt the same day, then a phone call, at home, outside office hours, from David Butterworth, the chief executive, offering to meet me either at Bainbridge or my house to discuss my grievances. He then spent over an hour with me going through the issues.

It is rare nowadays to find an organisation with this level of commitment, and I think it flows down throughout the authority. Administrative staff and planning officers are equally helpful.

We should be proud of the work done by the planning authority and the commitment and professionalism its officers and officials display in doing often thankless work, working to rules and guidelines that many people perhaps fail to fully understand.

They balance the need for progress and development in the Dales with the requirement to preserve the beauty of the countryside. We are fortunate to have a planning department of this quality.

HOWARD BUFFETT

The Barn,

Hardraw.

Safety proposals

Sir, - I wish to applaud and fully support the alternatives proposed by the Highways Agency to address the concerns of bridlepath users. The proposals detailed in the D&S two weeks ago were in response to objections regarding the use of corrals to cross the A66 and considered the following:

C1 enables users from east and west on the north side to cross at Melsonby crossroads and avoid that long staggered crossing at Sedbury Home Farm.

C2 enables users to cross safely via the underpass avoiding the possibility of traffic frightening a horse on to the A66.

C3 enables users to link the Winston cross roads with Jagger Lane on the north side and cross safely via the underpass.

C4 enables a safe underpass crossing at Warrener Lane.

C5 links Winston crossroads, Jagger Lane and Melsonby crossroads on the north side and Jagger Lane to Hargill Lane on the south side enabling access to safe crossings at both Jagger and Melsonby crossroads.

These proposals are eminently sensible and safe for bridlepath users and traffic on the A66 and all adjacent roads. If the inquiry in September considers they are acceptable alternatives, bridlepath users will be very well accommodated in the plans to upgrade the A66. I am grateful to the BHS access representatives, Highways Agency and local objectors for their respective actions.

All users of the bridlepaths and respective road crossings, would be advised to ensure the Highways Agency is aware of their support for the latest alternatives asap and before the inquiry starts on September 8.

Write to Sue Lavin, The Highways Agency, 8 East, City House, New Station Street, Leeds LS1 4UR.

SUE ZISSLER

Melsonby.

Sir, - Your correspondent (D&S Aug 15) appears either not to have read my earlier letter or to have deliberately misconstrued it. The issue is not about approving or disapproving of religion, nor of the desire of religious people to introduce their children to their faith: the problem is, quite specifically, one of telling children that the biblical account of creation is literally true.

This is damaging enough, but the much more serious transgression is that of telling children that they should believe what they are taught by dogma, not what they can understand by way of reason and evidence.

It is worth quoting the words of Sir Thomas More: "Man was made to serve God in the tangle of his mind", in other words, we should use our God-given intellect to understand the world and its marvels.

Over the centuries, religious dogmatism has been used to justify everything from the persecution of heretics and Jews to the belief that the earth was the centre of the universe or that women were inherently inferior to men.

The constitution of the US enshrines separation of church and school because those who wrote it understood the difference between education and indoctrination.

Sadly, this part of the constitution is all too often ignored in US schools where bigotry appears to have triumphed over common sense and where, as with your correspondent, there is a confusion between the teaching of moral values and the trumpeting of a narrow-minded, intolerant version of Christianity. Please God, let us not repeat that mistake here.

ROGER FISKEN

Church Wynd,

Hutton Rudby.

Ring road - now

Sir, - North Yorkshire County Council has circulated its traffic management survey for Northallerton so that the public are consulted. Full marks!

But it says the proposals for improvements will be "long lasting." Far from it, especially as the weight of traffic increases year by year.

Five main roads converge on Northallerton - Darlington, Teesside, Leeming, Thirsk, Boroughbridge/Ripon. The link between the A1 and the A19 comes through the town.

Long overdue is a major ring road round Northallerton. Only this will take traffic out of the town.

Easingwold had only one main road running through the town but the county council at huge expense by-passed it. Another huge outlay freed Ripon. So don't pretend that a Northallerton ring road is not possible. Elsewhere in the country, similar towns have been by-passed for years. It is time our county council realised it is lagging behind and just messing about.

May the hope be expressed that every parish, town and district councillor, and every respondent to the questionnaire, will make it clear that what is wanted is a ring road - now. Put the proposed improvements on the shelf, take them down again a few years after a ring road is in place, and most of them would be shredded.

R C DALES

Church view,

Brompton.

Cliffhanger?

Sir, - With reference to "Villager's bid to bring Cliffe back to life is thwarted" (D&S Aug 15), may I make one observation.

The final paragraph reads, "Unfortunately, they (Manfield with Cliffe Parish Council) agreed, saying there was no such village as Cliffe anyway, and so the new sign is still going to read Piercebridge."

If there is no such village as "Cliffe" how can the parish council be called Manfield with Cliffe?

Either there is a "Cliffe", as acknowledged by the parish council, the district council and North Yorkshire County Council or "Cliffe" does not exist and therefore the parish council is misnamed.

The parish council cannot have it both ways. If the parish council accepts there is a Cliffe, as in its title, then the area south of the bridge over the River Tees, in Richmondshire, is Cliffe and not Piercebridge.

BRIAN JEFFERSON

The Green

Piercebridge

Auction mart

Sir, - Concerning the proposed relocation of Northallerton auction mart from the town centre to a site off Thirsk Road close to the St James housing estate.

I note the comments in the press, but I understand that the consensus of opinion of those living around the present site is that they would be very glad to see it removed.

The move would not be a straight relocation of current activities of the auction mart in Applegarth but a proposed substantial intensification of activities.

The residents of the St James area are not opposed to the move of the auction mart and sympathise with the residents of the area around the Applegarth site, but the problem will not be solved by its relocation to another sensitive site.

It is also contrary to established planning policy at both local and Government level.

R MATTHEWS

St James Drive,

Northallerton.

Sir, - With regard to the proposed development of the auction mart in Thirsk Road, Northallerton, Coun Peter Brown is unable to officially represent his ward as he is deemed to have an interest in that he lives on St James Estate, thus disenfranchising his constituents.

Our councillors are similarly placed. My question is: have the members of the planning committee registered their interest, and does "interest" merely cover monetary matters, ie shares in the mart?

It would seem to me that if "interest" can be defined to cover the residence of a councillor, it should also be defined to cover any member of the farming community who might use the mart or supply goods or services to it. Is this the case? How many members of the planning committee have any business interests associated with the mart, for example haulage, construction or allied trades?

DIANE HILLMAN

St John's Close,

Northallerton.

Cul-de-sac issue

Sir, - During the 1997 public inquiry into the district plan, the residents of Brentwood, Leyburn, sought to retain the road as a cul-de-sac.

Two councillors gave residents written assurances that cul-de-sac status would be preserved, and North Yorkshire County Council proposed a site for lockable bollards at the Wensleydale Avenue junction to facilitate access by the emergency services. However, the road was opened to through traffic in 1999.

After much correspondence and discussion with North Yorkshire County Council, it decided to retain the through route, impose a 20mph speed limit and install seven sets of speed humps contrary to the inspector's findings.

Leyburn Town Council then decided to sell the tennis courts for the construction of a new medical centre, claiming no other site was available.

As a result of a recent workshop discussion, with invited stakeholders, outside consultants have now produced a substantial report of issues identified, one of which reads: "The Brentwood/Railway Street junction is considered a blind and hazardous junction upon egress on to Railway Street, aggravated by vehicle parking outside the cinema located opposite this junction. Concern was expressed that additional vehicular access generated by the relocation of the Brentwood Doctors' Surgery may increase the vehicle turning volume and associated hazards at this junction".

This situation was identified in 1997, but ignored, indeed aggravated, by a lack of foresight and planning decisions. One is left wondering how such decisions are reached, and in the meantime our taxes continue to rise and the merry-go-round continues.

G KANE

Brentwood,

Leyburn