Letters: Wide implications

Stockton Borough Council is minded to approve a planning application contrary to the local plan, to build on all Bowesfield Farm green wedge land in the ownership of developers H J Banks (D&S, July 5).

Bowesfield Farm was designated as green wedge on the specific recommendation of a Government planning inspector: If the site were to be developed, there would be the loss of a significant tract of open attractive countryside. An effective green wedge policy presupposes instead that designated land should remain in its natural state, open and free obvious development.

As against that, the site is not needed. In quantitative terms, to meet the requirement in its natural state, open and free from obvious development.

As against that, the site is not needed, in quantitative terms, to meet the requirement for prestige sites in view of the manifest of industrial land supply in the borough.

According to Banks, greenfield farmland which is purchased by a developer and stripped of its turf and topsoil, allowing subsequent flytipping (with or without the site owner's consent or inaction) meets the planning guidance definition of a so-called development on brownfield land.

Thereby, previously developed sites, vacant business/industrial estates and empty properties would remain derelict and greenfield areas rendered unprotected.

The Secretary of state may, however, call a public inquiry to determine whether or not such a self-serving interpretation of Government policy be allowed to stand.

J D JACKSON

Thornaby Road,

Thornaby-on-Tees.

Sir, - Your leading article last week regarding the granting of planning permission for the banks site in Stockton site (D&S, July 5) made some good points, but I feel your decision to defend the granting of permission was mistaken.

Stockton Council has consistently rejected pressure for green belt around the town, arguing that its green wedge policy is sufficient protection against urban sprawl. The Banks' decision proves the fallacy of that position. If this bit of green wedge can go, then why not any other? If green wedge policy has been maintained as a matter of principle, then that principle should have been defended.

The argument that the area was in such a condition of squalor that building on it would be to "put it out of its misery" is also questionable. If such a defence were to be regarded as a precedent, then all a developer would need to do would be to buy up some urban fringe farmland, persuade the tenant to leave (not too difficult in the current climate), and then neglect the land until it was "in danger of becoming an absolute eyesore".

Principles such as green belt and green wedge are long-term policies, which have been designed to defend our urban fringes against such manipulation. The planning committee's decision, prioritising short-term gains, has done those principles no favours.

JON DEWHIRST

Carlton,

Stockton.

Carrying the flag

Sir, - Coun Heseltine, in his letter, (D&S, July 5), about the proposed changes to the county council electoral boundaries, failed to make it clear that the area committee, at the meeting on June 7, resolved to consult on only two options.

Option A should never have been put forward. It was contrary to guidelines from the Electoral Commission, helpfully included with the agenda for the meeting and which I presume the county councillors must have read at some stage.

The guidelines include that regard should be had to:

* The desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable and

* Any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of a particular boundary.

Also the statutory criteria include:

* The need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.

* The need to secure effective and convenient local government.

When the area committee puts forward a proposal that is so contrary to these guidelines and is clearly wrong from a common-sense point of view, the committee members must expect to meet criticism and to be asked why the proposal was made. On the latter point, I will leave the readers of your letters column to judge for themselves.

Coun Heseltine accuses me of being interested in petty party politics. The plain fact is that the Option A proposal would have operated to the disadvantage of people of all political opinions in Richmond. When there appears to be no effective opposition to such a proposal, from within the Tory monopoly on the area committee, it is left to the Liberal Democrats to carry the flag.

Coun JOHN HARRIS

Ronaldshay Drive,

Richmond.

Model efforts

Sir, - Thanks for such a good article and about our efforts to form a Northallerton Model Club.

Unfortunately the response was poor in numbers but good in calibre, so far as those modellers who contacted us. However, the effort was not a failure because those who did have been guided to other modelling clubs around the area, or given advice which will allow them to expand their hobbies in their chosen field - flight or sailing.

We are confident that sometime in the future it will be possible to have a Northallerton Model Club. Surely the aspirations of youth to be engineers, pilots etc will drive them into making models - we hope this is so.

ROB KENNEDY & BRIAN NEWMAN

Millfield Avenue,

Northallerton