Covenant concerns (From York Press)

Covenant concerns

10:48am Thursday 9th February 2012 in Letters

IT WAS amusing to read that council leader James Alexander believes he has many skills (Letters, February 5).

He wants to respond to a resident who had not left their contact details. It’s a pity he did not feel this need to respond to the 22,000 residents who signed the Clarence Street car park petition.

More recently, he has failed to respond to my call for an inquiry into the removal of the protective covenant on the Turf Tavern site, which his council signed away.

Can I now call on Mr Alexander to use one of his many skills and urge his council to follow the lead of Ryedale Council. It rejected a proposal for the development of the site housing the School House Inn at Low Marishes on the grounds that “not enough had been done to market the pub” (The Press, January 30).

Seeing as it appears The Turf was not marketed at all as a going concern, does he agree that this is good cause to reject planning permission?

Paul Gledhill, North Lane, Dringhouses, York.

• WHAT an appalling situation is the demise of the Turf Tavern pub in Dringhouses thanks to council officials who really should know better.

When a covenant is created, it is done for a purpose and should only be lifted after all avenues have been explored and all parties likely to be affected notified and given the opportunity to lodge objections, etc.

Because one party cannot make it pay doesn’t mean someone else could not. Could we have some transparency on this situation, i.e. who created the covenant in 1955, who instigated lifting it and who sanctioned the lifting?

One feels that this was done quietly behind closed doors and that this pub and social amenity was sacrificed at the altar of affordable housing.

A previous correspondent, Paul Gledhill, who has fought long and hard to save this pub, asked for a response from Coun Julie Gunnell. I have not seen anything from her in The Press.

KA Roworth, Reighton Avenue, York.