Ryedale District Council approves application to build supermarket on Malton's Wentworth Street car park

York Press: Artist's impression of the proposed supermarket development at the Wentworth street car park, Malton Artist's impression of the proposed supermarket development at the Wentworth street car park, Malton

PLANS to build a supermarket on Wentworth Street car park, in Malton, were given the go-ahead by Ryedale district councillors - despite four members of the planning committee walking out before the crucial vote.

Councillors Lindsay Burr, who represents Malton ward, Peter Walker, Luke Richardson and Tommy Woodward left the meeting and a motion recommending refusal was lost.

The six remaining members - councillors Janet Sanderson, Caroline Goodrick, Eric Hope, Stephen Arnold, David Cussons and John Windress, vice-chairman of the committee, then went on to approve the application, subject to conditions.

About 100 members of the public attended the meeting, held at Malton School, to discuss the application by Leeds-based developer GMI Holbeck for a supermarket and petrol station on the site.
Those speaking against the plans included Malton's deputy mayor Councillor Paul Andrews, the town clerk Mike Skehan, district councillor, local resident Fiona Croft and Councillor James Fraser representing Malton and Norton Area Partnership.

District councillor Edward Legard, who also opposed the application, said the last time it has come before the council it had cost the taxpayer £200,000.
"Some in this council will stop at nothing to force this application through despite the overwhelming public opposition," he said.

"If you do approve there is a real and substantial risk that we may lose the livestock market area will not get development and mark the collapse of the Eden Camp project on which so many jobs depend while we are left with an out-of-town bog-standard Tesco."

He added: "Exercise a degree of moral courage and confine this retched application to the dustbin of history where it belongs."

Roddy Bushell, estate manager for the Fitzwilliam (Malton) Estate, which has entered negotiations with the family-owned supermarket Booths to lease a proposed supermarket on the livestock market redevelopment scheme, said approval would be a high risk for the town.

"There is not room for two supermarkets and approval will lead to zero investment and a challenge in the courts which will bring further cost to the taxpayer," he said.

However, retired shop owner Jane Bradley said a supermarket would be a step forward for the town.
"This is a superb site and will reduce traffic congestion and ease parking problems in the market place," she said.

"The parking will also allow people plenty of time to walk into the town centre to see the shops which provide quality produce and personal service. There has been some unnecessary scaremongering and these do not reflect my views of those of people that I know."

Speaking on behalf of the developers, Jonathan Wallace said the development would help reduce the £30m that leaked out of the area to York and Scarborough.

"Malton cannot afford to stand still while Monks Cross continues to improve," he said.
"About 1,500 new homes are planned for Malton and Norton - there is a need for a new store and there is significant public support for this application."

Proposing that the application was refused, Coun Burr, said she as looking at the long term interests of the local community.

"There is a real possibility that the life will be sucked out of Malton if this application is passed," she added.

"The democratic view of local people should be listened to - this is detrimental to the economy and vibrancy of the town and will have a negative impact on jobs and businesses."

Coun Walker, who seconded the motion, said he as extremely concerned about the traffic levels and the immediate impact on the surround areas.

"It is going to be intolerable for those living in the area which will be chocked up with traffic 24/7," he said.

However, Coun Sanderson said she wanted to avoid another expensive mistake.
"It is not very impressive that only 3,500 signed the petition when in my ward we collected 15,000 against the gas plant," she said.

Councillor Stephan Arnold said the store would provide competition for Morrisons and relieve traffic congestion.

"I have talked to a lot of people in Malton and most and most are not bothered or in favour of it," he added. "The plans for the livestock market are good for Malton and this is also good for the town. I will not be bullied by a minority group and I am satisfied this development will bring benefits to Malton and Ryedale."

Councillor Eric Hope said the plans would stimulate trade and encourage new business in the area.
"This is about Ryedale, not just Malton, people need this so there is no longer a need to trek to Monks Cross for food and petrol," he added.

After the motion as lost six votes to four, councillors Burr, a Liberal Democrat, Walker, an independent and Liberals Richardson and Woodward walked out along with the majority of the public audience to a slow clap.

Coun Sanderson said it was disappointing that they has chosen to leave and not listen to the views of others and moved that the officer's recommendation was approved.

"Malton has changed in the last few years and we cannot prevent the leakage if the infrastructure is not good," she said. "Look at Northallerton which has a number of food stores - the town is always busy with independent shops next to national retailers and luxury items next to daily goods."

Councillor Caroline Goodrick said that with every planning application there were pros and cons and someone would always be disappointed.

"The issues have been clouded by toxic relations, she added.

"Many believe a supermarket will be the ruination of Malton, but I believe it will increase the footfall in town and make it more attractive to retailers leading to more job opportunities and prosperity for Malton.

Coun Goodrick said: "It is it time for us all to work together instead of across the divide to secure the best future for Malton."

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:10am Fri 25 Apr 14

twotonethomas says...

Five of the six tories who voted for the supermarket last night also voted for the WSCP supermarket two years ago.

Then they cost you £200000 enough to empty your garden waste for a year.

How much will they cost you this time?
Five of the six tories who voted for the supermarket last night also voted for the WSCP supermarket two years ago. Then they cost you £200000 enough to empty your garden waste for a year. How much will they cost you this time? twotonethomas
  • Score: 9

3:03pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Maltonian says...

Yeah, how dare the peasants use the democratic process to make a decision??? This must be challenged by the feudal masters. Good grief, they'll be giving women the vote next.
Yeah, how dare the peasants use the democratic process to make a decision??? This must be challenged by the feudal masters. Good grief, they'll be giving women the vote next. Maltonian
  • Score: 4

3:58pm Fri 25 Apr 14

twotonethomas says...

Maltonian wrote:
Yeah, how dare the peasants use the democratic process to make a decision??? This must be challenged by the feudal masters. Good grief, they'll be giving women the vote next.
A wonderful rant but not very helpful in planning terms Maltonian.

Maybe you can explain, because non of the pro supermarket tories on last night's committee did, why every tory who voted that Malton could only have one new supermarket two yrs, ago voted for Malton to have two new supermarkets last night .

The taxpayer funded 'experts' claimed two yrs ago, that Malton could only support one more supermarket and that it should be on WSCP and NOT the LMS. That advice and the fact that the tories blindly followed it, cost the taxpayers of Ryedale £200K.
The taxpayer funded 'experts' last night argued that Malton could support two new supermarkets and the tories blindly followed it. How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Ryedale?
[quote][p][bold]Maltonian[/bold] wrote: Yeah, how dare the peasants use the democratic process to make a decision??? This must be challenged by the feudal masters. Good grief, they'll be giving women the vote next.[/p][/quote]A wonderful rant but not very helpful in planning terms Maltonian. Maybe you can explain, because non of the pro supermarket tories on last night's committee did, why every tory who voted that Malton could only have one new supermarket two yrs, ago voted for Malton to have two new supermarkets last night . The taxpayer funded 'experts' claimed two yrs ago, that Malton could only support one more supermarket and that it should be on WSCP and NOT the LMS. That advice and the fact that the tories blindly followed it, cost the taxpayers of Ryedale £200K. The taxpayer funded 'experts' last night argued that Malton could support two new supermarkets and the tories blindly followed it. How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Ryedale? twotonethomas
  • Score: -1

4:15pm Fri 25 Apr 14

21stCenturyMalton says...

Not a democratic process? Surely we the people voted for Councillors, who we've chosen partly to make decisions on our behalf. So the plans being approved are in fact a democratic decision.

As for the plans themselves thank god some people can see Malton with a common sense view instead of looking at a ideal but unrealistic approach. If independent shops are good, they'll survive. These of us forced to shop out of Malton currently due to the lack of options welcome these plans, although no doubt the Fitzwilliam lot will challenge the decision once again to cost the taxpayer more money 'on our behalf'.

I am confused by Edward Legard's comments though. Being left with an 'big standard out of town Tesco' suggests the Wentworth Street car park is out of town. If so, why the complaints about the car park being needed for people to shop in the town? It's either in the town or not.

I love the clear arguments the development protestors put forward...
Not a democratic process? Surely we the people voted for Councillors, who we've chosen partly to make decisions on our behalf. So the plans being approved are in fact a democratic decision. As for the plans themselves thank god some people can see Malton with a common sense view instead of looking at a ideal but unrealistic approach. If independent shops are good, they'll survive. These of us forced to shop out of Malton currently due to the lack of options welcome these plans, although no doubt the Fitzwilliam lot will challenge the decision once again to cost the taxpayer more money 'on our behalf'. I am confused by Edward Legard's comments though. Being left with an 'big standard out of town Tesco' suggests the Wentworth Street car park is out of town. If so, why the complaints about the car park being needed for people to shop in the town? It's either in the town or not. I love the clear arguments the development protestors put forward... 21stCenturyMalton
  • Score: 12

11:54pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Roger S says...

It's fairly simple that 2 years ago Malton was not planning 1500 new houses for definite and Booths is high end so there is no inconsistency. Must always allow for change. After the cattlemarket the car park would be the next site in a sequential test. In my mind it is better accessed and placed to help traffic be reduced at the level crossing, or increase visitors.
It's fairly simple that 2 years ago Malton was not planning 1500 new houses for definite and Booths is high end so there is no inconsistency. Must always allow for change. After the cattlemarket the car park would be the next site in a sequential test. In my mind it is better accessed and placed to help traffic be reduced at the level crossing, or increase visitors. Roger S
  • Score: 3

8:48am Sat 26 Apr 14

browbeaten says...

This is the council who told the peasants they had not put their council tax up at all, when in reality to maintain the same level of service ie including collection of garden waste it has gone up over 20% . This is the most self serving council i have ever seen lets hope it disappears after the next election and a county wide unitary authority is introduced.
Ryedale house could then be flattened and a nice shinny new supermarket built on the site in its place ! Problem solved.
This is the council who told the peasants they had not put their council tax up at all, when in reality to maintain the same level of service ie including collection of garden waste it has gone up over 20% . This is the most self serving council i have ever seen lets hope it disappears after the next election and a county wide unitary authority is introduced. Ryedale house could then be flattened and a nice shinny new supermarket built on the site in its place ! Problem solved. browbeaten
  • Score: 6

7:05pm Sat 26 Apr 14

twotonethomas says...

Roger S wrote:
It's fairly simple that 2 years ago Malton was not planning 1500 new houses for definite and Booths is high end so there is no inconsistency. Must always allow for change. After the cattlemarket the car park would be the next site in a sequential test. In my mind it is better accessed and placed to help traffic be reduced at the level crossing, or increase visitors.
It's even more simple than you might think. Seven yrs ago RDC was planning more than 1500 new homes for Malton/Norton and yet two yrs ago RDC was arguing Malton/Norton should only have one new supermarket.
[quote][p][bold]Roger S[/bold] wrote: It's fairly simple that 2 years ago Malton was not planning 1500 new houses for definite and Booths is high end so there is no inconsistency. Must always allow for change. After the cattlemarket the car park would be the next site in a sequential test. In my mind it is better accessed and placed to help traffic be reduced at the level crossing, or increase visitors.[/p][/quote]It's even more simple than you might think. Seven yrs ago RDC was planning more than 1500 new homes for Malton/Norton and yet two yrs ago RDC was arguing Malton/Norton should only have one new supermarket. twotonethomas
  • Score: 1

8:44pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Maltonian says...

That's ok then as there will only be one supermarket built
That's ok then as there will only be one supermarket built Maltonian
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Sat 26 Apr 14

twotonethomas says...

Maltonian wrote:
That's ok then as there will only be one supermarket built
You will probably be proved correct. But it may well cost the Council Tax payers of Ryedale around half a million pounds to confirm what you have just pointed out for free.
[quote][p][bold]Maltonian[/bold] wrote: That's ok then as there will only be one supermarket built[/p][/quote]You will probably be proved correct. But it may well cost the Council Tax payers of Ryedale around half a million pounds to confirm what you have just pointed out for free. twotonethomas
  • Score: 7

7:47pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Yorkybob says...

It was nice to see Ms Burr nailing her colours to her business mates mast. At the meeting she referred, several times, to the estate lead petition against the proposal and placed great emphasis on the number of people that had signed this document. The number of signatories as a proportion of the retail catchment for Malton is low notwithstanding the ease which anyone could sign up with no thought or understanding of the issues involved. Against this over 100 people had written to the Council supporting the proposal. These people had taken the time to consider the issues involved and put pen to paper. Ms Burr chose to totally ignored these residents, not referring to them even once, in favour of a group of people who only had to sign a prepared document whilst popping to the shops or visiting the area on holiday.
It was nice to see Ms Burr nailing her colours to her business mates mast. At the meeting she referred, several times, to the estate lead petition against the proposal and placed great emphasis on the number of people that had signed this document. The number of signatories as a proportion of the retail catchment for Malton is low notwithstanding the ease which anyone could sign up with no thought or understanding of the issues involved. Against this over 100 people had written to the Council supporting the proposal. These people had taken the time to consider the issues involved and put pen to paper. Ms Burr chose to totally ignored these residents, not referring to them even once, in favour of a group of people who only had to sign a prepared document whilst popping to the shops or visiting the area on holiday. Yorkybob
  • Score: 12

5:02pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Flash44 says...

I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...
I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners... Flash44
  • Score: 10

7:22pm Mon 28 Apr 14

baileyuk says...

well it just seems to be those who support fitzwilliam and those who dont, the actual issue of a supermarket is an excuse really,, how can folk support a new supermarket and yet moan about the traffic congestion caused by an existing supermarket? surely within the planning there is evidence of a need of another supermarket with increase in trade over the coming years with the new housing ect. the same streets will be taking more traffic without any modernisation. If there is a need for a new supermarket then place in on either York Rd ind est or Norton grove, which will take traffic away from Malton centre which is very badly needed.

as for petitions taht have been in local shops, garages ect alot of the folk dont even understand or know what they are signing too.. so really it is an unfair way of manufacturing fiqures,, a work colleaque of mine as said his wife as been bullied by local councillors into signing a petition against a different planning application in norton.
well it just seems to be those who support fitzwilliam and those who dont, the actual issue of a supermarket is an excuse really,, how can folk support a new supermarket and yet moan about the traffic congestion caused by an existing supermarket? surely within the planning there is evidence of a need of another supermarket with increase in trade over the coming years with the new housing ect. the same streets will be taking more traffic without any modernisation. If there is a need for a new supermarket then place in on either York Rd ind est or Norton grove, which will take traffic away from Malton centre which is very badly needed. as for petitions taht have been in local shops, garages ect alot of the folk dont even understand or know what they are signing too.. so really it is an unfair way of manufacturing fiqures,, a work colleaque of mine as said his wife as been bullied by local councillors into signing a petition against a different planning application in norton. baileyuk
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Flash44 says...

baileyuk wrote:
well it just seems to be those who support fitzwilliam and those who dont, the actual issue of a supermarket is an excuse really,, how can folk support a new supermarket and yet moan about the traffic congestion caused by an existing supermarket? surely within the planning there is evidence of a need of another supermarket with increase in trade over the coming years with the new housing ect. the same streets will be taking more traffic without any modernisation. If there is a need for a new supermarket then place in on either York Rd ind est or Norton grove, which will take traffic away from Malton centre which is very badly needed.

as for petitions taht have been in local shops, garages ect alot of the folk dont even understand or know what they are signing too.. so really it is an unfair way of manufacturing fiqures,, a work colleaque of mine as said his wife as been bullied by local councillors into signing a petition against a different planning application in norton.
Those who support Fitzwilliam and those who don't.. would seem to me a simple assumption But the fact is many who are told to support Fitzwilliam and do, are exactly those who will lose out by doing so. Its about time Malton moved on from its medieval past and told Fitzwilliam we want progress and we are a diverse population not just a land owning farming population and in fact that industry and progress have to be stimulated. We have spent too long in the 18th century. Malton has some high tech firms we want more. Malton has some great shops we want more. Malton has houses we are going to get many more. This argument over a great opportunity (The Wentworth project) has show what Fitzwilliam estates really are. A self interested medieval artefact that still thinks it can use people. Well it cannot. We shouldn't and wont accept it. We need a decent size supermarket and we shouldn't have to rely on high price fuel with no competition. Fitzwilliam have done themselves no service in this.
They have made real enemies with people who really want Malton to be successful and a great place to live. The Legards are a case in point individuals who use their position to ride rough shod over normal people make the School (Malton School) Cof E and pander to the big estate holders these people make me sick and I am going to oppose them. We want freedom not serfdom. What we need is UKIP and a fresh start.
[quote][p][bold]baileyuk[/bold] wrote: well it just seems to be those who support fitzwilliam and those who dont, the actual issue of a supermarket is an excuse really,, how can folk support a new supermarket and yet moan about the traffic congestion caused by an existing supermarket? surely within the planning there is evidence of a need of another supermarket with increase in trade over the coming years with the new housing ect. the same streets will be taking more traffic without any modernisation. If there is a need for a new supermarket then place in on either York Rd ind est or Norton grove, which will take traffic away from Malton centre which is very badly needed. as for petitions taht have been in local shops, garages ect alot of the folk dont even understand or know what they are signing too.. so really it is an unfair way of manufacturing fiqures,, a work colleaque of mine as said his wife as been bullied by local councillors into signing a petition against a different planning application in norton.[/p][/quote]Those who support Fitzwilliam and those who don't.. would seem to me a simple assumption But the fact is many who are told to support Fitzwilliam and do, are exactly those who will lose out by doing so. Its about time Malton moved on from its medieval past and told Fitzwilliam we want progress and we are a diverse population not just a land owning farming population and in fact that industry and progress have to be stimulated. We have spent too long in the 18th century. Malton has some high tech firms we want more. Malton has some great shops we want more. Malton has houses we are going to get many more. This argument over a great opportunity (The Wentworth project) has show what Fitzwilliam estates really are. A self interested medieval artefact that still thinks it can use people. Well it cannot. We shouldn't and wont accept it. We need a decent size supermarket and we shouldn't have to rely on high price fuel with no competition. Fitzwilliam have done themselves no service in this. They have made real enemies with people who really want Malton to be successful and a great place to live. The Legards are a case in point individuals who use their position to ride rough shod over normal people make the School (Malton School) Cof E and pander to the big estate holders these people make me sick and I am going to oppose them. We want freedom not serfdom. What we need is UKIP and a fresh start. Flash44
  • Score: 3

8:52pm Mon 28 Apr 14

twotonethomas says...

Flash44 wrote:
I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...
The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.
[quote][p][bold]Flash44[/bold] wrote: I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...[/p][/quote]The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence. twotonethomas
  • Score: 2

9:24pm Mon 28 Apr 14

baileyuk says...

by its location, no way can malton have major industry other then agricultural, poor road links, just look at recent planning applications, whitewall for one where a main reason for objectors are traffic issues, the roads around malton and norton simply cannot take anymore traffic unless some major demoltion takes place. why not put houses on wentworth street? and as you say cheaper fuel? what problems are going to happen in summer holiday periods where malton would be a stop off for fuel for several holidaymakers,, exactly what Malton does not need is more traffic passing through the centre. again another reason for the development to be on either industrial estate within easy reach of A64 without affecting the town centre chaos. as for shops look at York a tourist hotspot but what shops have they got? the current high street in any town is dead, charity shops, betting shops, and the usual cheaper end of chain stores. walk down many a high street and the shops are the same so I dont think Fitzwilliam can be all to blame.
by its location, no way can malton have major industry other then agricultural, poor road links, just look at recent planning applications, whitewall for one where a main reason for objectors are traffic issues, the roads around malton and norton simply cannot take anymore traffic unless some major demoltion takes place. why not put houses on wentworth street? and as you say cheaper fuel? what problems are going to happen in summer holiday periods where malton would be a stop off for fuel for several holidaymakers,, exactly what Malton does not need is more traffic passing through the centre. again another reason for the development to be on either industrial estate within easy reach of A64 without affecting the town centre chaos. as for shops look at York a tourist hotspot but what shops have they got? the current high street in any town is dead, charity shops, betting shops, and the usual cheaper end of chain stores. walk down many a high street and the shops are the same so I dont think Fitzwilliam can be all to blame. baileyuk
  • Score: 1

10:04am Tue 29 Apr 14

Flash44 says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Maltonian wrote:
Yeah, how dare the peasants use the democratic process to make a decision??? This must be challenged by the feudal masters. Good grief, they'll be giving women the vote next.
A wonderful rant but not very helpful in planning terms Maltonian.

Maybe you can explain, because non of the pro supermarket tories on last night's committee did, why every tory who voted that Malton could only have one new supermarket two yrs, ago voted for Malton to have two new supermarkets last night .

The taxpayer funded 'experts' claimed two yrs ago, that Malton could only support one more supermarket and that it should be on WSCP and NOT the LMS. That advice and the fact that the tories blindly followed it, cost the taxpayers of Ryedale £200K.
The taxpayer funded 'experts' last night argued that Malton could support two new supermarkets and the tories blindly followed it. How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Ryedale?
When you look at the proposals for the LMS its not a real supermarket its an upmarket food store, not the same thing at all. The estimates up to 2023 now suggest 2 supermarkets would be beneficial. The fact is objections to the WSCP are founded on a false premise. In fact the Planning committee voted to ensue Ryedale (and that's what matters) have the benefit of being able to shop for choice and value and get cheap fuel and free parking.. The LMS offers none of that. Its clear the livestock market area needs developing its clear the market should be moved and both these issues need addressing together but the priority should be for the WSCP. Many people are drawn to York area shopping Morrison's is overtrading and often overcrowded Norton road is a nightmare and Wentworth St car park is usually nearly empty. Ryedale council have done the right thing. Good for them.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maltonian[/bold] wrote: Yeah, how dare the peasants use the democratic process to make a decision??? This must be challenged by the feudal masters. Good grief, they'll be giving women the vote next.[/p][/quote]A wonderful rant but not very helpful in planning terms Maltonian. Maybe you can explain, because non of the pro supermarket tories on last night's committee did, why every tory who voted that Malton could only have one new supermarket two yrs, ago voted for Malton to have two new supermarkets last night . The taxpayer funded 'experts' claimed two yrs ago, that Malton could only support one more supermarket and that it should be on WSCP and NOT the LMS. That advice and the fact that the tories blindly followed it, cost the taxpayers of Ryedale £200K. The taxpayer funded 'experts' last night argued that Malton could support two new supermarkets and the tories blindly followed it. How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Ryedale?[/p][/quote]When you look at the proposals for the LMS its not a real supermarket its an upmarket food store, not the same thing at all. The estimates up to 2023 now suggest 2 supermarkets would be beneficial. The fact is objections to the WSCP are founded on a false premise. In fact the Planning committee voted to ensue Ryedale (and that's what matters) have the benefit of being able to shop for choice and value and get cheap fuel and free parking.. The LMS offers none of that. Its clear the livestock market area needs developing its clear the market should be moved and both these issues need addressing together but the priority should be for the WSCP. Many people are drawn to York area shopping Morrison's is overtrading and often overcrowded Norton road is a nightmare and Wentworth St car park is usually nearly empty. Ryedale council have done the right thing. Good for them. Flash44
  • Score: 1

10:07am Tue 29 Apr 14

Flash44 says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Flash44 wrote:
I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...
The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.
Its not a party political issue in any case I am a UKIP member. I cant tell the difference between any of them they are all wrong.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flash44[/bold] wrote: I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...[/p][/quote]The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.[/p][/quote]Its not a party political issue in any case I am a UKIP member. I cant tell the difference between any of them they are all wrong. Flash44
  • Score: -2

5:48pm Tue 29 Apr 14

twotonethomas says...

Flash44 wrote:
twotonethomas wrote:
Flash44 wrote:
I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...
The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.
Its not a party political issue in any case I am a UKIP member. I cant tell the difference between any of them they are all wrong.
UKIP NF BNP I can't tell the difference between any of them, they are all wrong :)
[quote][p][bold]Flash44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flash44[/bold] wrote: I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...[/p][/quote]The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.[/p][/quote]Its not a party political issue in any case I am a UKIP member. I cant tell the difference between any of them they are all wrong.[/p][/quote]UKIP NF BNP I can't tell the difference between any of them, they are all wrong :) twotonethomas
  • Score: 2

1:27pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Jailbird says...

Why do I repeatedly see comments asserting that two supermarkets provide more choice than one? Malton already has access to an Asda, Lidl, Morrisons and a Sainsbury's - in terms of grocery shopping, are we really suggesting that the produce sold by these retail giants is dramatically different?

Furthermore I see a glaring error in that pro-WSCP supporters suggest that adding a supermarket to draw traffic away from Monks Cross will somehow relieve congestion in Malton. Seeing as the Fitzwilliam planning application has already been approved, wouldn't it be better for the Council to work collaboratively and focus on what Malton will continue to lack - non-grocery outlets - as opposed to continuing to flog a very dead £200,000 horse?
Why do I repeatedly see comments asserting that two supermarkets provide more choice than one? Malton already has access to an Asda, Lidl, Morrisons and a Sainsbury's - in terms of grocery shopping, are we really suggesting that the produce sold by these retail giants is dramatically different? Furthermore I see a glaring error in that pro-WSCP supporters suggest that adding a supermarket to draw traffic away from Monks Cross will somehow relieve congestion in Malton. Seeing as the Fitzwilliam planning application has already been approved, wouldn't it be better for the Council to work collaboratively and focus on what Malton will continue to lack - non-grocery outlets - as opposed to continuing to flog a very dead £200,000 horse? Jailbird
  • Score: 2

7:55am Thu 1 May 14

maltonmum says...

I don't do politics (that's my husbands department) I simply look at this from the perspective of an average working mum. I could not be more relieved to finally have more affordable choice for my shopping, without having to go to monks cross (which is what I do now, as do many off my fellow mums).
I simply cannot afford to do a big shop in morrisons, and while Asda, lidl, and sainsbury's offer better value, I can barely get 50% of what I need to see my family through the week. Currently I go off to monks cross once a week to spend my £100 and get some fuel at approx 6p a litre cheaper.

I do have a wander round malton once a week too, try pick up a bargain in the charity shops or discount stores, and look in the small boutiques for a gift if there's an occasion coming up. This will not change, I'll still do that, but I simply cannot afford to give any more support than that to the independent stores, nor could I afford to shop in the likes of Booths.

With the increase in housing developments I think there's an obvious need for another shopping outlet, and I know my friends and I with an average income are delighted to be offered better value for money without having to make the trip to York every week.

I particularly like the comment made about looking at this not just for malton but for ryedale. Local villages and towns also must travel to York or Scarborough for food and fuel so let's give them something to keep their business in Ryedale. You never know, they might decide to have a wander around the town while they're here too!
I don't do politics (that's my husbands department) I simply look at this from the perspective of an average working mum. I could not be more relieved to finally have more affordable choice for my shopping, without having to go to monks cross (which is what I do now, as do many off my fellow mums). I simply cannot afford to do a big shop in morrisons, and while Asda, lidl, and sainsbury's offer better value, I can barely get 50% of what I need to see my family through the week. Currently I go off to monks cross once a week to spend my £100 and get some fuel at approx 6p a litre cheaper. I do have a wander round malton once a week too, try pick up a bargain in the charity shops or discount stores, and look in the small boutiques for a gift if there's an occasion coming up. This will not change, I'll still do that, but I simply cannot afford to give any more support than that to the independent stores, nor could I afford to shop in the likes of Booths. With the increase in housing developments I think there's an obvious need for another shopping outlet, and I know my friends and I with an average income are delighted to be offered better value for money without having to make the trip to York every week. I particularly like the comment made about looking at this not just for malton but for ryedale. Local villages and towns also must travel to York or Scarborough for food and fuel so let's give them something to keep their business in Ryedale. You never know, they might decide to have a wander around the town while they're here too! maltonmum
  • Score: 4

11:59am Thu 1 May 14

Peterwalker says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Flash44 wrote:
twotonethomas wrote:
Flash44 wrote:
I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...
The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.
Its not a party political issue in any case I am a UKIP member. I cant tell the difference between any of them they are all wrong.
UKIP NF BNP I can't tell the difference between any of them, they are all wrong :)
Nor can you tell the difference between Lib Dems, Liberals and Independents. I was elected as an Independent and was one of the four Councillors who left the meeting. For the record, number of people who approached me to object to a new Supermarket in Malton.? ......none! I voted to refuse the application because I feel that traffic congestion in the area will be intolerable under the present arrangements for access to and from the proposed site.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flash44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flash44[/bold] wrote: I was registered to speak at this meeting in favour but had to work. I had permission to send my speech to all the committee. The fact that 3 three LiB Dems walked out is significant.. How childish. The fact is the proposal is just what Malton needs. Morrison's is overtrading and the car park their is on its limit with many people now being fined or been given warning for overstaying even when they never leave the site. Its hardly possible for some to do a weeks shopping and visit the restaurant in 2 hours some need to help the old and infirm etc. We need more choice and we have the opportunity to develop a very underused car park close to the town centre that will bring customers to the town, who will spend money. I haven't even mentioned cheaper petrol yet. There are some vested interests in this town and no one has the right to hold the people of Malton to ransom. We don't want a luxury food market (and a multi story that's going to be chargeable) we have a car park its going to increase in size and be free for 3 hours, we want value and choice. The people I talk to (some of whom actually signed this petition against the supermarket) all agree with the development some just need it explaining without the Fitzwilliam spin. Well done those in the planning committee who stood up for our real needs in spite of such pressure from landowners...[/p][/quote]The fact that you can't tell the difference between the pro tory Fib Dems and the Liberals, shows that your post isn't worth reading past the opening sentence.[/p][/quote]Its not a party political issue in any case I am a UKIP member. I cant tell the difference between any of them they are all wrong.[/p][/quote]UKIP NF BNP I can't tell the difference between any of them, they are all wrong :)[/p][/quote]Nor can you tell the difference between Lib Dems, Liberals and Independents. I was elected as an Independent and was one of the four Councillors who left the meeting. For the record, number of people who approached me to object to a new Supermarket in Malton.? ......none! I voted to refuse the application because I feel that traffic congestion in the area will be intolerable under the present arrangements for access to and from the proposed site. Peterwalker
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 1 May 14

Yorkybob says...

Mr Walker you did not vote to refuse the application on traffic grounds. The motion to refuse put forward by Ms Burr included a whole gambit of reasons. You voted in favour of the motion to refuse and thus voted to refuse the application on several grounds including impact on the town centre, lack of need etc. You can't now say that you only voted to refuse on traffic grounds.

Furthermore with the Cllrs who opposed the application walking out before the conclusion of the proceedings it will be noted for posterity that the vote in favour of the supermarket was unanimous. Nice one.
Mr Walker you did not vote to refuse the application on traffic grounds. The motion to refuse put forward by Ms Burr included a whole gambit of reasons. You voted in favour of the motion to refuse and thus voted to refuse the application on several grounds including impact on the town centre, lack of need etc. You can't now say that you only voted to refuse on traffic grounds. Furthermore with the Cllrs who opposed the application walking out before the conclusion of the proceedings it will be noted for posterity that the vote in favour of the supermarket was unanimous. Nice one. Yorkybob
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Thu 1 May 14

twotonethomas says...

Yorkybob wrote:
Mr Walker you did not vote to refuse the application on traffic grounds. The motion to refuse put forward by Ms Burr included a whole gambit of reasons. You voted in favour of the motion to refuse and thus voted to refuse the application on several grounds including impact on the town centre, lack of need etc. You can't now say that you only voted to refuse on traffic grounds.

Furthermore with the Cllrs who opposed the application walking out before the conclusion of the proceedings it will be noted for posterity that the vote in favour of the supermarket was unanimous. Nice one.
I sometimes wish that people had to know what they were talking about before they were allowed o open their gobs. (Or in this instance click away on a keyboard).

The Ward member was invited to speak first and she moved a motion of refusal. You can either support that motion, as Liberals and Independents did, or not. What you can't do is vote against refusal and then move refusal again. So may I politely suggest that you p1ss off and take some planning training and read some planning law. Then tell us all why every tory voted against the Local Plan.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkybob[/bold] wrote: Mr Walker you did not vote to refuse the application on traffic grounds. The motion to refuse put forward by Ms Burr included a whole gambit of reasons. You voted in favour of the motion to refuse and thus voted to refuse the application on several grounds including impact on the town centre, lack of need etc. You can't now say that you only voted to refuse on traffic grounds. Furthermore with the Cllrs who opposed the application walking out before the conclusion of the proceedings it will be noted for posterity that the vote in favour of the supermarket was unanimous. Nice one.[/p][/quote]I sometimes wish that people had to know what they were talking about before they were allowed o open their gobs. (Or in this instance click away on a keyboard). The Ward member was invited to speak first and she moved a motion of refusal. You can either support that motion, as Liberals and Independents did, or not. What you can't do is vote against refusal and then move refusal again. So may I politely suggest that you p1ss off and take some planning training and read some planning law. Then tell us all why every tory voted against the Local Plan. twotonethomas
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Thu 1 May 14

Yorkybob says...

twotonethomas wrote:
Yorkybob wrote: Mr Walker you did not vote to refuse the application on traffic grounds. The motion to refuse put forward by Ms Burr included a whole gambit of reasons. You voted in favour of the motion to refuse and thus voted to refuse the application on several grounds including impact on the town centre, lack of need etc. You can't now say that you only voted to refuse on traffic grounds. Furthermore with the Cllrs who opposed the application walking out before the conclusion of the proceedings it will be noted for posterity that the vote in favour of the supermarket was unanimous. Nice one.
I sometimes wish that people had to know what they were talking about before they were allowed o open their gobs. (Or in this instance click away on a keyboard). The Ward member was invited to speak first and she moved a motion of refusal. You can either support that motion, as Liberals and Independents did, or not. What you can't do is vote against refusal and then move refusal again. So may I politely suggest that you p1ss off and take some planning training and read some planning law. Then tell us all why every tory voted against the Local Plan.
Missing the point as usual 2tone. The point I was making is that Mr Walker could have moved an amendment to the original motion that would have made his position clear. Its no point stating after the event that he had no objection to the scheme except for highway issues when he clearly supported the whole of Ms Burrs unsustainable scattergun approach to reasons for refusal.

Unlike you I will be polite and suggest that you go and ask the Council for extra planning training. If you think slavishly following the Local Plan to the letter is the way to make planning decisions you should not be on the Planning Committee. As you should know the Council have a statutory duty, when determining planning applications, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, where material, to the application and any material considerations. If you are not sure what material considerations are perhaps you should ask. In this case material considerations appear central to the case which the Tories appeared to understand and you do not.
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkybob[/bold] wrote: Mr Walker you did not vote to refuse the application on traffic grounds. The motion to refuse put forward by Ms Burr included a whole gambit of reasons. You voted in favour of the motion to refuse and thus voted to refuse the application on several grounds including impact on the town centre, lack of need etc. You can't now say that you only voted to refuse on traffic grounds. Furthermore with the Cllrs who opposed the application walking out before the conclusion of the proceedings it will be noted for posterity that the vote in favour of the supermarket was unanimous. Nice one.[/p][/quote]I sometimes wish that people had to know what they were talking about before they were allowed o open their gobs. (Or in this instance click away on a keyboard). The Ward member was invited to speak first and she moved a motion of refusal. You can either support that motion, as Liberals and Independents did, or not. What you can't do is vote against refusal and then move refusal again. So may I politely suggest that you p1ss off and take some planning training and read some planning law. Then tell us all why every tory voted against the Local Plan.[/p][/quote]Missing the point as usual 2tone. The point I was making is that Mr Walker could have moved an amendment to the original motion that would have made his position clear. Its no point stating after the event that he had no objection to the scheme except for highway issues when he clearly supported the whole of Ms Burrs unsustainable scattergun approach to reasons for refusal. Unlike you I will be polite and suggest that you go and ask the Council for extra planning training. If you think slavishly following the Local Plan to the letter is the way to make planning decisions you should not be on the Planning Committee. As you should know the Council have a statutory duty, when determining planning applications, to have regard to the provisions of the development plan, where material, to the application and any material considerations. If you are not sure what material considerations are perhaps you should ask. In this case material considerations appear central to the case which the Tories appeared to understand and you do not. Yorkybob
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree