AS a former planning officer I was dismayed by two recent articles in your paper that once again demonstrated the inadequacies of North Yorkshire and Ryedale’s planning authorities.

The first, on March 19, referred to the failure of the Brambling Fields junction to provide effective traffic relief. The second, on March 26, drew attention to the need for new schools for Norton and Malton’s growing population.

The Brambling Fields Junction scheme was trumpeted by Councillor Knaggs and his colleagues as a vital project that would bring substantial relief to the congested centre of Malton, especially the crossroads at Butchers Corner. By contrast, a report states that the scheme had resulted in “only a small positive impact at the corner”.

As a resident of Norton I can confirm that the scheme has made very little difference. Worse still, the area manager, Richard Marr, admitted he had not even collected traffic figures for the junction before work started, so he could not now measure the impact. This means that the scheme on which nearly all infrastructure funds for the past five years have been focused, may well have been poorly spent.

Turning now to the schools, the sudden realisation that many more school places are required is even less excusable. Ryedale’s New Local Plan supports major expansion of both Malton and Norton, with thousands more homes. The current proposal for 500 new homes by the Fitzwilliam Estate is in accord with this agreed principle.

I personally have no problem with this policy, provided that key services, such as new roads and schools are well integrated and developed in a timely way. But this has not happened.When major expansion of the two towns was mooted at the recent Local Plan Inquiry it was pointed out that Norton Primary was already bursting at the seams and that the new development would bring a need for more school places.

North Yorkshire County Council replied that there was no particular problem, and Ryedale made no reference to a need in the Local Plan. At the time it would have been easy to include a policy requiring developers to make available a suitable school site as part of the development, but this was not done, despite the pleas of councillors Paul Andrews, Lindsay Burr and Elizabeth Shields for a more strategic approach.

Now we learn that at least one new site is required, but Mr Dixon, strategic planning officer for the county council, states, “we are looking for a suitable site but we are in the hands of developers”.

With a more coherent approach to planning, the council would now be in the driving seat not the developers. While a few councillors, such as the above, do understand the bigger picture, sadly they are in a minority.

It is high time for a thorough shake up of the councils and their officers.

Mike Gwilliam, Norton