After about 10 years of close involvement with the planning process, I have to conclude that it moves in mysterious ways, which often seem to defy logic.

          Relieving traffic congestion at the Ropery/A170 junction has been high on our agenda for around a decade. Consequently, we’ve been pestering NYCC and Ryedale DC regularly. Given the fact that the congestion gets worse year on year, we saw no reason to change our stance.

          With many new houses built in recent years and another 250 planned in the near future, all accessing via Vivis Lane, we’re at a loss to envisage congestion levels even remaining constant. The planning inspector didn’t agree with our views and overturned Ryedale DC’s decision to refuse Lidl permission to build a supermarket on the site earmarked for road improvements. The value of the land will have soared accordingly. The inspector’s report said “Allowing this appeal would not preclude the improvement; merely change the basis upon which the land costs would be assessed.”

          Evidently, the effect of past and present housing developments had no bearing on the decision, just the envisaged supermarket traffic. The inspector’s report said “I am satisfied that, with the two minor improvements to the A170, the situation in 2014 would be nil detriment or better” (i.e. the traffic will be no worse and maybe even better in another four years).

          With the NYCC highways depot for sale and other land owned by RDC, we suggested to all and sundry that with a bit of common sense and compromise, Lidl could be built only about 100yds away and the junction still be improved. The inspector’s written report said “it’s unlikely any equal or better site would come forward”.

          A full traffic strategy for Pickering was produced by NYCC’s consultants at significant cost in 2004. It included detailed plans for the junction realignment. The inspector’s report said “a junction improvement had not been designed or accepted by the highway authority and was contained in no published document”.

          NYCC had submitted a planning application for junction realignment on 30 October 2009. The inspector’s report said “I remain less than convinced about NYCC’s commitment to the proposed realignment scheme and its ability to deliver”.

          So, we tried to facilitate a unique opportunity to improve traffic flow, but failed. The supermarket that we had no objection to, just the location, will presumably soon be built. We can but observe whether the inspector’s judgment about the regular congestion (and summer gridlock) shows “nil detriment”. I sincerely hope he’s right.

          For details of membership or activities, visit: www.pickeringcivicsociety.btik.com

Mike Potter.