NORTON'S mayor has criticised the need to spending thousands of pounds on traffic calming in the town.
The £162,000 is having to be invested in the works because motorists will not observe speed limits, said Coun Keith Mennell at this week's council meeting.
"The money could be better spent on improving our roads," he added.
The council was told in a report by town clerk Roger King that calming schemes costing £45,500 are due to go ahead this year in Langton Road, while £52,000 will be spent on traffic calming in Scarborough Road next year. In addition, Welham Road is to get calming costing £65,000 but it has not yet been put into a programme by the county council highways department.
A further £130,000 is due to be spent on improving public transport facilities in Malton and Norton town centre in the coming financial year, and £100,000 is to go on traffic management schemes in the two towns in each of the next two years.
Meanwhile, the county authority has told councillors that the B1248 Malton-Norton relief road due to cost £12.8m has not yet been included in a highways programme.
Support for a residents' parking scheme in Norton was welcomed by members.
Coun Margaret Taylor said she advocated the idea several years ago because many people in Norton had no garage for their cars. "We should support one space for each house," she said, commenting on a county council report on expanding the residents parking scheme in North Yorkshire in general.
Concern was expressed by Coun Allin Jenkins about motorists parking in Morden Grove, a private road, but which has a public right of way, he said. Now, the issue is being taken up with Ryedale District Council's planning department and North Yorkshire County Council's highways officials.
Plans recommended to Ryedale District Council for approval included a conservatory at 7b Welham Road, a dwelling and double garage at 134 Welham Road, and a barn-style block of 19 stalls at Spring Cottage Stables, Bazleys Lane, Langton Road, Norton. An extension at 105 Welham Road was recommended for refusal on the grounds of loss of light to a neighbour's property.
Updated: 09:51 Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article