Revised Development Strategy
Search representations
Results for Warwick County Councillors (J. Holland; A. Warner & J. St John) search
New search
New search
Revised Development Strategy
RDS3: The Council's Preferred Option for the broad location of development is to:
Respondent: Warwick County Councillors (J. Holland; A. Warner & J. St John)
Representation Summary:
Whilst supporting the need for new local housing, express opposition to the RDS, on the grounds of over-development of one area, resulting in pollution which will be impossible to mitigate. This will affect both the health of residents and the structure of multiple historic buildings, which are so important to sense of place and culture.
The location of the proposed development does not allow priorities for sustainable transport to be taken forward. Distances will be too great for pedestrians. Viable public transport will not be possible.
The proposed traffic mitigation will still result in increased traffic and increased pollution as laid out in the report from Arup.
Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. Air pollution from traffic is linked to increased health risks and a Health Impact Assessment should be completed before any agreements are made on the Plan.
The 1993 Local Plan and the Inspectors Report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on the town centre. And yet, over a decade on, unable to mitigate the traffic effect of this development, despite funding from the developer.
No further development should be approved without first meeting previous obligations.
Whilst understand green belt should be preserved, this should not be at the expense of increased pollution for existing residents.
Full text:
The Local Plan Proposals We, the 3 Warwick County Councillors, whilst supporting the need for new local housing, express our opposition to the Local Plan published for consultation, on the grounds of over-development of one area, resulting in pollution which will be impossible to mitigate. This will affect both the health of residents and the structure of our multiple historic buildings, which are so important to our sense of place and culture.
Warwickshire County Council officers have produced the best transport mitigation plan they can in response to the proposals for housing offered by the District Council. This does not imply support, but a neutral response on the best option for increasing flow. The location of the proposed development does not allow our priorities for sustainable transport to be taken forward. Distances will be too great for pedestrians. Viable public transport will not be possible.
Unequivocally, the proposed traffic mitigation still results in increased traffic and increased pollution as laid out in the report from Arup. Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. Air pollution from traffic is linked to strokes, heart and respiratory diseases as well as some cancers and asthma. About 4,300 premature deaths a year in London alone are attributable to air pollution, according to studies for the London Mayor. We believe a Health Impact Assessment should be completed before any agreements are made on the Plan.
The 1993 Local Plan and the Inspectors Report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on our town centre. And yet, over a decade on, we have been unable to mitigate the traffic effect of this development, despite funding from the developer. We do not believe further development should be approved without first meeting our previous obligations.
Whilst we understand green belt should be preserved, we do not feel this should be at the expense of increased pollution for our existing residents. Councillor Angela Warner Councillor John Holland Councillor Jenny St John
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
