Reasons to halt developments

I welcome the revocation of the Mountfield Park planning application [‘Shock ruling derails city’s biggest-ever development’, Gazette, October 21]. However, I strongly urge the developers and the city council to not simply re-jig and resubmit this proposal. In the face of the climate and extinction crises and the historic and intimate character of Canterbury, the whole idea of new developments in and around the city is seriously flawed until and unless these critical issues are resolved:

1. The transport infrastructure is already overloaded, and will not be improved by the proposed by-passes. A comprehensive and realistic transport strategy is required that ensures genuine modal shift.

2. The sewage treatment system is also overloaded, causing serious damage downstream at Stodmarsh nature reserve. All new developments must treat sewage on site, so that effluent leaving sites is of bathing water quality.

3. Air pollution is already much higher than is acceptable and breaches regulations for air quality. Any development will increase air pollution, even if the vehicles serving it are 100% electric. The council should declare an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) covering the whole city to limit further damage.

4. All new housing must be zerocarbon (eg Passivhaus standard) from day one. There is absolutely no excuse for constructing brand new houses that are not fit for purpose into the future (which developers continue to do by building leaky new houses with gas boilers, inadequate insulation, double glazing rather than triple, etc).

5. Truly affordable social housing must be included as a significant proportion of the mix right from the start.

6. The preservation and enhancement of natural habitats must go hand in hand with all new developments.

Each development should create a positive improvement in ecological value, through planting, wildlife corridors, etc.

Reflecting and ruminating on the above points, I have come to the conclusion that it is not realistic to expect that Canterbury will be able to address these issues. It simply does not have the capacity to accept any new developments of significant size without causing serious harm to the environment and to the city’s character. A much more realistic solution would be to build a new allelectric zero-carbon garden city away from Canterbury, where the essential infrastructure and sustainable transport links can be put in place from the outset. Keith Bothwell

St Augustines Road, Canterbury