Planners ignored genuine concerns

I am sure I am not alone in expressing dismay at Canterbury City Council planning committee’s decision to grant the Corinthian development application in spite of the numerous calm and well-argued objections from amenity societies, parish councils and individuals.

All had gone to considerable trouble to gather information as to the likely effects of such a large development on our city and what, at least several council members agreed, was an application for which many questions and details remained unanswered.

As Canterbury Society chairman Prof Jan Pahl said in her submission, she did not envy the committee having to come to a decision.

Most in the hall accepted the need for more houses but questioned the numbers proposed and hoped the planning committee would have deferred final decision for further consultation.

I had the impression that no matter what was said from the floor, some councillors were determined to vote it through, no matter what compelling reasons were submitted for revision or rejection.

We were told by several members the development would get rid of the skyline of pylons, help to bring business into the city in spite of empty office space in the city centre and hardly impact on the present level of traffic since the major jams were caused by traffic to and from the schools during term-time.

Such a reaction from the committee in the face of such a large written and oral submission is most discouraging, since it appears the genuine concerns of the population at large are just ignored.

And it was not just local citizens who made submissions, but environmental bodies including ICOMOS/UNESCO on the possible impact on Canterbury’s status as a World Heritage Site.

Perhaps in the future a sense of apathy might prevail as increasing numbers of would-be critics will say commenting is just not worth the effort.

It was good to see some members of the committee express concern about a number of points including pollution, retaining a green wedge between the Barton estate, the effect on the Pilgrims Way southern approach to the city, setting space aside for a possible future link road to the east and design aspects of the immediate development for the 140 homes.

We hope the planning department will look very carefully at this, and in particular as to whether the large white-clad block with its clock tower planned for the highest point of the escarpment can be reduced in size or moved so as not to impede the southern skyline.

Planting a screen of trees is really not a sufficient alternative. Hubert Pragnell Meadow Road, Canterbury A sprig of holly in Blean Woods taken by Simon Pettman

In the Gazette’s coverage of the planning committee meeting about the south Canterbury urban development, Joanna Cave from David Lock Associates is quoted as saying the development was subject to “stringent checks”.

The fact that its air quality assessment was based on the wrong, superseded emissions guidance suggests that perhaps the checks were not as stringent as they ought to be.

For Ms Cave to argue that the most advanced computer models were used to predict future pollution levels is beside the point. If you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.

The government published new guidance on calculating pollution from cars in August, but this was not used by the developer.

Perhaps it was because it would result in higher levels of predicted pollution.

The city council was aware of this, but it did not require a new air quality assessment, with more realistic air quality measurements, to be done before granting planning permission.

There is no doubt that traffic volumes will increase and air quality will deteriorate with consequent health impacts.

However, the developers assure us over the 15 years many of the people who would have used cars will cycle, walk or catch the bus instead – in fact almost half of them.

This is really hope rather than fact and is a level of achievement not found anywhere else.

All concerns by residents’ groups and health, traffic and planning experts have simply been swept aside or ignored.

The council is clearly happier to rely on an inaccurate air quality assessment even though pollution levels are already above legal limits. Prof Stephen Peckham St Augustine’s Road, Canterbury