Letters: Sue Bruce, April 10, 2015

editorial image
Have your say

I along with several members of the public attended the planning meeting for the new road from Edward Benefer Way via Lynnsport to North Lynn.

What was very clear from the offset was that many members of the planning committee had already decided how they were going to vote before even hearing the application. The behaviour of some members of the committee was clearly biased and others were stopped from asking questions and making comments. We are now told that the council breached their own rules by not allowing objectors to have two speakers for five minutes which they themselves provided in support of the application and there will be a new committee meeting at 10am today.

It was stated at the meeting that the road is now intended to take traffic from Edward Benefer to reduce traffic congestion and pollution elsewhere through the town particularly in Gaywood.

This has the risk of resulting in traffic congestion and pollution for residents on Reid Way, Front Way, Columbia Way and Loke Road particularly when housing is built in South Wootton and at Knights Hill.

The public cannot trust the councillors to be unbiased when they meet to decide on the road, the council have already spent over £500,000 in consultations and work connected to the road and housing development and have an invested interested being the owner and developer of the land. The consultations were flawed because the purpose of the road has now changed and the very serious concerns raised about the risk of flooding have still not been addressed. This also raises concerns about the planned housing development for which detailed plans have not yet been released; it has been suggested that the houses on Lynnsport are not intended to have parking places and will use the parking intended for visitors to Lynnsport. Clearly the road is an important part of the development and all details and plans should be available so that the public can clearly see what is being proposed. This application is being rushed through and should be deferred until the public can be assured of a fair and unbiased decision with ALL relevant facts and information made public and about the road AND the development and the flooding issues properly addressed.

Sue Bruce,