This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Street. The EU is already framing charges against the UK for not meeting the necessary pollution standards and it is said that this can lead to a serious fine being levied on the UK.

It is also being suggested that the fine should be raised by an increase in council tax so that we would not only suffer the pollution but would also pay for that “privilege”. It will be no surprise that policy CS2 requires that actions should have “Minimal impact on local air quality management areas.” Even this seems rather inadequate as we might expect, at the least, that they are brought within acceptable limits. Quite apart from the number of houses, the proposed building density is also excessive. Although the Core Strategy does not always give figures, it does state “we have not pursued options which reduce land-take by building taller buildings and/or applying higher densities”. Yet it also states that the College site in Lycrome road will be at 40 dwellings per hectare and it is understood that in some areas the density will be 60 dwellings per hectare and with no provision for garages or parking. To put it politely, this policy is bizarre.

Whatever the planners say, there

will be cars and these will block the roads, obstruct the pavements and damage any flat green spaces. Not to acknowledge this reality smacks of King Canute and knowingly contributes to the degradation of the Chesham environment – despite objectives of preserving the character of communities. If the density levels and parking provisions are true, they also conflicts with policy CS3 that aims to

provide “Cycle and vehicle parking appropriate to the needs of the site.” This high

building density also means that

L t rT S

e e

Please send letters to:

letters@yourchesham.co.uk with your name and address.

Air pollution is already a concern in Broad Street

the majority of the dwellings will be flats or very small houses that are unsuitable for growing families and this will directly endanger one of Chiltern’s key objectives of sustainable communities. Finally, while not directly related to housing, paragraph 11.5 suggests that although the demand for retail space is in Chesham, permission for a large proportion of retail

development should be transferred to Amersham. Not only is this totally unacceptable in that it again reflects the willingness of Chiltern District to ignore the interests of Chesham or to sacrifice them on any pretext but it would also go against their declared principles by increasing traffic congestion, air pollution and the

emission of carbon dioxide. It should also be noted that one of the arguments for loading the housing into the bigger settlements is that they provide facilities close to where people live while a second one is that it enhances the viability of key town centres. This proposal would seem to fly in the face of both of these arguments.

Tom Gorsuch

yourChesham • April, 2010 9 Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com