Pollution fear claim over plans for homes

More than 200 letters of objection have been submitted by campaigners against the development.
More than 200 letters of objection have been submitted by campaigners against the development.
1
Have your say

A housing development near the M621 motorway has been put on hold after claims that it would put local families at higher risk from air pollution.

A Leeds City Council plans panel deferred its decision on applicant Persimmon’s proposals for 46 houses at New Village Way, Churwell, after receiving more than 200 letters of objection.

Locals in nearby May Avenue - which lies just a short distance from the motorway boundary - had raised a number of concerns, including pressure on local schools, road access and claims that the application breached standards on room sizes and noise levels.

And former environmental officer and Morley town councillor Jim Aveyard told the plans panel that the field on which the homes would be built currently acts as a pollution and noise buffer for locals and building on it would put families at risk.

Mr Aveyard said: “[The site] is green open space now. It is an amenity that the people of Churwell need.

“What hasn’t been mentioned is the atmospheric pollution and the deposition of particulate matter. This is quite a problem in itself. This development is downwind of the motorway. The particulate matter emitted from vehicles is small, it’s light and it travels.

“The really bad news is that the small stuff ends up deep in your lungs.”

Lib Dem councillor Jonathan Bentley questioned why there had been no public health consultation ahead of the application.

Senior officers, who recommended approval of the scheme, admitted that there were “challenges”, and that “no-one is pretending this is a perfect scheme”.

But they said it was “acceptable on balance”.

An officers’ report to the plans panel pointed out the scheme did offer “generous areas of landscaping and greenspace and is adequately spaced away from the existing properties on May Avenue, to ensure the proposal would not have a significant impact on the occupiers of these existing properties”.

The plans panel voted unanimously to defer it decision for further talks.