IN Warrington Borough Council’s Air Quality Report (AQR) June 2018, it states that in 2016 4.9 per cent (that is nearly one in 20) of deaths in Warrington could be attributed to particle pollution.

Furthermore, some areas of Warrington, close to major roads, exceeded the levels of particle pollution, which is recognised to contribute to the onset of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Traffic exhaust fumes and tier dust pollution are significant contributors.

I wonder, therefore, how WBC can justify spending more than £230 million in land/building purchases to generate income, then state that ‘monitoring at the worse locations (of pollution) has been proposed to gain further evidence, although there is a gap in funding at this current time’.

How is this statement acceptable? Is public health not important?

Meanwhile large dense developments keep being built near major roads.

How can councillors say, for example, that traffic and pollution generated from 160 and 189 dwellings off Wilderspool Causeway and the Cantilever Bridge, respectively, will not impact the local area?

(Warrington Guardian, December 17) Why won’t WBC invest in gaining further evidence of pollution in the worst areas or actually engage in reducing traffic pollution?

This could be through better public and cycle paths, park and ride systems, light rail trams, incentives to leave your car at home, more green planting, reducing the number of dense housing builds and keep our green spaces.

It is very concerning when publicly elected councillors, sitting on the transport and planning committees, do not adequately acknowledge or represent constituents’ concerns on planning and traffic issues.

The council still seems set for building 23,000 extra homes and 381 hectares (approx 381 rugby pitches) for employment land.

St Helens has reduced its housing plan (Warrington Guardian, January 10), why hasn’t Warrington Borough Council?