ON February 10 the link road route that the people of Crediton have previously been promised, may be rejected by just eight Devon County Councillors.

Their reason for doing so may be, in part, because of the recommendation of two "Senior officers" in the Mid Devon District Council planning department.

They, in turn, will have based their recommendation on material known as "government guidelines", together with information procured from the two statutory bodies they are obliged to consult, English Heritage, and The Environmental Agency.

Since "everything is done by the book", it may be that none of those who have subscribed to the outcome will see anything wrong with this method of doing things.

The outcome could be:

a) £7m being spent on the Hillside route, a project that not only will yield little benefit, but will also introduce additional problems or

b) The discounting of the Valley route, the only entirely logical means of transforming air quality, both in Exeter Road, and the High Street. The route, which, on account of its totally different, and vastly superior potential, the majority of the people of Crediton have campaigned for.

The logic

Devon County Council tell us that the Valley route would cost £10m, plus £1m for a public enquiry. Too expensive, they say!

Just £11m for long-term investment versus £7m for a "short-term" liability? It is, in modern parlance, a no brainer. It's the cheaper route that's too expensive.

Government guidelines How far from reality have our councillors become?

How far from us, the public? Whilst neither they, nor the government may have intended it, councillors and officers alike, are no longer servants of the public, but servants of the government.

For example, if the Cabinet members meeting at Westminster favour urban areas, then the cabinet members at County Hall favour urban areas too, too.

Public consultations

Over a 14 month period we have had three of these at Crediton.

They are otherwise known as Exhibitions, which is a more accurate description.

There is opportunity to talk to council representatives, but they are limited by the information displayed (usually) behind them.

Not that the amount of information is limited, but critically, in some instances the accuracy of it is.

So the dilemma for the public is determining which part of the display can be proven and which part cannot.

It is profoundly disturbing, to learn from a report by Michael J. Fennesy, Ma, Phd, FRIN* that the material relating to Air Quality at the September 25/26 20009 Exhibition was in part speculative, inaccurate, deficient and fictional.

And that "there was a misuse of quasi-scientific assertions to support preferred options".

Air quality

The reason that the council have been considering a road at all, is on account of E U, and Government guidelines on air quality. By simply taking some steps towards reducing the pollution, the council will have conformed with these Guidelines. Easy. Too easy, in fact.

Not easy for us, knowing that the opportunity to address the Air Quality problem once and for all (period), plus the chance to deal with the major congestion prevalent in the town, has not been taken on board.

Decision time. Democracy time.

I began by writing" "on February 10 just eight councillors may reject the route we've been previously promised. Since this must not happen, it falls to us to do as much as possible to prevent them from doing so.

Might I suggest readers write to, or e-mail, either John Hart ([email protected]">[email protected]), or Stuart Hughes, Devon County Council, County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter.

Put democracy into practice. Democracy is paramount.

*Dr Fennesy has written a report extending to five pages, which he has presented to the

Crediton Traffic Action Group. Copies can be obtained from them by email: [email protected]">[email protected].

Graham Pearcey

Bewsley Farm

Copplestone