LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


No defence for Maidstone Dear Sir – It was after spending an enjoyable afternoon wandering around Faversham’s tranquil and attractive streets in glorious au- tumn sunshine that I came across your lead- ing article where you take issue with a Guardian journalist bewailingwhat they saw as Maidstone’s urban blight – “a town suf- fering from ringroaditis andmediocrity,” not to mention being “overshadowed by fag packet office blocks, retail parks and round- abouts” (“‘Nice’ Maidstone” – November 2012). Not, it has to be said, a terribly flatter- ing description. Perhaps it was this same unnamed hack


who last year spoke of Maidstone as the “Wolverhampton of the south”. Not, I fear, a compliment to either of these places! As someone who has lived here sinceMrs Thatcher’s election victory of 1979, I would have liked to agree with what I felt to be your less than heartfelt defence of the town, but I am afraid the Guardianwriterwas only stat- ing an all too obvious truth. The contrast with Faversham, from which


I had just returned, was sharp and instinc- tive.While clearly a smaller place, less eco- nomically vibrant perhaps, and offering few employment or leisure opportunities for local people, it nevertheless seemed like a placewhose inhabitants actually cared for it: little or no rubbish or chewing gum on the pavements, not at any rate while I was there, none of that depressing down-at-heel air of shabbiness often so evident here. No failed concrete brutalist car parks or


third rate, frequently empty office blocks or nondescript Travelodge hotel or ugly, pre- fabricated warehouse-style retail outlets de- spoiled what might have been, with more imagination, a beautiful riverfront vista. Faversham, by contrast, had an uplifting


effect on my spirit, albeit only temporary! One sensed that, had they made a decision to pave over their high street at enormous cost, local ragstone would have been used in keeping with an historic Kentish town, not imported Chinese granite. Some years ago, when Faversham was threatened with a ringroad scheme similar to that inflicted on Ashford, the proposal was thrown out and “ringroaditis” averted. Those charged with caring for the past, present and future of Faversham have put to shame their counterparts in Maidstone, dis- playing a cultivated intelligence and care not obviously apparent here. One wonders what on earth John Ruskin or his contemporary, the apostle of beauty in the everydayWilliam Morris, or even a high priest of modernism like Denys Lasdun would have made of Maidstone today. Time to move elsewhere perhaps!


K G Banks, Bower Lane, Maidstone


What a transformation Dear Sir – Maidstone town centre has been transformed from a traffic-choked suburban mediocrity into a light, spacious, pedestrian- friendly environment of near continental standards of taste and elegance. All praise to Councillor Greer and his team


formaking it happen. Criticism? Of course! Many a Brit moaner would complain ifmanna fell from heaven. G E French,Marion Crescent, Shepway


Residential parking Dear Sir – This is an open letter to all those councillors who are thinking about putting the car parking costs up in Maidstone. As a resident of Cromwell Road, it has be-


come increasingly difficult to park in our road, even though we pay for permits for


38 East


You can write to us at: Downs Mail, 2 Forge House, Bearsted Green Business Park, Bearsted, Maidstone, ME14 4DT or e-mail: info@downsmail.co.uk


ourselves and our visitors. Cars park all down the path, even next to paths that lead to our houses. It would be impossible for a pram or wheelchair, if one was needed, and what about the emergency services? How would they get to homes in our cul-de-sac? The council wouldn’t listen when we said charging for car parking on Sundays would force people to park on side roads. They also wouldn’t consider allowing residents to park free in the car parks. They would rather cars clogged up our residential streets and made it a misery for people like us! Isn’t it about time they listened to voters? N Cox, Cromwell Road,Maidstone


Local store’s refund policy Dear Sir–Iwanted to contact you to high- light a possible consumer issue with a store in Maidstone, and feel the store’s policy re- garding refunds may be of public interest. My daughter's boyfriend Toby recently bought some football boots, size 12, from Sports Direct in Maidstone. On returning home and trying the boots on


with his football socks, he found they were too tight, so returned to the store to exchange them for a larger size. Unfortu- nately, the store was unable to offer a bigger size, so Toby asked for a refund so he could go and buy the same brand in the correct size elsewhere. This was refused, and instead he was of-


fered an exchange or a credit note. However, they were unable to offer the size Toby wanted, and as for a credit note, I doubt we would wish to shop there again. I feel customers should be warned about


this policy prior to making purchases, as they will be hard pushed to get their money back. I have worked in retail and have never


heard of such a poor customer service policy before.


Maria Pearson, Cherry OrchardWay, Maidstone


Sports Direct was unavailable for comment when contacted by Downs Mail


Cynical attempt to win votes? Dear Sir – In the recent by-elections the Lib Dems successfully campaigned on a cynical and negative message concerning draft hous- ing plans in the north-west of Maidstone. They also spoke about the “Conservative’s


Core Strategy,” as if they were not involved in the process. They were critical of the draft proposals for housing on greenfield sites, particularly in land off Hermitage Lane within AllingtonWard. From their campaignmessages you would


not have thought that most of these sites were ones agreed by the Lib Dems back in 2000,when they approved the current Local Plan!You wouldn’t even realise that the cur- rent draft Core Strategy was drawn up with the full involvement and influence of the leader and deputy leader of the Lib Dems. Furthermore, you certainly would not realise that they supported the release of greenfield sites for housing. In 2010, we felt very strongly that we should bring the Lib Dems on board with the process of drawing up the housing plans to “take the politics out of it.” With the agree- ment of the Lib Dems, a member working group was set up to take a lead on housing numbers and distribution. It was cross-party, and included the leader and deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems spoke out against an urban extension at Otham and Gore Court, and suc- cessfully urged the council to go for a dis- persed pattern of housing,which they knew


would include the sites in the north-west of Maidstone they had proposed when they were in control in 2000. Minutes of a recent webcast meeting also


show that the leader of the Lib Dems was “happy” to recommend to my cabinet that the final draft spatial distribution go out to consultation, with the areas in the north- west. The Lib Dems also agreed to the over- all housing target of 10,080 and even proposed themselves, at these cross-party meetings, hundreds of houses on greenfield land in the north-west of Maidstone. Not something voters were told about in recent Lib Dem literature! It is therefore dishonest for the Maidstone LiberalDemocrat party to portray themselves to voters as being distant from and negative towards the current draft housing plans. They played an equal part in composing them, including the sites in the Allington area; something which their party conve- niently failed to mention in the recent elec- tions.Was it an attempt to win votes? I don’t blame the successful candidates in


the recent elections, as they were probably spun, by their party leadership, the same misleading story of Lib Dem involvement in borough housing plans!


Maidstone Council Conservative cabinet members Chris Garland and Stephen Paine


Focus onWillington Street Dear Sir – I am writing concerning an aspect in the explanation of Maidstone’s Core Strategy published in your October edi- tion. In the section relating to M20 junction 8,


there is reference to improvements at several points along the Ashford Road in- cluding at its junction with Willington Street. While any proposals for road im- provements are to be welcomed, these pro- posals indicate a clear intention to inflict yet more traffic on Ashford Road andWillington Street and their residents as part of the strat- egy.


Concerns about increased traffic levels


in the area have already been expressed in relation to the junction 7, junction 8 and Langley Park proposals and, as a resident of Willington Street, I share these fears. Willington Street is an inadequately main- tained, unclassified residential road, which already carries far toomuch high speedHGV and other traffic. This fact, combined with the failure of Kent Police to make any at- tempt to enforce the traffic laws and regula- tions in the section of Willington Street south of the School Lane junction, has a se- riously adverse effect on the quality of life of residents. As well as the obvious danger from traffic (routinely in breach of the speed limit), there are the added problems of noise and pollu- tion. This situation will only be made worse if yet more traffic is encouraged to use the road – a point that those representing Will- ington Street residents and those responsible for the Core Strategy seem not to care about. Proposals as outlined in the Maidstone


Core Strategy need to be supported by a suit- able road network and notmerely reliant on the existing inadequate network. Of course, the obvious solution to this and many other traffic problems in Maidstone and its sub- urbs is the immediate construction of the South Eastern strategic link road as part of they Core Strategy. It is insufficient for those responsible merely to repeat the mantra that funding is not available. We are now in an economic climate where infrastructure projects should


Support YOUR local paper — and we can support YOU - advertise on 01622 630330


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56