LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


Solar panel questions Dear Sir – I am writing regarding ‘Meeting over solar farm postponed’ (August), in which I am quoted along with Mr William Day, of Great Tong Farm. I, and an increas- ingly large number of the local community (see www.protectourweald.org), are aston- ished at Mr Day’s statement, which at the very least can only be construed as mis- leading. The assertion that 25 years is ‘temporary’


is highly questionable, especially as Solar Securities is now claiming that if the panels are in good working order it will be seeking approval for them to remain in situ for up to 50 years.


Furthermore, the panels are notMr Day’s property to be removed “at any time”. They will initially be owned by Solar Securities, which will be looking to sell its debt secu- rity on to other investors on the back of the guaranteed government income the solar power station will generate. I doubt it will take kindly to any loss of its investment. In essence, Mr Day has exchanged his


crop growing land, already a source of re- newable energy, for a spreadsheet. This, in turn, raises further questions, as


we understand there is no commitment to guarantee the removal of these panels at the end of their useful life. Will any change in ownership or Government subsidies make the removal of these panels too costly for the landowner? Will 157 acres of the Gar- den of England be polluted with rusting, in- dustrial installations? Finally, your readers may also be inter-


ested to know that Solar Securities, in- creasingly nervous at the growing number of protesters, has once again cancelled the next public exhibition which was due to be held on September 10 at Headcorn Village Hall.


Shellina Prendergast, Ulcombe Road


Use Next cash on roads Dear Sir – On June 6, the Conservatives on Maidstone Council’s planning committee passed the application by Next for a store on Eclipse Park, against officers’ advice They also refused to listen to legal advice


on the night to defer a decision to allow negotiations of conditions and S106 money, which could be used locally to lessen the impact of the store on the local environment and local roads. The failure to listen has resulted in Next dictating what planning conditions it would accept, and only offering £140,000 to allevi- ate local problems, comparedwith the S106 or CIL figure for the Next store in High Wycombe of £1.34m. We, it seems, are left to pick up the crumbs. At the planning meeting on August 8, a


paper was put forward, although subse- quently withdrawn due to failure to give reasonable notice to residents. It recom- mended all the S106 money should go to the town centre, and none to deal with the im- pact on local residents. It seems a good case for supporting local environmental improvements is to be ig- nored, as well as any improvements to local road safety or to deal with the inherent park- ing problems locally resulting from the lack of staff parking. Next claims there will be 180 new jobs, but have only allowed four parking spaces for staff. Traffic generated locally, using the Sit- tingbourne Road, Hampton Road on Vinters Park, and Bearsted Road, will increase sub- stantially. Unfortunately, the main stretch of Hampton Road through Vinters Park, for about 400 metres, has no pavement, requir-


28 South


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


ing people towalk on grass or themain road. Also, in recent years, there have been


more than 20 recorded crashes (where in- juries have occurred) along the Sitting- bourne Road and 11 crashes along the Bearsted Road, including three since the road alteration works have been carried out. I havewritten to the planning officers ask-


ing that S106 money be obtained to improve road safety on Sittingbourne Road and Hampton Road, but this seems to have been ignored in the report. Should we fail to bring Next in line to help counter the problems that local residents will have to deal with, then why would other retail developers, who inevitably will now apply to put other retail stores on Eclipse Park, feel they need to bother? Ian Chittenden – County councillor for Maidstone North East Division


Pitch and pavilion plans Dear Sir – The Downs Mail has always been very supportive of our desire to improve The Mote sports ground. Maidstone’s premier cricket and rugby


clubs have agreed, for many years, that we cannot improve facilities without an enabling residential development, and we now have a plan winning support of many, including Maidstone Council, Kent Cricket Club and sports followers in Maidstone and Kent.We hope to achieve planning permission to start building at the end of the rugby season. Within little more than a year thereafter,


the facilities (including a new pavilion) will match the magnificence of our beautiful ground and enable us to sustain, financially, one of Maidstone’s treasures on the border of Mote Park. We even plan to increase the number of trees and native hedgerows on site, with powerful landscaping. While house-building will take place on


part of the upper rugby pitch, both clubs will retain the same number of pitches (two cricket, three rugby) by careful re-allocation and design of this 24 acre site. When all changes are in place we expect membership of both clubs to increase. Some other local sports now talk of joining in this exciting Mote experience. We expect the local community to enjoy many benefits too. We are in challenging, but very excit- ing, times. Trevor Langley, chairman Maidstone Rugby Club Development


Dennis Fowle, chairman, The Mote Cricket Club Development


Put cannon back to black Dear Sir – I amglad to hear that the historic cannon captured at Sebastopol is to be re- sited in Maidstone High Street. I have one request though. Could it please


be painted black? For some strange reason it was painted battleship grey last time. I have never seen a cannon painted grey be- fore, so let’s put it back to black. DaveWoodcock,Willington Street, Maidstone


Help save children’s centres Dear Sir – Kent County Council has 97 chil- dren’s centres across the county, and as part of its cost-cutting, it is now consulting on its plans to shut 23 children’s centres and to reduce the hours at a further 13, which is the equivalent of closing down another six centres. This is bad news for children and families in Kent. KCC is planning to close two children’s centres in Maidstone, Loose and Marden and continue with three centres open on a part-time basis. Children’s centres provide valuable, prac-


tical support for families, particularly those under pressure. Evaluation reports show parents like the approach in chil- dren’s centres, they like being able to access all the services they need in one setting, and they like meeting other parents and having an opportunity for their children to so- cialise with other children. The centres are often at the heart of the community. They bring people together and help establish community where there was none before. Published statistics show that the centres generally have a high rate of attendance and usage. Should the planned closures go ahead, a unique neighbourhood service would be lost. Many local families will not have the resources to meet the added ex- pense of travelling to other children’s cen- tres. There is a strong argument to keep all the children’s centres in Kent open. To sign a petition to save our children’s centres, go to: https://www.change.org/en- GB/petitions/dear-kent-county-council- save-our-sure-starts.


Frances Rehal, by email


Kent is place for airport Dear Sir – North Kent should be the area to benefit from the new London airport. Heathrow is an environmental cancer blighting the lives of millions. If London did not have an airport, Heathrow would be the last place to plant it. The prevailingwind comes from the west blowing airport pollution and car- cinogenous diesel fumes over London. Tests show tens of thousands of children are ad- versely affected: 13-year-old youths in bor- oughs around Heathrow are, on average, two years behind children in other parts of the capital because of the noise and filth. A new London airport should be in the


east, where pollution would blow out across the Channel. For health reasons, Heathrow should shrink not expand – ask the doctors at Ashford Hospital, Middlesex. An airport for Londonwill continue to be


a problem that should have been resolved in the 1970s. The various solutions pro- posed have been ducked by our gutless, spineless MPs. Ted Heath had it in his grasp to build an airport at or around Cliffe. The solutionwas foiled by the RSPB and eco-freaks. I suggest that dicky-birds should have no influence on deciding where a London airport should be. Birds migrate, bring disease, foul the land


and cost a fortune to control, very much like our useless MPs; for both these pests, the fewer the better. We don’t need a new island, we need a decision within a year and a good plan to drain some or part of the many marshlands already available in the Thames estuary. A new airport could be operational by


2020, but sadly this will never happen, not with this load of parliamentary invertebrates. Anthony Lang, Sandling, Maidstone


Takeaway to begin at pub MOHAMMEDIslam has been given plan- ning permission to set up a hot food take- away at the Railway Tavern in Station Road, Staplehurst. He plans to convert the north-eastern


wing of the building, which provides ad- ditional toilets for the pub, into a food preparing and serving area. Maidstone Council gave the go-ahead


on condition that no activity, other than cleaning, shall be carried out on the premises outside 10am to 11pm.


You can e-mail the Downs Mail — info@downsmail.co.uk


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