downsmail.co.uk Make councillors pay up


Dear Sir – It never ceases to amaze me how stupid councillors can be. In the latest episode the planning commieewent against expert officer recommendations and deferred applications for housing in the Suon Road area, despite the land being designated for the purpose. This is extremely naive and stupid and riskswasting council taxpayers’ money. With the Government demanding that Maidstone provides so many houses, and land being allocated in the core strategy for that very purpose, certain members of the planning commiee, led by acting Lib Dem group leader, Tony Harwood, tried to derail the process, despite officer advice that if the applicants appeal, they would win and Maidstonewould have to pick up the bill for costs running to many thousands of pounds. We, whowould pick up the tab, have


every right to be concerned. But this never seems to be shared by irresponsible councillors. I remember many years ago Gordon Bonner, the then leader of the ruling Conservative group,warning cavalier councillors that they must stop going against officer advice, especially when it costs the council money. Is it not time now for the chief executive


of the council towarn our irresponsible representatives that there might come a time when, if they disregard expert advice they might have to pick up subsequent bills for costs themselves as individuals? Wewould all vote for that I think. The alternative is to not elect these navel- gazing idiots when they stand again. Peter Edwards, HarrowWay,Weavering


I understand your point, Peter, but when councillors are determining a scheme that would see the provision of almost 900 homes as well as the widening of a residential main road, they owe it to residents to make the correct decision. If this takes a lile longer than the developers


would want then so be it. Your definition of an irresponsible councillor differs to mine.Waving through large schemes at the hint of an appeal threat from a developer is irresponsible. Ordering planning officers to negotiate a


beer deal for Maidstone is responsible and the end result was that councillors accepted the scheme at the next commiee meeting three weeks later (see page 34) aer concerns on affordable housing and road widening – two key issues – were allayed. I would like to know how many other readers


agree with your suggestion that councillors should be fined for overruling officers. Given backbench councillors, many of whom made the decision you criticise, pick up a basic allowance of £388 per month and modest travel and subsistence expenses, it would deter those without a fortune to fall back on. A borough council whose members are exclusively rich is not my idea of local democracy. Response by Stephen


Changes no improvement


Dear Sir – Reading (or aempting) the new and “improved” Downs Mail Iwas reminded of an old American proverb – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.


42 Maidstone East March 2014


The paperwas valued for its clear, black, readable print and its wide and succinct reportage, aswell as for its minimal but relevant editorial input. Thatwas fine, just theway itwas. What


has been “improved”? G E French, Marion Crescent, Maidstone


Comment not welcome


Dear Sir – Until now I have loved receiving the Downs Mail andwould immediately turn to the Leers page. It belonged to the readers and felt like a genuine forum for our opinions, freely expressed. Now you have changed it to what appears to be a page for you and your staff to express their own opinions for at least 50% of content. In addition, the new typeface is too small to read. Give it back to us; return it to the previous format.We are quite capable of forming our own opinions on leer content. Everyone I have spoken to feels the same. Jean and Malcolm Beaton, Hill Brow, Bearsted


Thank you for your feedback.We have taken on board comments on the main body type size and have increased it aer the first round of editions. I hope you notice a positive difference. As for the Comment section, we at Downs


Mail have always offered our views through the Mail Marks column.We felt that responding to some (not all) leers would provide additional opinions and encourage debate. There are also occasions when we can use our insight to clarify unqualified points made by the writer. We aren’t aiming to be controversial or to


belile the views of our readers but to interact beer with them. Hopefully you will grow to like the section. Response by Stephen


Sticking up for residents


Dear Sir – It is disappointing that the once politically-fair Downs Mail should launch such a partisan and personal aack on me (Mail Marks, February) rather than sticking up for residents and the borough’s open spaces. To correct your editorial, I have never


said there can be zero greenfield development. But I do demand that we prioritise brownfield development rather than pushing a whopping 90% of new housing on to green fields. All Lib Dem councillors are as passionate


as I amabout this. I amproud that our councillors pushed for a new policy to prioritise brownfield development over sites such as Five Acre and BluebellWoods. I amonly sad that thiswas defeated by Conservative councillors. We all understand the development pressure, but do Maidstone Conservatives take no responsibility for the devastating development they are about to unleash on this once rural borough? Liberal Democrats, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, and even Conservative politicians such as Eric Pickles and Kent county councillors all agree that the buck stops with the council. All this cheerleading in the Tory press


tells me is that Conservatives are terrified that they are going to be punished for their developer-led planning free-for-all in May’s local elections.


Jasper Gerard, Lib Dem parliamentary campaigner, Maidstone and theWeald


Let me assure you, Jasper, that Downs Mail does not favour any political party. Mail Marks is a column that represents the opinions of one individual and has no bearing on our non-slanted approach to local news. Response by Stephen


Response is simplistic


Dear Sir – I have been reading the comments on the proposed Co-op development with interest, in particular your responses. To set out my stall first, I ama Lenham resident who is against the Co-op proposals for all the reasons that have been well documented in your publication but I am not against some form of development on the site as it has been closed for some time and clearly something needs to be done. However, I feel that the proposals as they currently stand are a clear sign of overdevelopment. You say in your response that it is a simple case of replacing one shop with another and I feel this is a very simplistic view of the issues. Ignoring the significant highway problems that have already been mentioned the new shop will be significantly larger than the current one. The planners recently gave permission for existing commercial premises on The Square, the site of the old Lime Tree restaurant, to be converted into residential: a decision I thought was right given the time it had sat empty and it is great to see this being so lovingly restored. However, local planning policy states


that this sort of change of use can only be approved if it can be clearly demonstrated there is not the need for the commercial premises. How can the planners approve a larger shop on the site of the ironmongers while, yards away, they accepted therewas not the need for commercial property? The samewould apply to the loss of the


first floor office space; it needs to be demonstrated that there is no need for this space, but I have seen nothing to this effect in the planning application. I think a far more appropriate development for the site would be a number of small commercial units on the ground floor, whichwould be more in keeping with the current retail paern of the village. Then one-bedroom residential accommodation above which the village desperately needs. These are just some of the issues that the planners need to answer if they are to approve the proposals and I hope you don’t mind me stating your view as ‘very simplistic’ but I thought it is important for everyone to understand the complexities of the application. James Colle, Lenham resident


I really appreciate the alternative point of view, James, and I hope you are correct that these other factors will be taken into account. I expect the thinking behind the conversion of


The Lime Tree to residential was that there are other places to eat nearby – albeit not upmarket restaurants in the same mould as the one that has been lost – and we all know there is a perceived housing shortage in the borough. By contrast, there is an oversupply of offices in the borough and the number of jobs created


Comment


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