downsmail.co.uk RESULTS in the May 22 Maidstone


Are we in for a dirty election? MailMarks


Council elections are unpredictable. This inspires hope for all candidates (Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour, UKIP, Greens, Independents etc) and an understandable determination to succeed. It also brings a great danger that truth


will be the loser and there are real concerns this could become Maidstone’s dirtiest ever election. Voters need to be very aware – and question everything that comes through leerboxes. Opponents believe there is a chance of


taking three or fourwards off the Conservatives, whichwould deprive them of an overall majority. Thatwould lead to hurried deals to control the council. I believe the leaders of the two main Maidstone parties – Cllr Chris Garland (Conservative) and Cllr FranWilson (Lib Dems) –want the election fought honestly on important local issues. The Downs Mail keeps advocating this –


but the dirty tricks brigades will be difficult to control in the next fewweeks. I give one example from a Lib Dem publication delivered to my East Farleigh home. It accused Cllr Garland of telling a council meeting that traffic jams proved Maidstone’s success and if you did not like it you should move out. That seemed odd –


Let us speak our minds


Dear Sir – We have to agree with Jean and Malcolm Beaton (“Comments not welcome”). We have always been happy to read Mr


Fowle’s comments in his Mail Marks column, even though we might not agree with them. It is a mark of a free press that we are all allowed to express our opinions. However, the new leers page format allows the editorial team to commandeer this forum in addition to the Mail Marks facility and we do not feel it is a progressive step. Your readership is an intelligent bunch, well able to work out what is going on and we are afraid your responses do belile the valid views of those who take the trouble to write to you. For example: Response to Peter Edwards: “Your definition of an irresponsible councillor differs to mine.”


Response to James Colle: “I expect the thinking behind the conversion of The Lime Tree to residential was that there are other places to eat nearby.” Response to Ian Stuart: well, all of it. All of the above were printed in the same column as Mr and Mrs Beaton’s leer. Maidstone Council does not listen to its electorate and publications like Downs Mail offer an opportunity to let other readers know they are not alone in their worries. In the past, any responses by the editorial team have been limited to a single sentence, possibly expanded in an actual column in


Contact our team ...


Stephen Eighteen Editor stephen@downsmail.co.uk 01622 734735 ext 231


Diane Nicholls


Assistant editor diane@downsmail.co.uk 01622 734735 ext 232


Jane Shotliff Journalist


jane@downsmail.co.uk 01622 734735 ext 233


Dawn Kingsford


Journalist dawn@downsmail.co.uk 01622 734735 ext 233


Maidstone East April 2014 41


DENNIS FOWLE President dfowle2011@aol.com


so I checked. Cllr Garland says thewebcast shows he said to one councillor “if he wanted to live in a dead town he should move elsewhere”. Too oen the Lib Dems are accused of


being Fib Dems. This will bring revenge aacks, oen personalised. It is a very sad way to run an election campaign. As voters we need to be suspicious.





It looks like 19,600 It seems evidence for 19,600 new houses


for Maidstone up to 2031 is stacking up. KCC leader Paul Carter challenges the figure and the Lib Dems dislike it even more than the Conservatives. But their challenges look futile atworst and marginal at best. Their best hope seems toworkwell in


unison to try to prove to a Government local inquiry such a target is not achievable. The council is now floating a figure of 17,100.


Maidstone is not alone in facing this


the main body of the paper. Please restore this to the previous format. The public likes to read the public’s opinions in the Comment section; you have the whole paper to voice yours.


Steve and Jeanne Gibson, Birling Avenue, Bearsted


Co-op will change village


Dear Sir – I read with interest in your February issue the ongoing debate concerning the proposed Co-op in Lenham. Back in 2012, when the scheme was first proposed, there were some 1,000 signatures in local stores’ petitions against the Co-op. With Lenham’s population being just over 2,000, this was close to 50% of the population. None of those in favour of this unwanted development have quantified their observations. From the tone of her leer, Sylvia Miles is clearly an educated and thoughtful lady, but I believe she is seeing the issue of competition through rose-tinted spectacles. Competition in the retail trade is indeed healthy as she says. However, in her own words she needs to “get real”. A Co-op opened in a similar set of circumstances in my late parents-in- law’s town of Wigton in Cumbria, which has the large town of Carlisle not too far away, as Lenham has the large towns of Maidstone and Ashford nearby. The Co-op came to Wigton and many of the smaller


challenge. Tonbridge and Malling has announced an evidence-based target of 13,000. The national political drive for extra housing is really on – and there will be few King Canutes successful in holding back Government policy. The big question for Maidstone is:


where? The dra local plan has been published andwe are now in the period of public consultation (closing May 7). Aer a council scrutiny meeting some proposed sites have been dropped, most notably Fant Farm with its high-grade agricultural land. I cannot believe the Lib Dems played politics and did not contribute to this key meeting. Three or more significant urban sites


came forward, at the 11th hour, including part of The Mall/Chequers proposed redevelopment and the Haynes site. These could take 1,000 or more houses and relieve pressure on greenfield land. Hopefully urban Maidstone can take more. I hope much development can be concentrated close to the M20. This will relieve pressure on our other stretched highways. The council presses for more land to become available in Lenham, a village with many good services that, perhaps, could one day have a direct link with the M20. Overall that makes sense.


shops were put out of business, remaining boarded up to this day. The Co-op then raised its prices and was subsequently boycoed by a population about twice that of Lenham and has now closed down. I shop in a variety of locations and find that many items are a similar or lower price in the Lenham shops than in, for example, Sainsbury’s in Ashford. One can find almost all one’s needs in the shops around the village square – except for ironmongery. We could really do with the reinstatement of that excellent store where many of the items were cheaper than large DIY stores, you got an excellent personal service and you could buy, for example, five screws rather than a pack of 100 if that was all you needed. The late ironmongers and the other shops in and around the square provide an excellent and comprehensive service and are assets to Lenham. We do not need a Co- op. If it does come, there is no doubt whatsoever that the nature and character of Lenham will change.


On a related point made in other leers on this topic in your last issue, why do you publish anonymous leers, especially if they are having a go at someone? Jon Bacon, Harrietsham


Jon, we reserve the right to publish anonymous leers when a name and address has been supplied.


Response by Stephen


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  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72