downsmail.co.uk


Council must start to say Yes MailMarks





CRITICISMS grow that Maidstone Council seriously damages our future by saying “no” to just about every important development proposal – giing competitive neighbours some big prizes. And there are warnings that the heavy hand of Government – no maer the political colour – will increasingly impose its development powers and hit us indiscriminately with sledgehammers. I do not buy in totally to these damning criticisms, but there is too much truth for our future welfare.


Aer the May local elections, the main party group leaders have welcomed a move to greater consultation and co- operation. That is fine if they face the reality of our situation with positivity, not negativity.


Nationally the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems are all determined to provide substantial development and Maidstone has to toe this line – even if we can reduce the evidence-based 19,600 new homes up to 2031. Due to years of local opposition our local plan proposals now seem to be yet again in an awful mess. Party politically, it is easier to say no locally to proposed Maidstone developments. But with the key national political parties all determined on development, it is totally


Impact of immigration


Dear Sir – Dennis Fowle is, of course, entitled to his opinion ("Immigration Impact" issue 208 August 2014). However, it is not supported by the facts. 1. Mr Fowle claims “Immigration and free movement dictated by the EU” has created much of the need for more housing in Maidstone. Not true. Four fihs of people moving into the borough come from within the UK, many now priced out of London. People are also living longer, there are more living alone and more small households (KCC Report). 2. For example, in 2011/12 the borough's population grew by 900 to about 155,000. Within these figures, the net increase in the number of people born abroadwas only 200. (Office for National Statistics). 3. Nine out of 10 people living in Maidstone were born in the UK and English is the first language in 97% of homes; 45% of non-UK residents have been here for at least 10 years (Maidstone Council); 80% of non UK nationals who registered towork in Maidstone last yearwere under 34 (ONS). They have come here towork hard and


create a beer future for themselves and their families. They pay UK tax and National Insurance and are net contributors to the local and UK economy. Our hospitals, nursing homes, care services and building industrieswould struggle without them. They are no different to the 320,000 people who emigrated from the UK last year to start a new life abroad. Why arewe seemingly so scared of them? Regreably, saying I do not consider


myself racist does not make it true and Mr Fowle’s aempt to draw a parallel with Maidstone's decisive role in the outcome of


DENNIS FOWLE President dfowle2011@aol.com


hypocritical for local parties to try to make political gain by opposing such policies. That is a key reason why new UKIP councillors would not support the Lib Dems when they tried and failed to form a Maidstone administration. The problem is local allocation of


development – and this is where we now need strong and brave local government. There is no way Maidstone Council can please all the people all the time – and some unpopular decisions have to be taken.


Certainly the parishes must be heard – and hopefully others will follow Hollingbourne’s lead by proposing realistic parish alternatives. I think there is strong support for concentrating most retail to protect our town centre – and for planning decisions to ensure a successful regeneration of our dismal Maidstone East Station and its environs. A modified scheme has now been presented for commercial development


the CivilWar in 1648 is simply grotesque. Barbara Long, Rosemount Oast, Bearsted


Barbara, although the majority of the people who move into the borough are not from foreign countries, the influx from Europe into parts of London and the South East increases the price of housing, forcing many to seek areas such as Maidstone as an affordable place to live. While it is arguable whether this is having a major effect on the borough socially and culturally, there is no doubt that this poses immense physical challenges regarding infrastructure and retention of open countryside to retain our quality of life. Response by Stephen


Lights a waste of money


Dear Sir – I am writing to express my complete agreement with Mr PeterNSmith regarding the traffic lights at the junction of Willington Street and Madginford Road. What a complete and uer shambles


these lights are. Theywere only put in because they did not cost the local authority a penny as it made the developer of the residential home pay for them. We pay the real cost of thiswaste of time


and money by siing in the interminable queues they cause and breathing in the noxious fumes caused by queuing traffic. Itwas mentioned that these lights benefit residents by including a phase for pedestrians to cross the road to access Mote Park. What, all three of them per day? What about me? I access Mote Park at the


School Lane junction; where is my set of traffic lights? It has been mentioned that the phasing prioritises the traffic onWillington Street. So why does the traffic build up to beyond


Deliver us 


south of the A20 near M20 Junction 8, and the council, while protecting the Bearsted gap, must support our business needs. Maidstone needs the protection of a strong local plan to grow to meet our own Maidstone wishes, not Westminster’s. That is why Maidstone’s “yes voices” must now be heard and “no voices” subjugated. The “nos” won in the 1990s when we lost the chance of a high-speed rail station in the borough. We gied that to Ashford. That lesson should live with Maidstone forever.


The Royal Mail delivery office move from the Maidstone East area to Park Wood has done no favours to customers who receive the unwelcome card that a leer has not been delivered because the sender did not pay full postage. For me it involved a delayed mystery


leer, a difficult six-mile return journey via Loose Road/Suon Road, a handling fee of £1 and postage due of 55p. And if I posted back the card I had to pay that postage too.


The public increasingly makes mistakes now that postage is based both on weight and size – and has become so expensive.


School Lane but the most cars I've seen waiting on Madginford Road is just five? Get rid of these lights. They are an embarrassment, awaste of money and a major cause of pollution. JS Hartnup, The Beams, Maidstone


Parish scheme not wanted


Dear Sir – In reply to Broomfield and Kingswood Parish Council’s leer to your publication, Iwould like to respond on behalf of Eco Build Partnership, the developer for the proposed Broomfield Park Scheme. The people of Kingswood do notwant


the current parish council scheme; this is evident from the petition currently being signed in the local post office opposing its proposals. They, the residents of Kingswood,would


rather see development on secluded non- productive land adjacent to thewest side of the village, where a full range of facilities would be available to residents. We will give a very substantial contribution towards the much-needed Leeds and Langley bypass/relief road and other infrastructure improvements giving substantial traffic relief to the village. Together with the road improvements, an enhanced drainage schemewould be instigated within the proposed scheme allowing for the current inadequate system to be offered relief. The current parish council scheme offers


none of the above benefits. In reality it would further overload a current inadequate infrastructure system with high-priced executive homes instead of the affordable housing most needed. K Cooke, Eco Build Partnership UK


Maidstone South September 2014 33


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