downsmail.co.uk


residential area. It is not Mote Park, which has the space


to absorb large events. Nor is it a municipal sports pitch, nor a bikers’ paradise. I would argue it is the most precious aesthetic asset Bearsted has left. Our councillors, therefore, have a


weighty responsibility, as its temporary caretakers, to protect it and not allow its inappropriate exploitation. There is a very real danger in allowing unsuitable larger scale events, especially from outside interests and even under the auspices of charity, of damaging the most unique and treasured part of Bearsted: its very heart. A Preece, Bearsted Green


Election correction


Dear Sir – May I please add a correction to your article “Lib Dems retain influence” in June’s edition of the Downs Mail. This suggests that Eddie Powellwas


prevented from defending his seat in Harrietsham and Lenham in view of his success last year. Eddie, however, advised us that he preferred to devote all of his energies to contesting the parliamentary seat in Maidstone, which would take up all of his time. In view of this, MikeWilliams, who


stood alongside Eddie in last year’s local election, agreed to stand again this year in Harrietsham and Lenham. Like Eddie, Mike also lives in Harrietsham and has been active in local politics, is a member of Harrietsham against Reckless Development and a parish councillor. I’ve spoken to Eddie Powell and he advises me that he subsequently allowed our Maidstone branch to nominate him as the Ukip candidate for Allingtonward in the absence of a beer qualified candidate. MikeWardle, branch secretary Ukip Faversham and Mid Kent branch.


Town at saturation point


Dear Sir – I wonder how long it will take those who represent us in local government to recognise that Maidstone reached saturation point years ago, as far as house building is concerned? The existing infrastructure is creaking


everywhere you look. Strains exist on healthcare, education,water and public services. Unless and until housing development is halted while long overdue aention is given to the infrastructure problems, the town will surely grind to an inevitable halt. Traffic problems, particularly in the rush


hours and school leaving periods, are chronic, with traffic stuck in jams, polluting the atmosphere for those who live anywhere near main roads and rat runs.We know there are no road improvements in the pipeline apart from tinkering. as there is no money available. For as long as through-traffic, particularly from the south, has no option other than to go through the town centre,we will be saddled with the problem. There areways to alleviate maers.We


all know that during school holiday periods, many traffic problems disappear. Many schools in the town serve a catchment area which is probably within a one-mile radius of them. Is it too much to


ask that childrenwalk to and from school, rather than be taken by car? I know of several parents who live within a few hundred yards of their children’s school, who take them by car. Not only does it add to the traffic on the roads, but then they cause obstruction to traffic by inconsiderate parking as near as possible to the school. Walking would also have some health benefits. If KCC and Maidstone Council cannot


afford to spend money on the infrastructure, what else can be done to reduce traffic in the town? I would suggest two measures, used together. First would be a peak hour/school time congestion charge and the second would be an improvement in public transport. The first would not be popular, but trying to persuade people out of their cars does not seem to work. There needs to be an alternative, with the congestion charge being used to help pay for the cost of seing it up and to subsidise bus services to outlying areas. If we cannot provide more road space outside the town for through traffic, we need to reduce the level of traffic trying to use what is there now. In that respect, it is just as important to consider the health of those who live in the town, particularly towards its centre, who have to breathe in unhealthy levels of traffic fumes three times a day during the working week. David Hackett, ParkWay, Maidstone


Leave Mote Park alone


Dear Sir – I read with some abhorrence that a pump track is being proposed, possibly for Mote Park. What? I have been using the park every


day for more than 35 years and in that time have spoken to many people. The topics that are always first to be spoken about are building and entertainment areas. At the outsetwe have all said that any housing built in the park would be the thin end of the wedge and boy, havewe been proved right. First, the houses built right opposite Madginford, then theAudley Retirement Village and now houses proposed for in and around the cricket club. One begins to wonder where next? Thenwe read of a proposal for a crazy golf and entertainment area. And now for a pump track. We just do not understand where the council is coming from. Mote Park entices many thousands of visitors a year and that is fantastic, but the vast majority of visitors come to the park for its peace, tranquility andwalks,we bet. With the housing, pump track, BMX


track and crazy golf, the park is in danger of becoming like Hastings seafront (that's fine for Hastings, but not a good idea for Mote Park). So letAudley be the very last housing


built in the park, scrap the crazy golf idea altogether and put the pump track in Cobtree, where it will be less obtrusive and far less invasive. It could go right at the back of Cobtree up against the industrial park fencing. This would be a great place as hills and hummocks are already in place, paths are marked out and few trees would need to be chopped down. To the council – please leave Mote Park basically as it is. Brian Blake, Hayle Road, Maidstone


Brian, I would like to reassure you that the story you refer to in last month’s edition – “Bikers welcome pump track plan” – states that the pump track is only a request at this stage. As a possible location, Mote Park was a mere suggestion; no proposal has been submied. That said, I share your concerns about the creeping urbanisation of Mote Park. In August, Maidstone Council gave a premises licence to Social Events Worldwide to host eight major events in a 12-month period. This is in addition to other events, such as Ramblin’ Man, which aracted 20,000 people to the park at the end of July and may return in 2016 – finances permiing. Understandably, this provides valuable


income to the council, but a nice way to pay back the many local park users would be to keep the existing open space largely intact at all other times. Response by Stephen


No to Woodcut Farm plan


CPRE Kent is dismayed and horrified by the report to the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transport Commiee promoting Woodcut Farm as an employment site (agenda item 85 – appendix B). Our dismay is exacerbated by the fact


that it appears to have been accepted by the commiee. The officer report states: “There is a unique opportunity in the borough to provide a prestigious business park at junction 8 of M20…” CPRE Kent disagrees entirely. Woodcut Farm is just a field (although sub-divided) in an uninterrupted length of agricultural land south of the M20 running from Bearsted on past Junction 8 towards Harrietsham, a length of more than three kilometres. There is nothing unique about the field,


except perhaps that it is the most visible area from all viewpoints. As for a unique opportunity, does anybody seriously believe that no other development applications would be made along this length of agricultural land? This site was part of the Kig application refused at inquiry, as was the recent Waterside Park application, which was further from theAONB boundary. These inquiry results were not mentioned in the report. This field is adjacent to the AONB, and consequent policy restrictions should apply, but this is also barely noted in the report. As it is “undulating”, considerable remodeling and degradation of the landscape will be required. The report ignores many requirements


of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is unsustainable, degrading the highly visible landscape (environmental loss), has no social benefit, and questionable economic benefit as a speculative development. The need for a prestigious business park should have been met by Eclipse Park. However that failed to aract suitable operations, and eventually a hotel and retail were allowed. This report is unbalanced, unprofessional and naïve, and also raises the question whether council officers should be promoting a commercial operation in this way. Gary Thomas, CPRE Maidstone branch


Maidstone East November 2015 43


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