News
downsmail.co.uk Call to restore entry to footpath
THE Bearsted and Thurnham Society has turned up the heat on a parking row at Bearsted Green. The society wants to see “free
and unrestricted public access” re- stored to a footpath at the side of Smarts Cottages, which back on to The Green. Trouble flared in 2014 after Lor-
raine Summers put front and back gates on the parcel of land to the side of her house and had it paved. Maidstone Council refused to
grant Mrs Summers a certificate of lawful development to use the drive, but has said it will not take enforcement action to have the land reinstated. Consequently, as Maid- stone Council has no responsibility for land ownership and public rights ofway, it cannot prevent Mrs Summers parking on the path. The parish council has submitted an application to Kent County
Council to have the footpath (above) designated as a Public Right ofWay, which, if successful, would mean vehicles would not be allowed to park on it. However, councillors have been
told the process could take up to two years. Mary Richards, secretary of the Bearsted and Thurnham Society, told the parish council that the pub-
lic had enjoyed unrestricted access to the path since at least 1842. She said: “The society, many of
its members and other residents, including several who have lived around The Green for many years, objected strongly when Mrs Sum- mers started to use the public foot- path as her private drive and began using it to park her cars. “This footpath is part of the vil-
lage green and there has been un- restricted public access across its full width since at least 1842. It is now continually blocked by Mrs Summers' cars and its full use by the public is prevented and dis- couraged.” She said: “It is only the parish council that can stand up for all the local people who have objected to
Fury over planning accusation
AHOLLINGBOURNEparish coun- cillorwas accused of making a “dis- graceful attack on the integrity” of Maidstone Council by the chairman of its planning committee. Cllr Clive Eng-
lish was furious at a claim by Alan Bennett (left)
that
Hollingbourne had been “stu- diously ignored” by planners. Speaking at a
hearing in which officers had rec- ommended four homes be allowed at a builders’ yard in Eyhorne Green, Musket Lane, Cllr Bennett, pictured, said: “What we are look- ing at here unfortunately is another example of whatwewant in the vil- lage and what we have asked for being studiously ignored.
“Myself and my fellow council-
lors spoke to a planning officer a couple of years ago about the future of the village and we were listened to – or so I thought. “But what happens?The planning officers go off and do what they wanted in the first place and we wonder whywe bothered at all.We have not proceeded with the neigh- bourhood plan for the same reason; because, frankly, we don’t see the point inwasting time and money to be ignored by peoplewhohave little or no understanding of rural plan- ning.” Cllr English responded: “I have
heardmanyspeeches good, bad and indifferent from the public, council- lors and others and I have seldom heard a more disgraceful attack on the integrity of the council, itsmem- bers and the planning officers than was made by the parish council.
“I utterly refute that statement
and it is pretty outrageous.” Cllr Englishwas the memberwho
had spoken out strongest against the proposal, tabling a motion for refusal that the committee unani- mously accepted. The scheme was refused for it causing an urbanisa- tion of the area, with the proposed loss of landscaping out of character and harmful to the street scene and conservation area. Cllr Bennett said the development
was unacceptable given the dire sewage situation in Hollingbourne, but SouthernWater did not raise an objection.
Neighbour Andrew Snowdon
said earlier: “I have lived in the cot- tage next door for 23 years. This pro- posal is going to change drastically the area in whichwe live. It will po- tentially snatch away the dreams of living in semi-rural environment.”
Traffic report ‘awaste of money’
A REPORT into traffic flows in Willington Street, Maidstone has been condemned as a waste of time and money if no action is to be taken. Some councillors had asked of-
ficers to investigate putting an 18-tonne weight limit on the al- ready-busy road, to prevent huge HGVs using the road as a cut through to theM20. But KCC’s highways depart-
ment had received another re- quest that the route be proactively signpsted to encour- age lorries to use it and keep them away from the town centre. The report concluded no action
should be taken, as either option could have a significant impact on residents in the Willington Street area. But Cllr Marion Ring told Maidstone’s joint transportation board she felt that the “do noth- ing” optionwas unfair. She said: “This is a complete waste of money and officers’ time.We are seeing the facts and saying ‘do nothing’. Unless we have a Leeds-Langley bypass we will see an increase in traffic onWill- ington Street.” Cllr Gary Cooke said the road
was already comparable to the M25 at peak times, with traffic
log-jammed, but he argued the re- port had not been awaste of time. He added: “The solution is the
very early implementation of a Leeds-Langley relief road.” Councillors Dan Daley and
Clive English questioned the sur- vey data and said it contained in- sufficient evidence about vehicle movements. Board chairman Cllr David Burton said he hoped a cost ben- efit analysis would be built into any future decision about the need for a Leeds-Langley relief road, taking into account the mis- ery of residents in theWillington Street area.
For more local news
www.downsmail.co.uk 6 Maidstone East March 2016 Access delays
homes plan A PROPOSAL for three homes in Ulcombewas deferred after the vil- lage primary school raised concerns about access. Lee Selling applied to build a de-
tached house and two semi-de- tached houses next to the school in The Street. The scheme, reduced from a pre-
vious proposal of four homes, was considered inappropriate because of the width of the access, currently a narrow footpath. An objectorwas concerned about
overdevelopment and felt highway safety would be compromised, given the site’s location on a blind bend in a busy road. The parish council raised an ob- jection, citing the head teacher’s con- cern about the access situation. Pointing out the width of the cur-
rent access (pictured) Cllr Martin Cox, a member of Maidstone Coun- cil’s planning committee, said: “That is a track. That can’t be an ac- cess to the school. “How would delivery lorries get
in? It barely looks wide enough for a donkey, let alone a vehicle. “It is a public right ofway; it’s not
a road or access point. I would like to get housing either side of a public right of way through Leeds Castle, butwe can’t.” No member of Kent Highway Services was present, so the com- mittee opted to defer for discussion with them about access.
cars parking on the footpath.” The parish council has been ad-
vised that it would be successful if it took court action against Mrs Summers, but is still hoping to ob- tain a compromise. Parish council chairman Fiona Redman said: “The land does not belong to Mrs Summers, nor does it belong to the parish council, so this is not a clear-cut issue.We have asked Maidstone Council if it will take enforcement action and they have categorically said no.” Cllr Fabienne Hughes said: “If something is not done, this is set- ting a dangerous precedent. People will just pave over their gardens and start to park there and on the Green – and this is a conservation area.”
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