News


downsmail.co.uk ‘Don’t fight Woodcut Farm’


A PLANNED appeal against the 50-acre industrial development of Woodcut Farm near the M20 junction 8 should not be fought by the borough council, a report has recommended.


Maidstone Borough Council


(MBC) officers claim the authority’s reason for refusal last year “cannot be sustained” and is likely to fail. Without a robust council defence


of its decision to reject Roxhill De- velopment for the mixed commer- cial development at the public inquiry, scheduled for October, it is more likely to go ahead. As Downs Mail went to press, planning committee members were considering Richard Timms’ report. MBCmust submit its agreed posi-


tion by May 4 and a pre-inquiry meeting is scheduled for June 5. MBC’s position is not entirely un- expected as it needs to be able to demonstrate job creation alongside the massive house-building it isnow committed to. The development of Woodcut


Farm has met with almost unani- mous public opposition from local councillors, the Bearsted and Thurn- ham Society, Leeds Castle and MP Helen Whately. Leeds borough councillor Gill Fort


said: “The members whose wards are affected by this development are all agreed that it is not appropriate for that site. I would like to see that appeal defended by the borough council. You have to show some teeth now and again.” In the past, local representatives have expressed worries that Wood-


cut Farm would be a scaled-down version of the Kent International Gateway (KIG), a freight/rail inter- change defeated by local pressure. Once the Roxhill development is


under way, there may be other schemes which could encroach on Bearsted, Otham and Holling- bourne. Leeds Castle chief executive


Sir David Steel said that junction 8 of theM20is the gateway to Maidstone and the first that visitors arriving from Europe will see.MrTimms’ re- port explains the council’s reasons for “refusal cannot be sustained at appeal and attempting to defend the council’s reason for refusal would be unreasonable and very likely to fail, thereby exposing the council to very significant adverse costaward and ... having to bear its own costs defend- ing the appeal.” Dennis Spooner (pictured) of the Bearsted and Thurnham Society, said: “I’m bitterly disappointed at the council’s position and I amgoing to take some soundings from people and see wherewe go from there.” Ukip’s EddiePowell,whohad the deciding vote last year in rejecting the original proposal, said: “It cer- tainlywas an extremely contentious issue at the time and it remains a dif- ficult situation. I retain my reserva- tions unless the council is able to provide some significant new evi- dence.”


Brexit brings fears of Operation Stack


Leeds housing scheme


RESIDENTS in Leeds have been informed of a planning application for 38 “assisted living units” at Ledian Farm. The scheme appears to be part of a bigger schemewhich already has out-


line planning permission, granted in 2014. The Gallagher Properties Ltd plan under consideration forms a variety of designs for homes, maisonettes and apartments. Theywill lie in the rear por- tion of the 17,428sqm site and will take in a section of land near the exist- ing Tower House. Maidstone Borough Council says that the target date for a decision is July 14. In 2014, the applicants claimed development could help peoplewhoneed


live-in care, such as dementia patients. It was also claimed it might create more than 100 jobs. There was also to be village shop, which could be welcomed by villagers


who no longer have one. There are a number of listed buildings in the Upper Street conservation area, but only one falls into the immediate vicinity of the site. According to the application documents, Tower House and its “large and


well-tended garden” sit within 160 metres of the boundary and are “sub- stantially screened”. The illustration above forms part of the application doc- ument. Residents can read the application in detail at http://pa.midkent.gov.uk.


4 Maidstone East May 2017


CONCERNis growing that Opera- tion Stack could become a regular feature on the M20 asHMCustoms continues to warn it has not come up with a way to cope with post- Brexit vehicle checks at Dover. Now communities like Holling- bourne, near junction 8 off the M20 – which last year carried 16 million passengers making the trip be- tween Dover and Calais – are be- coming increasingly concerned that they could face major traffic delays.


Hollingbourne Parish Councillor


John Cobbett said:“With the possi- bility of no customs union being in place post-Brexit, and some 16,000 trucks a day having to go through Dover, there could be serious traf- fic jams on the M20.” Guy Platten, the CEO for the UK Chamber of Shipping, is among those towarn that Dover, the UK’s busiest port, could face gridlock of up to 30 miles if customs checks are introduced after the UK leaves the EU.


He recalls that in the summer of


2015, a strike by French ferry work- ers saw more than 7,000 trucks backed up along the motorway al- most as far as Maidstone. Currently, non-EU trucks have to


go through customs checks in Dover and this can take at least 20 minutes.


One suggestion is that these cus-


toms checks should be carried out in Calais, where space is not an issue.However, this would require a political response. In the meantime, Felixstowe is


said to be looking to buy extra land to accommodate a potential back- log of vehicles if customs have to be cleared this side of the Channel. Other solutions being suggested include customs checks “at the point of dispatch or point of sale”, but with no lessons to be drawn from elsewhere, and an electronic system still some way off, more still needs to be done to reassure the public about how our ports will cope, post-Brexit.


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