search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
downsmail.co.uk White Paper hope for NHS


THANK you for publishing my January letter calling for much more powerful NHS and social care representation for Maidstone and Malling. It now seems Matt Hancock (secretary of state for health) plans to do something about it. His new White Paper calls for localised integrated care management and systems to support health and social care. Since the demise of local GP-led NHS


West Kent Clinical Commissioning Groups – when eight area CCGs were merged in to the Kent and Medway CCG - Maidstone has lacked a strong local voice. At the same time as Kent was being set up, NHS England required formation of integrated care partnerships with representation by GPs and primary care, local hospitals, local authorities and KCC, social and mental care, community health and more.


More than a year later, an independent care partnership has not been set up to benet Maidstone area and is seriously missed. It must be a very powerful body, ensuring the needs of Maidstone are met. Mr Hancock now seems set on urgent reform of NHS top management systems and controls, with nal decisions resting with Government. Peter Davidson, Maidstone


Roman site is at risk


IT IS disappointing that objections have been over-ruled to the proposed building of houses along Church Road, Otham. Placing traffic lights at the junction of Deringwood Drive with Willington Street, will not only exacerbate traffic problems but will create a potential accident blackspot. Picture the scene. It is a winter day, much like the snowfall we have had recently. An HGV lorry is heading downhill towards the lights just as they change to red. What is the likelihood that the driver of the lorry will not be able to stop before reaching the junction and ends up crashing, paralysing traffic in the area? But there is another reason not to


develop the eld next to St Nicholas’s Church. The trackway beside the church runs to a site of a Roman stone quarry. A simple look on Google Maps shows the eld by the church has crop marks which are not natural, compared to the eld across Church Road. Even if there is no evidence of stone structures in the eld, it does not mean there were none at all. Many Roman buildings were erected on timber beams which rot over time. Bellway Homes must pay for a proper archaeological dig to make sure a piece of Maidstone’s history is not trashed forever. Andy Startup, via email


Is lorry park permanent?


REFERENCE the lorry holding area in Ashford, post-Brexit. When this was revealed at short notice, it was named as a customs check point. It then went on to a


46


lorry holding area and now nally it’s being called a lorry park. So what is it? The residents of Ashford were shockingly made aware of a new Government build taking place without any warning or consultation. How is this legal, and how can anyone justify that “it would not be in the public interest for the information to be released ”?


There are many reasons as to why this IS in the public interest: l Pollution; l Noise; l Lower property value; l Traffic.


The list goes on. A list was published back in December of 29 companies/authorities which were contacted about this new plan. How many of these people being advised actually live in the area? How many of these people will have the need to use customs clearance?


But this is not the only “error”. It was


rst projected to be 27 acres, then 66 acres, now it is 100 acres. Was there a problem with the tape measure? We were told this would hold between 1300-1500 vehicles and now this gure sits at over 2,000. These gures change more than the


weather. My biggest question is: when the ve


years are up, will this lorry park actually be done with? I have my doubts as I’m sure a loophole will be created to give the Government permanent use of this site. Our MP Damian Green openly states that he was unaware of this plan until the “last minute”. However, after speaking to other officials/MPs in other locations planned also for lorry holding areas, I was informed that they were aware of this plan back in 2019.


I contacted Mr Green about a solution by


way of a new dual carriageway between J8/J9 to help keep Kent roads running, which was quickly opposed by him. Why? It would be on HIS doorstep and it may alter HIS air pollution and scenic views. I cannot understand why no one has raised their concerns about this matter sooner. Perhaps it wouldn’t be in the public interest? Brian Marchant, Ashford


Homes could fund bypass


I READ with interest Robert Beney’s views in the last edition of Downs Mail regarding Leeds-Langley relief road. He nishes his excellent letter with the phrase: “Let’s not sit idly by”.


Unfortunately, that is what the leadership of this borough council, aided and abetted by the Kent County Council, has done for years. But now that the wheels may come off the Lenham Heath project, there could be an almighty scramble to nd other areas which might take a large chunk of housing. A Leeds-Langley housing development might also be enough to pay for the relief road that area needs.


If it was part-paid for by the admirable eco-village mooted in Kingswood, there could be some merit in it that scheme, too. Whilst I do not believe your newspaper has stood idly by on this issue, the local councils who could have done something most denitely did. W Brown, via email


Invest to prevent ooding


UNDERTAKING regular maintenance of England’s main rivers would help improve ooding in rural areas. We at the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) have watched as recent storms have wreaked havoc across rural communities, damaging agricultural land and businesses as well as people’s homes. The Government, as part of its 2020 budget, pledged £5.2 billion funding for ood risk reduction - earmarked specically for new infrastructure. But the CLA, which represents 28,000 rural businesses across England and Wales, estimates an extra £75 million per year is needed for maintenance of ood- risk assets to help stave off ooding Up to 3.7 million acres of land in England and Wales are at risk from ooding. Many farmers and businesses have


suffered catastrophic consequences of ooding from extreme weather events, and it could get worse. In many rural areas the key issue is not a need for new infrastructure, but the fact that ood defences on main rivers are not being consistently maintained by the Environment Agency. This greatly increases the pressure on land managers who farm alongside main rivers, and those who manage ood risk further upstream – such as internal drainage boards. For ood risk management to be


effective, everyone must play their part, and currently the Environment Agency is vastly under-resourced. For this reason, the CLA is calling for extra funding specically to help the Environment Agency uphold their statutory responsibility to mitigate ood risk. Right now, some farmland is used to store water to protect communities downstream from further ooding. This is saving potentially millions of pounds’ worth of damage to local homes and businesses, but in the vast majority of cases it’s done without compensation. Whatever crop is standing in those elds is lost. While acts like these help the community, it still leaves a big hole for many ood-hit businesses in the countryside which is why Government needs to come forward with this extra investment to help mitigate the risk of ooding altogether.


In the south east, the CLA represents tfarmers, landowners and rural businesses in Kent, Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and the Isle of Wight.


Mark Bridgeman, president, Country Land and Business Association (CLA)


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