Sunday, 12 January 2014

Supermarket plan refusal welcomed - 12th Jan 2014

Maidstone Greens have welcomed the notional refusal of a new supermarket on St Peters Street in Maidstone by Maidstone Borough Council at Thursday's Planning Committee and they are calling on local residents to make their feelings known to the Secretary of State / Planning Inspector who will be deciding the application now that it has gone straight to appeal.

Stuart Jeffery spoke at the planning meeting on behalf of the Green Party and also on behalf of local residents. The meeting was attended by around 20 local residents who are concerned about the impact of the proposal which would see a 54% increase in traffic and the removal of the only cycle land between West and East Maidstone.

Stuart Jeffery: "The plan for the supermarket in an already congested residential area is simply untenable. The impact on lives would be appalling with traffic levels rising by 54%, St Peters St and Buckland Hill would be gridlocked for most of the time, not just on Saturdays and during rush hour as they presently are.

"Removing the only cycle lane across the river in Maidstone is a ridiculous idea, as is the loss of the footpath on Buckland Hill, a footpath used by many of the thousands of school children in the local area. These suggestions are truly awful in the Borough with the highest number of cyclists and pedestrians killed or seriously injured in Kent.

"We are urging people to write to the Secretary of State to oppose the plan and to continue to campaign against it."

1. Planning Inspectorate / Secretary of State:
2. Speech given to Planning Committee:

Mr Chairman, members of planning committee, thank you for allowing me to address you in objection to this proposal. Many of you will know me from my political work and while I am representing some of the views the Green Party and presenting our petition, I am primarily here to put forward a mixture of views from many local residents including the recently formed residents association during the one small slot that we are collectively allowed.

There are three key points which I will draw your attention to:

Firstly, we do not believe that the impact of the additional traffic on the immediate area has been assessed properly.

The assessment was made using three short slots of 1 hour, none of which were at peak times.

Buckland Hill and St Peters St are regularly grid locked with queues, especially on Saturdays and during rush hour. They cannot cope with at least 50% more traffic.

The proposed road widenings will be detrimental to other users and residents including:

  • The vast number of school children that walk to school in the area (6 major schools including Oakwook Park complex and MGGS / Maplesden)
  • The cycle path on North Bridge will be lost and therefore the main cycle route from West Maidstone will disappear.
  • Maidstone already has the highest number of pedestrians and cyclists Killed or Seriously Injured anywhere in Kent.
  • The railway bridge on Buckland Hill will still act as a significant restriction
  • The trees which act as sound and pollution barriers will be lost which will be detrimental to residents and pedestrians
  • Reduced access to houses on Buckland hill will increase the risk of accidents
Furthermore, PM10 air pollution already kills 70 people each year in the borough. Air quality will decline significantly.

With the estimated 75% of users being from West Maidstone, cars will not exit the supermarket along St Peters St in the main, they will travel up Buckland Hill towards their homes.

They will also travel down Buckland Hill to the supermarket. There are already significant problems with cars turning right into Buckland Hill from the west bound A20. This will increase along with the number of accidents.

These factors mean that we feel the impact on travel has not been properly assessed or understood, yet will be devastating to local people.

Secondly, there are now 7 supermarkets within a one mile radius of this site. Your notes show that council already has a better plan at Maidstone East. The proposed supermarket is not required.

Finally I refer you to 3.2.6 in your briefing papers. “The borough council should only consider permitting the application… if no other viable uses could be identified”.

  • This site is perfect for affordable apartments which would be in keeping with the style of housing that surrounds the site and which would not significantly increase traffic levels.
  • Alternative uses have been suggested such as a cultural venue.
We therefore urge you to decline this proposal

No comments:

Post a Comment