 |
|||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
FLYTIPPING - WE WATCH, WE CATCH AND WE PROSECUTE |
|||
Welcome to the tenth email distribution of news regarding the proposed Lorry Park on the Aldington–Smeeth borders.
I draw your particular attention to the request for further letters and emails set out in large bold print below.
Dear All,
Many Lorry Park Alliance (LPA) members will not have seen this week’s Hythe and Romney Marsh edition of the Kentish Express and consequently will have missed Michael Howard’s excellent report on Operation Stack and the proposed Lorry Park under the Our Man in Westminster byline. Michael draws attention to the need for an alternative to be found to implementing Operation Stack whenever the Channel Tunnel or the cross-Channel ferries are out of action – a sentiment that is echoed by the Lorry Park Alliance.
Michael goes on to say that:
“One of the difficulties is that there is no agreement on what action should be taken. The recent proposal to build a lorry park between Aldington and Sellindge led, understandably, to widespread and vociferous local opposition. People rightly wanted to know whether every alternative had been fully considered and precisely why this site was thought to be the only answer. This information has not been forthcoming and in its absence I have fully supported the objections of local residents. Another difficulty is, predictably, cost. This is a national problem and the cost should be met by central government. But there have been no indications that this help will be made available even if there is agreement on what the solution should be. This is a very frustrating state of affairs.”
Michael’s words so accurately reflect our position that they could almost have been written by an LPA member. That said, and for the avoidance of doubt, Michael Howard is very much his own man and is not an LPA member, but he nevertheless has taken a keen interest in the issues.
This well measured assessment of the situation from a very experienced politician of Michael Howard’s standing is in sharp contrast to the biased and logically flawed letter from Paul Carter, Leader of KCC, that is also published in this week’s Kentish Express.
Mr Carter’s letter appears under the heading “Moveable barrier not the solution” and starts by stating the blindingly obvious that “the Quick Moveable Barrier (QMB) is not, and was never intended to be, the long-term solution to Operation Stack and overnight lorry parking ….”. He goes on to say that “Extending it [the QMB] ….. does not solve the problem of lorries parking overnight in our villages and lay-bys.” To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever seriously suggested that the QMB could, would, or even should, solve the problem of overnight lorry parking. The LPA has always maintained that the problem of overnight lorry parking and Operation Stack are separate issues that require separate analysis and resolution – they are two distinct, separate problems. This is where we differ radically from Mr Carter who, seemingly, takes the view that both issues relate to lorries and therefore it must be one problem that requires one ‘big bang’ solution – his grand vision of the Aldington–Smeeth lorry park.
In his letter Mr Carter states “I have been personally involved in the search for the site.” This is a somewhat curious claim, as Mr Carter had held the KCC Education Portfolio from his election to KCC in 1997 until he became Leader of KCC in October 2005, and yet all of the 40-odd potential Operation Stack lorry park sites examined by consultants acting for KCC and the Highways Agency were identified and evaluated between 1999 and mid-2005. Indeed, the Aldington–Smeeth site was first put forward by consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff, acting for the Highways Agency, in November 2000. As reported in LPA email newsletter No. 9, that proposal was soundly rejected by a joint committee of Ashford Borough Councillors and Kent County Councillors in January 2001.
Mr Carter goes on to say, “We have looked far and wide at all the alternative options, eventually assessing 10 other sites ….. before reaching a decision.” This statement by Mr Carter is at complete odds with the statement made last week by one of KCC’s most senior Highways Officers, and put into the public domain by KCC’s own legal department (see LPA email newsletter No. 9), where it was stated that “….. there was far less information available than the requester would suppose and that the Council [KCC] did not want to cause concern regarding alternative sites when they had not been fully considered.” [my emphasis added].
Finally, Mr Carter states, “Naming the other sites will unnecessarily blight those areas and serves no useful purpose.” But as Michael Howard MP has astutely identified and robustly stated (see above) “People rightly wanted to know whether every alternative had been fully considered and precisely why this site was thought to be the only answer.” Of course, we now know that it has nothing to do with blight on other sites, but, as KCC Officers have admitted, it boils down to the fact that “alternative sites ……….had not been fully considered.”
There are several other points with which I could take issue in Mr Carter’s letter, but I’m confident LPA members can spot them themselves.
I think it’s important that LPA members should make known their views on Mr Carter’s letter, and indeed on the other Lorry Park items, in this week’s Kentish Express by writing to the Editor of the Kentish Express and that your letters and emails should be copied to both Michael Howard MP and Damian Green MP (contact details below). I have resisted suggesting that you write to, or email, Mr Carter, as we know from past experience that he never seems to receive most of your letters/emails. Incidentally, as a related aside, until very recently Mr Carter, in all seriousness, claimed not to be aware that Ashford Borough Council was opposed to his proposals for Aldington-Smeeth.
By way of political balance, I note that the Kentish Express also has a letter from Hazel and Steve Dawe of the Kent Green Party in which they state “Kent can do without the proposed lorry parks for Aldington ……... given the limited size of the Aldington site”. They, like many others, have spotted that, even given conservative freight growth estimates, from its first day of operation a Lorry Park at Aldington-Smeeth would be too small to cope with capacity requirements for either overnight lorry parking or Operation Stack.
Finally, a brief word about the work being done by Cllrs Susan Carey and Charles Findlay at KCC. Both Susan and Charles have made their opposition to the current Lorry Park proposals very clear and are using their positions as KCC Councillors to full advantage. At the last Highways Advisory Board on 16th September, Susan challenged the KCC Director of Highways to tell the Board, and local people, just what was happening with the Lorry Park scheme. The answer given was that KCC is commissioning consultants to prepare a business case for the Lorry Park proposal. You’ll note that they are not commissioning consultants to look at:
No, KCC simply want the consultants to make a case for the 'solution' that has already been selected.
The KCC Highways Advisory Board is webcast, and you can see the full question and answer session at: http://www.kent.ukcouncil.net/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=17559&t=&m=wm&l=en_GB . You can jump to the relevant part of the meeting by clicking on the “Index Points” tab, then scrolling down to 26.35 minutes into the meeting and clicking on “Miss S Carey”. Susan poses four questions, of which the Lorry Park is the final one, but I think you will find all four questions and answers of interest.
I will continue to keep you fully informed as matters progress. If you are aware of anyone who wishes to be kept in touch, but who has not received this email, please ask them to contact me by email so that their details can be added to the distribution list.
I must again stress that my colleagues and I are not opposed to a solution for either Operation Stack or for overnight lorry parking. However, we are opposed to these current proposals, which are ill-conceived and hastily cobbled together with inadequate evaluation of alternatives and without consultation. We also consider that KCC is seeking to impose a wholly local solution to a problem that is in fact a national and pan-European issue.
Thank you all for your continuing support.
Regards,
Peter
Cllr Peter Wood Saxon Shore Ward Member of the Executive Ashford Borough Council and Chairman, Aldington & Bonnington Parish Council
Please reply to: peter.wood@ashford.gov.uk or peter@copperhurst.com
Contact details for your letters and emails regarding this week’s Kentish Express:
The Editor, Kentish Express, Express House, 34-36 North Street, Ashford, Kent, TN24 8JR.
Email: kentishexpress@thekmgroup.co.uk
…………. The Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
Email: howardm@parliament.uk
…………. Damian Green MP, House of Commons,
Email: greend@parliament.uk |
|||
Trading Standards Alerts |
|||
|
A chain email , often titled “post scam--IMPORTANT NOT A JOKE” is in circulation. The email then describes a scam where consumers are led to believe that a parcel is waiting for them, but requires them to telephone a company called PDS on a premium rate telephone number before they can collect it. The email usually claims that this call will cost £15. This email is a hoax. It has been circulated several times over the past 3 years. The telephone line was closed and the company fined in 2005. If you receive this email please DO NOT forward it to anyone else. Phonepayplus, the body that regulates the use of premium rate telephone numbers has recently issued the following statement concerning this chain email.
9 October 2008 A STATEMENT FROM PHONEPAYPLUS ABOUT THE CURRENT ‘POSTAL SCAM' CHAIN EMAILPhonepayPlus, the phone-paid services regulator, is aware that a chain e-mail about an alleged postal scam is being circulated on the internet. The email refers to the Royal Mail, Trading Standards and ICSTIS (PhonepayPlus' former name). PhonepayPlus appreciates that recipients of the email may want to find out more information about the alleged scam and has therefore issued the following statement:
******
Trading Standards are warning businesses not be duped into paying for advertising in bogus charity publications which they have not agreed to. The businesses were contacted by telephone and asked to place advertisements promising to support charitable organisations or the police or fire brigade. These rogue publishers can make huge sums of money by inducing their victims to pay for adverts that do not exist or not what they are led to believe. They may send demands for payment when no order was placed and if the order is disputed they may use debt collection agencies or threaten court action. They will often claim to have a tape recording of the order being placed.
Trading Standards are aware that public organisations like schools and voluntary groups are also being approached and advise them to be wary.
If you are contacted by someone wishing to sell advertising space, take your time. Ask them for their company name, address and phone number. Ask the caller for their name and the name of the publication. Also ask them where you can view their publication or request that they send you a sample before you can place your order. Do not agree to place an advertisement until you are confident in the trader you are dealing with.
If you have been approached by one of these advertisers please report the matter to Trading Standards via Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06
Kent County Council's Trading Standards Service has launched a 'Buy with Confidence' good trader scheme. The scheme provides consumers with a list of reliable local businesses that have proved their commitment to trading fairly. Approved businesses have undergone an audit carried out by a Trading Standards Officer and passed a series of detailed checks before being approved as a member of the scheme. Full details of the scheme can be viewed at www.buywithconfidence.info.
|
|||
| t |
