don't read the menu options and go directly to the page content 
"To put the record straight, the owners of Kent Science Park have no wish to develop homes in the vicinity of the science park"

James Speck

Your views on the proposals

Showing records 51 to 57 of 57

15 Jan 2005

A question of access

Have the rules about access to the M2 been altered? Living in Faversham when the Western Link in Faversham was first mooted, access to the M2 was planned but was not allowed because it was too near the junction with the Ashford Road.
more
15 Jan 2005

Science park will be a disaster

Readers may be interested to see a copy of the letter we have sent to Swale Council planning department about the proposed development of Sittingbourne Science Park.
more
15 Jan 2005

Money talks, locals demand to be heard

Thank you for bringing more light to the proposed idea of expanding the newly-named Kent Science Park.
more
15 Jan 2005

Town waking up to becoming dormitory

I am sure your readers choked with disbelief when they read your report (May 19) on the proposed expansion of the research centre and found that the number of people opposed to it was “actually quite small”. One has to wonder under which sand dune the developers have been burying their heads.
more
15 Jan 2005

Private benefit v public cost

The slick promotion and presentation of the Kent Science Park project appears to ignore several basic facts, which include the following:
more
15 Jan 2005

Issues being swept under the carpet.

I read Richard Jones’ article (May 19) and was very angry. The article is obviously one-sided and no mention was made of the objections to the proposals.
more
15 Jan 2005

Still time to turn the tide

How suitably vague were Messrs Bull, Sharp and Reynolds in outlining their plans for the future of the Kent Science Park and ultimately Swale?
more