Biased document on development
30 Aug 2006THE following was sent to Kent Science Park in response to its public consultation document: "First, I have to say the way this questionnaire has been written and constructed is biased.
Provision of a new link road is least important to me, and the thought of it being built across all the beautiful landscape and local wildlife enrages and upsets me. However, I am aware that by me indicating that it is 'least important' to me, this signifies that the road is not an issue to me.
Like many of your questions on this site, I think this has been well thought through, and I believe it will lead to confusion among many people who want to voice their concerns.
The `provision of an improved water supply' is laughable. What do you intend to do, reverse global warming? If you can do that, I'd be interested to know how you manage it.
The most important issue for me is that of the wildlife and land that is going to be destroyed. Once land is 'developed', there's no going back, all that was there remains in the past.
The wildlife will be destroyed forever, the wildlife that is killed is gone forever. The beautiful trees of Cromers Wood will be destroyed, all that history and landscape gone, replaced by houses and concrete roads. What joy that fills me with — a nice new road that diverts traffic closer to my home, turning my quiet village into a shortcut for traffic.
I moved to Rodmersham to get away from suburban life, to live and experience a community.
With the building of this road, that will be gone overnight. Without moving back to Sittingbourne, I'll be a part of it again.
I really hope you understand the environmental impact this expansion is going to have.
Listen to the real people .who it will affect, people who live in these villages to escape suburban and concrete life, but most importantly, listen to the wildlife.
If you have your way, it won't be there for much longer."