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:

What evidence is there that a major expansion of the present Shell site would provide substantially more employment for local people? In seeking high-powered “boffins” (ie high-tech scientists) such people would be attracted from all parts of Britian, possibly even from overseas.

Surely it’s sheer fantasy to imagine the Kent Science Park proposals are of leading university status. Sittingbourne doesn’t even have one decent bookshop, despite a most helpful public library.

The housing and road proposals inherent in the scheme totally ignore existing land zoning.

The proposed new road, linking the M2 to Bapchild (and the Northern Relief Road) would thrust through top quality agricultural land and landscape of high scenic value, not to mention the noise and disruption it would cause to the rural residential communities in or near the proposed route.

For whose benefit are these proposals promoted? Of course, there is always the need for housing – but surely not on Greenfield sites?

Also, why the south link road? Most traffic flows through north-eat Kent go east-west, so what evidence is there of a real need for a north-south link from the A2 to M2?

These are just a few of the questions that must not be ignored. Indeed, it’s difficult to think that whatever commercially based pressures have motivated this misconceived scheme, Swale planners will ever accept these proposals.

Finally, to me it seems highly immoral for any private business consortium to expect vast sums of money to finance the proposed new junction off the M2. What are the promoters of these proposals trying to prove?

Derek Abbott
Victoria House,
Rodmersham Green