Posts
Dear Sir,
The loss of the Flower Shop at the William Harvey Hospital is not only a blow to another local business in Ashford but also indicative of a breach of European Legislation on Competition law.
Hospital Manager Teo Vogiatzis indicates himself that this will be the the last commercial premise to close other than the League of Friends.
Regulation of market power is one of the strong holds of a fair and just economy, and if the William Harvey Hospital allow only the League of Friends and specifically tendered businesses to trade on the premises, they are illegally controlling the market.
The League of Friends are a sustainable and wonderful element of the Hospital, but they should not be allowed to dominate the market through abuse of consumers and monopoly of services, whether flowers, gifts or other merchansise.
The relevant MEPs and bodies have been notified and the case is being investigated.
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
Sunday 21 February 2010
Open Letter: Churchyard Antisocial Behaviour
13.9.09
Dear Sirs,
With regards to your article on Antisocial Behaviour in the Church Yard, I would like to enquire that if Cllr Michael Claughton says “Everything possible is being done to resolve the issue”, why the council has not initiated the feasibility study requested by Mr Jeremy Adby at the Executive meeting in July.
Further to this, a petition was submitted to the council last year signed by residents and businesses within the Church Yard with regards to antisocial behaviour, the need for more lighting and the need for another cctv camera. This has not, as yet, been acted on.
I would also like to enquire why, if police regularly patrol the churchyard, did they not know for 10 hours there was broken glass in the street? Or, if they did notice, why did they not fulfil their civic duty and clean it up, or notify the council to do so.
If the pub is still selling alcohol to drunk persons, then they are in breach of the licensing activities, and in breach of their responsibility to borough tenants in pursuit of quiet enjoyment of their properties.
While I am in complete support of the St Mary's Church development, I do concur that the council are failing in serving the community in the area in relation to other matters.
Yours faithfully,
Ms Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Dear Sirs,
With regards to your article on Antisocial Behaviour in the Church Yard, I would like to enquire that if Cllr Michael Claughton says “Everything possible is being done to resolve the issue”, why the council has not initiated the feasibility study requested by Mr Jeremy Adby at the Executive meeting in July.
Further to this, a petition was submitted to the council last year signed by residents and businesses within the Church Yard with regards to antisocial behaviour, the need for more lighting and the need for another cctv camera. This has not, as yet, been acted on.
I would also like to enquire why, if police regularly patrol the churchyard, did they not know for 10 hours there was broken glass in the street? Or, if they did notice, why did they not fulfil their civic duty and clean it up, or notify the council to do so.
If the pub is still selling alcohol to drunk persons, then they are in breach of the licensing activities, and in breach of their responsibility to borough tenants in pursuit of quiet enjoyment of their properties.
While I am in complete support of the St Mary's Church development, I do concur that the council are failing in serving the community in the area in relation to other matters.
Yours faithfully,
Ms Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Open Letter: Ashford Rugby Club
13.9.09
Dear Sirs,
With regards to the issue dated 10.9.09, may I ask if it was intentional to place the item about assault and affray at Ashford rugby club immediately above the article about extending the rugby clubs licensing laws?
Given the proposed extended licensing, I am concerned many residents in Kennington, Bybrook and Bockhanger are anxious about the proposals, and given the details of a variety of crimes relating to alcohol consumption and the Rugby Club in this issue, this concern seems to be justified.
Following the Beer Festival at the Rugby club, residents and visitors noted broken glass on the pavements in all directions. Combined with antisocial behaviour, thefts and loud noise, it does not seem to be a sensible decision to extend licensing for these premises, especially as the council are unable to cope with the present licencing of limited events during the year, let alone with weekly occurences of such social impact.
The council has a responsibility to it's borough residents to ensure a right to quiet enjoyment of their property, and I have yet to see evidence of this right being upheld.
--
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Dear Sirs,
With regards to the issue dated 10.9.09, may I ask if it was intentional to place the item about assault and affray at Ashford rugby club immediately above the article about extending the rugby clubs licensing laws?
Given the proposed extended licensing, I am concerned many residents in Kennington, Bybrook and Bockhanger are anxious about the proposals, and given the details of a variety of crimes relating to alcohol consumption and the Rugby Club in this issue, this concern seems to be justified.
Following the Beer Festival at the Rugby club, residents and visitors noted broken glass on the pavements in all directions. Combined with antisocial behaviour, thefts and loud noise, it does not seem to be a sensible decision to extend licensing for these premises, especially as the council are unable to cope with the present licencing of limited events during the year, let alone with weekly occurences of such social impact.
The council has a responsibility to it's borough residents to ensure a right to quiet enjoyment of their property, and I have yet to see evidence of this right being upheld.
--
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Open Letter: Gurkha Burial Section
01/10/2009
Dear Sirs,
Further to your article on the Gurkha section of the graveyard, I would like to enquire as to the origin of this petition. I consider it cowardly and a subversive form of incitement of racial hatred to submit a petition to the Council without actively engaging a community in the initiative.
Many arguments have arisen over the issue within Kennington, including the fact that the Gurkha's have fought on behalf of Britain and been given leave to stay here on that basis. A motion that over 60% of the population agreed with earlier on in the year.
The assertion it “is not the way a graveyard is run” and that the sign excludes other sections of community. This fails to take into account the demarcation of Christian burials, the War memorials and vast secularised society we embrace.
It is clear that some feel it is unfair that Gurkha's have their own area, therefore let us establish areas for all religions and beliefs in graveyards and crematoriums to prevent exclusion. But people should not be actively discriminating against one particular group and at the same time be unwilling to present the courage of their convictions.
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Dear Sirs,
Further to your article on the Gurkha section of the graveyard, I would like to enquire as to the origin of this petition. I consider it cowardly and a subversive form of incitement of racial hatred to submit a petition to the Council without actively engaging a community in the initiative.
Many arguments have arisen over the issue within Kennington, including the fact that the Gurkha's have fought on behalf of Britain and been given leave to stay here on that basis. A motion that over 60% of the population agreed with earlier on in the year.
The assertion it “is not the way a graveyard is run” and that the sign excludes other sections of community. This fails to take into account the demarcation of Christian burials, the War memorials and vast secularised society we embrace.
It is clear that some feel it is unfair that Gurkha's have their own area, therefore let us establish areas for all religions and beliefs in graveyards and crematoriums to prevent exclusion. But people should not be actively discriminating against one particular group and at the same time be unwilling to present the courage of their convictions.
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Open Letter: Muslim Centre
17/11/2009
Dear Sirs
The situation with the proposed Muslim Centre is creating an unpleasant debate among acid residents. Whether you are pro the Centre and Muslim integration in society, or whether you're anti because you perceive the value of your house price may drop, there is a rather interesting point to be made about democracy in all of this.
The article published on the 12th of November states that the decision will not be made by elected members of the public but instead be made by planning bosses. This is a rather terrible indication of how undemocratic our council is as is refusing to take into account objections made by members of the public, and the public's opinion in general. Freedom of speech and right to protest are valuable commodities in a society that accepts them. However, the development of the Muslim Centre is indicative of the erosion of our rights to challenge and further society.
In the event that something sparks such disquiet, I would be pleased to see the Borough Council discuss this issue at the State of Borough Debate and provide full plans including the likely public benefit in the development of the Muslim Centre.
Yours faithfully
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
Dear Sirs
The situation with the proposed Muslim Centre is creating an unpleasant debate among acid residents. Whether you are pro the Centre and Muslim integration in society, or whether you're anti because you perceive the value of your house price may drop, there is a rather interesting point to be made about democracy in all of this.
The article published on the 12th of November states that the decision will not be made by elected members of the public but instead be made by planning bosses. This is a rather terrible indication of how undemocratic our council is as is refusing to take into account objections made by members of the public, and the public's opinion in general. Freedom of speech and right to protest are valuable commodities in a society that accepts them. However, the development of the Muslim Centre is indicative of the erosion of our rights to challenge and further society.
In the event that something sparks such disquiet, I would be pleased to see the Borough Council discuss this issue at the State of Borough Debate and provide full plans including the likely public benefit in the development of the Muslim Centre.
Yours faithfully
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
Open Letter: Antisocial Behaviour in Churchyard
24/11/2009
Dear Sir,
I was rather disgusted to review the Safety Partnership Strategy in the Kentish express on the 19th of November. It appears that there are significant inequalities in the priorities, including listing Antisocial Behaviour is a lesser priority over safe socialising within Ashford. This seems to be a way to promote developments within Ashford town centre such as the St Mary's Church Community Centre development and avoid responsibility for the damage the residents suffer within the town centre from antisocial behaviour. Ashford Borough council have yet to address the petition handed in by Jeremy Adby and residents of the churchyard regarding antisocial behaviour nearly 18 months ago. This is only escalating as the season becomes more "festive". It is abominable that peoples' property is damaged on a weekly basis in the churchyard and yet there is apparently no money available to put up further CCTV cameras or to invest in police patrolling the area, but there is financing available to convert St Mary's Church.
I also feel that the resolutions offered did not provide enough detail to be taken seriously and present themselves as a list of what I would expect public services to be doing already. This includes ensuring premises do not sell alcohol to underage children, for which we have a trading standards department, and confiscating alcohol from rowdy groups. I would like to see police and the council enforcing their rights to prevent licensees from selling alcohol to drunken people, with the threat to remove licences from pubs are particular problems. This is an increase of police patrols is the tip of the iceberg of what is needed to resolve antisocial behaviour in the town centre and within the surrounding boroughs.
Yours faithfully
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Dear Sir,
I was rather disgusted to review the Safety Partnership Strategy in the Kentish express on the 19th of November. It appears that there are significant inequalities in the priorities, including listing Antisocial Behaviour is a lesser priority over safe socialising within Ashford. This seems to be a way to promote developments within Ashford town centre such as the St Mary's Church Community Centre development and avoid responsibility for the damage the residents suffer within the town centre from antisocial behaviour. Ashford Borough council have yet to address the petition handed in by Jeremy Adby and residents of the churchyard regarding antisocial behaviour nearly 18 months ago. This is only escalating as the season becomes more "festive". It is abominable that peoples' property is damaged on a weekly basis in the churchyard and yet there is apparently no money available to put up further CCTV cameras or to invest in police patrolling the area, but there is financing available to convert St Mary's Church.
I also feel that the resolutions offered did not provide enough detail to be taken seriously and present themselves as a list of what I would expect public services to be doing already. This includes ensuring premises do not sell alcohol to underage children, for which we have a trading standards department, and confiscating alcohol from rowdy groups. I would like to see police and the council enforcing their rights to prevent licensees from selling alcohol to drunken people, with the threat to remove licences from pubs are particular problems. This is an increase of police patrols is the tip of the iceberg of what is needed to resolve antisocial behaviour in the town centre and within the surrounding boroughs.
Yours faithfully
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Open Letter: Byebrook Barn Garden Centre
Dear Sirs,
The planning application for a Garden Centre in the Eureka Leisure Park will significantly damage locally held companies and jobs in other Ashford Garden Centres (Kentish Express 28 January 2010).
Firstly, I am confused as to how a Garden Centre can be considered a Leisure pursuit when it is clearly a retail facility with a few additions to keep the children occupied (as many large scale retail units now utilise).
Secondly, Dobbies is in fact owned by Tesco Supermarket Chain and will further saturate Ashford with large scale business monopoly.
While the development "boasts" an additional 130 jobs, one must wonder if this will at the expense of the jobs for those at The Bybrook Barn Garden Centre, the Wyevales and Homebase not to mention the smaller centres in the villages. Certainly Byebrook Barn is the most likely to suffer, being the immediate competition to the proposed site, not to mention the other family run businesses on the site. They will suffer enough from the building developments in the future months, and it would be a great shame to see another locally established business removed by yet another supermarket, even if the supermarket is masquerading as a "unique day out destination for all the family" .
I urge residents to write to Ashford Borough Council objecting to the development under Planning Ref No: 10/00059/AS
Regards,
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
The planning application for a Garden Centre in the Eureka Leisure Park will significantly damage locally held companies and jobs in other Ashford Garden Centres (Kentish Express 28 January 2010).
Firstly, I am confused as to how a Garden Centre can be considered a Leisure pursuit when it is clearly a retail facility with a few additions to keep the children occupied (as many large scale retail units now utilise).
Secondly, Dobbies is in fact owned by Tesco Supermarket Chain and will further saturate Ashford with large scale business monopoly.
While the development "boasts" an additional 130 jobs, one must wonder if this will at the expense of the jobs for those at The Bybrook Barn Garden Centre, the Wyevales and Homebase not to mention the smaller centres in the villages. Certainly Byebrook Barn is the most likely to suffer, being the immediate competition to the proposed site, not to mention the other family run businesses on the site. They will suffer enough from the building developments in the future months, and it would be a great shame to see another locally established business removed by yet another supermarket, even if the supermarket is masquerading as a "unique day out destination for all the family" .
I urge residents to write to Ashford Borough Council objecting to the development under Planning Ref No: 10/00059/AS
Regards,
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
Open Letter: Ashford Domestic Station
Dear Sirs,
South Eastern Trains are proposing, in their latest staff cutbacks, to remove Safety Critical Staff during offpeak periods at Ashford Station.
Cllr Cowley asked a valuable question at this week's full council meeting that should be brought to the attention of the public.
The Ashford Domestic Station has recently completed a phase of development part funded by Ashford Borough Council, have been nominated Station of the Year and are previous recipients of awards for safety. However, it is clear their impeccable record may be maligned by removal of staff on the platform who provide a vital service to passengers and to the smooth operation of the trains. Yet portfolio holder Cllr Claughton considered the matter irrelevant for the council and community.
In light of the recent train crash in Belgium, the importance of platform staff who ensure the safe dispatch of trains to green and amber lights cannot be overlooked.
Furthermore, given that Cllr Claughton is chair of Ashford Access, his lack of concern at access for disabled people to the services South Eastern provide is rather baffling.
I would expect our council to more concerned about the lifeline for this town becoming dangerous and inaccessable to all members of the community.
Kind regards
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
South Eastern Trains are proposing, in their latest staff cutbacks, to remove Safety Critical Staff during offpeak periods at Ashford Station.
Cllr Cowley asked a valuable question at this week's full council meeting that should be brought to the attention of the public.
The Ashford Domestic Station has recently completed a phase of development part funded by Ashford Borough Council, have been nominated Station of the Year and are previous recipients of awards for safety. However, it is clear their impeccable record may be maligned by removal of staff on the platform who provide a vital service to passengers and to the smooth operation of the trains. Yet portfolio holder Cllr Claughton considered the matter irrelevant for the council and community.
In light of the recent train crash in Belgium, the importance of platform staff who ensure the safe dispatch of trains to green and amber lights cannot be overlooked.
Furthermore, given that Cllr Claughton is chair of Ashford Access, his lack of concern at access for disabled people to the services South Eastern provide is rather baffling.
I would expect our council to more concerned about the lifeline for this town becoming dangerous and inaccessable to all members of the community.
Kind regards
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Ashford Liberal Democrats
Kennington
Sunday 7 February 2010
Dress codes in Schools
Kentish Express 4th February 2010
The high profile article on Ashley Long's unfortnate hair cut caught my attention.
While it is clear that upholding uniform dress codes is integral to any secondary school, the decision in this instance seems a little strange.
Given that the hair cut was an accident, one would have expected the parents to communicate the situation with the school. Most schools have a policy of lunch-time detention, after-school detention and then exclusion.
A sanction of three days exclusion seems quite high for such a meagre offence.
The paper goes on to mention 29 exclusions for failures to uphold uniform guidelines which I applaud. Parents are responsible for the uniform of their children and also responsible to teach them that responsibility. It is a pleasure to see this being upheld.
The high profile article on Ashley Long's unfortnate hair cut caught my attention.
While it is clear that upholding uniform dress codes is integral to any secondary school, the decision in this instance seems a little strange.
Given that the hair cut was an accident, one would have expected the parents to communicate the situation with the school. Most schools have a policy of lunch-time detention, after-school detention and then exclusion.
A sanction of three days exclusion seems quite high for such a meagre offence.
The paper goes on to mention 29 exclusions for failures to uphold uniform guidelines which I applaud. Parents are responsible for the uniform of their children and also responsible to teach them that responsibility. It is a pleasure to see this being upheld.
Grave Concerns over Regulating Flowers
Kentish Express 4th February 2010
The report on wreaths and flowers being removed from graves is somewhat distressing.
The article reports a mass of confusion from within Ashford Borough Council and in relation to their contractors
Cemeteries Officer Christine Smith is quoted as saying that no contractor has jurisdiction to remove decorations from grave sites.
Yet the head of Cemeteries for ABC states flowers and wreaths would be removed when they are dead or unsitely.
Paul Jackson alludes to changes made in the policy for maintenance of grave sites being made "some time ago".
One has to question how this regulation was implemented?
If it exists in the contracts for grave sites from a certain period, then, as a contract can preclude a time period, the contractors would only be able to remove from graves post that time.
Alternatively, the Council may have chosen to notify the families of the graves in place? However, this was clearly not the case.
As the graves in question were cited in 1979 and 1980, I can only assume they were prior to the regulation changes and the council failed to notify the families of the deceased.
A drop of common sense would be nice!
Does this time period extend to graves located prior to 1980 as the graves of Steven Brind and Ian Hawkins were?
The report on wreaths and flowers being removed from graves is somewhat distressing.
The article reports a mass of confusion from within Ashford Borough Council and in relation to their contractors
Cemeteries Officer Christine Smith is quoted as saying that no contractor has jurisdiction to remove decorations from grave sites.
Yet the head of Cemeteries for ABC states flowers and wreaths would be removed when they are dead or unsitely.
Paul Jackson alludes to changes made in the policy for maintenance of grave sites being made "some time ago".
One has to question how this regulation was implemented?
If it exists in the contracts for grave sites from a certain period, then, as a contract can preclude a time period, the contractors would only be able to remove from graves post that time.
Alternatively, the Council may have chosen to notify the families of the graves in place? However, this was clearly not the case.
As the graves in question were cited in 1979 and 1980, I can only assume they were prior to the regulation changes and the council failed to notify the families of the deceased.
A drop of common sense would be nice!
Does this time period extend to graves located prior to 1980 as the graves of Steven Brind and Ian Hawkins were?
Saturday 6 February 2010
North School Farm and Democratic Participation
The Kentish Express failed to publish my letter this week, so I am putting it up for people's awareness.
Dear Sirs,
I find Damien Green's column on the North School Farm to be found wanting (Kentish Express 28th January 2010)
He failed to attend the demonstration on Saturday 30th January and has failed to tackle the root issues with the removal of the farm. A simple nod in the direction in the local paper is simply not good enough for those keen to protect an established part of the community and school's lessons.
The land desired by Kent County Council has been listed on the planning application as "not in use" which is simply not true. They have also referred to the development of the land as not endangering jobs, which again is simply not true. Damien Green seems to have completely ignored this gross misrepresentation of the purpose of the land, which I would have thought would have been integral to any challenge to the proposed development.
Damien Green's correspondence with Kent County Council lacks aggressive questioning that I would expect of a former journalist. He has, as many politicians do, looked at one issue and not the lateral application. If the farm is reduced, the school will lose much of the land required for maintaining large animals, therefore reducing the ability to study a full Animal Husbandry Course. If the buildings are relocated, the school will lose further ground for grazing and other activities. To utilise such a small space for 25 dwellings will result in disruption to the animals left sharing the space, not to mention the day to day running of the school and the impact on the local residents in an already congested area.
Further to this, with proposed development for Ashford for an additional 31,000 homes, one must question why Kent County Council will effectively be removing a fundamental part of the school when the homes could be added to the larger developments in Godington, Willesborough or Kennington without too much trouble. One can only assume a capricious motivation of Kent County Council to benefit from the sale of the land to the sacrifice of the farm.
We have a substantial lack of democratic participation in our local politics as it is, and I would prefer to see a more proactive representative in our national politics to ensure the public interest is upheld.
Regards,
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Dear Sirs,
I find Damien Green's column on the North School Farm to be found wanting (Kentish Express 28th January 2010)
He failed to attend the demonstration on Saturday 30th January and has failed to tackle the root issues with the removal of the farm. A simple nod in the direction in the local paper is simply not good enough for those keen to protect an established part of the community and school's lessons.
The land desired by Kent County Council has been listed on the planning application as "not in use" which is simply not true. They have also referred to the development of the land as not endangering jobs, which again is simply not true. Damien Green seems to have completely ignored this gross misrepresentation of the purpose of the land, which I would have thought would have been integral to any challenge to the proposed development.
Damien Green's correspondence with Kent County Council lacks aggressive questioning that I would expect of a former journalist. He has, as many politicians do, looked at one issue and not the lateral application. If the farm is reduced, the school will lose much of the land required for maintaining large animals, therefore reducing the ability to study a full Animal Husbandry Course. If the buildings are relocated, the school will lose further ground for grazing and other activities. To utilise such a small space for 25 dwellings will result in disruption to the animals left sharing the space, not to mention the day to day running of the school and the impact on the local residents in an already congested area.
Further to this, with proposed development for Ashford for an additional 31,000 homes, one must question why Kent County Council will effectively be removing a fundamental part of the school when the homes could be added to the larger developments in Godington, Willesborough or Kennington without too much trouble. One can only assume a capricious motivation of Kent County Council to benefit from the sale of the land to the sacrifice of the farm.
We have a substantial lack of democratic participation in our local politics as it is, and I would prefer to see a more proactive representative in our national politics to ensure the public interest is upheld.
Regards,
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Loaded Web
