News

Dear Editor,

Re: A good time for KCC to review A260 safety

I agree that more effective signage would have been an effective idea.

As to the proposals? Well yes, if you build an ineffective bypass then of course you will need to take additional and expensive measures to justify it's existence - even if that means taking passing trade away from the village centre itself, and making life very difficult for some of the residents (particularly those in Aerodrome Road who didn't purchase houses on a MAIN 'A' road, but will have to live on one all the same).

There certainly ARE other ways to slow traffic down, rather than to change the Aerodrome Road junction in it's entirety. A 500 signature + petition was put forward in October to Kent Highways, together with a joint objection from the majority of the 18 or so businesses that operate on Canterbury Road - particularly to that junction change.

It might interest readers to know that although there was a meeting with Kent Highways and they stated at the time that that particular part of the 'plan' didn't HAVE to go ahead if there were sufficient objection .... the first any one including businesses heard was a flyer through doors a week before the work commenced. A simple case of railroading. *shrugs*

I personally wonder if there in an ulterior motive to these measures. Perhaps the centre of the village, if the small shops close due to lack of business, will relocate up on the bypass itself?

Even more grumpily than Lazarus

Gill