News

I wonder how many people will attend the parish council meeting if the arguments to be put forward are solely based on rubbishing other worthy causes in this troubled region of ours.

Child safety is a matter for parents, most of who seem to assume the rest of the world should take care of their children, whilst they themselves drive at excess speed past schools with a 'child onboard' sticker absolving them of any responsibility to other parents children.

Hysterical arguments based on child safety, pollution and anti-corporate rants only serve to highlight the 'NIMBY' attitude so prevalent in those who see no benefit to the local community, whilst polluting the environment by driving to other communities who do have such stores.

If Paulyhew wants to win friends and influence people then perhaps he should seek the support of others, who have got off their backsides and done something constructive to help this region out from the dark ages.

There is a very big need for another shop in the 'Village' centre.

Most of the residents, NIMBYS excluded, will benefit from the

competitiveness that would ensure to keep prices down.

Bring it on I say. The Planners won't be influenced by negative arguments against the planning application. Logic will prevail.

Pierre

It is true that I will possibly benefit from such a development, but it is in someone’s back yard if not mine, is it not?

The land was not sold for development into a supermarket and if you examine the records it would appear that it was requested by the PC that is was not sold for development into retail use! Shepway DC however has decided to sell the land (they were given it and didn’t buy it) to a company that builds supermarkets on a speculative basis, and the land
had outline planning permission for same, so that\'s what’s happening.

As a supermarket it will not generate extra competition in the village but will allow Tesco to move into nice new premises and their old one sold for who’s knows what?

The roads leading up to the proposed development are purely residential and not suitable for HGV deliveries; any residents near to the proposed development should check their purchase documents as they may have been made aware of such a possible future development at the time of purchase.

Please attend the PC meeting and follow the PC’s advice as they are against any development such as this on the land however they have been clever in submitting between PC meetings as we only have 21 days after the submission to object – you have to do that no later than 8/9/10  click here  and follow the onscreen instructions. Any objections should be about H&S, noise etc and not just “we don’t want it”.

As a foot note I must say that Paulyhew has a point regarding the rabbits at Stombers lane and the Leas Cliff lift in so far as why should local people have an opinion about things that affect them without first checking with Paulyhew that he hasn’t a personal agenda that is (in his opinion) more important! So now let’s get personal – at least use a spellchecker before submitting any opinion you may have, especially those that deride other local groups having no vested interest in the target of your opinions.

Well said msteve.. a well balanced summary of the true issues involved in this proposed development.

Perhaps Hawkinge should be worried about such things.. but perhaps it should also be encouraged that 'someone' is willing to invest £millions on a speculative venture in such a place.

Let's face it, Hawkinge now has a lot of houses, which contain families that need to be furnished with groceries .. a lot of them. Not everyone has a car and the ability to shop locally is important.. that's what a main street shopping area is supposed to be about.

Hawkinge is no longer a village so don't pretend it is. With proper planning control it could have a vibrant local econmy feeding the local population and 'if' the current Tesco were to become vacant, then it could become all sorts of things.. even a play centre for children while their besotted parents shop in the new store..... don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Well it is nice to see "some" comments to this thread.

However, the unregistered opinionistors' amongst us don't appear to be making any sense or logical point of any relevance, as is usual in smallville.

But..the more I research similar cases of (smallish) urban/village/rural grocery store construction and the long term operating impact on the community's directly affected by the stores 24 hour deliveries, staffing, noise and visual pollution the stronger my single case seem's to get. This is without raising the road safety incidents involving children, elderly pedestrians (and drivers), pets, neighbours parked cars-(both on the highway and private drives and verges) and highway, footpath, verge, drainage and landscape damage.

In-itself our council appears to consider these cases, or past experiences within Kent of the damage and repair costs of these stores to be negligible compared with the commitment they've offered this developer? Really? Why would that be?

Sadly, it does increasingly appear to be a case of a 'done and dusted deal' for Edinburgh Land Estates here, which apart from an immense fear of future safety consequences to 'all' affected neighbours (not just the little ones) I truly hope that local intelligent input from the likes of msteve above will offer us our best shot at avoiding these kinds of threat or at least postponing the ineviatble grocery machines 2.1million pound yearly turnovers regardless of any legitimate worries about anything else.

Somehow, someone's managed to put them off three times in the last year or so, where are you all now?

Kindest regards and thanks for reading - Paulyhew