Mosque traffic issues ignored

I read with interest your article “Maidstone Mosque Plans for Regeneration approved by Maidstone council.”

Like myself I am sure this article was the first many knew about this application. It appears the 150 letters in favour of these plans have been submitted by users of the mosque via a standard template letter handed to them to be signed and dated.

Objections were submitted by neighbouring property owners raising legitimate concerns such as parking problems, privacy and noise levels. It is quite clear these will be further exacerbated by the size and scale of the new threestorey building which will serve up to 550 worshippers.

As part of the planning process, Kent County Council commissioned a Full Transport Report to ascertain modes of transport used by those attending the mosque to assess the overall impact upon the area. It appears only a derisory 42 people were recorded.

The area is also listed as a hot spot for poor air quality. It therefore beggars belief that approval was subsequently given to this application upon such limited and overtly negative information.

Previously the mosque had been refused planning permission to extend with councillors stating it creates too much noise for a residential area. My question to planners/councillors is why should Maidstone be any different? Surely a precedent has been set.

Lastly, I would ask how will deliveries be made safely and legally to the three new shops at this very busy location, with double yellow lines to the front, no loading bays and no rear access way. Name and address supplied privilege as they do not work) and they breached conditions. Now they waste your newspaper’s time with their sob stories and sad faces that fool very few. I hope the flat they were given now houses someone who really needs it.

As a single working mother, I cannot afford pets so maybe they should think twice before getting cats and a dog and therefore try and support themselves. R. Hall Evelyn Road, Maidstone