Towers debate united people

FAR from being hijacked, the democratic process is completely intact and proven to be healthy and vibrant in the city of Canterbury, something we should all be very proud of (Democratic Process Has Been Hijacked, Your Thoughts, Kentish Gazette, February 7).

Get Canterbury Moving in the form of Brian Buggins and Steve Coombs managed to get the signatures of 4,000 local people against the trial!

Not visiting tourists and commuters but real people and traders in St Dunstan’s.

I wonder how that compares to the mandate of local councillors? From the figures I’m reading, Get Canterbury Moving seems to have the edge there.

As for the rest of the Mr A Rogers’s rant – “mistruths spoken as fact”, “campaign of denial”, “support of the Kentish Gazette” – it all sounds a bit conspiratorial to me.

Maybe they’re all planning world domination too.

I know everyone involved in that successful campaign believed very strongly in what they were doing, had representatives and supporters from all walks of life to give proper balance and strongly believe in cutting traffic jams, pollution and protecting historic monuments.

They also brought people together – traders, the public, councillors, scientists – instead of creating divisions and that’s why they were successful.

It’s not easy to stick your head above the parapet like they have.

There will always be people who will take the opportunity to take personal potshots at you on the letters page and it’s not for the faint hearted.

If he feels so strongly about Canterbury, Mr Rogers should join them and the massive wave of local support they have and be part of an all-encompassing solution. Matt Linehan Harcourt Drive, St Dunstan’s

AS A resident of Kirby’s Lane, in the centre of the St Dunstan’s traffic scheme, I have followed the Westgate Towers debate with some considerable interest over the past year.

What is most noticeable about this discussion is the number of wider issues that would appear to be at stake.

Attitudes towards driving, the safety of pedestrians, historical preservation and tourism; all of these controversial and weighty topics have been used by both sides of the debate to argue their respective cases.

I am not an expert on traffic management, historic preservation or tourism and I can imagine that the job of coming up with a manageable traffic scheme for Canterbury, with its system of ancient roads and buildings, must be extremely difficult.

However, while I would not wish to stray out of my depth and recommend a better way of managing the traffic around St Dunstan’s, I can comment on my experience of the scheme both from the view of a pedestrian and as a driver.

From my admittedly selfish perspective, the scheme would have been a success if it led to reduced levels of anxiety for pedestrians and drivers and increased the pleasure of being out and about in the area.

Sadly, the reality of the scheme has