Nail in coffin for car park plan

Two events at the Hambrook Marshes last week should put the last nail in the coffin for the council’s plan to extend the park and ride down to the River Stour. The picture of the marshes covered with the water shows just how important these flood plains are in taking the excess water and reducing the possibility of flooding in Canterbury.

But also the mindless vandalism that destroyed the boardwalk on these marshes, shows just how vulnerable cars parked down by the river will be to a similar attack. The proposed extension area not only has a public footpath crossing it from the Hambrook Marshes, but it is at the remotest point from the Park & Ride entrance.

My initial concern was more for the hazard faced by pedestrians using this footpath having to cross parking lanes, but the recent destruction shows that parked cars will also be at considerable risk from vandalism!

The simple solution is to start the run-off from the A2 bypass further back and bring the slip road straight into an enlarged roundabout at the end of Ten Perch Road.

This would save nearly all the existing park and ride places, separate the footpath and cause less disruption to the existing roads - a win-win situation!

Also as this solution would require the first part of the slip road to be elevated, extra parking places could be accommodated underneath towards the river, but not as far as the flood plain.

I have always believed that simple solutions are the best, so I find it difficult to understand why the council have stuck to their complicated slip-road solution, which more resembles a race track chicane than a public highway! I guess they have just gone too far down this road to turn back?

Queens Avenue, Canterbury

I’ve been a satisfied customer of those “hole-in-the-wall” ATM cash dispensers for about 40 years, but the other day something went wrong. My wife and I were drawing cash for the weekend and the ATM failed to deliver our £100. It kept making a whirring noise like a drink dispenser unable to pour out coffee.

I stood guard to prevent someone else from using the faulty machine – and, possibly, getting our cash – while my wife rang the bank. The helpline number didn’t work.

By then the machine had stopped whirring and appeared to be healthy and eager to dispense money. We used another card and withdrew £10 in the hope that our missing money may be dispensed at the same time. Half an hour later we thought we’d been mugged by the bank. The £100 had been debited from the account. We had an online chat with the bank’s help service and kicked off an inquiry that would lead to us getting our money. Maybe.

The process meant the £100 would be returned to our account in a few days. But if the bank’s investigation failed to discover evidence to support our claim, such as a fault with the ATM, the bank would snatch the money back.

That would be tantamount to accusing us of being dishonest, of lying to con the bank out of £100, of the bank trusting a dodgy machine over its customers. ATM machines are being closed down because the demand for cash is declining.

Yet according to Link, which runs lots of ATMS, people withdrew money from holes-in-the-wall at a rate of £6,600 per second (yes, per second!) just before Christmas. That makes claims that we will be a cashless society in a decade seem rather stupid.

Do we really want access to our hard-earned cash to be completely dependent on machines?

Our £100 was returned to our account, but the jury is still out in the case of R.M. and P.L. Green versus HSBC. The ATM investigation can take a few weeks.

The Citizens’ Advice Bureau says if you aren’t satisfied with the outcome consider changing your bank. Watch this space.