LETTERS to The Journal from supporters of Kenyon Station, criticise the Greens' opposition to the station, turning that opposition in to a view that I personally oppose a station at Kenyon.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and as the writers were at the Lowton public meeting, they would know that I stated my views on the provision of a station quite clearly, which are:

Opposition of this particular project due to its incursion in to the Green Belt and the prospects of the associated road opening up the area for future development, however, that the Greens (including myself) would support a local community station on that site, with a maximum of 40 car parking spaces, but without the proposed access road that would effectively extend the Atherleigh Way.

The position that this station will only happen with Xanadu is a fact, not stated by us but by the inclusion of a clause in to the planning application by the developers themselves, which puts a binding condition on the granting of planning permission for Xanadu that the station has to go ahead on the site at Kenyon and nowhere else, or the planning application for Xanadu must be rejected.

As for the general argument that people should leave their cars at home and journey by public transport, these are green ideas promoted for years by the Green Party and adopted by Labour, but that does not mean at any cost. The whole picture has to be analysed, taking in to account the whole environmental consequences of a project not simply the gloss.

This particular station as proposed, will generate more traffic than it will take off the road, bringing even more traffic on to the already congested Lane Head junction.

As for introducing toll charges on to motorways, this will not reduce traffic but instead simply see more people using local roads, thereby increasing pollution and congestion, leaving the motorways as express routes for the wealthy.

Of course Mr Sumner is entitled to express his views, but like all those who have no real answers he results to personal insults, perhaps that is because he feels aggrieved that the Greens stood against him in the local elections, thereby reducing what he considers to be his vote.

Making crude references to those who dedicate their lives to preserving land under threat from developers is unbecoming of any potential politician, after all these young people who live in tree houses are acting for the good of future generations, unlike others, who are more intent on destroying all that we hold dear, green fields, wildlife and a quality of life free from pollution, this does not mean returning to the stone age, simply a need for sanity within the planning system.

I know exactly what I support, it is a pity that as an independent local politician, Mr Sumner does not support the protection of our green belt.

Chris Maile

Leigh Green Party

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.