I spent part of today throwing out old paperwork. Amazing how much I have accumulated. Memories of long-forgotten campaigns came flooding back, and none more so, that the struggle to build the Coalbrooke Road hostel in Tunbridge Wells.
I found amongst my documents a yellowing copy of the Tunbridge Wells edition of The Courier dated 23rd July 1999. The front page and a goodly section of the letters column were taken up with the battle by residents to stop the hostel. The following comments are typical:
There will possibly be alcoholics, drug addicts, prison releases. These are not the sort of people we want living in the local community.
What about the security of our homes. people will be on a 13-week rota and then we will get fresh people. What will they do for money for drink and drugs? We have young children and vulnerable people in this residential area.
These are not the sort of people we want living in the local community.
Opposition to the scheme was obvious, especially when we gleaned from three ladies who had had a private meeting with the housing association, that only registered paedophiles would be barred, but other, such as drug addicts, ex-convicts, alcoholics, beggars with dogs, glue sniffers, homosexuals and mentally unstable people would be accepted...
Please forgive us for not wanting to share our neighbourhood with alcoholics, drug addicts and people with mental problems.
A local councillor, the late Val Catt, who had achieved more than most to help people in the area was jeered.
The local church (Church of England) bravely publicly supported the hostel scheme and a few residents wrote to me supporting the scheme, but begged for anonymity as they feared reprisals.
When the scheme came to the Tunbridge Wells Planning Sub-Committee for a decision the officers recommended approval as there were no planning grounds for refusal.
I am proud that I moved the recommendation to approve the planning application. It passed by one vote. Shortly afterwards I started receiving abusive and threatening telephone calls.
Since the hostel was built there have been very few problems in the area caused by its residents.
I found amongst my documents a yellowing copy of the Tunbridge Wells edition of The Courier dated 23rd July 1999. The front page and a goodly section of the letters column were taken up with the battle by residents to stop the hostel. The following comments are typical:
There will possibly be alcoholics, drug addicts, prison releases. These are not the sort of people we want living in the local community.
What about the security of our homes. people will be on a 13-week rota and then we will get fresh people. What will they do for money for drink and drugs? We have young children and vulnerable people in this residential area.
These are not the sort of people we want living in the local community.
Opposition to the scheme was obvious, especially when we gleaned from three ladies who had had a private meeting with the housing association, that only registered paedophiles would be barred, but other, such as drug addicts, ex-convicts, alcoholics, beggars with dogs, glue sniffers, homosexuals and mentally unstable people would be accepted...
Please forgive us for not wanting to share our neighbourhood with alcoholics, drug addicts and people with mental problems.
A local councillor, the late Val Catt, who had achieved more than most to help people in the area was jeered.
The local church (Church of England) bravely publicly supported the hostel scheme and a few residents wrote to me supporting the scheme, but begged for anonymity as they feared reprisals.
When the scheme came to the Tunbridge Wells Planning Sub-Committee for a decision the officers recommended approval as there were no planning grounds for refusal.
I am proud that I moved the recommendation to approve the planning application. It passed by one vote. Shortly afterwards I started receiving abusive and threatening telephone calls.
Since the hostel was built there have been very few problems in the area caused by its residents.
I sometimes wonder what those who raised vociferous opposition then think now? I hope they are ashamed, but I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment