SECTION 6: DISTURBANCE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
Background
Impact of Chaucer Fields Development
Appendices
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 1
DISTURBANCE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
The proposed development at Chaucer Fields has the potential to exacerbate
existing problems of disturbance, anti-social behaviour and criminal damage resulting
from imbalance in the local community.
Background
The St. Michael’s Road Area Residents Association has significant experience in
raising the issues of
1. imbalance in the local community due to high number of student residents (in
student HMOs);
2. the high level of foot traffic by students using the Eliot footpath as a major route to
and from the University campus at all hours of the night and early morning;
3. repeated incidences of disturbance, anti-social behaviour and criminal damage
caused by a minority of these young people.
We have approached the Police, University of Kent, Kent Union (student union) and
the City Council in an attempt to address the issues. Our Chairman currently sits on
various groups peripherally concerned with the impact of student numbers on the
community, particularly the ‘Student Focus Group’ run by the Community Safety Unit.
This group has met only once this year and has other priorities such as student
security, safety and health as its remit before residents’ concerns are addressed.
We attempted to work with Kent Union to promote student integration into the local
community (We have a resident student representative on our committee).
We attempted an initiative to work together with Kent Union to address residents’
concerns (see Appendix 1, copy of Initiative letter and Kent Union response).
None of these efforts has as yet resulted in any significant improvement in quality of
life for the residents of our area.
Impact of Chaucer Fields Development
These issues of disturbance, anti-social behaviour and criminal damage would now
be intensified by locating nearly 800 further students in close proximity to this
residential area. It should be noted that the foot traffic is not confined to resident
students, but also includes their guests and visitors which may easily double the
resident total, particularly when group excursions to nightclubs and similar are
considered.
This increase in disturbance would also be extended into the Salisbury Road / Pine
Tree Avenue area, Harkness Drive area and the Whitstable Road via the existing
public footpath. (See Appendix 2 for illustrations of the narrow exits from the
Chaucer Fields site into the neighbouring residential areas.) The option to ring-fence
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 2
the facility is not adequate. Human nature being what it is, short cuts will be found
and established to take advantage of the existing footpaths.
We note that:
1. The University has no control over students when they are off-campus.
Therefore the mitigating proposal to site a hub of Campus Watch at the new
development will have no significant impact on reducing disturbance to the local
community.
Similarly the mitigating proposal to site CCTV at the new development will have no
significant impact on reducing disturbance to the local community.
2. Existing University measures to reduce student disturbance to the local
community are ineffective.
The patrol cars provided by a registered security company merely drive up and down
the affected areas. The drivers have their windows shut and so cannot hear the
approach of large and noisy groups.
Professor Keith Mander himself noted in a letter to a resident:
‘…but the number of incidents they can spot remain very small indeed.‘ (see
Appendix 4)
Even if they do spot anti-social behaviour, they have no legal power to intervene.
3. The University lacks the will to engage in dialogue with the local community to
reduce the incidents of disturbance, anti-social behaviour and criminal damage.
St Michael’s Road Area residents have approached the University repeatedly over a
period of years to address the increasing incidences of disturbance, anti-social
behaviour and criminal damage. Occasionally this has resulted in a temporary
increase in patrols or some mass communication to students drawing attention to the
issue. However, no significant improvement to residents’ quality of life has been
sustained.
We note that when the University has the will to minimise the disturbance to local
residents, for example at the Summer Ball, it is able to do so with the measures it
puts in place. However, we are told that such measures are ‘too costly’ to maintain
on a regular basis. We would observe that the true cost of the measures depends
upon the value the University places on its relationship with the local community.
4. There is no redress for residents who are victims of repeated incidents of criminal
damage.
See appendices for examples.
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 3
There is a perception among residents that it is futile to report these incidents to the
police as ‘nothing can be done’. The police say they do not have the manpower to
mount regular patrols. With the current cutbacks in police funding and the reduction
of PCSO staffing numbers, it is unlikely that such manpower will now be found to
address disturbance, anti-social behaviour and criminal damage spread over a wider
area.
Conclusion
The existing problems of disturbance, anti-social behaviour and criminal damage in
the neighbouring St. Michael’s Road Area remain unresolved. The proposed
development would intensify these problems and distribute them over a wider area.
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 4
APPENDIX 1:
SMRARA PROPOSED INITIATIVE WITH KENT UNION
From: Clare Benfield [mailto:c.benfield@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 09 December 2010 07:42
To: Sam Kennedy
Cc: H.M.M.Wood; Keith Mander; canterburyneighbourhood@kent.pnn.police.uk;
jez.chittim@pnn.police.uk; gary.painter@kent.ppn.police.uk;
communitysafetyunit@canterbury.gov.uk; mikele.cordes@canterbury.gov.uk;
david.harte@canterbury.gov.uk; john.gilbey@canterbury.gov.uk;
graham.gibbens@kent.gov.uk; harry.cragg@canterbury.gov.uk;
michael.berridge@canterbury.gov.uk; jo.calvertmindell@canterbury.co.uk;
canterbury@tory.org; stdancegate@aol.com; rikhscanterbury@aol.com;
richardnorman@gn.apc.org; C.Haapasaari; kbrocklebank@sky.com; allan.roles@gmail.com;
c.benfield@tiscali.co.uk
Subject: SMRARA/Kent Union- community/student relations initiative
Dear Samantha,
As you know, the Chairman and committee of the St. Michaels Road Area Residents
Association are pleased to have been working in partnership with Kent Union this year on
initiatives to make students welcome in the community. So far we have

Produced a Welcome booklet with information about the area and its residents which
has been distributed to all households in the area;

Invited all student members to become members of our association ( 6 have joined so
far);

Welcomed a student member onto our committee.
In addition, our Chairman has made personal contact with a member of most student
households to introduce himself and ascertain their concerns.
We would now like to develop our relationship with Kent Union further to address the issues
of anti-social behaviour and criminal damage which continue to affect all residents, including
students, in our area.
We would like to set up two working parties with you:
Firstly, we would like to investigate the possibility of setting up a (new kind of) community
warden scheme at night with, we hope, the co-operation and support of the university
authorities, Canterbury Police and Kent County Council.
Secondly, we would like to develop a Community Impact Assessment protocol for use by
organisers when planning events, particularly at night.
We realise that this will be an innovative way of working for all of us, indeed it may be
described as a Pilot for developing student/community relations. We do believe, however, that
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 5
it has the potential to make a significant difference to improving student/community relations
across Canterbury.
We are approaching Kent Union to lead on this as most of our resident students are studying
at the University of Kent. However, if successful, the model could be adopted for use by other
student unions and residents associations in Canterbury.
We hope you will give our requests careful consideration and we look forward to hearing
from you.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Westgate (Chairman), Clare Benfield (Secretary), Daniel Rikh (Treasurer), Christel
Haapasaari (Student Representative), Allan Roles, Kevan Brocklebank, Richard Norman
St. Michaels Road Area Residents Association
REPLY FROM KENT UNION TO SMRARA re PROPOSED INITIATIVE
From: Sam Kennedy <S.M.Kennedy@kent.ac.uk>
To: Clare Benfield <c.benfield@tiscali.co.uk>
CC: H.M.M.Wood <H.M.M.Wood@kent.ac.uk>, Keith Mander <K.C.Mander@kent.ac.uk>,
"canterburyneighbourhood@kent.pnn.police.uk"
<canterburyneighbourhood@kent.pnn.police.uk>, "jez.chittim@pnn.police.uk"
<jez.chittim@pnn.police.uk>, "gary.painter@kent.ppn.police.uk"
<gary.painter@kent.ppn.police.uk>, "communitysafetyunit@canterbury.gov.uk"
<communitysafetyunit@canterbury.gov.uk>, "mikele.cordes@canterbury.gov.uk"
<mikele.cordes@canterbury.gov.uk>, "david.harte@canterbury.gov.uk"
<david.harte@canterbury.gov.uk>, "john.gilbey@canterbury.gov.uk"
<john.gilbey@canterbury.gov.uk>, "graham.gibbens@kent.gov.uk"
<graham.gibbens@kent.gov.uk>, "harry.cragg@canterbury.gov.uk"
<harry.cragg@canterbury.gov.uk>, "michael.berridge@canterbury.gov.uk"
<michael.berridge@canterbury.gov.uk>, "jo.calvertmindell@canterbury.co.uk"
<jo.calvertmindell@canterbury.co.uk>, "canterbury@tory.org"
<canterbury@tory.org>, "stdancegate@aol.com" <stdancegate@aol.com>,
"rikhscanterbury@aol.com" <rikhscanterbury@aol.com>,
"richardnorman@gn.apc.org" <richardnorman@gn.apc.org>, C.Haapasaari
<ch302@kent.ac.uk>, "kbrocklebank@sky.com" <kbrocklebank@sky.com>,
"allan.roles@gmail.com" <allan.roles@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:09:23 +0000
Subject: RE: SMRARA/Kent Union- community/student relations initiative
Good morning Clare,
Thank you for your email, Im really pleased with the work so far and I think we all have a lot
to be proud of since the establishment of your Residents Association.
There are many initiatives going on around the country which we can look to for best practice
in community relations some useful information may be found in an NUS/Universities UK
publication –
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 6
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/LivingTogetherWorkingTogether.pdf .
Many of those on this email list Im sure have seen this before.
In regards to the first suggestion I think the best way forward would be for the community
and the police to lead on this together as it is a local solution to a local problem. We would
love to support this initiative but we dont necessarily have the expertise that the police have or
the resource to run an initiative that runs outside our regular working hours. I think we need to
get everyone relevant together to talk about how this could work and to get everyone on
board. I know the police are working on an idea of volunteer police at present so perhaps your
local PCSO would be the best place to start? Please invite Kent Union along to an initial
planning meeting I will make sure the most relevant staff attend, perhaps our volunteer
coordinator who oversees advertising placements.
The second idea I think would be ideal to go to our regular security/night time impact
meetings. I will pass this on for the agenda for next terms meeting. This group includes all
local partners police, the university, our security company, campus watch, pcsos, licensing,
students and is a flexible group that often invites others along.
Kind regards,
Samantha Kennedy
Vice-President (Welfare)
Kent Union
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 7
APPENDIX 2:
PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE EXISTING EXITS FROM THE CHAUCER
FIELDS SITE INTO THE NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AREAS
These would be subject to the potential increased footfall of around 1000 extra users
(students and their guests/visitors, hotel staff and guests, conference centre staff and
delegates).
Exit into Harkness Drive
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 8
Exit into Salisbury Road
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 9
APPENDIX 3
ADDRESSING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR/CRIMINAL DAMAGE
The resident whose car is featured here has since suffered further major damage to
his vehicle, as has another member of his family, at a cost to them of several
hundred pounds.
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 10
APPENDIX 4
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR PROF MANDER
AND A LOCAL RESIDENT
(References to anti-social behaviour / criminal damage in bold, Professor
Mander’s responses in red)
From: Keith Mander [mailto:K.C.Mander@kent.ac.uk]
Sent: 16 February 2011 12:51
To: *******
Subject: RE: Proposed Development at Chaucer Fields Site, University of Kent
Dear *******
Thank you for your email, and that to the Vice-Chancellor, who has asked me to reply on her
behalf.
I have incorporated comments within your original email, in red, and have passed your
comments to the development team.
Best wishes
Keith Mander
From: ********
Sent: 16 February 2011 9:55
To: Keith Mander
Subject: Proposed Development at Chaucer Fields Site, University of Kent
Dear Professor Mander,
Re Proposed Development at Chaucer Fields Site, University of Kent
We reside at [*******], Canterbury and oppose the University of Kents proposed
development of the Chaucer Fields site for new student accommodation alongside a new hotel
and conference centre.
We believe that this area of land should not be built upon and should ideally remain as a
valued amenity and a buffer zone between the University and the local Residential
Community. A development of this size and its close proximity to the residential area would
have a major impact on local residential areas.
We understand that the university intends that this additional accommodation will house
students from existing numbers and that the 800 beds will not represent an increase overall in
student numbers. It will, however, bring a very large number of students ever closer to our
once desirable and peaceful neighbourhood. The impact is already huge why increase it?
Furthermore, the contention that provision of this accommodation will reduce the number of
HMOs is highly questionable. Are the existing landlords in our immediate area (in the region
of 50%) going to cease running their businesses and restore the house conversions into homes
suitable for family living? Moreover, it is likely that there will always be a steady supply of
students who meet the landlords’ needs by choosing to seek non-campus accommodation for
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 11
financial and social reasons. Yes, we support attempts to reduce HMOs across the city but
the currently suggested initiative will fail to do this in our particular area while also removing
still further our ability to live peaceably in the home in which we have invested for many
years.
We believe that the new residences will reduce numbers of students within HMOs within the
Canterbury District. We are not planning to expand student numbers, indeed, we think they
will contract slightly over the next few years and we therefore have some confidence that with
constant student numbers and more accommodation on campus, other accommodation
providers will see reducing demand.
We would further comment as follows:
1.
The proposed block of accommodation would have an overbearing dominance to local
residential housing, in particular those houses in Durnford Close and Harkness Drive.
We have already responded to comments made about earlier versions of the scheme to reduce
the height of some of the blocks and move some of them back (which is why the site has
become wider than that first envisaged. We will be looking at this again.
2.
There appears to be little or no parking for student cars. With the intention of
providing accommodation for 800 students it is obvious that local residential roads would
therefore have to sustain parking for a large number of cars. There is already considerable
congestion due to the density of HMOs in the locality. The counter argument raised at recent
meetings with the university and planners, that students will have no need to bring cars, is
specious. Students do, and will continue, to bring cars whether or not the university provides
parking. They will merely park, as they currently do, quite legally on public roads, to our
increasing detriment.
Over the last few years we have seen car use reducing amongst the student population, and
have put many measures in place to encourage this to continue. You may find the argument
specious, but it is our intention to reduce car use further. We would be happy to support a
controlled parking zone in the neighbourhood, but local residents say they do not want this.
You will also find that, while some parking can be attributed to students, not all parking in the
Lyndhurst Close area can be so attributed.
3.
With the ingress of a further large number of students in our immediate area, the
problems arising from a minority who seem unwilling to behave in a reasonable manner
will increase. Over many years we have enjoyed the students and have, as former local
church leaders, spent many hours in pastoral care with a number of students. We have,
though, since living in the locality since 1976, noticed that student behaviour has
regrettably deteriorated, especially in these past two years or so. We have had serious
problems arising from vandalism ie. broken windscreen wipers, aerials and slashed
tyres are examples of damage to our cars. Also, our caravan has been tampered with
and damaged. Last year a window on our caravan was broken costing over 300.00 to
repair and further damage was done to the cover to the towing unit of the caravan. In
view of this we can now no longer leave our caravan overnight on the driveway to our
house. Similarly, leaving our car on the driveway gives us cause for concern. Again, we
regret the behaviour of a minority of drunken students who think nothing of vomiting
on a nearby footpath and, when remonstrated with, had nothing to offer but verbal
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 12
abuse and gesticulation. We have also had verbal abuse when challenging either bad or
drunken and noisy behaviour at all hours of the night and sometimes during the day.
Furthermore we have had damage caused to our front garden planting and hanging
baskets of plants removed. Quite apart from this sort of anti-social behaviour, the
impact from the constant passage of large numbers of people past our home at all hours
is considerable. We are frequently disturbed by inconsiderately loud conversation, both
between individuals and on mobile phones.
If it would help to have some CCTV around your house to attempt to identify those who
do not behave reasonably, we would be happy to discuss this with you if you care to
contact me. I am not familiar with the exact location of your house, so cannot tell you
whether something of this sort would be better in our land or yours, but I would be
willing to facilitate the conversation. The advantages would be that we could try to
identify those responsible; the disadvantages would be that it might provoke a response
from those being filmed.
Several of these incidents were reported to the Police who followed up the instances of
damage to the caravan with care but without satisfactory outcome. The University
authorities have been informed on numerous occasions.
We will have great sympathy with the residents of Durnford Close and Harkness Drive
if this proposed development goes ahead in the location shown. The footpath which the
students will use to Salisbury Road runs between Durnford Close and Harkness Drive
and no doubt the residents will have the same worsening problems which we are
experiencing due to our proximity to Eliot footpath.
Although we would not deny that students bring life to Canterbury and that there is a
need for reduction in the number of HMOs, nevertheless, there is another side to this as
outlined above. It is about time the University authorities considered the effect that the
student community has on the local infrastructure, acknowledged the bad behaviour of
some of its students and begin to take more responsibility in these matters. The
argument that the problems relate to a small minority of students is inadmissible the
behaviours described are unacceptable whether caused by few or many and the impact
on our quality of life is indisputable.
I agree that you should not be subjected to the effects of bad behaviour, and I do
understand that if 1% of our student population causes problems that this represents
c.150 students one for every weekday of the academic year. But it has proved very
difficult to deal with this 1% in a systematic way. I have recently asked that our
external patrols redouble their efforts to control this problem, but the number of
incidents they can spot remain very small indeed. We remain convinced that keeping
more students on campus stops the footfall into the local residential area, and that this
will be beneficial, but the only completely effective solution would probably be another
5,000 residences surrounded by barbed wire, which no one would want.
Finally and in view of the above points, we request that this development be moved to another
part of the University campus. This should ameliorate, to some degree, the problems for local
residents who have a right to live peaceably and free from wanton student behaviour and
overpowering buildings.
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 13
We have looked at a number of sites for our proposed residential development. Many of them
are just too small to accommodate the number of students we need to; the only other site that
was large enough lacked services, roads and public transport, and in our view would have
encouraged rather than discouraged the use of cars. We would also not have been able to take
advantage of the synergies with the Innovation Park in the way we envisage.
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 14
APPENDIX 5
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CHAIRMAN OF SMRARA AND VICECHANCELLOR PROF DAME JULIA GOODFELLOW CONCERNING ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND GRAFFITI
-----Original Message----From: Terry Westgate <stdancegate@aol.com>
To: j.m.goodfellow@kent.ac.uk
CC: T.J.Kemp@kent.ac.uk; Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk; harry.cragg@canterbury.gov.uk;
c.benfield@tiscali.co.uk; allan.roles@googlemail.com; kbrocklebank@sky.com;
richardnorman@gn.apc.org
Sent: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:11
Subject: Eliot Footpath
University of Kent Vice-Chancellor.
Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow.
The University of Kent,
Canterbury,
Kent.
CT2 7NZ
Thursday 28th October 2010
Dear Dame Julia Goodfellow,
I am writing to you as Chairman of the St Michaels Road Area Residents Association with my
grave concerns about the condition of the Eliot Footpath which runs from the UKC grounds
down the hill to connect with Lyndhurst Close. There are several issues that concern myself
and many of the residents of our Association. The overall appearance of this area leaves a lot
to be desired and is certainly not a good advert for the UKC.
The St Michaels Road Area Residents Association have been working extremely hard over
the past few months to promote good relations between residents and UKC students living in
our community. We have a sense of pride in the appearance of our area and are continually
seeking ways of maintaining and improving the surrounding area in which we all live.
The condition of the Eliot Footpath is way below the standards we are trying to maintain and
is sending out the wrong signals to the large volume of students (& UKC employees) that
regularly use this thoroughfare. We would be most grateful if you could take a serious look at
this area and hopefully address the issues that concern us. I list below the relevant points that
we feel need urgent attention.
1. Two lampposts which were vandalised several months ago on the Eliot Footpath were just
cut off about one foot above the ground and left, these have not been replaced. These surely
urgently need replacing for the safety of the UKC students and employees of the University.
There have been muggings in this area I believe, so I would say this is a priority. (see attached
photographs).
2. Most signs on posts and lamppost along the Eliot Footpath are either badly graffitied or
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 15
have been painted out to cover graffiti and have again been graffitied. There is also graffiti on
many of the lampposts along with stickers which looks very unsightly. I appreciate graffiti is
a scourge of our City and it is a continual problem to deal with but one that needs to be kept
on top of. We had graffiti removed from all street signs in our area sometime ago and to date
they have remained clear - we try to operate a zero tolerance on this which seems to work.
There use to be several signs along this path saying BE AWARE YOU ARE
NOW ENTERING A
RESIDENTIAL AREA
PLEASE RESPECT
OUR NEIGHBOURS
BY KEEPING NOISE
AND DISTURBANCE
TO A MINIMUM
The only one remaining is at the top of the footpath, near the bomb crater. This is facing the
wrong way, sideways onto the footpath and is badly graffitied. (see attached photographs of
condition of signs). Ideally these signs should be more eye catching (blue is not a good
colour at night). Black/Red writing on a yellow background would be more striking and
noticeable. Late night noise from students passing through our Residential Community is a
MAJOR PROBLEM not only for permanent residents but also for those students living in
the area who are serious about their studies. Many of us are constantly woken up in the early
hours between midnight and 3.30am from those leaving the night clubs at the UKC and also
those returning to campus, loud voices, singing, shouting, screaming are the norm, all mainly
alcohol fuelled.
I am not saying signs would cure the problem, but there is a possibility that it could go some
way towards lessening this issue, we strongly believe these should be in place as a reminder.
3. The Black Litter Bin towards the top of the Eliot Footpath by the bomb crater was burnt out
some months ago and has not been replaced, this is also graffitied. The litter bin at the lower
end of the footpath is also graffitied and quite often overflowing. Litter is a constant problem
in the area which the residents are constantly dealing with, bottles, cans and take away
packaging are the main source of concern. I believe more should be done to address this
problem, extra bins, may be a campaign to re educate those responsible.
4. About half way up the footpath on the right hand side there is a dangerous drop into a deep
ravine. We believe this should be fenced off to stop the possibility of any intoxicated students
from having a serious accident.
5. Many of the drainage gullies along the entire length of the Eliot Footpath have sections
which have been filled in at some time in the past with either cement or tarmac. This
completely defeats the object of the gullies to provide drainage along this very steep hill.
Consequently the flow of water into Lyndhurst Close during heavy downpours is quite
excessive. We believe all gullies should be repaired and maintained in full working order to
remove this problem.
6. My final point concerns the cycle barriers at the bottom of the footpath leading into
Lyndhurst Close. Several months ago a section was removed, I believe by the Kent Highways
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 16
department. The reason for the removal of this completely baffles me. We now have a very
dangerous situation where a serious accident is waiting to happen. With the removal of part of
this barrier, cyclist can and do now leave the Eliot Footpath/Cycle Path at speed crossing the
pavement into the road. The section of barrier was removed from the footpath section and not
the cycle path section and so cyclists are now using this as an exit. There have already been
several near misses with pedestrians and I believe unless the barriers are reinstated there will
be a serious if not fatal accident before too long.
I apologise for such a long rambling email, but I can assure you that the St Michaels Road
Area Residents Association have the students welfare and safety at heart as well as your
employees and the residents of this association. We also are concerned for your reputation as
a Good University set in such wonderful grounds being let down by the appearance and poor
maintenance of this area.
Many thanks for your time and I hope that these issues can be addressed as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Westgate.
(Chairman of the St Michaels Road Area Residents Association)
32 St Michaels Road, Canterbury, Kent. CT2 7HG
Tel: 01227 760780
Mobile: 07857 040214 & 07402 786445
Reply (below) received the following day. Although a couple of the issues have been
dealt with, we have received no further reply from Dame Julia Goodfellow. On the
most important issue, the signs saying “you are now entering a Residential Area”
have not been replaced to date.
From: Julia Goodfellow <J.M.Goodfellow@kent.ac.uk>
To: Terry Westgate <stdancegate@aol.com>
CC: T.J.Kemp <T.J.Kemp@kent.ac.uk>; Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk
<Graham.Gibbens@kent.gov.uk>; harry.cragg@canterbury.gov.uk
<harry.cragg@canterbury.gov.uk>; c.benfield@tiscali.co.uk <c.benfield@tiscali.co.uk>;
allan.roles@googlemail.com <allan.roles@googlemail.com>; kbrocklebank@sky.com
<kbrocklebank@sky.com>; richardnorman@gn.apc.org <richardnorman@gn.apc.org>; Peter
Czarnomski <P.Czarnomski@kent.ac.uk>; Keith Mander <K.C.Mander@kent.ac.uk>
Sent: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:59
Subject: RE: Eliot Footpath
Dear Mr Westgate,
Thank you for your email. I have asked the Director of Estates to look into this and I will
reply after he has had a chance to investigate.
However, I should emphasize that we have 300 acres of campus which is kept at a very high
standard by relatively few grounds staff. We take pride in our campus which is a benefit to
staff, students and the local community. Moreover, we are working hard to increase the
number of students we can house on campus. Having built 500 more bedrooms last year in
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 17
Woolf College, we are now building another 500 following planning permission from the
Council this summer and have plans for another 750. Most of our students are very
responsible and a significant number contribute to the community through volunteering,
employment in local shops, sports and cultural events.
With best wishes
Julia M Goodfellow
Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow, DBE, CBE, FMedSci
Vice-Chancellor
The University of Kent
The Registry
Canterbury,
Kent CT2 7NZ,
UK
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 18
APPENDIX 6
PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING EXAMPLES OF THE SIGNAGE ON THE ELIOT
FOOTPATH (EXIT FROM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS INTO ST.MICHAEL’S ROAD
AREA)
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 19
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 20
APPENDIX 7
PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING EXAMPLES OF COMMON AND REPEATED
OUTCOMES OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE ST.MICHAEL’S ROAD AREA.
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 21
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 22
Section 6 Disturbance: Page 23