Saturday, 29 January 2011
Would you want an Anaerobic Waste Recycling Plant on your doorstep – that is what this proposal is all about! Its proposed to be near people’s homes in the village of Sellindge, opposite the Airport Café – with much extra heavy traffic (150 lorries plus per day) - along the already overloaded A20, in a highly dangerous location. Also, there is the extra noise to suffer every day/all day and the damage to our beautiful countryside, with the additional major concerns regarding local habitation and plants. What about pollution to local sewage and water. Surely, there must be a more appropriate place away from people and houses.
Margaret Ludlow has provisionally booked buses to take protesters to County Hall Maidstone on the 15th February and already people have put their names down. If you can possibly come to Maidstone to demonstrate to the Planning Committee your opposition to the proposals please do so. County Councillor Susan Carey says such demonstrations do have a big effect. Please register your interest now by Contacting Margaret on email@example.com or 01303 813 369.
Further news will appear here as soon as its known so please keep looking.
Friday, 28 January 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Sent: 21 October 2011 15:23
Subject: Kent Mineral and Waste Sites Development Plan Documents - Supplementary Options Consultation
Dear Mr Cameron,
Sent: 11 October 2011 09:10
Subject: RE: Letters
I wrote to Duncan Smith about the State Pension. I also wrote to a previous minister a good few years ago on the some subject. They keep telling us that they cannot to pay pensions at the same rate. I said that everyone who pays NHS contributions is entitled to a pension. I asked the questions, how many people die before pensionable age, a year after or by the age of 70 years? I was told that a third of women and two thirds of men die before this age. How many women actually draw a full pension? I said instead of talking about the cost they are in fact saving £millions. As it is we have the worst State Pension in Europe with the next lowest being Holland where the pension is twice as much as ours. I said that its not a case of can't afford it but more that they don't want to afford it. Unless people die everyone is affected. I am still waiting for a reply.
Subject: Re: Costs
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 19:38:00 +0100
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Update/Reply from Environmental Agency to Susan Carey email re Environmental Permit application from Countrystyle Recycling
Sent: Wed 19/10/2011 15:28
To: Carey, Susan - MEM
Cc: Cansdale, Alan
Subject: RE: Otterpool Quarry
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:24 PM
To: Cansdale, Alan
Subject: Otterpool Quarry
Monday, 24 January 2011
Note - you can google 'Ecotricity Sellindge' for more detail.
To see more clearly (enlarge the photo) click on the image below - thhe wind masts do appear in each photo. (You can obviously also go and see them for real, for example, from the A20/Otterpool lane.) Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Would everyone supporting our Village Green application to save the Airfield meet at the County Members Car Park at 9am next Saturday 26th for a picture to accompany an article in the HERALD following last week's public announcement in the Kent on Saturday.
It will only take half an hour to complete. Please get there if you can.
As there are many for whom we do not have an email address and to ensure that everyone is fully informed about what has to be done now to support our Village Green application a leaflet will be delivered during the next few days.
We look forward to seeing you on Saturday.
Shepway Environment and Community Network
Out on a Lympne
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Monks Horton Parish 'key questions/considerations'regarding Shepway's LDF for planning
Once finished reading, click on the 'Home page' link at the top of the right-hand column to return to the Home page.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Thursday, 6 January 2011
|Comments must be made by 15th August at the very latest (see image below - click on image to enlarge and click on back arrow to return to here)|
|Location:||Land Adjoining Somerfield Court Farm Barrow Hill Sellindge Kent|
|Proposed Development:||Erection of one 40.5m high, wind monitoring mast (mast structure comprising of maximum 152mm thick steel tubes supported by guy ropes), with associated meteorological instruments, for a temporary period not exceeding 18 months.|
|Applicant:||Mr R Price|
R Price And Sons Harringe Lane Sellindge Ashford Kent TN25 6EE
|Address:||SOMERFIELD COURT FARM BARROW HILL SELLINDGE ASHFORD TN256JZ|
|Date Opened:||21 Jul 2011|
Subject: RE: 12313 - Otterpool Quarry
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:12:25 +0100
The most disgusting aspect was that democratically it was a disaster. With all the opposition this application should have been rejected and Countrystyle told to look for an alternative site, away from a residential area. As I pointed in my letters to KCC, there was enough displeasure shown when they thought that a recycling plant was going to be built in Hollingbourne, near the homes of the then leader of KCC and his his deputy.
You mentioned that five planning applications had been rejected. How many of these appealed against the decision? This is the critical factor, the cost of appeal.
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:30:01 +0100
Sent: 21 June 2011 22:08
To: Sweetland, Bryan - MEM
Subject: Re: Your letter.
Dear Mr Sweetland,
I received your reply to my letter but all you did was to send me a copy of the letter composed by Sharon Thompson. I really despair with the correspondence I have received over the granting of planning by KCC. It seems that its impossible to get a straight answer. Reading Sharon's letter I find that it fraught with inaccuracies and quoted statements. I will take each one of these in turn.
Paragraph one says that the Otterpool site is 1 km from Sellindge. A kilometre is 1000 metres or the equivalent of ten football pitches joined end to end. In Imperial units this is 0.625 miles or 1100 yards. I think that KCC should buy a SatNav or a reasonable atlas or use Googal Virtual Earth. The Airport Cafe is within Sellindge and the houses start at about 150 metres away from the site and then continue to the far end on the Ashford side, about 2 miles.
The same paragraph states just how much waste is expected to be processed, 75000 tonnes of recyclable material. The amount of traffic being used will be considerable but I don't see any of the objections put forward by Hugh Robertson on behalf of Sandy Bruce Lockhart and Paul Carter, when there was a possibility that a similar site was suggested for Hollingbourne where the two latter people lived.
Paragraph two says that the planning application for the Otterpool site followed a three hour debate. I was there but did not see any debate in action. Just a few people spoke and it was totally biased in favour of the applicants. According to Sharon Thompson the members considered an 81 page report but strange as it may seem, I didn't see anybody reading such a report or referring to it. As for the 2000 signatures, these were totally ignored and treated with contempt. It was also stated that the Committee had visited the site twice and yet they raised no objection when the distance quoted by Sharon Thompson was given. The Committee members were fully aware of the feelings of the Sellindge residents at the meeting as the Chairman had to threaten some of the people about their behaviour. These people were flabbergasted at the undemocratic procedure and result.
Paragraph three says that objections were raised by all of the local councils as well as Shepway District Council. These were totally ignored and we live in a so called democracy. It was said that there were no technical objections but did KCC investigate the technicalities or did they as in the case of traffic movement on the A20, use the information from Countrystyle Development? From the experience so far, KCC has done no research but has relied on Countrystyle for all the information. At the very first meeting in our local village hall, Countrystyle said that there were no other Anaerobic Digesters in England. The nearest were in Scotland and Germany, which as it turned out, was untrue. Did KCC investigate this claim as I am sure that it didn't?
Paragraph four says that the proposals are contentious. Of course they are as KCC has allowed a recycling plant to be built on the edge of a residential area. They are supposed to be in accordance with the development plan. The people of Sellindge are fully in favour of the process but disagree about the recycling plants location, in exactly the same way that Hugh Robertson opposed it for Hollingbourne. By all means meet the targets laid down by central government but do so within the demands of those that it will affect. As for climate change, that is a contentious theory.
Paragraph five says that the criteria for the Otterpool site were within the policies in the Kent Waste Local Plan. What are these criteria? I wonder if they took into consideration the attitude and opinions of the local residents and the effect that a Digester would have on the environment.
Paragraph six says that there were 16 other sites that could have been selected for the recycling plant. If this was the case then why wasn't these sites presented to the residents of Sellindge? Was it the case that Countrystyle considered the Otterpool site the one with the least opposition? Were any of the 16 sites located near a residential area? At the Planning Application meeting it was said that there were 82 possible sites to choose from, which is correct?
Paragraph seven says that two councillors appeared to be asleep during the debate but they only closed their eyes so as to aid their concentration. I am sorry but I do not believe this to be true. If this was the case then why didn't these people contribute to the debate?
Paragraph nine says that it is not unusual for Members to propose and second the recommendations early in the debate. The impression that I got and so did many of people present, was that this was not a debate. The Members were told how and why they should agree to the application. Sharon Thompson told them in no ambiguous manner that it is legal and if rejected will cost KKC a lot of money when the applicants appeal. Even those who possibly would have rejected it wouldn't do so which such a threat.
Paragraph 12 sums it up. Hugh Robertson expressed his views when there was the possibility of a Plant being built in Hollingbourne where the Leader of KCC and his Deputy lived. This was a blatant case of NIMBY where those applying and those deciding are unaffected by the granting of the application. It says that an unpopular decision in either procedural and planning assessment doesn't mean that its wrong. From a democratic point of view it does. The people from Sellindge who witnessed the meeting all agreed that it was a charade, with the main criterion being cost to the KCC. Countrystyle should have been told that their proposed site is too close to the residential area. I am sure that an alternative site could have been found.
If this case had been taken to Court a mediocre lawyer would have torn it to shreds. Unfortunately for the people of Sellindge there was no money available to do this. They pay their house tax of which 70% goes to the KCC who should have represented them. Instead, everything was in favour of Countrystyle Developments.
Now please answer a simple question, how many applications has KCC rejected this year?
Copy to Sharon Thompson
The articles contained in this website are for general informational purposes only and have been provided by various sources including the public, newspaper content and local bodies. These articles are then presented by Sellindge & District Residents Association on this website, and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.
Through this website you are able to link to other websites which are not under the control of Sellindge & District Residents Association. We have no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, Sellindge & District Residents Association takes no responsibility for, and will not be liable for, the website being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond our control. This website may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. The Sellindge & District Residents Association has no business relationship with any organisations mentioned in this website.