Search This Site

Saturday, 29 January 2011

Anaerobic Waste Recycling Plant application - official protest 15th February outside KCC

Following on from the Folkestone Herald article below, we need to protest at KCC regarding this application. here is a brief summary of some key points:

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 CafĂ© – 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 or 01303 813 369.

Further news will appear here as soon as its known so please keep looking.

Friday, 28 January 2011

Protest to stop sludge plant plan - Folkestone Herald article 27 January - join our protest

In this weeks Folkestone Herald (27 January), is the article below. Click on the image to increase its size, so you can more easily read the article. Once you have finished, click on the back arrow in the top left of the screen to return to here.

Thursday, 27 January 2011

KCC - Kent Mineral and Waste Sites Development Plan Documents - Supplementary Options Consultation

From: []
Sent: 21 October 2011 15:23
Subject: Kent Mineral and Waste Sites Development Plan Documents - Supplementary Options Consultation

Dear Consultee

Mineral and Waste Sites Development Plan Documents - Supplementary Options Consultation commencing on Monday 24th October 2011.[1]

Kent County Council is part way through the process of preparing a new Minerals and Waste Development Framework. The final framework will be in three parts – a Core Strategy, a Mineral Sites Development Plan Document and a Waste Sites Development Plan Document. 

This email[2] is to notify you and invite you to join the consultation on the supplementary minerals and waste sites options. You are invited to give us your views on the site options that are proposed.

The current consultation document includes nine new sites submitted late to our site assessment process as well as five sites previously consulted upon between May and August 2011 which now have significant modifications. It also gives details of two sites withdrawn by the operator or landowner who promoted the site for consideration.

The Mineral Sites and the Waste Sites Development Plan Documents consultations at ‘options’ stage, held between May and August 2011, was the first time we have asked for your views in the process of preparing these plans. These documents identified proposed sites for consideration for future minerals or waste uses. The responses received from that consultation are informing the site assessment and selection process in preparation for the final allocation of suitable sites in later consultation stages. No decisions have been made yet regarding which sites will become allocations.

To submit your comments and view the document we recommend you go to our online consultation portal at: Alternatively you can email your comments to or write to us at:

MWDF Project Team
Planning and Environment
Kent County Council,
Invicta House, Maidstone
Kent ME14 1XX

This consultation closes at 5pm on Monday 19th December 2011.

You can also inspect copies of the Supplementary Sites consultation document at the main Kent County Council offices[3], in Gateways, and in Kent libraries. Please note all comments received will be published online on our consultation portal.

Please contact us at the addresses above or visit our website for further information. If you prefer to be contacted in future by email, please send us your email address.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Lillian Harrison
Minerals and Waste Policy Planning Manager

[1] Formal Notice of the Preparation of Kent County Council’s Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Regulation 25 Consultation.

[2] made in accordance with Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/2204) (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1371) and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009
[3] Sessions House, Maidstone; Joynes House, Gravesend; Kroner House, Ashford; Kings Hill Office, West Malling; St. Peter's House, Broadstairs. 

Letter to Mr Cameron - People must not have policies forced on them from above

                                                               7th October 2011
 Dear Mr Cameron,

This is my fourth letter to you about your statement that “people must not have any scheme thrust upon them from above”. Like many others, I am still waiting for this to become law.

Your government has said that there will be no restrictions on building houses in the countryside. The argument given is there is a shortage of affordable houses. When I was at a local meeting I asked what is affordable housing but nobody could give me a definite answer. Unfortunately, if the building programmes materialises this will allow the builders and land owners, to disregard the views of local people who will be “rough shod” over by these people. It is pointless saying that Local Government will control the situation. From the experience of the people in my village, Local Government is more interested in legal costs if a plan is rejected and the applicants appeal.

If you had instigated your suggested policy you would have been top of the Popularity Poll. You would have enabled local people to become involved in all planning in their locality; a true democratic procedure. A scheme could be devised whereby a committee would be formed incorporating those who will be affected by the outcome. From our experience, those who apply and those who decide are unaffected by the outcome whereas those living locally have to live with it.

Please will you establish what you said?

Yours sincerely,

Reorganise local government? - response from Eric Pickles

From: fred turton []
Sent: 11 October 2011 09:10
To: dave
Subject: RE: Letters

I got a reply from Eric Pickles or from his department, who said that there are no immediate plans to reorganise local government. The way the economy is going I have a feeling that they may come back to my suggestion as they are desperate for money. The cut backs we are getting and the general attitude is identical to the Thatcher period. I have the book 'Dancing with Dogma' by Ian Gilmour who was in Thatcher's Cabinet and reading it is like reading today's newspapers. During her time we had that magnificent bonanza of North Sea oil and gas, which was wasted on the unemployed, unlike Norway who invested theirs in their infrastructure. At the time I was studying Industrial Relations at a high level and could see through their arguments.

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.


Abolish the County Councils?

Subject: Re: Costs
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 19:38:00 +0100
 I agree with you PC, Worcestershire, 9/10, about reducing the number of MP's. I would go a stage further and have written to the government  suggesting that they should abolish the County Councils. I pay 70% of my house tax to the County Council and the work they do is duplicated by the District Councils. If this was implemented then the system would be more democratic as this Council must be more responsive to local pressure. Instead of paying for very large salaries and the up-keep of County Hall, the money could go direct to those who are responsible for local needs.

Thank you,

Fred Turton. 

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Update/Reply from Environmental Agency to Susan Carey email re Environmental Permit application from Countrystyle Recycling

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:03 PM
Subject: FW: Otterpool Quarry

Margaret - I think this information from the Environment Agency should be more widely shared.  Can you get it on the SANDRA website?


From: Dengate, Alan []
Sent: Wed 19/10/2011 15:28
To: Carey, Susan - MEM
Cc: Cansdale, Alan
Subject: RE: Otterpool Quarry
Dear Cllr Carey,
Thank you for your email of 18/10/11, Alan Cansdale has asked me to reply on his behalf.

As a quick summary for your newsletter, we have not received an Environmental Permit (EP) application from Countrystyle Recycling.

However, you may like to include any of the following Q&A's/links/attachments as further background information for your readers.

How long would an Environmental Permit (EP) take to determine ?

For a Bespoke permit, up to 4 months from when the application is received.  However, if the application for the permit is more complex because of other legislation or planning constraints, then we would agree a different timescale with the applicant.

More information can be found at this link:

How will we consult ?

For any EP application at Otterpool, we would use a range of methods to fully involve the local community in consultation process.  Again, more in depth information can be found at this link:

Can they build the installation without having the permit ?

Technically yes, but they would be unable to operate the plant without the permit having been granted by us.

Do they need to de-contaminate the site first and is it contaminated land ?

Kent County Council granted planning permission on 28 March 2011.  There are a number of planning conditions that will have to be met by the operator . All the conditions we requested to safeguard the environment were included and covered remediation of potential land contamination, surface water management and flood risk.  More information on the planning decision can be found in the attached PDF document. (these can be found via the links below). 

If you have any other questions, please let Alan or I know.


Alan Dengate
Principal Communications Officer
Kent & South London and Solent & South Downs
From: []
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:24 PM
To: Cansdale, Alan
Subject: Otterpool Quarry
I wonder if there is any news on Otterpool Quarry that could be shared with my Sellindge villagers?  The copy deadline for our village newsletter is the end of this week and I'd like to say something even if it is only that there has been no progress.

Hope to hear from you.

Kind Regards,

Susan Carey
Member, Elham Valley
Kent County Council


Monday, 24 January 2011

Two Wind Anemometer Masts erected Harringe Brooks - 20th October 2011

Below are more photos of the two Wind Anemometer Masts recently erected (around 20th October 2011) on Harringe Brooks, Sellindge. The 6 intended wind turbines (depending on the results of these Masts and planning approval) will have a height of 79 metres to the hub, with a rotor diameter of 82 metres and believed to produce the equivalent to power 10,000 homes.

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.

Harringe Brooks Wind Anemometer Mast - 20 October 2011

Below is a photo of the first Wind Anemometer Mast erected on 20th October 2011 at Harringe Brooks. To see more clearly (enlarge the photo) click on the image below. 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

Lympne Airfield Village Green Application - photo shoot Saturday 26th November

Dear All,
                                    Lympne Airfield

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.


David Plumstead
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

Minks Horton Parish have provided their 'thoughts/questions' to their locals regarding the Shepway LDF planning for new houses and development. This document asks key questions and raises thoughts for you to consider in your response to Shepway. Please view the document by clicking on the link below:

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

The latest on the 4 issues affecting Sellindge - Folkestone Herald 8th September 2011

The Folkestone Herald published an article on 8th September covering the Village meeting on 1st September. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Scrapping wind farms will save each of us £550 - 7 Nov 2011

The Daily Mail published an article on 7th November 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Sunday, 9 January 2011

KCC PLANNING HEARING - Otterpool Quarry Waste Treatment - NOW 15th February

We have just heard that KCC's planners have put back the hearing of the Otterpool application from 20th  January to the meeting on 15th February. This is in no small part due to a formidable letter sent to KCC planners from Chris Lewis, Head of Planning at Shepway.
This new date should be confirmed by  February 8th.  It is important that as many of us as possible make an enormous effort and get to Maidstone that morning to demonstrate.  Susan Carey says such demonstrations do have a big effect.  The trouble is that KCC will not confirm the position until five working days before the hearing -  the same time when they will make their own views known about the proposals. 
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.  Contact Margaret on 01303 813 369 or Dave on and look for further news here. 
We in the Residents Association will be making a film about the threat of the proposed waste treatment operation for showing at the planning hearing and sending final letters to the Planning Committee together with other measures.  We will keep you informed during the next few weeks. 
Ronald Lello  Chairman Sellindge and District Residents Association

Lorry park and turbines are 'major threats to village life - Kentish Express

Kentish Express published an article on 8th September covering the Village meeting on 1st September. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Thursday, 6 January 2011

A 2nd Wind Mast application on land adjoining Somerfield Court Farm

Note that all

Application Number:
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)

Y11/0670/SH - (click on application number for full detail)
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

Application No:Y11/0670/SH
Date Opened:21 Jul 2011

An answer to misery of Operation Stack could be agreed by Christmas


Approved wind masts must have bat detectors - 14 July 2011

The Kentish Express published an article on 14th July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Look for an alternative site away from a residential area + other planning applications rejected

Subject: RE: 12313 - Otterpool Quarry
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:12:25 +0100
Mr Sweetland, I regard myself as a reasonably intelligent person with four degrees and two degree equivalents. I remember exactly what Sharon thompson said and so do the other people from Sellindge who were at the meeting. The central theme was cost and there is no doubt about it. Mrs Thompson said, "It's legal and if you reject it, it will cost KCC a lot of money when they appeal". What more proof do you need?

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.

Fred Turton.


Subject: 12313 - Otterpool Quarry
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:30:01 +0100
Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland

Dear Mr Turton

Thank you for your email of 21 June concerning the planning application for waste management development at Otterpool Quarry.  I note your comments and dispute that the application was not properly considered.  Having spoken to those in attendance at the meeting I also have to dispute  that the Committee were advised to refuse the application on cost grounds.  This was not the case.  The Committee were properly advised that the Council would be at risks of costs at appeal should the Council be unable to substantiate its grounds for refusal at appeal.  Members were fully aware that they could determine the application contrary to officer advice and I am confident that they determined the application on planning merits which were heavily in favour of the development in this instance.

Kent County Council refused 5 planning applications between April 2010 and March 2011.

Given the copious amount of correspondence on this case and the difference of opinion between us, I think we may just have to agree to differ on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Bryan Sweetland

From: fred turton []
Sent: 21 June 2011 22:08
To: Sweetland, Bryan - MEM
Subject: Re: Your letter.
4 Swan Green,
TN25 6EX

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 eight says that committee members are not charged with examining or challenging every point raised. Surely this is why they are there. They should be fully aware of all the implications as they are the deciding factor. Only two people spoke in favour of the application and two against it. One person compared the outcome of this application with the situation when the quarry was operating in the 1960's. There is no comparison as in the 1960's the cafe was just a small building with petrol pumps at the front, in other words a petrol forecourt. There was no room for people to sit outside. Today, the cafe is much bigger with a patio for customers at the front, only yards or metres, from the A20.

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 ten says that the decision was not taken on the basis that the Committee could not afford the 'cost of appeal'. This is untrue as Sharon Thompson butted in and said, "The application is legal and if rejected it will cost KCC a lot of money when there is an appeal". If cost wasn't the main criterion then why did she say it? She virtually told them how to vote and what decision she expected. There was no mention about the effect that the recycling plant would have on the local community. In fact, there was absolutely no mention on how it would affect the residents of Sellindge.

Paragraph 11 says that the two councillors who seemed to be asleep were closing their eyes to assist their concentration. It's obvious that they were just bored and were going through the motions as they knew what the result was going to be. Just by looking at the representative of Countrystyle with his confident manner it was an obvious conclusion, which was evident from the start.

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?

Fred Turton

Copy to Sharon Thompson 

Proof that the PM is tilting at windmills

The Sunday Telegraph published an article on 3rd July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Operation Stack's £25m solution will soon be revealed - Kentish Express 7 July 2011

The Kentish Express published an article on 7th July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Power slump as wind farms are left becalmed - Telegraph 1 July 2011

The Telegraph published an article on 1st July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Paul Carter response - Otterpool application, Hollingbourne, Lorry park

From: Paul.Carter-LEADER <>
To: caroleandcolin4 <>
Sent: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:12
Subject: RE: Your letter dated 28th.July.

Dear Mr Abbott
Thank you for your email of 12th July 2011 in response to my reply to your earlier letter of 25th May 2011. Your latest correspondence raises further questions about the Otterpool Quarry Planning application and an earlier planning application at Hollingbourne. I respond to the concerns that you have raised below.
Otterpool Quarry I am aware that you and others have been in correspondence with the County Council on this case and are very disappointed that planning permission was granted.  This was an unpopular planning decision locally but one where planning policy was strongly in support of the development for a waste management facility.  Planning decisions have to be decided on their planning merits and not on the basis of a popularity vote.  In this particular case, the Planning Applications Committee were fully aware of the strength of local objection and considered this against planning policy and technical consultee views such as the Environment Agency and the Highway Authority that had no technical objection to the development.  The views of local residents were considered but were not overriding in this instance. Planning decisions are taken by the County Council's Planning Applications Committee which is a quasi-legal process and not one that I as Leader of the Council is directly involved in.  I am satisfied that the decision was properly considered and I do not have any discretion in this matter.   I advised Damian Collins MP of this when he wrote to me in April.  I have also advised him that I do not therefore think it would be necessary for a representative to attend the village and explain the decision further.   The planning decision cannot be reconsidered. There has been much detailed correspondence with officers and elected Members on the application both prior and post the decision. This included two site meetings and two public meetings where the planning application process was discussed and a large number of local residents attended the committee meeting.  In addition, following the planning decision, representatives from the County Council including the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, the Head of Planning Applications and Susan Carey, the local Member met with representatives from the Sellindge and District Residents Association. I understand that all correspondence is posted on a local website thereby widening access to the material. 
Hollingbourne Recycling I assume that you are referring to a planning application that was made in 2004 at Greenway Court.  This application was not comparable with the Otterpool Quarry proposal for a number of reasons and was never tested through the planning process.  The Hollingbourne proposal was for an open windrow composting facility, whereas the Sellindge application proposed an anaerobic digestion plant and a materials recycling facility to be carried out in 3 buildings. The Hollingbourne planning application was also unpopular and attracted strong objection including from myself. However the application was never considered by the Planning Applications Committee as the applicant withdrew the application.  There as on for this as shown on the planning application file is due to a covenant on the land.  I cannot speculate what the outcome would have been, had the application been determined.
Lorry Park I note the comments that you make.
I trust that the above responds to your concern.  Yours sincerely,
Paul Carter Leader of Kent County Council Please help to save paper by NOT printing this email unless absolutely necessary.

From: colin abbott
Sent: 12 July 2011 15:13
To: Carter, Paul – LEADER
Subject: Your letter dated 28th.July.

Dear Mr.Carter,
I refer to your letter dated as above which I received on 7th.July.In my letter to you dated 25th.May  I asked you to comment specifically on Damian Collins letter which I enclosed. You have not done this. In his letter Mr Collins stated that,in respect of Otterpool Quarry he had asked you to exercise any discretion  you had in support of local peoples’ views. In the event all local feeling was completely ignored. Why have you not commented on this? He also asked that you send representatives of KCC to the village to explain the decision. Again you have made no comment on this. When will you be arranging for someone, preferably yourself,to come? I also asked you to comment on the Hollingbourne Recycling application of a few years ago when all the objections you put forward to keep this away from your doorstep were equally valid to the Otterpool application which you supported. Can you please explain why. With regard to the Lorry Park proposal please do not have the sheer effrontery  to ever inflict this on the vicinity of Sellindge. What about siting it near Maidstone or somewhere nearer your locality. I look forward to a more detailed response.
C.Abbott   Sellindge resident


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.