| Dear Mr Sweetland, 23,000 vehicles per day on a road such as the A20 is disgraceful. This would, I am sure, equate to a line of vehicles "nose to tail". Could you tell me how many vehicles per day use the M20, because I would think the numbers you mention would be more in line with the number of vehicles on the M20, rather than on an inadequate A road. I also read your comments about Councillor Jennie Hollingsby. I am worried that you appear to indicate that Jennie has been less than honest. I would have thought that any development such as the Otterpool Lane one, would be important enough to advise each household in the district personally. We are not talking about an application for change of use of a small business, nor for the building of a large conservatory. What has been imposed on us is a major eyesore. This, together with the proposed housing development of 250 extra houses, and the proposed wind farm, are an anathema. Three bridges cut our village in half, and we do not benefit from any of them, neither do we benefit from the electricity converter station. We will most certainly NOT benefit from the construction of a waste site. I ask you, would you trust the developers to carry out a Transport Assessment, when they mislead us over the possibility of representatives from the village being able to visit such a site as theirs. We were told that the nearest one was in the Outer Hebrides, or alternatively in Europe, Denmark I believe. Blatantly untrue, as there were two nearby, in Ealing, which is no more than about 70 miles away, and also in Nottingham, which is eminently as reachable. Clearly, in my opinion, they are not to be trusted.
I am still awaiting the answer to my request to Highways that they furnish us with the width of the narrowest part of the stretch of the A20 between Junction 11 and the Newingreen Junction. I have also requested that they tell us the width of the lorries which use the Lympne Industrial Estate, and those used by Countrystyle Developments.
Also, under the Freedom of Information Act, I have requested, in a letter to Paul Carter, copies of all letters, emails, and KCC Minutes pertaining to Countrystyle Developments and their planning application for the Otterpool Site. I know that KCC has to comply with this request within 20 working days. I would have thought that I would have received an acknowledgement of that request by now, particularly as I know that another Sellindge resident has made the same request. I understand he has not received an acknowledgement either.
Yours sincerely, Mavis Turton Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland
Dear Mrs Turton
Thank your for your further email dated 12 April 2011.
I have raised your concerns about the impact on the highway with the Divisional Transport Manager. He advises that Kent Highway Services were unable to oppose the planning application for the above site on the basis of the information submitted which accompanied the application. The developers were required to carry out a full Transport Assessment which takes account of all of the vehicle movements on the surrounding highway network.
The A20 is a principle route which in accordance with the guidance documents issued by the Department for Transport is capable of carrying approximately 23,000 vehicles per day before the performance of the route begins to break down. The actual traffic counts in this location currently only amount to about 6,650 vehicles per day. By 2018 with additional development proposed for the District and natural traffic growth this figure is forecast to be about 8,000 vehicles per day. The A20 therefore has more than sufficient spare capacity currently to take additional traffic. The proposed use of the site is likely to generate approximately 152 lorry movements per weekday, broken down this equates to about 8 HGV lorries in and then out of the access per hour plus approximately 40 car trips per day by staff and visitors to the site. Improvements to the site access will make it easy for lorries to turn towards J11 of the M20 but impossible for them to turn towards Sellindge. Of the accident data contained in the Transport Assessment for the surrounding and nearby area none of the accidents were attributed to slow moving lorry movement. The A20 between J11 of the M20 and the application site is part of a signed advisory lorry route for vehicles accessing Lympne Industrial Estate. There is no crash data to suggest that problems have occurred in the past with lorries using this stretch of road. The percentage increase in traffic movements generated by this proposal on the A20 is relatively minimal and KCC are committed to improving the condition of Kent’s roads and are currently testing new techniques to improve effectiveness, and where possible reduce the cost of repairs as part of our ruthless pursuit of improved routine maintenance, value for money and keeping Kent moving. In terms of publicity arrangements and whether Councillor Hollingsby would have been aware of the proposal, I can only refer you to my earlier comments. The planning application was publicised in accordance with the necessary procedures and this included providing copies to Shepway District Council. I am not in a position to comment on how the district council chooses to relay when applications are received to their councillors which is a matter for them to decide. The application was also advertised in the local press and on site and via various consultation process which were referred to in my previous correspondence.
There is no third party right of appeal for local residents who are aggrieved by a planning decision. This right is currently only available to the applicant. Any such appeal will consider the planning merits of a proposal. A judicial review of a decision is possible by other parties, but this is only on a point of law and cannot consider planning arguments.
I hope the above information adequately addresses your concerns. Yours sincerely
Bryan Sweetland
From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com]
Sent: 12 April 2011 18:29
To: EHW Priority Enquiries - EE
Subject: Re: 12141 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge
| Dear Mr Sweetland, Thank you once more for replying to my letter. I note your point that the DTM considers that 43,000 lorry movements is a "relatively low number of additional movements when considering the number already using the A20". I travel along the A20 quite a lot, and although there are a number of long vehicles on the road, the number is nowhere near 43,000 per year, 160 odd per day. I have contacted the Highways Department, and will do so again asking them, if they have quoted this opinion, how many lorries already pass along that stretch of road on a daily basis, and I would surely bet that he does not even know. I agree that the necessary repairs would be undertaken, but at considerable traffic chaos with traffic lights in place.
You seem to be of the opinion that Mrs Jennie Hollingsby would have known about the planning application for the sludge site, but at the village hall meeting, she categorically stated that she knew nothing about it. I am hoping to find someone who will explain this. I expect you by now are regarding me as a bit of a thorn in your side, but compared to the years of daily inconvenience we are facing, it is nothing.
I understand that although we have no avenue of appeal against the granting of planning permission, apparently we do have the right to ask for a judicial review in the High Court. There is a barrister handling exactly the same cases as we are trying to deal with, the granting of two waste sites in the London area. If successful, they will have their councils' decisions "quashed", and although the applicant for planning may seek to reapply for panning permission it is a lengthy process, and often apparently, the applicants for planning seek another less contentious site for their business, especially because the councils concerned have to be more cautious in their decision making process. Regards, Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland
Dear Ms Turton
Thank you for your further e mail sent on 4 April 2011 requesting an explanation over the publicity arrangements that were undertaken following the receipt of the planning application.
I understand from the Head of Planning Applications Group, Sharon Thompson, that upon receipt of the application standard procedures were adopted in respect of formal registration following validation and the subsequent publicity that was undertaken. Following the application having been formally validated Shepway District Council were amongst a number of statutory consultee consulted prior to which they were also sent an advanced copy of the documentation as soon as the County Council had received it. As an authority Shepway District Council would have therefore been fully aware of when the application was made although I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on how the district council chooses to relay when applications are received to their councillors which is a matter for them to decide.
As you are aware the application was initially publicised by the posting of a site notice on site which you have indicated was seen by a local resident. The posting of site notices at sites the subject of planning applications of this nature is a statutory requirement and in addition given that this represented a major application also had to be advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, although not a statutory requirement, the County Council also writes to individual neighbours most directly affected by the proposal. In this particular case I understand some 11 neighbouring properties nearest to the site were initially formally notified. Following the re-submission of the application accompanied by an environmental statement these neighbours along with a further 129 local residents who had made representations by that stage were again notified and a further full round of consultations including Shepway District Council along with Sellindge, Lympne and Stanford Parish Councils. Mrs Thompson has therefore assured me that in her opinion the formal publicity and consultation arrangements were undertaken fully in accordance with the statutory requirements.
When considering applications in respect of impacts from lorry traffic, development plan policies seek to ensure that vehicles are able to gain ready access onto the primary route network. The A20 represents part of the primary route network in the County. In considering the application in the context of the existing network capacity having regard to existing traffic movements and the number of additional movements generated by the proposal, the Divisional Transport Manager ( DTM) raised no objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions including restricting the maximum number of lorry movements to and from the site. Given the relatively low number of additional movements that would be generated by the proposal compared to the number of existing movements on the local network the DTM did not consider that any offsite improvements were warranted. With regard to the need to undertake ongoing maintenance to the local route network, as applies to any stretches of the public highway in general, maintenance will be undertaken as and when it is judged necessary by the DTM.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Sweetland
From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com]
Sent: 04 April 2011 19:44
To: EHW Priority Enquiries - EE
Subject: Re: 12099 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge
| Dear Mr Sweetland, Could you please explain one point to me? Why were the people of Sellindge, including our Shepway councillor, Mrs Jennie Hollingsby, completely unaware of the application put in by Countrystyle Developments, when all the other surrounding villagers were aware. After all, Mrs Hollingsby is Head of Planning for Shepway Council. Why was she not made aware? We are the village most affected by the proposals. It took the chance passing of a local resident passing the proposed site to bring the notice to our attention, when he spotted a small notice at the entrance to the site, along a stretch of road not accustomed to pedestrians. Going back to my objection on the grounds that the access road between Junction 11 of the M20 and Newingreen junction is entirely unsuitable for the extra traffic volume, who will foot the bill when the already fragile road surface is damaged by 840 large vehicles per week, and I have been generous in not including the Saturday morning movements. I daresay you will tell me that the ratepayers of Kent will have to meet the costs of repair. I am such a ratepayer, and the majority of my annual rates bill goes to County Hall. So in effect you will be telling me that I have to pay for road damage caused by 840 heavy vehicles weekly, 43,680 lorries per year, again I have been generous in not including the Saturday movements.
Forty three thousand, six hundred and eighty lorry movements, in addition to the volume of lorries already accessing the Lympne Industrial Estate is a lot of lorries in anyone's language.
The above figure is just for one year. Our roads are already in a fragile condition all over the County, with many potholes causing damage to cars. We are told that the cost of repairing them is considerable. The narrow portion of the A20 that I am concerned about leaves no room for vehicles to avoid the potholes which will be the result of the heavy volume of traffic anticipated.
I would appreciate your views, and definitely an answer to the question of why it took a chance finding of a notice by a passer-by to alert the village about the planning application, when other villages less affected knew all about it.
Yours sincerely, Mavis Turton Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland
Dear Ms Turton
Thank for your further email in response to my previous correspondence in which I promised to forward Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) your concerns; in order that they could be brought to the attention of Planning Applications Committee members at their meeting earlier this month (when they were due to consider the application). Mrs Thompson has since confirmed that members were able to take into account the contents of you email before they resolved that permission be granted for the development.
In reaching their decision, whilst members were aware of the strength of local feeling, they nevertheless were also mindful of the need to comply with the general principles which must be followed governing how individual applications are to be considered. In addition to the objections received from local residents, regard must also be had to relevant government advice and development policy against which such proposals have to be considered. To ignore this would have laid the County Council open to a legal challenge and had permission been refused, unless it could be demonstrated that this was based on clear policy grounds, it is unlikely the Council could have successfully defended its decision at a public inquiry. In which case the applicant would have been able to seek substantial costs against the County Council.
Whilst members were mindful of objections raised by the Parish Council, Shepway District Council and the local member, Susan Carey, they were also aware that none of the technical consultees had raised an objection. This included the Environment Agency (E.A.) who will regulate the operation of the facility through a separate Environmental Permit. Notwithstanding that planning permission has been granted, unless the applicant can satisfy the E.A that he can meet their operational parameters a Permit would not be issued.
Other matters, particularly traffic impacts, were addressed in the officer's report and the permission will include specific conditions restricting the maximum numbers of daily vehicle movements to and from the site and also improvements to the site access, which will be designed to preclude vehicles from entering and the leaving the site in the direction of the Village of Sellindge to the west.
Whilst I appreciate that this is unlikely to satisfy your concerns I do hope that you will appreciate that in reaching a decision on the application the County Council had to abide by the relevant legislation. As requested I have passed on a copy of your email to Paul Carter, Leader of the County Council and to Richard King, the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee.
Brian Sweetland Member for Gravesham East Cabinet Member - Environment, Highways & Waste - a 'Can Do' Organisation Kent County Council
From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com]
Sent: 16 March 2011 10:08
To: EHW Priority Enquiries - EHW
Subject: Re: Planning Application - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge
| Dear Mr Sweetland, Thank you for passing on my letter to the people responsible for dealing with the Planning application.I was present at the meeting, during which I felt that although there was some heckling, the residents of Sellindge were very restrained in their responses to points raised by both parties. This is probably because the main bulk of the people present were fairly elderly, myself included. Should such a meeting have been held at the weekend, when younger residents would not have been at work, it might have been different. We went to the meeting, feeling deep in our hearts, that it was a "done deal", and none of us were really surprised at the outcome. It now begs the philosophical question, "What is more important, Democracy or the rule of a few minor laws?"
Democracy is obviously not that important, although our society was based on it, or is supposed to be, because democratic principles were blatantly ignored considering that almost to a man, the petition against the development was signed by the whole population of Sellindge. The development was opposed by the Parish Council, Shepway Council, and our KCC councillor, Susan Carey,
Where does that leave us? Well, a few laws have frightened those who should be making decisions on our behalf, and they have decided to take the easy way out and grant planning permission. None of the attending residents were impressed by the comments that such developments are considered to be looked on favourably by the statement that, "It should be allowed if the benefit to the greater number should overrule the detriment of the few."
Much was said about ameliorating the impact of the plant, but mostly it was about the visual impact. Yes of course this can be made acceptable, and I am sure that the majority of people there were not so much concerned with the visual aspect of the application, but with something far more serious, that cannot in any way be "ameliorated", namely the amount of lorry movements per day, and the effect they will have on the village. 150-168 movements, and we can guess which will be the real number, would not be suitable for the stretch of road which has to carry the, especially road between the Junction 11 of the M20 to Newingreen turnoff. If you look on Virtual World on the computer, you will see how narrow the road is by the width of the lorry shown travelling at the time the image was recorded. The same website shows clearly that lorries leaving the Lympne Industrial estate, already "overnight" in the lay-by. It clearly demonstrates the fact that lorries do not enter and exit the Industrial estate by using the M20 Junction 11. It is plain to see that lorries will still pass through Sellindge Village, and that waste lorries will not adhere 100% to the limitations that are suggested on lorry access. Sadly it is human nature to take the quickest convenient route, if nobody happens to be looking. There will of course be extra vehicles used by those working at the plant. Which route will they be taking? If they come from the Ashford direction of the A20, will they not be hampered by the proposed design of the lorry access. Even if the lorry access is adhered to, the number of movements will increase significantly the diesel fumes in air quality. Lorries do not switch their engines off whilst waiting to unload. We all know that buses' engines idle when stopped, and are not switched off. The danger to other vehicles, not just at the entry to the proposed plant has not been taken seriously enough, nor the impact of the increased number during the times when Operation Stack is in force. I could go on, but that application should have been refused purely on the unsuitability of the road to accommodate the lorries alone, let alone the massive effects on local people, the Airport Cafe perhaps being the most affected, being just yards away from the entrance, If Countrystyle Developments are serious in wishing to do the best for the people of Sellindge, perhaps they could be asked by KCC to undertake the widening of the road between Junction 11 and Newingreen, together with meeting the cost of purchasing land to do so. Maybe that is a condition which should be imposed on them by the Environment Agency, or anyone else who has jurisdiction, such as KCC Highways. As all my letters are sent to the Residents Association for their files, I would be grateful of any comments received by me. I would be grateful if my letter can be shown to the Planning Committee. and of course to Paul Carter, who I think would be innterested. Sincerely , Mavis Turton
Dear Ms Turton
Thank you for your email concerning the planning application at the Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge. I note your very strong objection to the application and have sent your email to the Head of Planning Applications so that she can bring your concerns to the attention of the Committee prior to them making a decision on the application.
Planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan and have to be considered on the evidence that is submitted. In Kent that responsibility is given to the Council's Planning Application Committee and other elected members of the Council do not play a role in determining planning applications.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Sweetland
------------------Original Message--------------------
From: mavis turton <mavis.turton@btinternet.com>
Sent: 2011/03/13 12:01:31
To: county.hall@kent.gov.uk
Subject: For Paul Carter Dear Mr Carter, You have written to me before about issues which were concerning the people of Sellindge, and I find myself writing to you again in desperation. Next Tuesday, the 15thMarch, the Planning Department will be making a decision about whether to allow the planning application of Countrystyle Developments, who wish to blight our village of Sellindge with perhaps the most abhorrent scheme that we have ever faced as a community, namely the construction of a waste and anaerobic digester plant on the edge of our village. The proposed development is, I am sure you will know, close to residential properties and also a thriving restaurant business. It has been said that “technical problems” associated with the site can be overcome, but this is just not true. How do you overcome the technical issues when 150 lorry movements are planned PER DAY. The approach roads are much too narrow, and the interruption to normal traffic along the A20 will be intolerable to those going to and from work/school. The carbon monoxide emissions cannot be overcome, nor the smell issuing from the lorries carrying the waste food etc. In bad weather conditions and dark evenings or mornings will render the traffic positively dangerous. Many of these sites have vermin and flies problems, and the prevailing South Westerly winds will carry bad smells right over the village. The developers themselves mentioned “ammonia and sulphur dioxide”. When I spoke at the meeting at the village hall, I said that if I remember my science at school well enough, those gases smell like urine soaked nappies and rotten eggs.
I have lived in Sellindge for quite some time, and we seem to have borne the brunt of anything undesirable.
Sellindge has had its life blighted by SEVEN different threats to the community, three of which have already come about. The M20 motorway, the High Speed Rail Link and the Electricity Converter Station, all major eyesores.
Why on earth are we now being asked to absorb FOUR MORE.
I speak of the proposed wind turbine development, with its masts of around three times the height of Ashford Church, the threat of the proposed lorry park, for 3,000 lorries, and the proposed housing development of goodness knows how many more houses. Worst of all, the dread that the KCC will pass the planning application by Countrystyle Developments to build the Waste disposal facility at Otterpool Lane.
I went to the first of the meetings that were held in our village hall, when representatives of Countrystyle Developments told us, when we enquired whether we could visit any of this type of plant, that there were only two others, on in the Outer Hebrides and the other on the Continent somewhere. This was completely untrue, as there are others in this country much closer, in Ealing, London for example, and Nottingham, just to name two. Clearly it was not in their interest for us to examine them. Surely you are not going to allow a company who made such deceitful statements hoodwink you too, by saying that any problems can be overcome?
You, as leader of the KCC must hold considerable sway over the outcome, and I am sure that after reading my letter you will think, as we all do, that already Sellindge has had more than its fair share of attack by planners, and that especially in the case of the waste disposal site, there must be far more suitable places to build such atrocities than in a village.
Yours sincerely,
Mavis Turton, longtime resident of Sellindge |
|
|
|
