| Dear Mr Sweetland, Thank you for this e mail, which I read after dealing with later correspondence, so at the time of my last letter to you, I had not seen the measurements which you have now given. Thank you for the information. We will check the figures. I notice that you said that the applicant, Countrystle, had undertaken a traffic survey. Would not an independent one have been more acceptable? I do not know if you have travelled the section of road I am concerned about, but I am sure you would not want to overtake anything on that part of the A20. I am glad that Mr Barratt will at last be given answers to questions he raised. Thank you for your comprehensive reply. Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland
Dear Mrs Turton
Thank you for your correspondence on the Otterpool Quarry planning application that you sent to me dated 28th April 2011 and to Mr Carter as Leader of the Council 10th and 11th April 2011. He has asked me to reply on his behalf. I apologise for the delay in replying. Your letter also seeks information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council is responding separately on this matter. Your correspondence raises a number of concerns relating to highway aspects, publicity on the application, alternative plants, drainage and other development.
Highway aspects
Whilst I note your concerns about the adequacy of local roads and the A20 in particular to deal with traffic arising from this development, the highway considerations of the proposed waste development at Otterpool Quarry were fully assessed as part of the planning application process. As part of the application documents, the applicants carried out a full Transport Assessment which took account of all vehicle movements on the surrounding highway network. The Council's advisors on highway matters were satisfied on highway safety and capacity grounds and raised no objection to the application, subject to a number of conditions which are set out in the Planning Committee report at p.53. Whilst your letter advises that the 'A20 is an inadequate A road', it is designated as part of the primary route network and the capacity figure of 23,000 I previously supplied to you was taken from the Department of Transport guidance. At present there are some 6,650 daily vehicles on the A20 and the waste development would generate approximately 152 lorry movements. Given this relatively low number of additional vehicles, the Committee accepted that planning permission could not be refused on highway grounds.
The figure of 23,000 vehicles per day (vpd) is quoted to give you some idea of the capacity that a principle route such as the A20 could carry before the performance of the route begins to fail. This means that evidence shows that vehicles travel at acceptable speeds and the road operates adequately at levels below this limit. This is clearly dependant on individual circumstances which will be unique to individual roads and the alignment, property frontages, carriageway widths, junction configurations that give the character to that individual road. In this instance this figure was quoted to demonstrate just how low the existing levels of vehicles per day actually is on the A20, about 6,650 vpd. and how the additional traffic likely to be generated by the Otterpool Quarry application could be easily accommodated. You asked about the flows likely on the M20 and I can confirm that the 2009 Regional Transport Statistics from the Department for Transport showed the national motorway average of 77,000 vehicles per day but with an average of 94,600 vehicles per day in the south east.
I can confirm that the narrowest section of the A20 still exceeds a 7 metre road width between J11 and the Newingreen junction, allowing a minimum of 3.5m lane width either side. This is an effective lane width which allows cars to overtake with adequate safety and two lorries to pass in opposite direction but prevents HGV's from overtaking. Under Regulation 8 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 the overall width of a vehicle specified below shall not exceed:
- a locomotive, other than an agricultural motor vehicle - 2.75 metres
· a refrigerated vehicle - 2.6 metres · any other motor vehicle - 2.55 metres. Publicity
In my earlier letter I certainly do not imply or state that Councillor Hollingsby 'has been less than honest'. In my replies to you of the 12th and 28th April I advised of the publicity arrangements as they related to this application. This included publicising the application in accordance with the necessary planning processes via press advert, neighbour notification and site notices on the site. In addition, the planning authority consults the District Council and Parish Council (and other consultees) on the proposal providing them with a copy of the application. In this case, a copy was sent to Shepway District Council as is required. As I previously advised, I am not in a position to advise how Shepway District Council officers notify their councillors of applications and what happened on this occasion. That is a matter for their internal processes and not one I (or others at KCC) are involved in. I note that Councillor Hollingsby was aware of the application in June 2008 as she attended the Committee Members site visit on the 24th.
There is no requirement to write to every household in the district advising them of planning applications in the area. The legislation requires only a press advert (on certain types of development) and a site notice posted at the site. The Council undertakes additional discretionary publicity by writing to local residents within 250m of the site. This is widely accepted as a reasonably catchment area. I am therefore satisfied that adequate publicity was given to the application.
Alternative Plants
I note your comment in relation to alternative operational plants locally that could be viewed rather than those overseas. Whilst there are anaerobic digestion plants in the UK, there are no alternative like for like facilities in the South East that could be viewed.
Drainage
I believe that your reference to the gentlemen who is raising technical questions which are unresolved is attending the meeting with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and officers later this month. I suggest that it would be more useful to all parties if this matter were discussed there.
Other Developments
I note the comments that you make. In your email to Mr Carter of 10th April, you refer to him fighting an application by Countrystyle Developments for a green waste plant in the Maidstone area. I assume that you are referring to a much earlier application at Greenway Court, near Hollingbourne in 2003. The proposal was not the same as the development proposed at Sellindge and was in fact never determined as the applicant withdraw the planning application because of a covenant on the site. As with the Sellindge proposal, there was strong opposition to the development but because the application was withdrawn, the application was never tested through the planning process and I cannot comment on whether planning permission would have been granted or not.
I hope the above information adequately addresses your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Sweetland
| 
