From: brain37@live.co.uk
To: leslie.barratt@googlemail.com
Subject: FW: 12269 - Otterpool Quarry Sellindge
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:30:22 +0100
Here is my latest reply from our friend Sweetland. It seems that Sharon Thompson must be ignorant about the structure of the village. According to her Sellindge is about 1 km from the site at Otterpool Lane. I am going to read this letter and then send my comments.
Fred
To: leslie.barratt@googlemail.com
Subject: FW: 12269 - Otterpool Quarry Sellindge
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:30:22 +0100
Here is my latest reply from our friend Sweetland. It seems that Sharon Thompson must be ignorant about the structure of the village. According to her Sellindge is about 1 km from the site at Otterpool Lane. I am going to read this letter and then send my comments.
Fred
Subject: 12269 - Otterpool Quarry Sellindge
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:09:39 +0100
From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk
To: brain37@live.co.uk
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:09:39 +0100
From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk
To: brain37@live.co.uk
Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland
Dear Mr Turton
Thank you for your email, I am sorry for the delay in replying.
I note that you are making similar comments to those made by Sellindge Parish Council and therefore enclose a copy of the Council's reply to the Parish Council. Please note that the letter to the Parish Council was originally dated 20 May 2011 but is automatically redated to today's date.
I trust that this answers your queries.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Sweetland
From: fred turton [mailto:brain37@live.co.uk]
Sent: Mon 30/05/2011 9:07 PM
To: Sweetland, Bryan - MEM
Subject: Otterpool Quarry Sellindge
Sent: Mon 30/05/2011 9:07 PM
To: Sweetland, Bryan - MEM
Subject: Otterpool Quarry Sellindge
Thank you for your letter of the 24th May, concerning the Recycling Plant in Sellindge.
I cannot agree with your letter. Its all very well using words to justify the result but it was the way this was achieved and the people it affects that count. There seems to be too much of this where public opinion is over ridden and we are supposed to live in a democracy. You say that the planning application was properly considered and determined in accordance with the policy on waste management. You also say that there was a balance against other relevant planning considerations. What were these considerations? Also, how were the arguments in favour of development overriding?
If you had sat through the Application process where we were you would have seen that it was a farce. We had the charade of our petition being presented to the Chairman who then totally ignored them. The people of Sellindge who were present were flabbergasted at the the way the so called debate went. It was obvious that a decision had already been made and that the Committee were just going through the motions. If it was so important then why did two members fall asleep during the process? Countrystyle should have been told that it would be undemocratic to grant permission and that they should look for an alternative site away from any residential area.
You mentioned that Mrs Thompson acted professionally. This adjective is used consistently when what is really meant is efficiently on behalf of one party, in this case KCC. How can having the summary fully typed out before the so called debate, be classified as professional? She summed up the policy adequately with her statement, " It's legal and if the application is rejected it will cost KCC a lot of money when the applicant appeals". Are you telling me that this is professional behaviour? Let me ask you a specific question, how many applications have been turned down when there is a chance that an appeal will take place? The mentioned statement sums up your general policy, it's the cost that counts.
In your last paragraph you referred to the potential building of a recycling plant in Hollingbourne. When I wrote to Mr Carter I specifically mentioned this. You said the application was never tested as it was withdrawn. The reason for this is obvious in that Countrystyle found themselves on the wrong side of the top people in KCC. It was not in their interest to pursue the application, or in undiplomatic language, they would have been mad to continue. I suggest that you read the points put forward by Hugh Robertson MP on behalf of Paul Carter and Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart. Mr Robertson said that the Plant if it was built would create problems, especially with the traffic movements. He emphasised that Hollingbourne had suffered enough with the high Speed Train and the M20. He continued by saying that we must preserve the Garden of England and that enough is enough before its too late. Everything he said applies to Sellindge. The big difference was that the proposed Plant at Hollingbourne was only supposed to deal with garden waste and not an Anaerobic Digester.
I will be glad when Mr Cameron's policy comes in where people like those in Sellindge wont have things thrust upon them from above. I hope that the structure is identical to that suggested in the Bullock Report on Industrial Relations, where a 2x + y formula was used. We can have the local residents as one 'x' and KCC as the other, with an independent body for 'y'. Its all very well our government preaching democracy to Libya
and Iraq when we don't get in this country. The site in Sellindge was opposed by over 2000 people, the surrounding Parish Councils, Shepway Council, our MP and County Councillor and yet their views were ignored completely. What always gets me is that those who apply and those who decide are never affected by the outcome. Tell me, would you like to a have Countrystyle build a recycling plant near where you live? I don't think so.
Fred Turton.
I cannot agree with your letter. Its all very well using words to justify the result but it was the way this was achieved and the people it affects that count. There seems to be too much of this where public opinion is over ridden and we are supposed to live in a democracy. You say that the planning application was properly considered and determined in accordance with the policy on waste management. You also say that there was a balance against other relevant planning considerations. What were these considerations? Also, how were the arguments in favour of development overriding?
If you had sat through the Application process where we were you would have seen that it was a farce. We had the charade of our petition being presented to the Chairman who then totally ignored them. The people of Sellindge who were present were flabbergasted at the the way the so called debate went. It was obvious that a decision had already been made and that the Committee were just going through the motions. If it was so important then why did two members fall asleep during the process? Countrystyle should have been told that it would be undemocratic to grant permission and that they should look for an alternative site away from any residential area.
You mentioned that Mrs Thompson acted professionally. This adjective is used consistently when what is really meant is efficiently on behalf of one party, in this case KCC. How can having the summary fully typed out before the so called debate, be classified as professional? She summed up the policy adequately with her statement, " It's legal and if the application is rejected it will cost KCC a lot of money when the applicant appeals". Are you telling me that this is professional behaviour? Let me ask you a specific question, how many applications have been turned down when there is a chance that an appeal will take place? The mentioned statement sums up your general policy, it's the cost that counts.
In your last paragraph you referred to the potential building of a recycling plant in Hollingbourne. When I wrote to Mr Carter I specifically mentioned this. You said the application was never tested as it was withdrawn. The reason for this is obvious in that Countrystyle found themselves on the wrong side of the top people in KCC. It was not in their interest to pursue the application, or in undiplomatic language, they would have been mad to continue. I suggest that you read the points put forward by Hugh Robertson MP on behalf of Paul Carter and Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart. Mr Robertson said that the Plant if it was built would create problems, especially with the traffic movements. He emphasised that Hollingbourne had suffered enough with the high Speed Train and the M20. He continued by saying that we must preserve the Garden of England and that enough is enough before its too late. Everything he said applies to Sellindge. The big difference was that the proposed Plant at Hollingbourne was only supposed to deal with garden waste and not an Anaerobic Digester.
I will be glad when Mr Cameron's policy comes in where people like those in Sellindge wont have things thrust upon them from above. I hope that the structure is identical to that suggested in the Bullock Report on Industrial Relations, where a 2x + y formula was used. We can have the local residents as one 'x' and KCC as the other, with an independent body for 'y'. Its all very well our government preaching democracy to Libya
and Iraq when we don't get in this country. The site in Sellindge was opposed by over 2000 people, the surrounding Parish Councils, Shepway Council, our MP and County Councillor and yet their views were ignored completely. What always gets me is that those who apply and those who decide are never affected by the outcome. Tell me, would you like to a have Countrystyle build a recycling plant near where you live? I don't think so.
Fred Turton.
