From: sharon.thompson <sharon.thompson@kent.gov.uk>
To: caroleandcolin4 <caroleandcolin4@aol.com>
CC: Linda.Songhurst <Linda.Songhurst@kent.gov.uk>
Sent: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 5:36
Subject: RE: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mr Abbott
The point that I am making is that planning applications are determined against planning policies which are set out in development plans. This is the current planning process and there are no current plans to change this. Once adopted the Mineral and Waste Development Framework will be the key development plan document that sets out the policies that future applications are considered against. It is on this basis that the consultation it is an important opportunity to shape future policy. Any objection to a future planning application will have to be considered on its merits and against the development plan policy. As I have advised previously, planning applications are not determined on the basis of popularity and if applications are to be refused the reason for doing so have to be backed up by development plan policy. There is no opportunity for the County Council to reconsider the Otterpool Quarry application.
Kind regards Sharon
Sharon Thompson Head of Planning Applications Planning and Environment,
Enterprise and Environment Kent County Council
From: colin abbott
Sent: 26 June 2011 19:42
To: Thompson, Sharon - EE PE
Subject: Re: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mrs.Thompson,
Thank you for your Email of 24th June. Either I am not making myself clear or you are evading my question. The point I am trying to get answered is: you were insistent that in the case of Otterpool Quarry, in spite of all the objections, the application would be granted because there were no planning grounds for refusal. What then is the point of asking for comments on future applications? Please tell me. Will future applications be refused because there are objections from people who will be affected by them? Or will planning conditions prevail again and democracy be overruled as in our case. If a fairer system is to be introduced what about a rehearing for Otterpool Quarry when we might get some justice. I look forward to you answering the question. I will also remind Damian Collins MP to get in touch regarding the explanatory visit to Sellindge to explain the decision of 15th March.
Colin Abbott
From: sharon.thompson
To: caroleandcolin4 <caroleandcolin4@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 8:19
Subject: RE: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mr Abbott
Thank you for your email. The current planning consultation on the Mineral and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) is a chance to inform the new planning policies that will be used in the determination of future planning applications. This will be the case when the MWDF is adopted. The reason that the Otterpool application was permitted was that it was in accordance with development plan policies, so this is an opportunity to shape future development plan policy considerations. I confirm that the County Council has not received the letter from Damian Collins.
Kind regards Sharon
Sharon Thompson Head of Planning Applications Planning and Environment, Enterprise and Environment Kent County Council
From: colin abbott
Sent: 23 June 2011 16:07
To: Thompson, Sharon - EE PE
Subject: Fwd: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mrs Thompson,
Thank you for your Email. With regard to the above, I was not asking you to comment on the Plan but I am puzzled as to why local opinion will form an important part on where and why future sites are positioned. In the case of Otterpool Quarry, I understood that the
Basis of your argument was that planning conditions outweighed all other criteria and this was why the sheer number of local objections were disregarded. So what therefore is the point of calling for local opinion in the future? If your view that planning requirements will
always prevail over democracy is true then each time there is an application permission will be granted to the exclusion of all else. Or are you expecting a radical overhaul to the system, which, given the experience of our village would be no bad thing.! .If you do not receive a letter from Damian Collins fairly soon with regard to coming to Sellindge please let me know and I will forward a copy of the one he sent to me. Thank You.
Colin Abbott
From: sharon.thompson
To: caroleandcolin4 <caroleandcolin4@aol.com>
CC: Linda.Songhurst <Linda.Songhurst@kent.gov.uk>
Sent: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 6:30
Subject: RE: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mr Abbott
Thank you for your email. I cannot pre-judge the outcome of the consultation on the mineral and waste development framework, but would advise that this is an important opportunity to shape planning policies for the future. Once the Framework is adopted, it is these new policies that would be used when deciding any future planning applications. I note your reference to the MP letter, but I have yet to receive the letter you refer to.
Kind regards
Sharon
Sharon Thompson Head of Planning Applications Planning and Environment, Enterprise and
EnvironmentKent County
From: colin abbott
Sent: 15 June 2011 15:01
To: Thompson, Sharon - EE PESubject:
Re: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mrs Thompson,
Thank you for your Email. You will appreciate I am sure, when you say it is an opportunity for local people to influence decisions that, in the case of Sellindge, 96%of the village were against it and it counted for not one jot!I ask the question again. What will be new now???? Also I have received a letter from Damian Collins MP today, dated13th.June,in which he says*I have asked that Kent County Council explains its decision properly to the people of Sellindge and that officers or councillors should come to the village to do so. I believe in your letter you said that you had not yet heard from him in this regard. Presumably you now have. I therefore look forward to hearing further from you on this matter.
Colin Abbott
From: sharon.thompson
To: caroleandcolin4 <caroleandcolin4@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 8:41
Subject: RE: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan (Will I get a reply?)
Dear Mr Abbott
Thank you for your email. The planning application for waste management development at Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge was determined in accordance with current planning policy and guidance. Planning decisions are determined in accordance with the development plan. The views of local residents were considered as part of the decision making process, but were not overriding in this case. The consultation you refer to relates to the Council's new Minerals and Waste Development Framework and once adopted will set out the strategy and planning policy considerations that future mineral and waste planning applications will be considered against. This consultation is an important part of the plan making process and provides an opportunity for local communities to influence development plan policies that will be used in deciding over the next 20years.
Kind regards Sharon
Sharon Thompson Head of Planning Applications Planning and Environment, Enterprise and Environment Kent County Council
From: colin abbott
To: planning.applications <planning.applications@kent.gov.uk>
Sent: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:07
Subject: Kent Waste Sites Development Plan
I see that KCC now have a Website calling for the views of the public in relation to the above and saying that their views will be taken in to account .i.e. The Big Society in action. Will you therefore tell me why at the Planning Meeting at County Hall on 15th.March the views of the 96%of the villagers who signed a petition against the Otterpool Quarry application WERE COMPLETELYDISREGARED????????
I AWAIT YOURREPLY.^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
C. Abbott (Resident of Sellindge)
