Search This Site

Thursday 6 January 2011

Kent Waste Sites Development Plan


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)

Disclaimer

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.