From: brain37@live.co.uk
To: ehwpriority.enquiries@kent.gov.uk
Subject: RE: 12313 - Otterpool Quarry
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:12:25 +0100
To: ehwpriority.enquiries@kent.gov.uk
Subject: RE: 12313 - Otterpool Quarry
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:12:25 +0100
Mr Sweetland, I regard myself as a reasonably intelligent person with four degrees and two degree equivalents. I remember exactly what Sharon thompson said and so do the other people from Sellindge who were at the meeting. The central theme was cost and there is no doubt about it. Mrs Thompson said, "It's legal and if you reject it, it will cost KCC a lot of money when they appeal". What more proof do you need?
The most disgusting aspect was that democratically it was a disaster. With all the opposition this application should have been rejected and Countrystyle told to look for an alternative site, away from a residential area. As I pointed in my letters to KCC, there was enough displeasure shown when they thought that a recycling plant was going to be built in Hollingbourne, near the homes of the then leader of KCC and his his deputy.
You mentioned that five planning applications had been rejected. How many of these appealed against the decision? This is the critical factor, the cost of appeal.
Fred Turton.
The most disgusting aspect was that democratically it was a disaster. With all the opposition this application should have been rejected and Countrystyle told to look for an alternative site, away from a residential area. As I pointed in my letters to KCC, there was enough displeasure shown when they thought that a recycling plant was going to be built in Hollingbourne, near the homes of the then leader of KCC and his his deputy.
You mentioned that five planning applications had been rejected. How many of these appealed against the decision? This is the critical factor, the cost of appeal.
Fred Turton.
Subject: 12313 - Otterpool Quarry
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:30:01 +0100
From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk
To: brain37@live.co.uk
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:30:01 +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 of 21 June concerning the planning application for waste management development at Otterpool Quarry. I note your comments and dispute that the application was not properly considered. Having spoken to those in attendance at the meeting I also have to dispute that the Committee were advised to refuse the application on cost grounds. This was not the case. The Committee were properly advised that the Council would be at risks of costs at appeal should the Council be unable to substantiate its grounds for refusal at appeal. Members were fully aware that they could determine the application contrary to officer advice and I am confident that they determined the application on planning merits which were heavily in favour of the development in this instance.
Kent County Council refused 5 planning applications between April 2010 and March 2011.
Given the copious amount of correspondence on this case and the difference of opinion between us, I think we may just have to agree to differ on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Bryan Sweetland
From: fred turton [mailto:brain37@live.co.uk]
Sent: 21 June 2011 22:08
To: Sweetland, Bryan - MEM
Subject: Re: Your letter.
Sent: 21 June 2011 22:08
To: Sweetland, Bryan - MEM
Subject: Re: Your letter.
4 Swan Green,
Sellindge,
Kent,
TN25 6EX
Dear Mr Sweetland,
I received your reply to my letter but all you did was to send me a copy of the letter composed by Sharon Thompson. I really despair with the correspondence I have received over the granting of planning by KCC. It seems that its impossible to get a straight answer. Reading Sharon's letter I find that it fraught with inaccuracies and quoted statements. I will take each one of these in turn.
Paragraph one says that the Otterpool site is 1 km from Sellindge. A kilometre is 1000 metres or the equivalent of ten football pitches joined end to end. In Imperial units this is 0.625 miles or 1100 yards. I think that KCC should buy a SatNav or a reasonable atlas or use Googal Virtual Earth. The Airport Cafe is within Sellindge and the houses start at about 150 metres away from the site and then continue to the far end on the Ashford side, about 2 miles.
The same paragraph states just how much waste is expected to be processed, 75000 tonnes of recyclable material. The amount of traffic being used will be considerable but I don't see any of the objections put forward by Hugh Robertson on behalf of Sandy Bruce Lockhart and Paul Carter, when there was a possibility that a similar site was suggested for Hollingbourne where the two latter people lived.
Paragraph two says that the planning application for the Otterpool site followed a three hour debate. I was there but did not see any debate in action. Just a few people spoke and it was totally biased in favour of the applicants. According to Sharon Thompson the members considered an 81 page report but strange as it may seem, I didn't see anybody reading such a report or referring to it. As for the 2000 signatures, these were totally ignored and treated with contempt. It was also stated that the Committee had visited the site twice and yet they raised no objection when the distance quoted by Sharon Thompson was given. The Committee members were fully aware of the feelings of the Sellindge residents at the meeting as the Chairman had to threaten some of the people about their behaviour. These people were flabbergasted at the undemocratic procedure and result.
Paragraph three says that objections were raised by all of the local councils as well as Shepway District Council. These were totally ignored and we live in a so called democracy. It was said that there were no technical objections but did KCC investigate the technicalities or did they as in the case of traffic movement on the A20, use the information from Countrystyle Development? From the experience so far, KCC has done no research but has relied on Countrystyle for all the information. At the very first meeting in our local village hall, Countrystyle said that there were no other Anaerobic Digesters in England. The nearest were in Scotland and Germany, which as it turned out, was untrue. Did KCC investigate this claim as I am sure that it didn't?
Paragraph four says that the proposals are contentious. Of course they are as KCC has allowed a recycling plant to be built on the edge of a residential area. They are supposed to be in accordance with the development plan. The people of Sellindge are fully in favour of the process but disagree about the recycling plants location, in exactly the same way that Hugh Robertson opposed it for Hollingbourne. By all means meet the targets laid down by central government but do so within the demands of those that it will affect. As for climate change, that is a contentious theory.
Sellindge,
Kent,
TN25 6EX
Dear Mr Sweetland,
I received your reply to my letter but all you did was to send me a copy of the letter composed by Sharon Thompson. I really despair with the correspondence I have received over the granting of planning by KCC. It seems that its impossible to get a straight answer. Reading Sharon's letter I find that it fraught with inaccuracies and quoted statements. I will take each one of these in turn.
Paragraph one says that the Otterpool site is 1 km from Sellindge. A kilometre is 1000 metres or the equivalent of ten football pitches joined end to end. In Imperial units this is 0.625 miles or 1100 yards. I think that KCC should buy a SatNav or a reasonable atlas or use Googal Virtual Earth. The Airport Cafe is within Sellindge and the houses start at about 150 metres away from the site and then continue to the far end on the Ashford side, about 2 miles.
The same paragraph states just how much waste is expected to be processed, 75000 tonnes of recyclable material. The amount of traffic being used will be considerable but I don't see any of the objections put forward by Hugh Robertson on behalf of Sandy Bruce Lockhart and Paul Carter, when there was a possibility that a similar site was suggested for Hollingbourne where the two latter people lived.
Paragraph two says that the planning application for the Otterpool site followed a three hour debate. I was there but did not see any debate in action. Just a few people spoke and it was totally biased in favour of the applicants. According to Sharon Thompson the members considered an 81 page report but strange as it may seem, I didn't see anybody reading such a report or referring to it. As for the 2000 signatures, these were totally ignored and treated with contempt. It was also stated that the Committee had visited the site twice and yet they raised no objection when the distance quoted by Sharon Thompson was given. The Committee members were fully aware of the feelings of the Sellindge residents at the meeting as the Chairman had to threaten some of the people about their behaviour. These people were flabbergasted at the undemocratic procedure and result.
Paragraph three says that objections were raised by all of the local councils as well as Shepway District Council. These were totally ignored and we live in a so called democracy. It was said that there were no technical objections but did KCC investigate the technicalities or did they as in the case of traffic movement on the A20, use the information from Countrystyle Development? From the experience so far, KCC has done no research but has relied on Countrystyle for all the information. At the very first meeting in our local village hall, Countrystyle said that there were no other Anaerobic Digesters in England. The nearest were in Scotland and Germany, which as it turned out, was untrue. Did KCC investigate this claim as I am sure that it didn't?
Paragraph four says that the proposals are contentious. Of course they are as KCC has allowed a recycling plant to be built on the edge of a residential area. They are supposed to be in accordance with the development plan. The people of Sellindge are fully in favour of the process but disagree about the recycling plants location, in exactly the same way that Hugh Robertson opposed it for Hollingbourne. By all means meet the targets laid down by central government but do so within the demands of those that it will affect. As for climate change, that is a contentious theory.
Paragraph five says that the criteria for the Otterpool site were within the policies in the Kent Waste Local Plan. What are these criteria? I wonder if they took into consideration the attitude and opinions of the local residents and the effect that a Digester would have on the environment.
Paragraph six says that there were 16 other sites that could have been selected for the recycling plant. If this was the case then why wasn't these sites presented to the residents of Sellindge? Was it the case that Countrystyle considered the Otterpool site the one with the least opposition? Were any of the 16 sites located near a residential area? At the Planning Application meeting it was said that there were 82 possible sites to choose from, which is correct?
Paragraph seven says that two councillors appeared to be asleep during the debate but they only closed their eyes so as to aid their concentration. I am sorry but I do not believe this to be true. If this was the case then why didn't these people contribute to the debate?
Paragraph eight says that committee members are not charged with examining or challenging every point raised. Surely this is why they are there. They should be fully aware of all the implications as they are the deciding factor. Only two people spoke in favour of the application and two against it. One person compared the outcome of this application with the situation when the quarry was operating in the 1960's. There is no comparison as in the 1960's the cafe was just a small building with petrol pumps at the front, in other words a petrol forecourt. There was no room for people to sit outside. Today, the cafe is much bigger with a patio for customers at the front, only yards or metres, from the A20.
Paragraph nine says that it is not unusual for Members to propose and second the recommendations early in the debate. The impression that I got and so did many of people present, was that this was not a debate. The Members were told how and why they should agree to the application. Sharon Thompson told them in no ambiguous manner that it is legal and if rejected will cost KKC a lot of money when the applicants appeal. Even those who possibly would have rejected it wouldn't do so which such a threat.
Paragraph nine says that it is not unusual for Members to propose and second the recommendations early in the debate. The impression that I got and so did many of people present, was that this was not a debate. The Members were told how and why they should agree to the application. Sharon Thompson told them in no ambiguous manner that it is legal and if rejected will cost KKC a lot of money when the applicants appeal. Even those who possibly would have rejected it wouldn't do so which such a threat.
Paragraph ten says that the decision was not taken on the basis that the Committee could not afford the 'cost of appeal'. This is untrue as Sharon Thompson butted in and said, "The application is legal and if rejected it will cost KCC a lot of money when there is an appeal". If cost wasn't the main criterion then why did she say it? She virtually told them how to vote and what decision she expected. There was no mention about the effect that the recycling plant would have on the local community. In fact, there was absolutely no mention on how it would affect the residents of Sellindge.
Paragraph 11 says that the two councillors who seemed to be asleep were closing their eyes to assist their concentration. It's obvious that they were just bored and were going through the motions as they knew what the result was going to be. Just by looking at the representative of Countrystyle with his confident manner it was an obvious conclusion, which was evident from the start.
Paragraph 12 sums it up. Hugh Robertson expressed his views when there was the possibility of a Plant being built in Hollingbourne where the Leader of KCC and his Deputy lived. This was a blatant case of NIMBY where those applying and those deciding are unaffected by the granting of the application. It says that an unpopular decision in either procedural and planning assessment doesn't mean that its wrong. From a democratic point of view it does. The people from Sellindge who witnessed the meeting all agreed that it was a charade, with the main criterion being cost to the KCC. Countrystyle should have been told that their proposed site is too close to the residential area. I am sure that an alternative site could have been found.
If this case had been taken to Court a mediocre lawyer would have torn it to shreds. Unfortunately for the people of Sellindge there was no money available to do this. They pay their house tax of which 70% goes to the KCC who should have represented them. Instead, everything was in favour of Countrystyle Developments.
Now please answer a simple question, how many applications has KCC rejected this year?
Fred Turton
Copy to Sharon Thompson
