Subject: RE: The KCC Planning Committee Meeting 15th March
To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com
Date: Thursday, 31 March, 2011, 16:24
Dear Mrs Turton
Thank you for your letter concerning the planning application for the waste facility at the Otterpool Quarry site in Sellindge. I know that the decision to grant planning permission was very unpopular and that there was strong local opposition to the development. The Planning Committee however had to assess all the planning considerations and planning law, which in this case included strong government and local planning support for waste and renewable energy development at the site.
I understand that you were at the Committee meeting and will be aware that the Committee considered the matter for nearly 3 hours and took into account a very detailed report that assessed all the planning considerations and local objections. This included the impact upon the local roads including the section you refer to. The Highway Authority were satisfied that the proposal was acceptable and that improvements other than those proposed at the site access were not necessary for the development to go ahead. Under these circumstances the Planning Authority cannot require any further works to be undertaken. The Committee also considered the alternative sites that the developer had assessed as part of the planning application and was satisfied that the study was acceptable and that no other site met the criteria needed for the proposed facility better than the Otterpool site.
I know that the Committee and my planning officers were very impressed in the way that local residents put forwarded their objections and that this assisted in the way that the application was considered and the planning conditions that are to be imposed. I also understand that you will be very disappointed by the decision, but hope that you recognise that the County Council has to make planning decisions in accordance with planning policy and law. Where it fails to do so, it places the Council at risk of its decisions being challenged and substantial costs being awarded against the Council.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Carter
Leader of Kent County Council
Please help to save paper by NOT printing this email unless absolutely necessary.
________________________________________
From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com]
Sent: 17 March 2011 16:38
To: Carter, Paul - LEADER
Subject: The KCC Planning Committee Meeting 15th March
Dear Mr Carter,
Firstly, thank you for passing my letter, concerning the application of Countrystyle Developments, to build a waste plant in Sellindge, on to the committee.
I was very surprised when they mentioned my letter at the meeting. Many Sellindge residents were present, and having sat through the three hours discussion, we were dismayed, although not surprised at the negative result, namely that permission was granted. It seemed to us all that the members of the committee were told how to vote right from the beginning, especially since their leader had her summing up all prepared in advance.
This is a devastating blow to our village. An elderly lady was in tears because she now faces the passage of 168 lorries per day past her home, from 7am to 5 pm.
The thing that I thought the application would fail on, is the one thing that was not discussed at the meeting, namely the unsuitability of the road between the M20 Junction 11 and Newingreen. This stretch of road is barely wide enough for one car and one lorry to pass each other, let alone two lorries. I would suggest that now planning has been granted, Countrystyle Developments should be made to undertake road widening at their own expense on this stretch of the road, including any purchase of land required to do so.
I was, to say the least, surprised when it was stated that 62 possible sites for this development had been considered, including the one that had first come to my mind when the development was announced, namely the huge, already poor land in Bad Munstereifel Avenue, (Orbital Industrial estate). It is beyond belief that this was discounted, because the site could provide much more accessibility being easily reached from both directions of the M20. This Ashford site could even have taken waste from Maidstone.
How much better than siting it in a village, opposite a thriving restaurant business, and disturbing the peace or a rural community.
I realise that you are very busy, but you were kind enough once to reply to me personally, and it would be nice if you could do so once more,
Kindest regards,
Mavis Turton
