Otterpool Waste - locl roads + Traffic Assessment

Reply from Sharon Thompson, KCC, 19th April 2011, to Dave Motley (local resident) questions raised regarding the impact on the local roads, including both the A20  and the local infrastructure. 

The points in her reply that seem worth particular attention are highlighted in red below.....

The A20 will be an absolute nightmare but the computer (stats/highways agency) says no!! See attached Assessment – email and Assessment going on our website, obviously

Any suggestions as to how to get them to use some common sense? 

Not all 'A' roads are dual carriageways, or the same width, with junctions, or a thriving business directly opposite, or Newingreen 4 entry/exit corner. 

From: sharon.thompson@kent.gov.uk [mailto:sharon.thompson@kent.gov.uk] 

Sent: 19 April 2011 17:55
To: dave@davemotley.co.uk
Cc: Susan.Carey@kent.gov.uk; Richard.King@kent.gov.uk; Linda.Songhurst@kent.gov.uk; Mike.Clifton@kent.gov.uk; Angela.Watts@kent.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Otterpool Waste Treatment

Dear Mr Motley

Thank you for your further email seeking further clarification on the highway considerations raised by the planning application.   I have discussed further with the Divisional Transport Manager who has provided the following response to your 2 points.  

1. On a second particular point, I have real problems with understanding how the local road infrastructure can cope with the current increasing volume of traffic, let alone with this massive increase. My concern is other roads not necessarily directly used by Countrystyle vehicles will suffer greatly – i.e. the A20 through Sellindge and Swan Lane!! Is there a report of the review that took place and by who? I would like a copy please?    

The A20 is a principle route which in accordance with the guidance documents issued by the Department for Transport is capable of carrying approximately 23,000 vehicles per day before the performance of the route begins to break down. The actual traffic counts in this location, carried out as part of the Transport Assessment submitted with the application, are approximately 6650 vehicles per day.  By 2018 with the additional development proposed for the District and natural traffic growth this figure is forecast to be about 8000 vehicles per day.  The A20 therefore has more than sufficient spare capacity currently to absorb additional traffic.

The proposed use of the site is likely to generate approximately 152 lorry movements per weekday, broken down this equates to approximately 8 HGV loads in and then out of the access per hour plus approximately 40 car trips per day associated with visitors and staff to the site.

Improvements to the site access will make it easy for exiting lorries to turn towards Junction 11 of the M20 but impossible for them to turn towards Sellindge.  The accident data contained within the Transport Assessment showed that no crashes occurred at the site access location or at the accesses to the Airport Cafe.  Of the accident data received for the nearby area none of the accidents were attributed to slow moving lorry movement.  There is no reason to anticipate that, given the improvements made to the Quarry site access, there will be an increase in crashes due to the proposed site operations.

2. I live in the village of Sellindge, in Swan Lane, not very far at all from the proposed site (1 mile). “Did the Highway Assessment cover all or only some of the

    following in their assessment before apparently deciding that development was acceptable?” :

a)      just the site itself

b)      the A20 to the M20

c)      Newingreen junction

d)      the A20 outside the Airport café

e)      the junction with Otterpool Lane

f)        the A20 through Sellindge Village including

a.       Grove bridge

b.      Swan Lane junction

c.       Swan Lane/blind house lane (traffic will increase due to knock on affects

d.      The school crossing and school children

e.       The doctors and Village hall crossing                       

g)      Extra housing at Lympne (400?) – increased use of Otterpool Lane

h)      Extra housing at the Racecourse (800?)

i)        Extra housing in Sellindge (300?) including possible new road close to Grove Bride

j)        Operation Stack

k)      The Wind farm

l)        Increase in Otterpool Lane traffic

m)    And any other associated aspects

a)    The site access has been significantly improved to prevent lorries turning towards Sellindge and better assisting lorry turning movements back towards junction 11.  There is adequate turning and parking provision within the site.  The gates are set back 15m from the highway and will be open from 07:00 hrs.  It is unlikely that vehicles would be queuing prior to this time.   Approximately 8 incoming HGV’s are anticipated in an hour which can be adequately accommodated by the access arrangements with no queuing back onto the A20 expected.

b)    The A20 between J11 of the M20 and the application site is part of a signed advisory lorry route for vehicles accessing Lympne Industrial Estate.  There is no crash data to suggest that problems have occurred in the past with lorries using this stretch of road.

c)   The Newingreen junction is recognised as needing mitigation works by the Shepway Transport Strategy and will be addressed by the Core Strategy in the LDF process.  The traffic impact on the Newingreen junction by this development is not of a significant nature to request a contribution towards improvement works.  The Transport Strategy has however considered the cumulative effect on the junction if all of the strategic sites within the LDF come forward and suggested a mitigation strategy which will be developer funded.

d)     The junction has been modelled to take account of the access points of the Airport Cafe opposite and any associated turning movements.  The testing carried out was very robust and the analysis demonstrated that the junction would operate adequately in the future without queuing or driver delay expected.

e)    The junction with Otterpool Lane has recently been improved to accommodate large HGV movement, however the junction configuration for the access road to the application site prevents lorries from turning towards this junction. 

The submitted transport assessment does not directly identify physical measures that can be taken at J10 to prevent freight traffic using the the A20 as this may discriminate against existing businesses served via this route by HGV vehicles.  It does however refer to the section on Freight within the LTP stating:

"The Council will work with partners to ensure that road freight operations are undertaken with minimal social and environmental impact.

Where practical, the Council will:

·        identify and signpost heavy transport and HGV routes to direct road haulage vehicles away from rural, residential and environmentally sensitive areas;

·        discourage through traffic, particularly goods vehicles, from travelling on minor roads by use of the traffic management and regulatory measures and the control of development and freight quality partnerships; and

·        promote a web-based Kent Lorry Route Map as a definitive guide to road based freight routes in the County and ensure that the map is revised accordingly to include up to date highway and land use developments."

KHS Network Performance team are working on this strategy.

f) Already addressed above and with site access improvements.

g, h, i) These issues will be addressed by the Transport Strategy within the LDF process and is not a consideration for the Otterpool Quarry application which cannot consider sites unless planning consent has already been granted. 

j)   Traffic flows on the A20 are increased during Operation Stack.  However, the M20 between J10 and J11 remains open during the operation and therefore the corresponding section of the A20 is relatively unaffected.  A moderate increase in traffic flows can be expected from vehicles avoiding the motorway route altogether, although the significant reserve capacity available determines that the link would continue to operate effectively.  Development traffic would have an insignificant impact on highway capacity during periods when Operation Stack is enforced.

k) Not a consideration for this application.

l)  The only likely impact will be car based from staff and visitors to the site.  It has been confirmed that the majority of staff would arrive and leave the site outside of peak hours.  With an estimated total of 40 trips per day the impact on Otterpool Lane is likely to be negligible.

m)    None to my knowledge.

As requested I  attach a copy of the traffic assessment.

I trust that the above is helpful

Kind regards

Sharon  

Sharon Thompson

Head of Planning Applications 

Planning and Environment,

Enterprise and Environment

Kent County Council  Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX

Internal: x6052

External: 01622 696052

www.kent.gov.uk/planning

 Please consider the environment before printing this email

---

From: Dave Motley [mailto:dave@davemotley.co.uk]
Sent: 19 April 2011 13:42
To: Thompson, Sharon - EE PE
Cc: Carey, Susan - MEM; King, Richard - MEM
Subject: RE: Otterpool Waste Treatment - conditions
Importance: High

Dear Sharon

Thank you for your reply.

Can you please reply specifically to the following point :regarding the local road infrastructure which I raised in my email to you:

On a second particular point, I have real problems with understanding how the local road infrastructure can cope with the current increasing volume of traffic, let alone with this massive increase. My concern is other roads not necessarily directly used by Countrystyle vehicles will suffer greatly – i.e. the A20 through Sellindge and Swan Lane!! Is there a report of the review that took place and by who? I would like a copy please?    

When considering your reply please take into account the following:

I live in the village of Sellindge, in Swan Lane, not very far at all from the proposed site (1 mile). “Did the Highway Assessment cover all or only some of the following in their assessment before apparently deciding that development was acceptable?” :

a)      just the site itself

b)      the A20 to the M20

c)      Newingreen junction

d)      the A20 outside the Airport café

e)      the junction with Otterpool Lane

f)        the A20 through Sellindge Village including

a.       Grove bridge

b.      Swan Lane junction

c.       Swan Lane/blind house lane (traffic will increase due to knock on affects

d.      The school crossing and school children

e.       The doctors and Village hall crossing                       

g)      Extra housing at Lympne (400?) – increased use of Otterpool Lane

h)      Extra housing at the Racecourse (800?)

i)        Extra housing in Sellindge (300?) including possible new road close to Grove Bride

j)        Operation Stack

k)      The Wind farm

l)        Increase in Otterpool Lane traffic

m)    And any other associated aspects

An increase required for the application of 168 heavy lorry movements a day is massive. How will the roads cope? Is it not almost a certainty that more accidents will happen on that stretch of the A20 – Have you really reviewed this 100% so you can sleep at night?

Now is the time to reconsider before it is too late!! We all will agree that Recycling is good and necessary but not in a Village, without the infrastructure to cope with it. Put it in the right place.

I look forward to receiving a quick reply including a copy of the Assessment and the answers to my email.

Regards

Dave Motley    

From: sharon.thompson@kent.gov.uk [mailto:sharon.thompson@kent.gov.uk]
Sent: 19 April 2011 13:00
To: dave@davemotley.co.uk
Cc: Mike.Clifton@kent.gov.uk; Angela.Watts@kent.gov.uk; Linda.Songhurst@kent.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Otterpool Waste Treatment - conditions

Dear Mr Motley,

Thank you for your e mail dated 4th April 2011. I apologise for not having written to you earlier.

Whilst I understand from your e mail that you are disappointed with the outcome of the Planning Applications Committee's decision, I assure you that the application was considered in accordance with planning policy and that Members of the Planning Applications Committee considered all the planning arguments before taking a decision. As you are aware there was a very detailed officer report that set out the relevant issues including the impact upon the highway and traffic, landscape, local amenity and impact upon the nearest properties and pollution considerations. The Committee members were fully aware of the strong local objections to the development but had to consider the application against all relevant government guidance and planning policy which weighed heavily in favour of the proposal at the Otterpool site.

Planning applications for waste management development is always controversial but is a necessary infrastructure to meet community needs. To aid planning authorities, the Government has prepared planning policy and guidance advising where such development are most appropriately located together with what are the acceptable amenity impacts.  In this case, I am advised that the Otterpool Quarry site was firmly in accordance with that Government advice and planning policy, and in the light of no technical objections from statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency (E.A.) and Kent Highway Services there were no grounds upon which in refusing the application this could have been sustained and defended at Public Inquiry. 

In order for the site to operate, the applicant will also require an Environmental Permit from the E.A.. This is a separate regulatory process which sets the operational parameters of the plant in order to control risks from pollution. As explained in the officer report which I re-emphasised at the committee,  local planning authorities are required to work on the assumption that the regulatory control regime will be properly applied and enforced.

Turning to traffic impacts, Kent Highway Services raised no objection to the application. In reaching this view they undertook a comparison of the level of traffic proposed at the Otterpool site with the existing levels of traffic on the local road network along with the previous use of the site and concluded that the impacts would be negligible. The site access itself has been specifically designed so as to preclude vehicles entering and leaving the site in the direction of Sellindge Village and will therefore direct vehicles along the most suitable route towards junction 11 of the M20.

Finally, regarding the conditions which have been imposed on the planning permission, I recently wrote to Bob Edden from the residents association who had previously provided me with a copy of what he considered should be covered by condition in the event that permission were granted. As you point out reference was made to his conditions at committee which are reflected in the minutes of the meeting. At the meeting whilst I indicated that with the exception of one condition the rest would be covered,  it was made clear that this would not necessarily include his specific wording for the purposes of enforceability. You may find it helpful if I set out below my response to specific points he asked for clarification on in the context of the list of conditions he had provided:

     

'Whilst you are concerned that the conditions do not in your opinion cover the issues raised by the SDRA, I would wish to assure you that very careful consideration was given to ensure your concerns along with those matters raised by consultees were incorporated, albeit as I stated at the meeting of the Planning Applications Committee last month when the application was determined, their specific wording would need to ensure their enforceability amongst other matters.

As requested I would make the following comments as to how and where your schedule of conditions are covered in the formal decision notice referring firstly to your numbering;

2.     Conditions (3) and (12) address the issue of surface and foul water drainage with condition (12) in particular reflecting the specific     

        wording recommended by the  Environment Agency (E.A.). Whilst condition (12) only refers to surface water drainage, condition (3) is

        also relevant reflecting a standard approach to ensure developments are carried out strictly in accordance with the submitted documents.

        This includes not only the original application documents but also any subsequent supplementary supporting information as reflected in    

        the schedule attached to the planning permission. In this respect the SLR Document entitled ' Groundwater Addendum Report' dated

        October 2010 is particularly relevant. With regard to the underground foul water storage tank the E.A. were satisfied that given the    

        additional groundwater monitoring data demonstrated to their satisfaction that the base of the tank would sit over 1m above the highest    

        recorded groundwater levels they raised no objection to this particular element of the drainage scheme.  

3.      Conditions (3) and (8) deal specifically with site layout and boundary treatment.

4.      Condition (3) and (34) deal with site layout and hard surface landscaping.

5.     Condition (34) deals with landscaping including the identification of existing trees along with additional planting. The ecological

        assessment undertaken by  the applicant did not reveal the presence of bats on site and was not raised as an issue by either Natural

        England or the County Council's Ecologist. However bats are still nevertheless protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act ( 1981 )

        and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations ( 2010 ).

6/7.  Conditions (3), (4) and (19) deal with odour/bio aerosol releases, matters which are specifically addressed in the Air Quality

        Assessment and Bio aerosol Risk Assessments including mitigation measures.

8/9. Condition (4) of the permission refers specifically to a number of drawings which were submitted as part of the planning application ( i.e.

        drawing numbers OP/5, OP/6, OP/8 and OP/9 ). These drawings show the elevational details of the individual buildings proposed to    

        be erected on site and include their individual heights, none of which exceed 12.5 metres above the finish floor levels ( FFL ). Drawing

        number OP/7 shows the FFL as being 79.0m GL along the southern boundary of the site reducing on an even gradient to 77.0m            

        GL  along the northern boundary.

        Condition (4) of the permission requires that the buildings permitted are erected in accordance with the above mentioned drawings    

        which make specific reference to their heights in relation to the FFL. The wording used in the condition which seeks to control    

        maximum building heights in order to minimise their visual impacts, reflects a standard approach which has been successfully used to    

        control building heights on proposals of a similar nature and is therefore confident that should it be found necessary could be        

        satisfactorily enforced.

        In addition, an informative has been included which advises of member's request that the finished floor levels (FFL) of the        

        proposed buildings be as low as possible in order to reduce the visual impact of the development, albeit this will largely be dictated by    

        the requirement that the FFL,s are above the highest recorded groundwater levels as shown on supplementary information submitted as

        part of the planning application.

10.  Conditions (3) and (34) address this issue.

11.  Condition (9) requires details of external lighting to be submitted and approved by the Waste Planning Authority

12.  Condition (1) removes Permitted Development Rights such that before the introduction of any additional fixed plant, machinery, buildings 

       or structures and erections their details require the prior approval of the Waste Planning Authority.  

I remain confident therefore that the issues the SDRA wanted to see covered as previously provided by you, have been reflected in the formal decision notice and accordingly the concerns of local residents along with those others raised by consultees have all been addressed to the extent that they secure proper control over the development.'

Kind regards

Sharon  

Sharon Thompson

Head of Planning Applications 

Planning and Environment,

Enterprise and Environment

Kent County Council  Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX

Internal: x6052

External: 01622 696052

www.kent.gov.uk/planning

 Please consider the environment before printing this email

---

From: Dave Motley [mailto:dave@davemotley.co.uk]
Sent: 04 April 2011 17:16
To: Thompson, Sharon - EE PE; King, Richard - MEM
Cc: Carey, Susan - MEM
Subject: Otterpool Waste Treatment - conditions
Importance: High

Dear Sharon

I am a long standing resident in the Village of Sellindge for over 27 years. It will not surprise you that I am absolutely appalled at the decision of KCC to approve Countrystyle’ Planning Application. I find this absolutely irresponsible – how can a waste plant be put in a Village, massive impact on local roads, noise, dust and water pollution and local residents and the long standing Airport Café?

I do not know how such a site can be approved to exist and operate in the COUNTRYSIDE – that is what it is here – it is not an industrial site!! We are real people, with kids and grandkids – how can you sleep at night and live with yourself?

I totally agree with ‘Recycling’ but clearly any responsible councillor would put this in the correct location. You know all this as I know many many people have told you already but somehow you do not ‘hear’ the obvious?

What will it take for you to listen? Is it too late for the matter to be reconsidered and put in an appropriate location?

On a second particular point, I have real problems with understanding how the local road infrastructure can cope with the current increasing volume of traffic, let alone with this massive increase. My concern is other roads not necessarily directly used by Countrystyle vehicles will suffer greatly – i.e. the A20 through Sellindge and Swan Lane!! Is there a report of the review that took place and by who? I would like a copy please?    

On a third point, the minutes clearly show the conditions (except the first) suggested by Sellindge & District Residents’ Association (of which I am a member) would all be covered in a manner so they could be enforced. BUT I don’t see where our conditions have been clearly included (no appendix or similar?), and that being the case I can’t understand why they have not been? The planning approval document as issued does not conform to the requirements of the motion to approve the ‘agreed conditions’ that was voted on by the Committee. Can you please explain how the correct conditions are to be inserted – this is crucial!!  

I look forward to your complete response by reply.

Regards

Dave Motley

Let's sort out this problem

The article below appeared in the Folkestone Herald, dated 19th May 2011, page 14:

Residents plan how to protest - Anger over developments

The article below appeared in the Folkestone Herald, dated 19th May 2011, on page 5:

Sharon Thompson, KCC, says KCC has not been to see a similar plant

........ I had a response from Sharon Thompson saying that KCC had not been to see a plant such as the proposed one in operation....which, in itself is ridiculous given that they have passed the proposal!

Communities should not have developments enforced upon them.

The following article was published in the Kentish Express 14th April:

Sellindge Masterplan Final - Consolidated

The consultants employed by Shepway to assist with the 15 year LDF housing plan have now issued their final report. It is available on their website www.sellindgefutures.org.uk in the download section or can be viewed via this link: 

Sellindge Masterplan Final - Consolidated

Recycling - why here - 62 other sites not selected by Countrystyle - why? Judicial Review

From: Mavis Turton <mavis.turton@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Response to your Query : - Ref:DWOE000228375 - FW: Sellindge Residents' Association,Kent
To: ccu.correspondence@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Sunday, 8 May, 2011, 9:36

Dear Mr Griffiths, We all heartily agree with everything you say about the need for sensible recycling, and Sellindge people are not going against this policy.  What we are objecting to is the environmental impact of having such a site so near residential property.  Indeed, a thriving restaurant business on the A20 is a matter of metres away from the entrance of the site, where diesel fumes and waste smells will have a major impact on their trade.  Indeed, I do not believe the business, which is well patronises, will survive.  A village is not the place for such a development, and very narrow winding stretches of road will present a major threat to safety of other road users, considering that an estimated (according to the developer) 40,000 heavy lorries will be using it each year.  A lorry will enter the site about every 8 minutes.  Sixty two other sites were passed over by Countrystyle Developments, and I just do not believe there was a more suitable place to build. We have a qualified engineer and surveyor on the Sellindge Residents' Association, and he has asked questions which I do not believe have yet been answered. At the KCC meeting, there were fifteen members of planning, three of whom fell asleep during the process, not deciding for themselves either.  They were told by Mrs Sharon Thomson that they have to vote in agreement to the planning application.The Council should be there to uphold the best interests of the people, and it is is plainly not being done. Two thousand villagers signed a petition against the site virtually everyone who lives in the village.  Our Parish Council, the District Council of Shepway, our Conservative County Councillor, and Damian Collins, Conservative MP for Shepway, all opposed the planning application.  We were just ridden over roughshod. Having seen "Democracy" in action for myself, having attended the meeting, I have decided that there is no point in ever going to the polls again, and I have voted in every election since I was old enough to do so.  I am now 72.  I was disgusted that members of the KCC who were deciding our future, not only fell asleep during the process, but would have been paid quite handsomely for attending this farcical spectacle. I do thank you for your reply, and we shall go on agitating for more information, and are hoping to seek a judicial review.  Regards, Mavis Turton --- On Wed, 4/5/11, ccu.correspondence@defra.gsi.gov.uk <ccu.correspondence@defra.gsi.gov.uk> wrote: From: ccu.correspondence@defra.gsi.gov.uk <ccu.correspondence@defra.gsi.gov.uk> Subject: Response to your Query : - Ref:DWOE000228375 - FW: Sellindge Residents' Association,Kent To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 11:27 Dear Mrs Turton, Thank you for your email of 10 April to the Secretary of State detailing your concerns about a Materials Recycling Facility & Anaerobic Digestion Plant proposed at Otterpool Quarry, Ashford Road, Sellinge, Ashford, Kent. I have been asked to reply. This Government is working towards a zero waste economy, and carrying out a Waste Review to develop policies to meet this ambition. We expect to report back findings in May or June 2011. In addition, the EU Waste Framework Directive requires us to apply a ‘waste hierarchy’ that ranks waste management options in order of environmental preference: prevention, preparation for reuse, recycling, energy recovery and, finally, disposal (e.g. landfill). Defra is working to transpose this hierarchy into UK law to minimise the burden on businesses and regulators and reduce waste. The Government is also committed to obtaining more of our energy from renewable sources, and is a strong supporter of Anaerobic Digestion (AD) technology, although does not advocate this exclusively. Ultimately it is local authorities, rather than the Government, who are responsible for deciding how waste is managed in local areas. Defra believes that local authorities are better placed to make decisions on local waste management strategy, so does not normally interfere. Similarly, Defra is not a party in the planning approvals process, as it is local authorities who secure appropriate planning and licensing permission, processes which involve assessing potential environmental impacts, along with proximity to housing, road network and likely changes in traffic flow. The waste technology chosen will reflect varying local circumstances. For residual waste, the Government expects to see technology options appraised logically and thoroughly, minimising the Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) going to landfill, whilst maximising renewable energy and recovery of materials. The Secretary of State has powers to ‘call in’ a particular environmental permit application and can have appellate function further down the line. To fulfil these potential roles, she must be able to demonstrate even-handed, unbiased, properly directed, and independent consideration. The procedure must remain fair and avoid any appearance of bias by not being engaged in particular applications or taking into account private representations. She cannot, therefore, comment on the specific aspects of this case. I hope you find this information helpful. Yours sincerely,  Anthony Griffiths Customer Contact Unit Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked<br>for known viruses whilst within Defra systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Defra's computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

Junction 11 to Newingreen - A20 width at Narrowest point- extra 40,000 lorries - their width

From: county.hall@kent.gov.uk <county.hall@kent.gov.uk> Subject: EFED3B74DA40D RE: Otterpool Lane Waste Site To: "mavis turton" <mavis.turton@btinternet.com> Date: Thursday, 28 April, 2011, 9:11  Dear Mavis Thank you for your email regarding Otterpool Lane waste site. Your request has been logged and allocated to the appropriate team within Kent Highway Services. You are able to track the status of your request by clicking on the following link: www.kent.gov.uk/KHSFaults For any further communication regarding your query please quote this reference number: 17811117.  Kind regards Mark  Customer Service Advisor Telephone: 08458 247 800 --------------------Original Message-------------------- From: mavis turton <mavis.turton@btinternet.com> Sent: 2011/04/27 09:29:03 To: county.hall@kent.gov.uk Subject: Otterpool Lane Waste Site Dear Sir or Madam, I am a member of Sellindge Residents’ Association, and as you will be aware, we have fought the granting of planning for a waste site and anaerobic digester facility site on the A20, adjoining Otterpool Lane, Sellindge. One of our concerns, amongst many, is the logistics of access to the site. I am writing to ask you if you could give me the width of the road at its narrowest point in the section between Junction 11 of the M20 and the Newingreen Junction with Stone Street. I note from Mr Sweetland that your department considers that an extra 40,000 odd lorries per year is insignificant compared with the number of lorries using this stretch of road on their way to the Lympne Industrial Site. As well as providing information on the width at its narrowest point, could you let us have the measurement of the width of the long European lorries and also the width of Countrystyle Developments’ lorries. I am sure you would want to reassure us on this matter.  We will be happy to check any figures you give us. Thank you for your attention, Mavis Turton

A20 - number of vehicles per day

My reply to Mr Sweetland Mavis --- On Thu, 28/4/11, Mavis Turton <mavis.turton@btinternet.com> wrote: From: Mavis Turton <mavis.turton@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: 12170 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge To: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk Date: Thursday, 28 April, 2011, 19:56 Dear Mr Sweetland, 23,000 vehicles per day on a road such as the A20 is disgraceful.  This would, I am sure, equate to a line of vehicles "nose to tail".  Could you tell me how many vehicles per day use the M20, because I would think the numbers you mention would be more in line with the number of vehicles on the M20, rather than on an inadequate A road. I also read your comments about Councillor Jennie Hollingsby.  I am worried that you appear to indicate that Jennie has been less than honest. I would have thought that any development such as the Otterpool Lane one, would be important enough to advise each household in the district personally.  We are not talking about an application for change of use of  a small business, nor for the building of a large conservatory.  What has been imposed on us is a major eyesore.  This, together with the proposed housing development of 250 extra houses, and the proposed wind farm, are an anathema.  Three bridges cut our village in half, and we do not benefit from any of them, neither do we benefit from the electricity converter station.  We will most certainly NOT benefit from the construction of a waste site. I ask you, would you trust the developers to carry out a Transport Assessment, when they mislead us over the possibility of representatives from the village being able to visit such a site as theirs.  We were told that the nearest one was in the Outer Hebrides, or alternatively in Europe, Denmark I believe.  Blatantly untrue, as there were two nearby, in Ealing, which is no more than about 70 miles away, and also in Nottingham, which is eminently as reachable.  Clearly, in my opinion, they are not to be trusted. I am still awaiting the answer to my request to Highways that they furnish us with the width of the narrowest part of the stretch of the A20 between Junction 11 and the Newingreen Junction.  I have also requested that they tell us the width of the lorries which use the Lympne Industrial Estate, and those used by Countrystyle Developments. Also, under the Freedom of Information Act, I have requested, in a letter to Paul Carter, copies of all letters, emails, and KCC Minutes pertaining to Countrystyle Developments and their planning application for the Otterpool Site.  I know that KCC has to comply with this request within 20 working days.  I would have thought that I would have received an acknowledgement of that request by now, particularly as I know that another Sellindge resident has made the same request.  I understand he has not received an acknowledgement either. Yours sincerely, Mavis Turton --- On Thu, 28/4/11, EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> wrote: From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> Subject: 12170 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com Date: Thursday, 28 April, 2011, 14:50 Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland Dear Mrs Turton Thank your for your further email dated 12 April 2011.  I have raised your concerns about the impact on the highway with the Divisional Transport Manager.  He advises that Kent Highway Services were unable to oppose the planning application for the above site on the basis of the information submitted which accompanied the application.  The developers were required to carry out a full Transport Assessment which takes account of all of the vehicle movements on the surrounding highway network. The A20 is a principle route which in accordance with the guidance documents issued by the Department for Transport is capable of carrying approximately 23,000 vehicles per day before the performance of the route begins to break down.  The actual traffic counts in this location currently only amount to about 6,650 vehicles per day.  By 2018 with additional development proposed for the District and natural traffic growth this figure is forecast to be about 8,000 vehicles per day.  The A20 therefore has more than sufficient spare capacity currently to take additional traffic.   The proposed use of the site is likely to generate approximately 152 lorry movements per weekday, broken down this equates to about 8 HGV lorries in and then out of the access per hour plus approximately 40 car trips per day by staff and visitors to the site.   Improvements to the site access will make it easy for lorries to turn towards J11 of the M20 but impossible for them to turn towards Sellindge.  Of the accident data contained in the Transport Assessment for the surrounding and nearby area none of the accidents were attributed to slow moving lorry movement.   The A20 between J11 of the M20 and the application site is part of a signed advisory lorry route for vehicles accessing Lympne Industrial Estate.  There is no crash data to suggest that problems have occurred in the past with lorries using this stretch of road.   The percentage increase in traffic movements generated by this proposal on the A20 is relatively minimal and KCC are committed to improving the condition of Kent’s roads and are currently testing new techniques to improve effectiveness, and where possible reduce the cost of repairs as part of our ruthless pursuit of improved routine maintenance, value for money and keeping Kent moving.    In terms of publicity arrangements and whether Councillor Hollingsby would have been aware of the proposal, I can only refer you to my earlier comments.  The planning application was publicised in accordance with the necessary procedures and this included providing copies to Shepway District Council.    I am not in a position to comment on how the district council chooses to relay when applications are received to their councillors which is a matter for them to decide.  The application was also advertised in the local press and on site and via various consultation process which were referred to in my previous correspondence. There is no third party right of appeal for local residents who are aggrieved by a planning decision.  This right is currently only available to the applicant.  Any such appeal will consider the planning merits of a proposal.  A judicial review of a decision is possible by other parties, but this is only on a point of law and cannot consider planning arguments.   I hope the above information adequately addresses your concerns.   Yours sincerely  Bryan Sweetland  From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com] Sent: 12 April 2011 18:29 To: EHW Priority Enquiries - EE Subject: Re: 12141 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge Dear Mr Sweetland, Thank you once more for replying to my letter. I note your point that the DTM considers that 43,000 lorry movements is a "relatively low number of additional movements when considering the number already using the A20".  I travel along the A20 quite a lot, and although there are a number of long vehicles on the road, the number is nowhere near 43,000 per year, 160 odd per day.  I have contacted the Highways Department, and will do so again asking them, if they have quoted this opinion, how many lorries already pass along that stretch of road on a daily basis, and I would surely bet that he does not even know. I agree that the necessary repairs would be undertaken, but at considerable traffic chaos with traffic lights in place. You seem to be of the opinion that Mrs Jennie Hollingsby would have known about the planning application for the sludge site, but at the village hall meeting, she categorically stated that she knew nothing about it.  I am hoping to find someone who will explain this. I expect you by now are regarding me as a bit of a thorn in your side, but compared to the years of daily inconvenience we are facing, it is nothing. I understand that although we have no avenue of appeal against the granting of planning permission,  apparently we do have the right to ask for a judicial review in the High Court.  There is a barrister handling exactly the same cases as we are trying to deal with, the granting of two waste sites in the London area.  If successful, they will have their councils' decisions "quashed", and although the applicant for planning may seek to reapply for panning permission it is a lengthy process, and often apparently, the applicants for planning seek another less contentious site for their business, especially because the councils concerned have to be more cautious in their decision making process. Regards, Mavis Turton  --- On Tue, 12/4/11, EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> wrote: From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> Subject: 12141 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com Date: Tuesday, 12 April, 2011, 10:02 Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland Dear Ms Turton Thank you for your further e mail sent on 4 April 2011 requesting an explanation over the publicity arrangements that were undertaken following the receipt of the planning application. I understand from the Head of Planning Applications Group, Sharon Thompson, that upon receipt of the application standard procedures were adopted in respect of formal registration following validation and the subsequent publicity that was undertaken. Following the application having been formally validated Shepway District Council were amongst a number of statutory consultee consulted prior to which they were also sent an advanced copy of the documentation as soon as the County Council had received it. As an authority Shepway District Council would have therefore been fully aware of when the application was made although I am afraid I am not in a position to comment on how the district council chooses to relay when applications are received to their councillors which is a matter for them to decide. As you are aware the application was initially publicised by the posting of a site notice on site which you have indicated was seen by a local resident. The posting of site notices at sites the subject of planning applications of this nature is a statutory requirement and in addition given that this represented a major application also had to be advertised in a local newspaper. In addition, although not a statutory requirement, the County Council also writes to individual neighbours most directly affected by the proposal.   In this particular case I understand some 11 neighbouring properties nearest to the site were initially formally notified. Following the re-submission of the application accompanied by an environmental statement these neighbours along with a further 129 local residents who had made representations by that stage were again notified and a further full round of consultations including Shepway District Council along with Sellindge, Lympne and Stanford Parish Councils. Mrs Thompson has therefore assured me that in her opinion the formal publicity and consultation arrangements were undertaken fully in accordance with the statutory requirements. When considering applications in respect of impacts from lorry traffic, development plan policies seek to ensure that vehicles are able to gain ready access onto the primary route network.   The A20 represents part of the primary route network in the County. In considering the application in the context of the existing network capacity having regard to existing traffic movements and the number of additional movements generated by the proposal, the Divisional Transport Manager ( DTM) raised no objection to the proposal subject to a number of conditions including restricting the maximum number of lorry movements to and from the site.    Given the relatively low number of additional movements that would be generated by the proposal compared to the number of existing movements on the local network the DTM did not consider that any offsite improvements were warranted. With regard to the need to undertake ongoing maintenance to the local route network, as applies to any stretches of the public highway in general, maintenance will be undertaken as and when it is judged necessary by the DTM. Yours sincerely Bryan Sweetland From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com] Sent: 04 April 2011 19:44 To: EHW Priority Enquiries - EE Subject: Re: 12099 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge Dear Mr Sweetland, Could you please explain one point to me?  Why were the people of Sellindge, including our Shepway councillor, Mrs Jennie Hollingsby, completely unaware of the application put in by Countrystyle Developments, when all the other surrounding villagers were aware.  After all, Mrs Hollingsby is Head of Planning for Shepway Council. Why was she not made aware?  We are the village most affected by the proposals. It took the chance passing of a local resident passing the proposed site to bring the notice to our attention, when he spotted a small notice at the entrance to the site, along a stretch of road not accustomed to pedestrians. Going back to my objection on the grounds that the access road between Junction 11 of the M20 and Newingreen junction is entirely unsuitable for the extra traffic volume, who will foot the bill when the already fragile road surface is damaged by 840 large vehicles per week, and I have been generous in not including the Saturday morning  movements. I daresay you will tell me that the ratepayers of Kent will have to meet the costs of repair. I am such a ratepayer, and the majority of my annual rates bill goes to County Hall.  So in effect you will be telling me that I have to pay for road damage caused by 840 heavy vehicles weekly, 43,680 lorries per year, again I have been generous in not including the Saturday movements. Forty three thousand, six hundred and eighty lorry movements, in addition to the volume of lorries already accessing the Lympne Industrial Estate is a lot of lorries in anyone's language. The above figure is just for one year.  Our roads are already in a fragile condition all over the County, with many potholes causing damage to cars.  We are told that the cost of repairing them is considerable.  The narrow portion of the A20 that I am concerned about leaves no room for vehicles to avoid the potholes which will be the result of the heavy volume of traffic anticipated. I would appreciate your views, and definitely an answer to the question of why it took a chance finding of a notice by a passer-by to alert the village about the planning application, when other villages less affected knew all about it.  Yours sincerely, Mavis Turton --- On Wed, 30/3/11, EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> wrote: From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> Subject: 12099 - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com Cc: Paul.Carter-LEADER@kent.gov.uk, Richard.King@kent.gov.uk, Susan.Carey@kent.gov.uk Date: Wednesday, 30 March, 2011, 10:54 Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland Dear Ms Turton Thank for your further email in response to my previous correspondence in which I promised to forward Sharon Thompson (Head of Planning Applications Group) your concerns; in order that they could be brought to the attention of Planning Applications Committee members at their meeting earlier this month (when they were due to consider the application). Mrs Thompson has since confirmed that members were able to take into account the contents of you email before they resolved that permission be granted for the development. In reaching their decision, whilst members were aware of the strength of local feeling, they nevertheless were also mindful of the need to comply with the general principles which must be followed governing how individual applications are to be considered. In addition to the objections received from local residents, regard must also be had to relevant government advice and development policy against which such proposals have to be considered. To ignore this would have laid the County Council open to a legal challenge and had permission been refused, unless it could be demonstrated that this was based on clear policy grounds, it is unlikely the Council could have successfully defended its decision at a public inquiry. In which case the applicant would have been able to seek substantial costs against the County Council. Whilst members were mindful of objections raised by the Parish Council, Shepway District Council and the local member, Susan Carey, they were also aware that none of the technical consultees had raised an objection. This included the Environment Agency (E.A.) who will regulate the operation of the facility through a separate Environmental Permit. Notwithstanding that planning permission has been granted, unless the applicant can satisfy the E.A that he can meet their operational parameters a Permit would not be issued.  Other matters, particularly traffic impacts, were addressed in the officer's report and the permission will include specific conditions restricting the maximum numbers of daily vehicle movements to and from  the site and also improvements to the site access, which will be designed to preclude vehicles from entering  and the leaving the site in the direction of the Village of Sellindge to the west.   Whilst I appreciate that this is unlikely to satisfy your concerns I do hope that you will appreciate that in reaching a decision on the application the County Council had to abide by the relevant legislation. As requested I have passed on a copy of your email to Paul Carter, Leader of the County Council and to Richard King, the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee. Brian Sweetland Member for Gravesham East Cabinet Member - Environment, Highways & Waste - a 'Can Do' Organisation  Kent County Council From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com] Sent: 16 March 2011 10:08 To: EHW Priority Enquiries - EHW Subject: Re: Planning Application - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge Dear Mr Sweetland, Thank you for passing on my letter to the people responsible for dealing with the Planning application.I was present at the meeting, during which I felt that although there was some heckling, the residents of Sellindge were very restrained in their responses to points raised by both parties.  This is probably because the main bulk of the people present were fairly elderly, myself included.  Should such a meeting have been held at the weekend, when younger residents would not have  been at work, it might have been different. We went to the meeting, feeling deep in our hearts, that it was a "done deal", and none of us were really surprised at the outcome. It now begs the philosophical question, "What is more important, Democracy or the rule of a few minor laws?" Democracy is obviously not that important, although our society was based on it, or is supposed to be, because democratic principles were blatantly ignored considering that almost to a man, the petition against the development was signed by the whole population of Sellindge.  The development was opposed by the Parish Council, Shepway Council, and  our KCC councillor, Susan Carey,  Where does that leave us?  Well, a few laws have frightened those who should be making decisions on our behalf, and they have decided to take the easy way out and grant planning permission.  None of the attending residents were impressed by the comments that such developments are considered to be looked on favourably by the statement that, "It should be allowed if the benefit to the greater number should overrule the detriment of the few." Much was said about ameliorating the impact of the plant, but mostly it was about the visual impact.  Yes of course this can be made acceptable, and I am sure that the majority of people there were not so much concerned with the visual aspect of the application, but with something far more serious, that cannot in any way be "ameliorated", namely the amount of lorry movements per day, and the effect they will have on the village. 150-168 movements, and we can guess which will be the real number, would not be suitable for the stretch of road which has to carry the, especially road between the Junction 11 of the M20 to Newingreen turnoff.  If you look on Virtual World on the computer, you will see how narrow the road is by the width of the lorry shown travelling at the time the image was recorded.  The same website shows clearly that lorries leaving the Lympne Industrial estate, already "overnight" in the lay-by. It clearly demonstrates the fact that lorries do not enter and exit the Industrial estate by using the M20 Junction 11.  It is plain to see that lorries will still pass through Sellindge Village, and that waste lorries will not adhere 100% to the limitations that are suggested on lorry access.  Sadly it is human nature to take the quickest convenient route, if nobody happens to be looking.  There will of course be extra vehicles used by those working at the plant.  Which route will they be taking?  If they come from the Ashford direction of the A20, will they not be hampered by the proposed design of the lorry access. Even if the lorry access is adhered to, the number of movements will increase significantly the diesel fumes in air quality.  Lorries do not switch their engines off whilst waiting to unload.  We all know that buses' engines idle when stopped, and are not switched off. The danger to other vehicles, not just at the entry to the proposed plant has not been taken seriously enough, nor the impact of the increased number during the times when Operation Stack is in force.  I could go on, but that application should have been refused purely on the unsuitability of the road to accommodate the lorries alone, let alone the massive effects on local people, the Airport Cafe perhaps being the most affected, being just yards away from the entrance, If Countrystyle Developments are serious in wishing to do the best for the people of Sellindge, perhaps they could be asked by KCC to undertake the widening of the road between Junction 11 and Newingreen, together with meeting the cost of purchasing land to do so.  Maybe that is a condition which should be imposed on them by the Environment Agency, or anyone else who has jurisdiction, such as KCC Highways. As all my letters are sent to the Residents Association for their files, I would be grateful of any comments received by me. I would be grateful if my letter can be shown to the Planning Committee. and of course to Paul Carter, who I think would be innterested. Sincerely , Mavis Turton  --- On Tue, 15/3/11, EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> wrote: From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> Subject: Planning Application - Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com Date: Tuesday, 15 March, 2011, 9:48 Sent on behalf of Mr Bryan Sweetland Dear Ms Turton Thank you for your email concerning the planning application at the Otterpool Quarry, Sellindge.  I note your very strong objection to the application and have sent your email to the Head of Planning Applications so that she can bring your concerns to the attention of the Committee prior to them making a decision on the application.   Planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan and have to be considered on the evidence that is submitted.  In Kent that responsibility is given to the Council's Planning Application Committee and other elected members of the Council do not play a role in determining planning applications. Yours sincerely  Bryan Sweetland     ------------------Original Message-------------------- From: mavis turton <mavis.turton@btinternet.com> Sent: 2011/03/13 12:01:31 To: county.hall@kent.gov.uk Subject: For Paul Carter Dear Mr Carter, You have written to me before about issues which were concerning the people of Sellindge, and I find myself writing to you again in desperation. Next Tuesday, the 15thMarch, the Planning Department will be making a decision about whether to allow the planning application of Countrystyle Developments, who wish to blight  our village of Sellindge with perhaps the most abhorrent scheme that we have ever faced as a community, namely the construction of a waste and anaerobic digester plant on the edge of our village.  The proposed development is, I am sure you will know, close to residential properties and also a thriving restaurant business. It has been said that “technical problems” associated with the site can be overcome, but this is just not true.  How do you overcome the technical issues when 150 lorry movements are planned PER DAY.  The approach roads are much too narrow, and the interruption to normal traffic along the A20 will be intolerable to those going to and from work/school.  The carbon monoxide emissions cannot be overcome, nor the smell issuing from the lorries carrying the waste food etc.   In bad weather conditions and dark evenings or mornings will render the traffic positively dangerous.  Many of these sites have vermin and flies problems, and the prevailing South Westerly winds will carry bad smells right over the village.  The developers themselves mentioned “ammonia and sulphur dioxide”.   When I spoke at the meeting at the village hall, I said that if I remember my science at school well enough, those gases smell like urine soaked nappies and rotten eggs. I have lived in Sellindge for quite some time, and we seem to have borne the brunt of anything undesirable. Sellindge has had its life blighted by SEVEN different threats to the community, three of which have already come about.  The M20 motorway, the High Speed Rail Link and the Electricity Converter Station, all major eyesores. Why on earth are we now being asked to absorb FOUR MORE. I speak of the proposed wind turbine development, with its masts of around three times the height of Ashford Church,  the threat of the proposed lorry park, for 3,000 lorries, and the proposed housing development of goodness knows how many more houses.  Worst of all, the dread that the KCC will pass the planning application by Countrystyle Developments to build the Waste disposal facility at Otterpool Lane. I went to the first of the meetings that were held in our village hall, when representatives of Countrystyle Developments told us, when we enquired whether we could visit any of this type of plant, that there were only two others, on in the Outer Hebrides and the other on the Continent somewhere.  This was completely untrue, as there are others in this country much closer, in Ealing, London for example, and Nottingham, just to name two.  Clearly it was not in their interest for us to examine them.  Surely you are not going to allow a company who made such deceitful statements hoodwink you too, by saying that any problems can be overcome? You, as leader of the KCC must hold considerable sway over the outcome, and  I am sure that after reading my letter you will think, as we all do, that already Sellindge has had more than its fair share of attack by planners, and  that especially  in the case of the waste disposal site, there must be far more suitable places to build such atrocities than in a village. Yours sincerely, Mavis Turton, longtime resident of Sellindge