Operation Stack's £25m solution will soon be revealed - Kentish Express 7 July 2011

The Kentish Express published an article on 7th July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Power slump as wind farms are left becalmed - Telegraph 1 July 2011

The Telegraph published an article on 1st July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Paul Carter response - Otterpool application, Hollingbourne, Lorry park

From: Paul.Carter-LEADER <Paul.Carter-LEADER@kent.gov.uk>

To: caroleandcolin4 <caroleandcolin4@aol.com>

Sent: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:12

Subject: RE: Your letter dated 28th.July.

Dear Mr Abbott

Thank you for your email of 12th July 2011 in response to my reply to your earlier letter of 25th May 2011. Your latest correspondence raises further questions about the Otterpool Quarry Planning application and an earlier planning application at Hollingbourne. I respond to the concerns that you have raised below.

Otterpool Quarry I am aware that you and others have been in correspondence with the County Council on this case and are very disappointed that planning permission was granted.  This was an unpopular planning decision locally but one where planning policy was strongly in support of the development for a waste management facility.  Planning decisions have to be decided on their planning merits and not on the basis of a popularity vote.  In this particular case, the Planning Applications Committee were fully aware of the strength of local objection and considered this against planning policy and technical consultee views such as the Environment Agency and the Highway Authority that had no technical objection to the development.  The views of local residents were considered but were not overriding in this instance. Planning decisions are taken by the County Council's Planning Applications Committee which is a quasi-legal process and not one that I as Leader of the Council is directly involved in.  I am satisfied that the decision was properly considered and I do not have any discretion in this matter.   I advised Damian Collins MP of this when he wrote to me in April.  I have also advised him that I do not therefore think it would be necessary for a representative to attend the village and explain the decision further.   The planning decision cannot be reconsidered. There has been much detailed correspondence with officers and elected Members on the application both prior and post the decision. This included two site meetings and two public meetings where the planning application process was discussed and a large number of local residents attended the committee meeting.  In addition, following the planning decision, representatives from the County Council including the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, the Head of Planning Applications and Susan Carey, the local Member met with representatives from the Sellindge and District Residents Association. I understand that all correspondence is posted on a local website thereby widening access to the material. 

Hollingbourne Recycling I assume that you are referring to a planning application that was made in 2004 at Greenway Court.  This application was not comparable with the Otterpool Quarry proposal for a number of reasons and was never tested through the planning process.  The Hollingbourne proposal was for an open windrow composting facility, whereas the Sellindge application proposed an anaerobic digestion plant and a materials recycling facility to be carried out in 3 buildings. The Hollingbourne planning application was also unpopular and attracted strong objection including from myself. However the application was never considered by the Planning Applications Committee as the applicant withdrew the application.  There as on for this as shown on the planning application file is due to a covenant on the land.  I cannot speculate what the outcome would have been, had the application been determined.

Lorry Park I note the comments that you make.

I trust that the above responds to your concern.  Yours sincerely,

Paul Carter Leader of Kent County Council Please help to save paper by NOT printing this email unless absolutely necessary.

From: colin abbott

Sent: 12 July 2011 15:13

To: Carter, Paul – LEADER

Subject: Your letter dated 28th.July.

Dear Mr.Carter,

I refer to your letter dated as above which I received on 7th.July.In my letter to you dated 25th.May  I asked you to comment specifically on Damian Collins letter which I enclosed. You have not done this. In his letter Mr Collins stated that,in respect of Otterpool Quarry he had asked you to exercise any discretion  you had in support of local peoples’ views. In the event all local feeling was completely ignored. Why have you not commented on this? He also asked that you send representatives of KCC to the village to explain the decision. Again you have made no comment on this. When will you be arranging for someone, preferably yourself,to come? I also asked you to comment on the Hollingbourne Recycling application of a few years ago when all the objections you put forward to keep this away from your doorstep were equally valid to the Otterpool application which you supported. Can you please explain why. With regard to the Lorry Park proposal please do not have the sheer effrontery  to ever inflict this on the vicinity of Sellindge. What about siting it near Maidstone or somewhere nearer your locality. I look forward to a more detailed response.

C.Abbott   Sellindge resident

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 24^th 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 15^th 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)

Otterpool Lane - contamination and pollution control

From: EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk <EHWPriority.Enquiries@kent.gov.uk> Subject: 12275 - Otterpool, Letter to Defra To: mavis.turton@btinternet.com Date: Wednesday, 22 June, 2011, 16:22 Sent on behalf of Bryan Sweetland  Dear Mrs Turton Thank you for your email dated 28 May 2011 addressed to Mr Carter and your email to me of 31 May 2011.  I am sorry for the delay in replying.   Your emails raise concern about the waste management proposal at Otterpool Quarry and in particular the clean-up of any contamination on site and viewing arrangements for alternative waste management facilities. In relation to your contamination concerns this matter was addressed at the planning application stage and will be further examined as part of the necessary environmental permit process.  The planning application included a stage 1 risk assessment and the Council’s committee report covered contamination and ground water details in some detail.  A copy of the Committee report and application documents is available on the Council’s website.     The Environment Agency, as the Council’s technical advisors on this issue were satisfied with the information submitted.  As part of the Environmental Permit process, the Environment Agency will look at contamination and pollution control aspects in greater detail than is required at the planning application stage. I  note your comments about viewing alternative waste sites as part of the planning process.  There is no requirement for such viewing and applications have to be determined on the basis of the submitted information. Yours sincerely  Bryan Sweetland From: Horton, Debbie - BSS GL Sent: Thu 02/06/2011 9:45 AM To: Mavis Turton Cc: Thompson, Sharon - EE PE; Sweetland, Bryan - MEM Subject: RE: RE: Attachment to Defra Email Dear Mrs Turton, Thank you for your e-mail of 28 May addressed to Paul Carter.  Mr Carter is currently away from the office and I have therefore copied your letter to Bryan Sweetland requesting that he responds to you on behalf of Mr Cater . Kind regards Debbie Mrs Debbie Horton PA to the Leader of Kent County Council __________________________________________ Room 1.75,  Sessions House, County Hall,  Maidstone,  Kent,  ME14 1XQ Tel: 01622 694283         Fax:  01622 694085 debbie.horton@kent.gov.uk Please help to save paper by NOT printing this email unless absolutely necessary. P From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com] Sent: 28 May 2011 17:28 To: Carter, Paul - LEADER Subject: Fw: RE: Attachment to Defra Email Dear Mr Carter, As you can see from the attached file,  I have been in touch with DEFRA, as well as the Environment Department, and they tell us that it is your responsibility to see that the site at Otterpool Quarry is cleaned up, because it is KCC who granted planning permission. As there was considerable amounts of waste oil dumped at the site, I am sure you would want to oversee that the developer  bears this in mind before construction is begun.  One of the documents I read stated that the soil should be clear of any contamination from the previous use of the site, namely quarrying, but the contamination as I understand it, was from unauthorised and possibly illegal disposal of diesel oil and creosote etc.  This is obviously not within the use of a quarrying business.  I would not like to think that the developer would not be required to clean the soil itself. However, I know that the Environment Agency requires any contamination of soil to be treated at the expense of the person causing it, as my friend had a  visit  from the Environment people when a farmer noticed a smell of oil near to her boundary.  She was told that if her oil tank had been leaking, she would be liable for any costs incurred in the removal and clean up of the offending soil.  Fortunately, it was not her oil tank which had leaked. Mr Sweetland has now given me the measurements of lorries and road width I have been asking for, but I was a little surprised to see that Countrystyle were the ones who undertook the traffic survey.  I would have thought it should be Highways or some other independent party who did this.  I am also glad that Mr Barratt's questions will be answered, and I thank you for bringing this about. Kind regards, Mavis Turton --- On Thu, 26/5/11, Griffiths, Anthony (SEG) <Anthony.Griffiths@defra.gsi.gov.uk> wrote: From: Griffiths, Anthony (SEG) <Anthony.Griffiths@defra.gsi.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Attachment to Defra Email To: "Mavis Turton" <mavis.turton@btinternet.com> Date: Thursday, 26 May, 2011, 16:26 Dear Ms Turton, Thank you for your reply. My colleagues in the Environment Agency remind us that, within the planning conditions to be met by the operator, is the requirement to safeguard the environment, including remediation of potential land contamination.  As it is Kent County Council who granted the planning permission, please direct any Planning enquiries to them. I hope you find this helpful. Yours sincerely, Anthony Griffiths Customer Contact Unit Defra From: Mavis Turton [mailto:mavis.turton@btinternet.com] Sent: 26 May 2011 15:12 To: Griffiths, Anthony (SEG) Subject: Re: Attachment to Defra Email Dear Mr Griffiths, Thank you for your e mail and attachments. I have read through the information carefully, and I would like to point out something important The report says that the site should be cleared of contaminants associated with the previous use  of the site, namely quarrying.  It does not seem to require Countrystyle to remove pollutants which were dumped there since , which have no association with quarrying, namely that the site was used to dump considerable amounts of waste diesel and creosote, and that this was not discovered by the Sellindge Residents' Association until some hours before planning was granted.  The Chairman of the Sellindge Residents' Association Ronald Lello, was shown onto the site by someone who knew about this dumping, and in Mr Lello's words, "A handful of soil from the surface still had the smell of diesel."  This, even though the site has not been used for any other purpose for many years.  It seems to demonstrate the level of contamination. A friend of mine had a visit from the Environment Department when a farmer noticed a smell of home heating fuel in a field at the back of her house, and she was told that if the fuel had leaked from her oil tank, she would have to pay the cost of removal of the contaminated soil, and the cleaning of it.  Fortunately, it was not her tank which was faulty. I think that now the oil dumping at the Otterpool Quarry,  which appears to be considerable, has been discovered, it should be Countrystyle's responsibility to completely remove the contaminated soil, and have it cleaned, at their expense, and well before work on the site has begun.  I am sure you would agree.  There did not seem to be any importance placed on this at the KCC meeting. I do hope, most sincerely, that you will enforce this rule, which should apply not only to private individuals, but to businesses which must be held responsible as well. I really do not think that KCC is aware of the level of contamination, as I understand they only visited to site once, and briefly. Could you tell me how I can make sure that  all the authorities involved in granting the necessary permits to begin construction have proof that the contaminated soil has been removed and cleaned up. Thank you once again for your help, it is very much appreciated. Kindest regards, Mavis Turton

Shepway LDF Core Strategy - Sellindge - Documentation - How to Access

Below is an email received by a Sellindge resident after a request for the above from Shepway. This email provides information as to how to access the information. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave.Shore@shepway.gov.uk [mailto:Dave.Shore@shepway.gov.uk]
Sent: 05 August 2011 14:40
To: dave@davemotley.co.uk
Subject: RE: Copies please - Shepway Core Strategy etc.

Dear Motley

In terms of accessing, electronically, the Shepway LDF Core Strategy documentation I suggest that you try the following web link.

http://consult.shepway.gov.uk/portal/core_strategy/cspropsubdocconsult

Clicking on the blue 'Read and comment on document' tab will take you through to the document itself. I suggest you then click on the Policy CSD9 link - Sellindge Strategy.

To access the supporting evidence base, including the documents that you have listed below, click on the tab marked 'Supporting document' that is located directly under the 'Read and comment on' tab. Please let me know if you need any further assistance.

Regards

Dave

David Shore
Planning Policy and Economic Development Manager
Shepway District Council
Tel:  01303 853459

Proposal for 30mph limit in villages

The Kentish Express published an article on 18th August 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.

Planning for our district's future - Folkestone Herald 28 July 2011

The Folkestone Herald published an article on 28th July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) first click on the first image, then click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen once, then click on the second image, then once finished reading click on the back arrow again to return to here.

District's future is going to plan - Folkestone Herald 28th July 2011

The Folkestone Herald published an article on 28th July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the link below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen once or twice to return to here.

Stack forum books ministerial meeting - Folkestone Herald 14 July 2011

The Folkestone Herald published an article on 14th July 2011 on the above topic. To read the article (enlarge the print) click on the image below. Once finished, click on the back-arrow at the top left of the screen twice to return to the 'Home' page.