Transcript

Press present. If anyone wishes to avoid being filmed, please let the clerk know immediately. Okay, thank you. I'm just thinking, can people hear okay, or should I turn off that air conditioner thingy? Super, okay. And so, for anyone speaking at the meeting, it's important to speak closely to the microphone, so viewers of the webcast and others in the room can hear you. And if you have a mobile phone or other device, please can you turn it to silent and move it away from the microphone, as it may affect the audio system and distract speakers. Around the rooms are exit signs, and should the fire alarm sound during the meeting, please make your way to the nearest and safest exit, and I can help lead you out the building. So, we've come to the first item on the agenda, which is election of chair, and please can I have a nomination for the position of chair? Mr. Thomas? Yes, I'd like to nominate Mr. Jeremy Eustace for the chair. Thank you very much. And is there a seconder for that? Okay, thank you, Mr. Dixon. And are there any other nominations? Okay, thank you very much. In that case, I declare that Mr. Eustace is chair of the Planning Applications Committee, and I invite you to come up here to the top table, please. Thank you. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to everybody here to the first Planning Applications meeting of the new administration. The second item for the agenda today is the election of a vice chair. Please, can I have a nomination for the position of vice chair? I would like to nominate Councillor Paul Thomas as vice chair. Thank you. And is there a seconder? That's Mr. Mayall. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Fantastic. Right. I declare that Mr. Thomas is now the vice chair of the Planning Applications Committee. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is we have apologies. Are there any substitutes? I have apologies from Mr. Chapman, Mr. Tudor, Mr. Black, and Mrs. Hudson, for whom Mr. Rayner is a substitute. Mr. Rayner, just to thank you very much indeed at the back there. Just want to make sure I know where you are. Thank you. The next item are the minutes from the meeting on the 22nd of January 2025 for approval. I believe you were probably the only person who was here at the time, was that? Are you happy with these minutes? Thank you very much indeed, sir. Great. They are approved. We now have some general matters. I'm going to hand over to Mrs. Thompson to cover any general matters. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. No general matters as such, but I thought it might be helpful, given it's your very first committee, just to identify who we've got with you today to advise you on your planning applications. So, working from the very far right, we have Carolyn McLean, who is the case officer for the D1 item, the North Fleet proposal. We've got the case supervisor, Mary Palmer, to her left. We've got Matt Hogman, the highways officer that will advise you on the highway matters for all three proposals. Then we have, to his left, we have Adam Tomachewski, who is the case officer for both the minerals and waste applications. That's the Folkestone proposal and the Ashford proposal. And obviously, I'll advise you on planning matters as appropriate. So, hopefully, that's helpful, Chairman. Absolutely. Thank you very much. And before we get started, I'd just like to welcome all the officers and appreciate, having read through the papers, the work done today. Sorry, I should have looked to my left. We also represented today by, obviously, James Capson, who's your committee clerk. We've got Sarah Bonzer, representing Legal Services. Thank you, James Capson. Thank you. Again, just because it's your very first meeting, it's your green confidential papers. So, it's all those which list on it all those parties that have made representations on the planning application. And you just need to satisfy yourself that you don't have an interest as a result of looking at that list. And given it's a confidential document with health personal information, I'd please ask you to dispose of it wisely once you leave the Chamber. The committee clerk will check it at the end if you just leave it on the desk. So, when you're declaring whether you have an interest, it's whether any of those parties are known to you in a way that means that you will need to declare an interest. Mr. Rayner. Mr. Chairman, I have to declare an interest as I am a substantial shareholder in the KIA group. And I see that the applicant on D1 is KIA Construction. Thank you, Mr. Rayner. Last opportunity, anybody else? No? Fantastic. Mrs. Thompson, we'd like to move on to the first item, which is C1. If I could hand over to you, please. Thank you, Chairman. I will ask Mr. Tomaszewski to introduce this item for you. Thank you, Chairman. Item C1 is a single report for two planning applications, reference numbers AS250584 and AS250586, which seek to amend two conditions pertaining to the sludge treatment centre to allow access for up to 15 HGVs on bank and other public holidays, which is an increase of nine from the existing planning permissions. This is at the Ashford Wastewater Treatment Works and Sludge Treatment Centre, Kinney's Lane, Ashford. The site is located to the north of Ashford Town Centre, immediately to the north of the M20 motorway. To the east of the site is the Canterbury to Ashford railway line. To the north, beyond the Great Stour River, the land is flat floodplain, beyond which is housing. To the northwest of the site is the Ashford Rugby Club and their playing fields. The Great Stour River is designated a local wildlife site and forms the northern and western boundaries of the wastewater treatment works. The A28 Canterbury Road to the west is the access and egress point into the site and is approached via Kinney's Lane, which is a single carriageway, which also provides access to four residential properties and to the rugby club. Stourfields, the three properties on the northwest side of the access road and Hamilton House to the southeast side, were granted planning permission in the year 2000 and 2003, respectively, by Ashford Borough Council. The A28 Canterbury Road at this point is characterised by ribbon residential development and a number of commercial developments flank the road heading southwest towards the motorway. The properties on either side of the access road on Canterbury Road also have access to the rear of their properties from Kinney's Lane. Ashford Wastewater Treatment Works currently provide sewage treatment to a population of around 105,000, which is predicted to grow to around 119,000 by the year end. The planning applications seek to amend two of the existing conditions pertaining to the sludge treatment centre to allow access for 15 HGVs on bank and other public holidays, an increase of nine from the existing planning permissions. This is in order to improve operational efficiency that's currently restricted by the conditions in place. The currently approved access window on bank and public holidays is 8 o'clock in the morning to 1 o'clock in the afternoon. This would not change and movements on Sundays and Christmas Day would continue to be prohibited. The planning policy context for the proposed development is set out in paragraphs 13 to 14 of the report and consultee responses are set out in paragraphs 15 to 34 of the report and the representations received on the application are summarised in paragraph 29. The applications are being reported to the Planning Applications Committee as a result of objections received from a number of local residents of Kinney's Lane and Canterbury Road. These objections are focused on amenity, traffic grounds and on other operational matters. As I've set out in the report, there is clear national and local planning policy support for the need for the development in sustainability terms and also in waste hierarchy terms. The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether the proposed development is an acceptable use of land rather than the control of processes or emissions where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes as in this case. Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Members will note that the assessment of the proposed development in terms of the need and sustainability, traffic, noise and air quality and odour is set out in paragraphs 31 to 65 of the report and that no objections were received from any technical consultees including Ashford Borough Council, Kennington Community Council, Kent Highways and Transportation and the Environment Agency. The site has been an operational wastewater treatment work since the 1960s for the Ashford catchment area and provides a regional treatment facility. The addition of sludge processing capacity was added in 1998. It offers the only location for treating sludge cake and is the main facility for the south of Kent so forms an important facility in Southern Water's sludge strategy for the area. The operations at the treatment works take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week but vehicle movements associated with the importation of sludge are restricted to Monday to Friday, Saturday mornings and bank and public holidays. There is a recognised need to ensure the stability of the digesters and the site's operation to ensure that the principles of the waste hierarchy are adhered to. On this basis and following the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Waste Policy, the proposals accord with policies CSW1 and CSW2 of the Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The proposed variation of conditions is necessary to enable a stable flow of sewage sludge to optimise the ongoing effective operation of the sludge digestion process at the site. It is acknowledged that the proposals would reduce the risk of amenity and odour issues associated with sludge storage at the Ashford site and at other wastewater treatment works in Kent. And on balance, this amenity improvement outweighs the potential amenity impact of an increase in HGV movements, which effectively amounts to less than two additional vehicles per hour of operation, which is 8am to 1pm on bank and public holidays. The proposed development would also increase the resilience of those wastewater treatment works for which Ashford is the sludge treatment centre and reduce the risk of environmental issues associated with non-compliance with operating permits at these sites. The additional number of HGV movements would be relatively minor in the context of the overall operation of the wastewater treatment works and would only occur on seven bank or public holidays, which excludes Christmas Day per year. I am mindful that the applicant could have sought to spread the 50 movements out across the day by seeking to extend the working hours. However, on balance, I consider it to be preferable to keep the five-hour working hours and consolidate the vehicle movements into this shorter period rather than extending it across a longer period of the day. KCC Highways and Transportation were consulted on the application and have no objections. The additional vehicle movements would have no significant impact on the capacity of the highway network. The proposed numbers and types of vehicle have been demonstrated as the minimum to ensure a steady supply of sludge over the longer bank public holiday weekends and there is no objection from a traffic safety perspective to the proposals. The main amenity impacts are minimal, very localised and largely confined to those residential properties that share the western end of the access road. I am satisfied that the applicant has made every effort to minimise the number of vehicles and time frame within which they could visit the site and I note that these vehicle movement activities are already precluded on Christmas Day and Sundays and providing Southern Water ensure operational management of the drivers and their vehicles, the impacts would be kept to a minimum. The proposed variation of conditions are accepted as necessary to facilitate the ongoing effective operation of the Ashford Wastewater Treatment Works which provides essential wastewater treatment services to Ashford and the surrounding areas in East Kent and South Kent. The proposals are consistent with the policies of the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. My conclusions are set out in full in paragraphs 66 to 71 of the report. However, I consider that the proposal allows for a sustainable management solution to dealing with the sludge arisings that are served by the Sludge Treatment Centre at Ashford. These benefits outweigh the localised amenity impacts and on the basis of the assessment carried out in terms of the impacts associated with noise, air quality, odour and in highway terms, I do not consider there to be justifiable reasons to recommend the application be refused. Section 38.6 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act requires that development be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, I consider that planning permission should be granted. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 72 of the report. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much indeed and again, thank you for preparing the paper in such detail as well. There are no public speakers on this item so for the purpose of facilitating the committee's debate I will move that the officer's recommendation is adopted and ask for a seconder. This does not indicate any predetermination and I have an open mind going into this debate. May I have a seconder for the debate, please? Thank you, Mr. Hever. I move that the officer's recommendation sorry now we move on to the debate do any members have any questions at this time? Mr. Hever. Yeah, I have a question one's historical, two questions and one is quite straightforward Chair, could you ask the appropriate person to explain the level of or degree of enforcement that goes on because these are quite precise restrictions on HGV movements which must have a huge annoyance value for local residents what assurance can they have and we have that whatever might be agreed at this planning committee meeting they'll actually be enforced in an appropriate manner? I'll take that Thank you, Chairman Sorry, thank you Thank you for that question, Mr. Hever There are two, if you like two key areas for enforcement here The site benefits from a permit from the Environment Agency so in terms of pollution control matters so they're strongly monitored and regulated by the EA but likewise the County Council monitors its planning permissions it does so on a reactive basis in the main so if communities are brought to our attention and they're investigated that way and they're then subsequently reported to the Council's regulation committee and officers if they're in the vicinity will usually do an ad hoc visit but mainly it's a real being complied with with the Spanning Commission Does Mr. Hever any follow-up to that? Yes, thank you very much indeed for that, Chair Yeah, my follow-up was obviously the fragility of the wastewater treatment capability and the county is of huge concern to lots of residents so anything that can be done to improve that obviously we're inclined to look at that very positively I was just curious to what the EA said to this Mrs. Thompson mentioned the the EA permit was it have they made any comments on this or made any response about this application at all because it's pretty key to their business Thank you, Chairman Thank you, Mr. Hever we consulted the Environment Agency as part of to comment on the planning application and it's set out in paragraph 23 of your papers and they've raised no comment which if they had regulate and monitor against their environmental permit separately to the planning process but they have no objections to the increase in operational numbers vehicle numbers Mr. Hever is that Yes, thank you, Chair very much Thank you, anybody else Mr. Thomas Thank you, Chair Just one observation I was surprised in paragraph 49 that they couldn't provide quantifiable calculations to justify it and also can we just have confirmation that they had considered extending deliveries the day before the bank holiday weekend and potentially starting earlier to maintain their required storage on site to cover that weekend Then from some of the issues that were raised locally there was the issue of noise bearing in mind this is now going to be a bank holidays whether or not it's possible to put in a condition to get them to look at sound attenuation measures near the residential properties to mitigate against that I noticed they were talking about taking out the speed humps so that the empty lorry noise is reduced and then finally if we could on the informatives where they referred to smells from the vehicles just to confirm that they are operating washdown facilities on site and to continue to get the Southern Water to review their access onto the site because I know that's an ongoing request that they continue to look for an alternative access point Adam do you want to start and then Mrs Thompson will pick up just before you do just a general note only because there's a lot of questions here I think it's just easier for our officers if we were to go like we did with Mr Hever a point at the time and that way we won't miss anything that you've raised or any other members but at the same time give them the opportunity to give the best possible answer so just a note moving forward but thank you very much for the questions yeah thank you chairman the applicant has looked at extending the hours and bringing more material in the day before and I think that's already factored into the proposals the issues with bringing more material in longer and storing it is that the material goes off we want fresh material going in none of this is a particularly pleasant topic but we need fresh sludge that goes into the digesters so the longer it's stored on site impacts the quality that goes into the digesters and also the longer it's on site the more potential impact there is in terms of odour for the vicinity because it's been stored there noise I'm not sure there's any other noise attenuation measures they can do because the noise impact is primarily associated with the vehicles driving past the properties and moving on the operators clearly have to stick to the speed limits that is on Kinney's lane the main concern that neighbours have regularly raised is the issue of the speed bumps we've got two factions some residents like to have the speed bumps because it obviously slows the vehicles down some residents don't like the speed bumps because there is a noise associated with them going up and slowing down going up and sort of the clanking so it's always been a tricky situation some speed bumps have been removed historically to sort of lower that risk the question of access I know that Southern Water continue to look at whether there is access the main if there's any potential to change the access into the site the main option would I think be to have access off the motorway but I think the issue has always been trying to get Highways England or National Highways to agree to that and it's never really gained much traction but they do continue to try and look at feasible options but as it stands the only access in is through Kinney's Lane and there was a question about Odour can you just refresh my memory on what that was to do with they do have cleaning they clean the vehicles and wash them out before they leave the site once they've emptied so that that does happen they do the best they can but there's always going to be potential for some odour coming off these vehicles because of the nature of what's in them but they do make their best endeavours to clean them prior to the leaving site thank you mr thompson is there anything you want to add just to mr thompson any further thank you they're comprehensive answers thank you any other questions or points to raise mr sang thank you chairman just really a simple question on lorry movements how are these monitored because there is some concern that existing conditions are being breached how are these monitored is it possible is there any data that for example our enforcement officers could review should the need arise the operator records all vehicle movements coming into the site and are required to maintain records of these movements and they're required to provide them to us if and when we require this information to be provided we could also if we were to carry out visits we can manually count the vehicles as well and local residents have always been very keen to record this as well for us and highlight the movement numbers especially on bank holidays so there are various ways of us checking those figures thank you thank you any other questions or observations right okay move on for the vote you ready so please can I have a show of hands for those in favour of the motion and those against any abstentions sorry just myself as chair the motion is carried thank you fantastic thank you while we're getting the tech ready the next item introduces C2 this is section 73 application to vary conditions at Maclears yard Caesars way in Folkestone mrs thompson could I ask you please to introduce the item thank you chairman i'll ask mr tomoczeski to introduce the item thank you thank you charon yes item c2 is a section 73 planning application to vary conditions 2 5 7 10 and 19 of planning permission fh 20 15 90 to allow an increase in site throughput vehicle movements hours of operation and to make changes to the site's drainage arrangements at Maclears yard Caesars way Folkestone the site comprises an area of approximately one hectare of industrial land situated at the end of Caesars way at the northwestern end of shear way business park the business park is at the northern edge of Folkestone the M20 motorway between junction 12 and 13 lies to the immediate north of the site with the shear way business park to the east industrial and warehouse uses to the south and cross keys coaches to the immediate southwest to the west of the site will be a mixed use development approved by Folkestone and Hyde District Council which will include industrial and residential development which will also be accessed from Caesars Way just south of the access to Maclears yard the site is currently operating in accordance with planning permission FH20 slash 1590 as a recycled aggregate production facility the site is surrounded by security fencing and gates at the site entrance the concrete retaining wall runs along the southwestern perimeter of the site access to the site is via Caesars Way off Bigginswood Road and Tile Kilm Lane the closest residential dwellings are located approximately 150 metres to the southwest at Elvinton Close These are separated from the site by Centurion Business Park and associated industrial or commercial buildings The site has historically been used for various types of industrial uses including the brickworks at the turn of the 20th century and mineral uses from the 1960s and there's been little change to the site and its surroundings for the last 20 years Members will note from paragraph 5 of the report that planning application referenced FH2586 for an aggregate washing plant and the erection of workshop office building is currently awaiting determination This washing plant operation would supplement the existing recycled aggregate production that takes place at the site The current planning permission sets out a number of planning controls over matters that include the throughput of waste vehicle movement numbers hours of use and drainage matters In order for the aggregate washing plant to operate a number of changes would need to be made to the site's operational practices and this is what is being applied for in this application No material planning objections have been received in relation to the aggregate washing plant However its implementation is intrinsically linked to this section 73 application and effectively it would be unable to operate unless this application is deemed to be acceptable and permission is granted All the changes to the operational practices relating to throughput of waste vehicle movement numbers hours of use and drainage related matters are covered in this application and it is these matters that have attracted objections The application seeks to vary a number of conditions which relate to the approved plans annual throughputs of waste vehicle movements hours of operation and drainage details The application seeks to vary conditions to allow throughputs of up to 320,000 tonnes per annum This increase would primarily be comprised of overnight to increase the number of HGV movements to 64 which is 32 in 32 out per day allow overnight deliveries of waste deposits to include up to 40 HGV movements 20 in 20 out per night and make changes to the site drainage The applicant has set out that the revised operating requirements are in response to the need of the local and regional construction sector and would reduce the quantities of muck away sent to landfill and reduce transportation in the region by creating a facility in Folkestone The overnight operations would be just for the deposit of waste no other site operations would take place The planning policy context for the proposed development is set out in paragraphs 13 to 17 of the report Consultation responses are set out in paragraphs 18 to 27 of the reports Representations received from the local members are set out in paragraphs 28 to 30 Representations received on the application as summarised in paragraph 32 Since the committee report was published last week one further letter of objection has been received directly to the planning applications group and a further 12 were received via the local county member Mr. Baker These objections raised very similar points to that already summarised within the committee report primarily in relation to residential amenity pedestrian safety public health air quality traffic matters proximity to a school hours of operation increased noise drainage and impacts on the environment In addition comments surrounding the publicity of the planning application were made and I can confirm that the application was publicised in accordance with the statutory requirements this included a press notice and site notice in the vicinity of the site an additional representation has also been received from the local member Mr. Baker which draws attention to local concerns received post drafting the report and urges the planning committee to refuse the proposed variation to condition five waste tonnages or to significantly reduce the scale of the increase and impose stricter controls on vehicle movements and operational hours As we've heard the application is being reported to the planning applications committee as a result of objections received from local residents but also Folkestone Town Council and elected members will note the assessment of the proposed development in terms of the principle need transportation matters amenity matters water and water environment is set out in paragraphs 38 to 84 of the report and that no objections were received from any technical consultees including Folkestone High District Council KCC Highways and Transportation National Highways the Environment Agency KCC Flood and Water Management and KCC Public Rights of Way The site is on the edge of the Folkestone settlement boundary and is immediately adjacent to the M20 to the north with open storage use cross keys coaches to the immediate southwest and shearway business park to the east the site to the site of concrete batch and brick making and currently as a site for the production of recycled aggregate the development plan and national planning policy and guidance support waste and minerals development on previously developed land and sites including industrial estates the location within an industrial estate on previously developed land on the edge of the urban area of Folkestone with good access to the primary and strategic road networks also receives policy support given that there is no requirement in Kent Minerals and Waste local planning policy or national planning policy to demonstrate need for additional capacity and Kent Minerals and Waste local plan policy is enabling of new capacity I consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Kent Minerals and Waste local plan policies CSM8 CSW2 and CSW4 through contributing to and maintaining provision of capacity for production of recycled aggregate and by moving waste management up the waste hierarchy should members approve the application I recommend that save the conditions being varied that all of the existing controls and planning permission FH 201590 be reimposed as set out in paragraph 94 of the report this includes the imposition of conditions regarding the nature of the waste to be managed at the site that no vehicles over 7.5 tonnes shall use Ashley Avenue and measures to prevent material being deposited on the highway along with dust suppression measures and controls over external lighting a number of existing businesses are accessed via CSER's Way and the permitted mixed use development to the west of the site will also be accessed off CSER's Way No objections were received from KCC highways and national highways on highway safety grounds or on impacts to the road network therefore I consider that the highway network is able to accommodate the traffic flows and access is safe and appropriate to the scale of movements I recommend that a condition requiring an operational management plan is prepared and approved to reflect the advice of some residential properties situated on Cherry Garden Lane and Tile Kiln Lane through the generation of noise as a consequence of overnight HGV deliveries whilst this is finely balanced I am satisfied that given these are located on an access route to Sheerway Business Park and their close connection to the arterial road network that it is not unreasonable for the roads to be utilised at night for deliveries there are already traffic restrictions in place that prevent HGVs from stopping on the approach roads and so this prevents impacts on residential properties through the parking up and idling of vehicles in the vicinity existing vehicle movement restrictions on Ashley Avenue would also be reimposed should this application be approved I am satisfied that the additional operations on the site itself would have no additional impact on residential amenity and I am also satisfied that the introduction of overnight vehicle movements would not be sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission on amenity grounds subject to the reimposition of all the controls previously imposed and conditions to limit the vehicle movements members will also note the additional restriction that has been agreed with the applicant to further limit the overnight vehicle movements to ensure that operations take place on no more than 60 working nights in any 90 day period I note from the application that the need for night time working is to source highway maintenance contracts that occur overnight to minimise the community impacts if works were undertaken during the day paragraph 58 of the report recognises that this night time activity will be demand driven by highway projects and is not anticipated every working day and for an example with smaller highway projects leading to up to three deliveries over two nights night dust generation and potential emissions would be controlled adequately through the continued implementation of the approved dust and noise management plans which contain appropriate mitigation measures and are mindful that since the existing operation was approved in 2020 that the county planning authority has received no complaints regarding its operation the applicant to satisfactorily address the concerns that were raised over drainage which demonstrated to our satisfaction and that of the relevant that the proposed development would be acceptable and in accordance with the development plan policies subject to conditions being applied to the planning permission I'm satisfied that this addresses the concerns raised regarding the potential impact on the PENT stream having considered the evidence submitted with the application and additional information provided by the applicant during my consideration of the application and the recommendations of the technical consultees I'm satisfied that the application would represent sustainable development and would be controlled by the imposition of conditions such that it would not have unacceptable significant impacts on the local land uses including residential development the conclusion is set out in full in paragraphs 85 to 93 of the report I'm satisfied subject to the conditions included in the recommendation in paragraph 94 of the report that the application accords with the development plan and there are no material planning considerations that indicate the application should be refused kent minerals and waste local plan policies CSW1 and CSM apply and I therefore recommend planning permission be granted and the relevant conditions of FH201590 be varied in order to facilitate the operation of the aggregate washing plant for which planning permission is being sought under application reference number FH2586 thank you chairman thank you and now move on to the public sector public speaking I'd like to invite Mrs Baldwin who's joined us today first of all thank you Mrs Baldwin for coming to join the committee you have five minutes to address the committee and the clerk will give you a one minute warning thank you thank you is this on thank you I'm very new to this first of all can I say that I and other people endorse all the complaints that have been made there is no evidence of any checking having been done on the number of vehicles on the speed at which they go by we just heard that they may not park but they do have to stop there at times when the traffic particularly in school coming and going is blocked up by the traffic lights they do stop there with their engines running and their dust flying off and I live there I know and that is what I would like to say to you all please put yourself in my position imagine it is your house that is being shaken by these lorries imagine that you cannot use your front garden enjoyably because it is permanently being interrupted by that the health aspect of the noise of the pollution of the risk of cancer being caused by the nature of the dust which is being given out by that have all been included in the letters that you've got so I'm not going to go through those I hope you've all had chance to read them and I hope very much that you will see that where we're coming from is not NIMBY it is not that we want to do Macalia a disservice they're in business obviously they want to make money but the impact that they are having on my environment on my community is greater than anybody would realise unless they were living there now to add to that there is no evidence of any monitoring going on of the number of lorries of the speed of lorries of the time in which lorries are coming and going and we know because we live there that we know that lorries are working occasionally at the limit and that's not all now I could go on I've only got five minutes so I can't go into details of everything but what I would say to you all please is put yourself in my situation imagine it's your home not cherry garden lane not tile kiln lane but where you are that is being affected by some sort of application like this that you will be subjected to 24 hour lorries going past we live in a bungalow our bedrooms are in the front of the house the lorries are going to be passing within five meters of us coming and going and that's not all imagine it's your parents perhaps house who's been affected by this or your children's homes which are being affected and the very least you can do is to say no to this application if for no other reason at all and there are many other reasons why you should say no but the 24 hour a day allowing transport to come by 24 hours a day day and night not every night they've just said but most nights in fact up to 60 nights out of every 90 I believe was actually quoted that's not on it cannot be allowed it shouldn't be allowed not for me not for my neighbours not for the wider environment which is affected just as it shouldn't be if it was yours or your family or your environment now I could go on I could say all sorts of other things but why do we have to ask that society is demographic it's really here for all of us not for one person to make a profit and yes he's in business and yes he wants to make a profit and that we do agree but he is one person who is having a massively bad effect on hundreds of others I don't know where the five minutes is I can go on I could go on for another half an hour but I think I'm there thank you for your time and for listening thank you for coming here today to address the committee if you'd just like to turn your microphone off if you'd just press the button fantastic thank you again I now turn to Mr. Lawrence Mr. Lawrence is speaking on behalf of the applicant Mr. Lawrence you also now have five minutes Apologies for that Mr. Lawrence sorry you now have five minutes to address the committee and again the clerk will give you one minute warning thank you good morning members of the planning committee I'm Christian from CL architects with the agent speaking and supporting the application the applicant Mecalier contracts have been trading from the site since 2019 and prior to acquiring the site it was where the concrete for Eurotunnel was produced over 30 years ago so the site has a history of aggregate and concrete processing the site as the planning officer mentioned is ideally located on the edge of Folkestone and has good connections with the M20 and an established commercial and industrial area the applicant's business is incredibly sustainable by processing inert building waste such as concrete crush and rubble and he turns it into type 1 sand and raw material for reuse and there's one of a handful of sites in the county that can offer this service our applicant is also known for aggregate recycling and he received numerous requests to support the local contractors undertaking highway works to limit disruption these works are often completed overnight and this is why we are seeking to vary the condition on traffic movements the scope of these works can vary greatly from small repairs requiring one or two lorry loads per night to be collected and deposited to works on a larger primary route such as a dual carriage way that will require support over five nights with 20 lorry loads an evening it's important to highlight these works will not be required all year round and he will be responding to a demand that will peak and trough and adding to the cost of the highway works to members of the public the applicant has invested heavily in the latest plant and machinery and his operations are subject to an EA permit all of his vehicles are regularly inspected by FOSA as you would have heard the applicant is not looking to process or run any machinery overnight and this variation of condition is simply to collect and deposit materials when in transit all the applicants lorries have load covers therefore there is no dust spill from the vehicles when in transit a transport report was completed as part of the application which demonstrated that due to these movements been undertaken overnight when the roads are quiet and clear the lorry is able to journey through the local roads through to the site at a regular speed without stopping braking and so on therefore we have the support of the highways authority in our proposals on the approach there are a number of residential dwellings these on Cherry Garden Lane these are set back from the highway they have a large verge on generous plots therefore there is a good standoff distance between the residential properties and the main road we understand some objections have been received about out of hours traffic movements and operations we can confirm this has never happened our applicant has always worked within his existing permit and licence the application also included an air quality and dust assessment as part of the assessment nine dust receptors were placed at 100 and 200 metre locations away from the site and concluded there was no negligible effect on the local air quality from the site the applicant undertakes dust suppression measures when processing the material on site sprinklers at the entrance of the site to ensure there is no debris that runs out onto the main highway in front of his site as no processing can be run overnight there's no additional noise of dust created from the site understand there's some concerns have also been raised about the proposed discharge of surface water into the pent stream our drainage plans include a large attenuation trench which will hold the water cleanse it before it's been released into the pent stream therefore any water will be inert we have demonstrated within the application and the documents that we are fully compliant with policy we'll obviously have the officer's recommendation for approval therefore we get maintenance of the highways thank you one minute's fair thank you mr morons and again thank you for joining us today to make your representation if you could just turn your microphone off sorry we're all guilty of it as we get used to it don't worry my final speaker today is I would like to invite mr prater who is the kcc member for cheriton sand gate and hive east he's indicated that he wishes to speak on this topic today mr prater you likewise will have five minutes and the clerk will give you a one minute warning so thank you thank you chairman and thank you for your time this morning councillors as i'm sure you may have seen from your emails over the last few days there's a substantial number of complaints from local residents about this application to ensure they've been noted i just want to record that they include objections i've seen from other local councillors and residents including john renshaw belinda walker linda robson caroline hallett and brett mckinley and one of the applicants caroline said to me we need to be absolutely clear this is not a minor variation this application would increase permitted waste throughputs from 75 000 to 320 000 tons per year and it sanctions up to 64 hgv movements per day including up to 40 lorry movements overnight through residential streets which are currently not allowed as my time to speak is limited i'll concentrate on a couple of aspects of this application overnight transport and dust but before i say that i did want to say that i think that the macketeer operation is a helpful facility it's clearly key to the renewal of our roads and the work that it does is important objections i'm going to express are about the issues which i hope can be addressed to allow the ongoing use and indeed expansion of those operations but without losing the support of the local community and keeping them awake literally two-thirds of every two-thirds of the year aspects of this application especially around dust and overnight operation have been opposed as you can see from your packs by the former county councillors for folks in western cheriton sandgate and high east dylan jeffrey and rory love respectively as well as the two new councillors for those divisions john baker and myself now it takes quite some issue to get dylan rory john and myself on the same side but this has succeeded um we are the only people who know the division and the sites and roads leading up to it uh well within this room apart from particularly the applicants and the local residents who alongside those other local councillors and most important residents actually know the dynamics and the transport flows in that area as the district council's consultation response notes in your papers this is essentially proposing deliveries 24 hours a day given these are major increases fhdc raised concerns that the proposed changes would have the potential to cause harm to the residential amenity of nearby properties and at the very least the night time deliveries will i submit cause that harm to the residential amenity of the properties nearby i am a little concerned actually about your presentation about how few images were shown that actually showed the houses in cherry garden lane and tile kiln lane which those night time aggregate deliveries will go past um now a number of you will have also received an email expressing support from this application from wayne chapman who represents tentative um john baker and myself actually knowing the area disagree with him um the estate he refers to and you've seen on the map is mainly like commercial or retail in nature it doesn't have a great number of night time deliveries going to that estate the site might look from a map like it has little impact on its neighbours because it's by the m20 but actually if you know the area and how the traffic moves to the site it's not true the waste travels to and from the applicant's site along a road directly past houses and a school right next door to the site is an agreed and soon to be started development which although discussed as mixed use earlier actually includes 77 affordable homes right by this application the operation we're talking about was only four years ago granted planning permission on the basis of limited capacity no overnight lorries and clear conditions on dust noise and monitoring and then just four years later the protection that those residents had on this site and was afforded to those people uh will now have up to 40 lorries moving past their night uh their house every night this application pretty much quadruples the plant capacity but the uh overnight deliveries passing the front uh front doors and bedroom windows of houses at both at the end of ashley avenue along tall kiln lane and cherry garden lane i think are uh significant the impact of that night operation has also been acknowledged in the officer's report and it offers a condition which allows the mitigation allowing overnight deliveries only on 60 nights in 90 with respect remaining mr prater with respect to condition which acknowledges the situation would be unreasonable as this does and seeks to make it reasonable by limiting it by one third of the time is it in itself unreasonable if somebody was going to tell you that they were going to disturb your sleep only four nights in six a week how would you react to that that's 40 movements four nights in six on the condition that's not a good enough uh that's not a good enough response to the noise i think it's eminently reasonable to look at for a balance which ban continues to ban overnight uh deliveries to this site but continues to allow the operation of the site but allowing those overnight deliveries two nights in three is not a reasoned response to this um i was going to go through the elements of the dust emissions management plan um which were in here i acknowledge that there is dust uh admissions management uh uh monitoring going on it would be helpful to local residents who have clear concerns about this if they were published so that they actually have a baseline as well so that not only they'll see what the impact is now but the impact in future i really thank you for your comment your time sorry mr frate here but thank you very much indeed and thank you for for wrapping up on time um that concludes uh any further comments uh from from invited guests and speakers uh so for the purpose of facilitating the committee's debate i will move that the officer's recommendation is adopted and ask for a seconder this does not indicate any predetermination and i have an open mind going into the debate may i have a seconder please thank you mr commas now we move to the debate do any members have any questions mr dixon thank you chair um so i just want to be clear about ashley avenue because that is pretty tightly packed houses on both sides right so are we absolutely clear what preventive measures are there other than i mean have we got signs to make sure there's no sort of uh movement down there how are we ensuring that they aren't going to be disrupted by lorries taking a bit of a shortcut adam are you happy to take these questions uh yeah saron might want to um well the the the there's a planning condition which prevents them from going down uh that road um i think there's a there's a traffic regulation order which would presumably um allow the police to um take enforcement action um if if vehicles were to go down um that road uh i think our our first step would be really on that is if we were to receive um complaints that this was happening on a regular basis we would in the first instance take it up with with the operator and you know reiterate that this mustn't and should not happen I'm not to say it's not I'm not gonna sit here and say that it's never happened but all I can say is that we've never received any complaints that this has taken place and if we had received complaints we would have without a doubt taken some some steps thank you any comment from highways yes thank you chairman if I could just come in about Ashley Avenue there is currently a traffic regulation order at the junction of Cheriton High Street and Ashley Avenue which prevents HGVs in excess of seven and a half tons from using that road so there is a lawful traffic regulation order in place that the police can enforce obviously if they have residence consultation complaints from members of the public and they can enforce that on site and on the ground thank you chairman thank you the sticks and any follow-up yeah thank you I'm just aware of members of the public as well if these conditions are breached what are the sort of steps to escalate and it's sort of for one breach etc and how would that be escalated along mr. Thompson do you want to address that okay so and any planning application has a number of conditions on it as you're aware if they are breached and there are complaints that are made being breached each of those is investigated on a case by case basis usually you would expect the you raise it with the operator the operator it then if it holds up the hand and it gives an explanation as to why why there was some misdemeanor or in some cases there is no misdemeanor and they will explain that it wasn't them and provide evidence to that that effect the matter is always reported to the regulation committee which is a separate committee of the counter-council to decide whether if there are breaches whether to take action if there's continual breaches you can prosecute against the breach of control to refine that I would say mistakes and that's its ultimate breach and and when you grant a permission you accept expect that they will adhere to those planning conditions in terms of a breach of planning control thank you any other questions from the committee mr heaver thank you chair actually I've got three quite big concerns about this all based really around the scale of the increase it sounds when you're just varying some conditions like it's a relatively minor issue but clearly from the evidence we've heard so far it's not minor at all my first concern is it hasn't been mentioned at all yet and it's to do with the significant increase in the washing facility or the washing capability which I think is increased by 240,000 tons per year to 320,000 tons technically I have little idea what that means but my common sense would suggest that's an awful lot of water water or fluid being used on the site and the looking through the report which of course is comprehensive the EA input seems to be quite generic and there's nothing particularly specific other than for flood mitigation could I get a little bit of detailed reassurance please from officers that this has been looked at properly we're not going to have toxic runoff running into nearby pin stream causing significant pollution etc thanks Adam are you happy to start with that please yeah so as part of the drainage scheme that's proposed there is a large attenuation trench that will be dug into the to the eastern edge of the site that will take in the water filter the water and then it will be once it's clean discharge out into the pent stream the the controls over that are required by the they're monitored and regulated by the environment agency so they will would be required to have and the appropriate permits in place before they can they can operate um that drainage system is that correct sure just I would cite draw your attention to paragraphs 81 and 82 particularly of your papers where you'll note that the environment agency was consulted on the drainage and water implications of the scheme and the pollution control implications and has no objection and likewise the counter council's flood risk officer is satisfied that the arrangements are acceptable thank you mr he very new further yes thank you I did read those two paragraphs and um and as I say my concern isn't flood it's it's runoff and pollution and there was nothing specific from the ea that I've seen those generic comments made in countless planning applications so I still have an outlying concern about it despite the the detailed response but thank you for that very much chair um my uh yeah my my other concern is is is really just um sympathy for the residents I know I know there's a a big need for uh professional and high quality recycling of building materials so we've got to take that extremely seriously and this is clearly a reputable business with a long track record of doing so but um I wouldn't want to be a neighbor of mrs baldwin's frankly and and again the scale of the nighttime operations 60 working nights in a 90 day period by my calculation means you could have three continuous months monday to friday of sleepless nights as lorries are rumbling past your open windows in the summer so again I'm just looking for some technical reassurance that that is reasonable because to me it doesn't sound that reasonable thanks okay so um in terms of yes I I take your point there is it's a difficult decision there's a balance between amenity impact and the need for um economic support for a a business that provides um material that's processed that's processed up the waste hierarchy and provides um a service actually that is being generated by need because the need for overnight working is because highway works now tend to take place at night to minimize the impact on wider communities of having to have those works carried out in the day so there's a balance to be struck there um in terms of um the numbers whether the the um the the 60 out of 90 is a reasonable figure the application when it was originally made was um sought literally um an unrestricted working and paragraph um 58 of your papers tries to provide some sort of reassurance that this is not going to be an activity every night of the week it's quite difficult to actually identify how many days that they will need but if you look a small project on an a road potentially will give two deliveries um over will be three deliveries on two nights so that's um an over a 12 hour period if we're talking three deliveries in 12 hours that i would think is is not an overriding amenity issue that you could justify a ground of refusal on it in my in my opinion if you take the upper end of the scale when they are doing work say for a motorway that's potentially over four over a fortnight 14 nights with 20 deliveries a night you can do yourself the sums yourself there's not that many motorways in that vicinity that will have a continuous stream so the applicant i think following discussions with us we've negotiated that we would not we want a revised figure we don't want to give we don't feel it's reasonable to give an open-ended but i think even with the 60 they'll not get to 60 days in any 90 it will give them that flexibility and i think if you look at para 38 you're 58 you'll get an idea of the scale um the consequences of a of a refusal and i my advice to you is you would struggle to defend that on a planning appeal is that this material will either have to take place in the day and you'll have wider concerns from local amenities about daytime working when the m20s is narrowed down while they do that work or or um or a more local road um so i think it's a reasonable balance in terms of if you if you consider the details in para 58 and what those numbers might actually mean in practice but um but i do have some you know some considerable sympathy with local residents but it's that balance in terms of making the planning decision there is strong policy need for this facility it's on an industrial estate there are other developments that do not have any controls overnight so they could equally have hgvs going through um and it's the main route in most direct route from the m20 i hope that's helpful thank you mr thompson mr heaver any follow-up yes i'm afraid so sorry no please no absolutely never apologize thank you chair and thank you mr thompson for for a detailed answer to a novice councillor struggling to make his way around planning law and planning regulations um something i don't get though if i clear out my loft at 2 a.m in the morning i don't expect to take it to the recycling center at 2 a.m i leave it in the garden i'll leave it in the boot of my car until it opens at 8 a.m so why does this stuff have to go from the construction or the repair site of a motorway in the middle of the night i think um matt mr highway officer might might want to add to this but i think it's a highway safety matter you can't leave the material on the edge of the highway and and the way it will it will work in practice is they will strip the the high ropes they're doing they'll take them they'll fill the back of the truck up the hgv will then go to the the maclea site deposit it no activity on that deposit that and then return back to the to the highway works and repeat the process so it's again it's most unlikely there'll be a convoy of vehicles going into the site in practice it's it's it goes backwards and forwards just want to add to that well the only thing i'd add to that is if if it did all then get removed from from the works at the same time you would then end up with a convoy of vehicles all entering the site at the same time as opposed to sort of drip feeding throughout the night period but and i'm not sure it's been explicitly said anyone apologies um it is only six night it's six nights a week not every night of the week um the operation wouldn't take place um saturday nights well it sorry sorry mr baldwin um i think uh actually to be fair it was made clear it was over six nights if i remember correctly so i think everyone's clear on that but thank you any comments from the highways uh thank you chairman no none at this stage thank you thank you um mr rayner you've attracted my attention so please feel free to speak next thank you mr chairman um i've listened to the debate the debate so far with uh with care i've come here with an open mind um but i have to say uh that um this i i i'm finding increasingly difficult to uh to support the application as it stands at the moment um i would just draw members attention to a reverse way around and also address the point that was made uh earlier in connection with uh the enforcement uh situation um it's members here um all new may not be aware of the way that the situation works at kcc but the the enforcement of uh planning conditions is not with the planning committee uh it's with the regulation committee and so it's really incumbent on you to make sure that you get hold of uh copies of or read up on the regulation committee agenda reports including the part two where uh lots of the enforcement of these sites uh uh it shows up it's really important to to look at that and make representations there on uh even if you're not a member of the regulation committee under regular under rule 16 uh 20 and 21 of the constitution as long as you give notice uh to the uh the chairman of the uh regulation committee and and uh uh it's mrs fothergill uh uh who who is so you can give her notice and advise that you wish to speak uh and attend uh and make representations when you find that there are issues in connection with uh enforcement uh and i'll mention that because when you're making decisions now you need to know what the process is uh further down the line in the event that representations are made to you both uh locally and uh in your position as this planning application committee members so my point uh chairman is that the uh the i i would find difficulty as it stands at the moment uh to be persuaded to support this uh i feel that uh the situation is is over the top now what i'm not going to do is put forward uh reasons why i i think that uh it should be refused uh as it stands at the moment um the uh the majority here uh are are new and i think it's appropriate that if you uh if you think as i do that you ask the officers that if they were minded to uh um not support this what reasons they might give because it's important that the reasons given are uh are substantive in planning terms and able to be held up but when you look at this overall when you look at the overall position here uh i fall uh as it stands at the moment uh on the on the view that the case has not been made for this is strong enough in particular the adverse impacts uh on the population uh and the adverse impacts on as the size of the uh the application before us at the moment but leave it with the officers to actually come up with um their professional views as to how it might be defended in the event that you are persuaded or not persuaded as is the case with me if of course you are persuaded then of course that that is uh that is not something that i i need to take any further and chairman i will leave this situation there thank you thank you mr rayner um that actually just leads to one question which i just want to on you know pick up off what mrs baldwin said in terms of from a planning perspective mrs thompson you know these things can be emotive um and we are all human beings at the end of the day so picking up what mr rayner said um is there anything which would allow a refusal of this based upon the arguments put forward by residents of which there have been many and i i think it's fair that we address that point so that people are clear that we did pick up and and address it in this committee today thank you okay so my recommendation to you is set on the papers and my advice is given the numbers involved and the nature and the mitigation measures that you can put in place with those conditions that my professional view is you will struggle to defend a ground of refusal on appeal there is going to be some amenity impact from overnight working which in my view would be addressed with that mitigation committee condition which reduces the numbers in terms of the dust in terms of operational hours i think they can all be addressed by the conditions that are set out in paragraph 94 and if i draw your attention to those you've got an extensive set of controls in place you've got 27 conditions which if you consider that in the context of the development plan and the and national planning policy framework the development in my view does accord with that so my professional advice to you is you will struggle to defend a ground of refusal on appeal um and i'm struck i'm even struggling to see what you could put forward that would even which would start to make that case because from um if you remember back to your training you've got um where you've got concerns where is your where is your grounds of policy grounds that are going to back that grounds of refusal thank you mrs thompson i appreciate you going through that because i think for um a lot of new members in this room but obviously for the public as well to understand what the process is uh mr thomas you raised your hand let me thank you um chair a lot of the members have raised a lot of the the significant um points that i've raised and like uh and the member before me it this is a very difficult one because when you're being elected on family and community this this application does have a massive impact on on people's uh standards of life especially at night the i've got three areas of concern if i address them one one at a time the surface runoff issue um it was raised by folks in town council and others i've noticed in the report it refers to the roof runoff um particularly and then the washing facilities i just want confirmation that the attenuation measures on site are acceptable for for the surface water runoff from the yard areas that's the first point we're going to go one at a time because thank you um yes mr thomas that has been uh confirmed as um appropriate we we had consultations with um the environment agency but also primarily our kcc's um flood and water management team who have um who have examined all of the reports with the additional information was provided um and they have confirmed they have no objections based on um the implementation of the of the scheme as proposed thank you um the second point is on dust mitigation measures and monitoring um i note that the vehicles are coming sheeted on site but it's the unloading issue that that creates the most dust and then moving the waste materials on site so i just want reassurances that that is properly monitored and mitigated for going forward because this is a massive increase uh and if we're already getting objections or complaints from local residents that can only get worse thank you yep there there are dust mitigation measures on on site as you say the the vehicles come in sheeted um and um the the material will get deposited and then um the the there will be no actual operations of crushing or screening of material overnight they will just be depositing of the of the waste um but the site does have extensive um water um sprinkler mitigation damping down um systems in place including um a water cannon i believe is the technical term but we've we've we've seen that in operation um so yes we are we are content that there is um sufficient um dust mitigation measures in place and they are sorry they the the existing permission they will be required to continue complying with the existing um dust mitigation measures that were approved on the original application mr thompson quickly just just also to add to that obviously because this site has an environmental permit from the environment agency they're regularly monitored by the permit process as well which will covered um pollution and air pollution issues and obviously complaints to us we would investigate those matters as well against the planning controls thank you thank you chair and my final point is is on the uh lorry movements um national highways refers to operation operational routing plans just want confirmation that the um hauliers are being actively notified of that um and the um applicant takes ownership to ensure that they follow those and the monitoring of the lorries because there have been complaints that they're not adhering to the to the um movements and routes that's supposed to the concern is obviously if you've got 60 nights out of 90 is that you don't suddenly find you've actually got 62 nights going on because of the way that it's actually being actively reported and managed thank you um yeah the um the the referring to the operational management plan um it would be incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that all vehicles coming to his site are fully aware and operate in accordance with that and and also the existing um vehicle routing conditions um and are aware of the the restrictions on the roads in place that are already in place um in terms of monitoring um as i i said earlier on i think we can we can require the applicant to provide us um full details of of the number of vehicle movements are happening so we can monitor it um they will be required to keep thorough records of every vehicle coming in so it can be monitored um we are um you know we we we do rely on members of the public telling us when sometimes when when they think they're operating in outside of that because we can't be everywhere always at the same at the same time so it's you know any any complaints that we do receive um we would we will and do investigate um but also you know we haven't received any complaints so far since this site started operating um four years ago um and if we had we would have absolutely um looked to investigate these thank you are there any other questions from the floor sorry mr moll sorry you've had to go so i just let mr moll come in first thank you mr moll i'll be looking at a a noise issue i mean i know the lorries are going down the road and the noise of the lorries on the houses i think them will go through it but when it gets to tight to site we've got a 32 ton lorry tipping 32 tons out onto the floor to drag it all out into a pile what sort of noise have we looked at what sort of noise that's going to affect on the people in in the in the surrounding areas um we have there are um existing um noise um requirements in place uh as part of the noise mitigation plan from the original application which would be required here part of that is that they don't um tip the lorries from the full height they they tip them from a shallower height to reduce um the the the full noise of the material coming out it should also be noted that the the the neighbors who who quite rightly um are understandably um aggrieved with the vehicles going past their houses these houses are much further away from the site that the noise impact for them will be the vehicles going past i think that the the the distance in place is quite significant from their houses um for in order to hear the the overnight depositing of the waste the nearest properties are um in excess of 150 meters away um and in between um so they're the nearest fear the nearest properties to the site and they have um quite a significant number of enlarged buildings in between them which would help to mitigate um the noise impact so it's not considered that that would be an issue yeah mr moll if you'd like to come back on that have we have we done a test though because it's it's going to be i mean i've heard these tip because it's going to scrape it's going to make a lot of noise pulling forward have we done a test to in the middle of the night maybe or something whether they're happy for whether you'd be happy for that to be done but a test of some sort to see what effect it's going to have we don't tell anyone when it's happening we do it to see if we get any complaints because you're going to have that i reckon probably every hour and a half if it's going back out and coming back every every two hours so if you're getting three there you probably or four you're going to get one at midnight two in the morning three in the morning and possibly four in the morning that that would be my concern the the has the going past your house you have a train at your bottom of the garden you get you get used to it um but i would be concerned sorry i'll be concerned of um the noise of this tipping that would be my main concern um all right sorry one other thing especially if there's seven thousand did we say seven thousand five hundred houses going up 77 houses or something seven thousand i think that'll be another planning committee's uh challenge if that were the case are we going to be are we going to be back here in two years time because they're all complaining about the noise now because they are going to be a lot closer right whilst we haven't missed them on whilst we haven't undertaken a specific test from from on this because we're not required to as part of the planning process the original consent which we if we were minded to permit we would impose all of those controls that were agreed in terms of noise mitigation last time around will have limits in place which we can measure against in terms of whether they're acceptable or not so they'd have to meet those limits in terms of operation and in terms of yours and the new dwellings that are going up in this area there is commercial buildings going in here so they would effectively be screened they're not immediately cheap by drought be acceptable okay i'll accept that but i would personally try and get a test done just to see if it's if they could do that or whatever if the people are happy to do a test in the middle of the night at some stage at two o'clock in the morning because it's going to be very quiet and it does make a lot of noise tipping i hear what you say mr well the applicant is in the back of the chamber here before he invests heavily in implementing this permission if he was minded if you were minded to grant it i would strongly encourage him to perhaps take up your advice and see what noise level to make sure he can operate within the noise controls that he's got thank sorry is there one more point you want to make on this or okay mr heather thank you thank you chair beginning to feel a bit sorry for the applicant now as as the debate rages on but um uh having spent last weekend driving around my division with a car full of bottled water because we've been without water for six days in in my part of kent i'm very sensitive to water infrastructure and wastewater treatment infrastructure um and i'm looking again at number paragraph 81 and the consultation with kcc's flood risk project officer and i'm still feeling uneasy about how much water will actually be used in this significant increase in washing uh and where exactly that water will go when it's been done and i clear the flood risk has been dealt with adequately but i've now got an additional concern that as well as the amenity value to local residents when they switch the tap on there won't be any water perhaps that sounds dramatic but that's exactly what we've just had in in my division over recent days um and so i'm not i'm just i'm just not convinced at the moment keeping an open mind that we've got the balance right uh well for me i don't have enough detail on that to feel satisfied about it and i also don't feel we've got the balance quite right between supporting a an important business a reputable business that we instinctively want to be positive towards and protecting the the uh the justifiable needs of local residents thank you thank you mr heaver does anyone want to come back on that so in in terms of the the the water i could you repeat the the question in terms of quantity of the yeah just how much water will be required to uh supply this increased uh washing facility and secondly quite simply where will all that water go when it's uh contaminated or polluted by the washing process in in terms of i i don't have the information about how much water would be used it would be dependent on on the amount of uh material they're using that at that point and would be washing all of the water in terms of where it goes it will all go through it will all eventually drain through into the attenuation tank um i can is that that's correct can i so miss miss lawrence uh apologies yeah if you could just put the microphone on thank you right the proposed wash facilities once the tanks are full and the system it just recycles water there's no runoff okay there's absolutely no runoff from the proposed wasp facility that's proposed um in the future the attenuation trench is there to take the surface water because the the site although it's not roadway it's not bound because of the nature of the the processing on the site it is solid so what we find is the water just runs to the the lower end of the site what will happen to stop storm water charging into the system there's a large tank that's open to the site it will hold the water it'll cleanse it and then it'll slowly discharge it into the system to avoid any severe runoff to flood you know potentially flood the stream so that there is no we've oversized it with the engineer i think adam said obviously the proposals have been vetted and reviewed by the ea and we've satisfied their concern there'll be no flood but the as i said earlier there's no increase in runoff due to the wasp facility that's proposed because it just recirculates it all so it captures it and it sends it back into the system so it's just on a constant loop okay thank you sorry mr heber maybe one other point was i think what you were suggesting was water shortages in that part of kent which i think a lot of residential people have suffered recently um just a question in terms of if there are such water shortages is it confirmed that operations would cease if water can't be procured in in terms of the um it's it the the the it's on a system where the water gets recycled it's sort of almost a one amount of water that continually gets used so in the event of um water shortages it um you know they it's the same amount of water being used so it's not more water being used every every day so no i was just wondering if there was a sort of no water coming through on the mains so to speak then operations would cease i would i would assume that they would have to cease i think long can i speak here uh long long term the applicant is thinking of doing a borehole on site so the water for the the wash facility will be drawn off from the borehole okay so that's a long-term plan okay thank you mr frank yeah switch your microphone off thank you mr heber any further follow-up no thanks very much thank you mr heber are there any other members who wish to speak yes mrs emerson hello please can i have some more clarity management plans thank you thank you adam are you happy to are you able to be a bit more specific about how exactly in what in what does i mean i i'd refer to councillor mole's point about tipping out this what does it mean to me as a layperson could you please explain well the the existing um i've got i've got the some of the details of the existing noise um controls that are in place that i can sort of read to you if that would be helpful so this is on the existing permission i've missed it then no no you no you haven't these were these were what some of the measures that were approved as the part of the base permission that we're we're seeking to to vary but this part wouldn't be varied these will still apply so in terms of general site activities um switching off of all engines when not in use all plant equipment will be good work in order all plants and equipment will be used in an efficient way by trained personnel stationary plant will be located with consideration to the local environment all equipment will be selected with due regard to noise emission levels and also as part of that the increased frequency of inspections during a period of high risk activities such as crushing and screening in dry conditions keeping the site fencing barriers well maintained and in place limiting plant and vehicle speeds minimizing drop heights when loading and off loading uh sheeting containment of the loads um immediately um so it's measures measures such as that which are in place and will continue to be enforced or able to be enforced mrs thompson have you got anything else to hold up anything anything else no thank you for the clarification so mr moll yes please sorry to harp on about it again but all that what you've just said is all daytime working that's because there's no night time working there so that's all daytime working all of that will be muffled that noise will be muffled out by other companies working around there people um indoors doing the hoovering people doing stuff that's going out for the day and not hearing everything it's a noise that they'll get used to but four or five lawyers alone a night coming in and tipping 33 tonne of concrete onto a floor is going to be a completely different noise that they're not but they're all going to be asleep they're going to be here they're just going to hear like what was that they'll get used to it maybe in time but the first few months it's going to be what is this that is my only concern is what's how that's tipped at night and i don't think that's been looked at to be honest yes um i take your point about noise i think given its proximity at the edge of the m20 next to the railway next to the high-speed rail um screened by a number of um commercial buildings i think noise will will not be at an unacceptable level i take take your i take your point that it's the noise will be less muffled at night but i think from the with the noise mitigation policies that plans that we've got in place i think it will be really difficult for you to defend that it's unacceptable in noise terms and again i've got the applicant in the back he might want to just check that he can operate with an acceptable limit that's been imposed on him in this consent if you're minded to grant permission to him but i think the um the balance is in favor of granting consent than withholding it on on the noise ground i think we can i can i speak yeah when we undertook the acoustic report so we under we completed it over 24 hour period the baseline data due to the motorway and the railway line that just sit north the ambient noise level is a lot higher than in general areas basically so you could say that gives us an advantage because it muffles the operations on site generally um even at night because there's maintenance on the railways there's lorries going past on the motorway next to us so the ambient noise on that site is a lot greater as it is than in general terms okay thank you miss lawrence any other comments or questions from the committee uh mr dixon sorry just going back to the enforcement um i understand i apologize this is the the wrong place to be asking when it comes down to if the regulations are broken the burden of proof on this is i mean do they have to film it because at resident go oh well there's been a delivery last night and there shouldn't have been and it's very easy for the other side just to go well no there wasn't and now we're stuck in a he said she said are there cameras there that can be used to definitively prove i mean how do we how do we make sure that's enforced properly the bonuses of proof if you take enforcement action rest with the local planning authority to prove um that the breach has happened and it is expedient to take action so in reality first misdemeanor the courts will and the legislation requires us not not to put them in front of a magistrate court um so the burden on proof will be on the local authority and they'd have to be satisfied that that breach had occurred and that they could confidently um put a put a case in front of the courts to do that um i'm looking in like some of the comments that have been said this morning in terms of um vehicle operate vehicle numbers and the like and i note from looking at our recommendation to you i don't include a condition that requires um details of like nighttime movements to be provided to the planning authority so again if you were minded to permit i think we would recommend or i would recommend to you that we'd add an additional condition that's on your page to once on your papers that along the lines of details of number of deliveries shall be provided to the planning authority upon request we could put a thing we could put a time period on that but upon request means we could ask for it whenever we will in reality we could ask for it but having a condition makes that much more visible and robust so again using that information we'd have that if locals raise concerns and complaints to us of which as mr tomaszewski has said we have yet to have a complaint raised directly to the planning authority on this site um i'm also reassured to that effect because the district council did not raise did not draw as the eho concerns that have been operating in practice he would normally have written to us and said we have concerns about this site and i draw your attention he has not done so in this case so it will be a case of local communities and elected members draw attention to concerns we would go away and investigate those matters the conditions in here would give the framework about whether we assess that they've been breached or not i hope that helps mr dixon thank you mrs thompson just quickly that additional condition is any happy that so mr thomas i was just going to propose that we adopt that additional um condition on the planning thank you i'm very happy to second that thank you right um i think we have come to the end of the debate i'd like to thank everybody for their contributions much appreciated uh advice from the back much appreciated as well as well as the representations from those who come to join us today and again thank you both for coming in mrs baldwin uh mr mr mclean sorry and mr lawrence thank you um so having now come to the end of the debate uh it is now time to cast a vote so please could i show a um have a show of hands for those who are in favor of the motion put forward to them today thank you could i have a show of hands for those who are opposed thank you very much indeed um for those who've come to join us today if you wish to leave uh please feel free to do so or if you wish to remain to see the the next item you're of course very very welcome to the service mr rainer uh mr chairman having uh declared an interest uh in the next item uh uh i believe it to be uh sufficiently significant that i should leave the meeting at this point uh and let the committee clerk know that the reason i've left the meeting is because of my declaration of interest thank you very much indeed and again also don't forget your microphone mr rainer your microphone but again thank you very much for that declaration we appreciate me to come and find you after the item mr rainer let you know that we've finished this item and to come back in there'll be there will be e-items after this mr chairman i've checked all three e-items uh and there's nothing there that i wish to raise so i'll call it a day now thank you thank you very much right um we're now moving on to uh developments to be carried out by the council so this is a d1 um erection of new two-story teaching block reorientation of existing playing pitch hard and soft landscaping and ancillary works to facilitate a one fe expansion at north fleet technology college in gravesend um i would like to hand over to mary palmer thank you very much indeed um and uh we'll listen to your presentation thank you thank you chairman north fleet technology college is a non-selective secondary school located in the urban area of gravesend the school is in a predominantly residential area and is bordered by residential development on all boundaries the school site is roughly rectangular in shape with the school building and parking areas located to the northeastern end and grass playing fields located to the south south pedestrian and vehicle access to the school site is from collier road on the south eastern boundary as shown on this image north fleet technology college was re-established in 2010 when the new school was constructed as part of the building schools for the future program the school itself is a flat roof two-story modern building and an arch form with two arms enclosing a centralized courtyard these images are of the existing school building the playing fields are marked out for a variety of sports and a six court multi-use games area is located to the south of the school behind the properties in collier road cited to the south of this are two single-story modular classrooms which were installed on site in 2024 for a temporary period of three years as set out in detail in paragraph 8 12 of the report this application seeks permission for the construction of a new standalone two-story teaching block located at the end of the northern arm of the existing building as shown within the red line on this slide the building would be located in the area of grass playing field which is shown in these images the development would allow for the accommodation of an additional 210 pupils across years 7 to 13 and an increase of 15 new members of staff the new block would have a rectangular footprint and would follow the design scale and massing of the existing school building and would be constructed with external materials to match this slide shows the elevation droid submitted with the application and these cgi images show the new building adjacent to the existing the existing sports pitch would be oriented so that both it and the proposed building could be accommodated on site without affecting sports pitch provision there would be no alteration to the primary vehicle access to the site however the existing delivery in service road which runs the rear of properties in vale road shown on the right of this aerial view of the site would be extended to run along the northern edge of the existing school to reach the new building these images show the existing service vehicle entrance and the existing route within the school site no additional vehicle or cycle cycle parking is proposed on site hard and soft landscaping is proposed including the planting of trees wildflower turf areas hedges and shrub planting as shown on this proposed planting plan biodiversity net gain in excess of 10 percent would be achieved via the landscaping scheme proposed the relevant planning policies are set out in paragraph 13 of the report and i draw your attention to the strong policy support for the expansion of state funded schools consultee responses are set out in paragraph 14 of the report Gratheon borough council highways and transportation and other technical consultees including sport england and the county council's biodiversity officer all raised no objection to the application or raised no objection subject to condition covering matters of detail the required planning conditions have all been added to the recommendation within the report the application was publicized by advertisement in the local newspaper and the posting of site notices in local roads bordering the site one letter has been received objecting to the application on highway grounds from a resident of collier road and that is summarized in paragraph 17 of the report the main issues and key determining factors are discussed in detail in the report in paragraphs 18 to 64 and in summary i would highlight the following the proposed development would provide the permanent accommodation required for a one form of entry expansion of the school which is needed to address an identified shortfall in school places in the gravesham area there is specific policy support immigration borough local plan the mppf and the policy statement planning for schools development for the expansion of state funded schools it is the government's view that the creation and development of state funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision makers can and should support that objective in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations given this policy support and a prompt presumption in favor of the development of state funded schools as expressed in the mppf it is considered that the principle of the development and the need for the school expansion should be given substantial weight in the consideration of this application the proposed building although stand alone would very much be seen as an extension to the existing school with the design scale and massing replicating that of the existing building specifically the northern arm to which this is adjacent there is ample space on the school site to accommodate the new building such that it would not appear over developed and the overall setting of the new building would be enhanced with the landscaping scheme proposed further as set out in detail in the report the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on perspective on protected species and a biodiversity net gain of over 10 percent can be achieved on site and relevant planning conditions would be imposed to cover these matters and the proposal would be subject to the deemed net gain planning condition the teaching block would be located on an existing area of playing field and would therefore result in its permanent loss from the school site the closest playing pitch on site would be reorientated to accommodate the proposed building whilst retaining the pitch sport england were consulted on the application and have advised that they consider the proposed development to meet their planning policy exception e3 as the building would be located on land incapable of forming a formal playing pitch sport england therefore raised no objection and the scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of loss of playing field land with regard to residential amenity the proposed building would follow the same building line and the northern elevation would replicate that of the existing school whilst this elevation was faced towards the rear of properties and waterdales to the north there would be a substantial separation of over 75 meters between the rear of the houses and the new school building such that there will be no direct overlooking concerns and no loss of light or overshadowing caused by the building the building would be viewed within the context of the existing school buildings and the wider school site such that any change in outlook would be negligible the extended service road that would run along the northern edge of the existing school building would be screened with new tree planting and given that its use would be for maintenance and delivery vehicles only it is considered that this would not materially affect the amenity of the occupants of the houses to the north in waterdales sorry as discussed in detail within the report in paragraphs 29 to 35 subject to the imposition of conditions regarding adherence to the submitted construction management plan and submission of an updated travel plan highways and transportation have no objection to this application i note the concerns raised by the objecting local resident but am satisfied that subject to the updating of the travel plan the additional staff and pupil numbers envisaged would not result in an overriding detrimental impact on highway grounds parking congestion issues at school start and finish times in local roads is not uncommon and it is considered that in this instance these are of a short duration and need to be balanced against the overriding need for additional school places in this part of gravesham it is concluded that development would not give rise to any unacceptable impact on the operation of the local highway network and will be acceptable in relation to highways and transportation considerations matters such as drainage sustainable sustainability archaeology land contamination and landscaping have all been discussed in detail within the report subject to the imposition of the conditions set out in paragraph 65 which capture all those requested by statutory consultees the development is considered to be acceptable on all these grounds in conclusion support for the provision of school places is heavily embedded within the mppf and the planning for schools development policy statement this proposal would satisfy required need for secondary school places in the gravesham area and would deliver necessary community infrastructure to meet housing growth in the locality and address a community need in my view the development would not give rise to any material harm and is accordance with the general aims and objectives of the relevant development plan policies and guidance contained within the mppf subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 65 of the report i do not i do not consider that the development result in any significant adverse impact of respect to visual or local amenity or have an adverse impact upon the local highway network i therefore conclude that the development would accord with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the development plan policies and the mppf our recommendation is therefore that plan information should be granted subject to conditions as set out in paragraph 65 and 66 of the report thank you chairman thank you mary um mr thompson any further comments from you on um there are no other public speakers on this item so for the purpose of facilitating the committee's debate i will move that the officer's recommendation is adopted and i ask for a seconder this does not indicate any predetermination and i have an open mind going into this debate i have a seconder oh lots of hands this time i'll go for mr saying thank you very much indeed um now we move to the debate itself um would anyone like to speak on this matter mr heber i'm going to be really quiet the next meeting we have um yeah paragraph 51 be lean be clean be green uh air source heat pump is not a material consideration but i'm hoping and assuming that there'll be big flat roof is going to be covered with rooftop solar to save money for the council and reduce our emissions and head for net zero thanks the scheme does include an array of solar panels on the roof you had to ask thank you mr heber very happy chair thank you very much too fantastic is there anyone else who would like to mr bryce i'm slightly intrigued that there's going to be 210 extra pupils but no extra provision to try and encourage them not to use cars get parents to drop them off and the existing cycle provision is deemed to be sufficient even though there's going to be an extra 210 pupils coming to the school um can you give us an idea of how many what percentage of pupils cycle and what number of cycle parking there is at the moment i mean i take the point this resident has said there's going to be a lot more cars um there may not be that many cars if we can get children to cycle to school like we all used to thank you mary you happy to thank you mr bryce and there are 100 cycle parking spaces on site at the moment and we have consulted with high res and transportation and they were satisfied that there's additional parking on site to accommodate existing staff and the uptaking staff and the additional vehicle movements associated with expansion were predicted i believe and i'm sure mr hobbie will correct me if i'm wrong um two additional vehicle movements per minute in the peak school times which were considered to be able to be accommodated on the local highway network hence why we had a no objection recommendation from the highway team and however the school travel plan will be required to be updated pursuant to planning condition and that would encourage further use of sustainable modes of transport to the school subjects such as cycle cycles to school and should additional cycle parking then be generated as a result of that they can then look at grants to and put that on site as part of their travel plan is that okay mr bryce thank you very much thank you is there anybody else who would like to raise a question or make a statement thank you please could i have a show of hands uh for those in favor of the motion there are no objections thank you thank you motion is carried thank you very much we now move on to uh e-matters dealt with under delegated powers um do members wish to discuss any of the e-items if you do please indicate which uh particular item you would like to discuss i'll take that as a note uh thank you very much indeed um i don't think so is everyone in agreement with the e-items would you want them or is it okay but i'm happy for us just to note it on mass if members are happy with that yeah everyone happy with that fantastic yeah sorry sure uh county county developments county council sorry developments page 89 to 92 we've agreed yeah that's my fault i'll get there right um that actually concludes uh the business for this morning for the planning applications committee i'd like to thank you all um my first run in the chair as well so appreciate the support and and and some good um interventions and fantastic questions being asked i think that's a really important part of the role that we play and i appreciate at times um difficult decisions but again uh to finish off where i started thank you to sharon and her team for providing us with the information that we needed to make the best possible decision to say thank you all very much indeed and we'll see you next time thank you you