Issue - meetings

Sandra Manser and Rachel Rodwell addressed the Committee as Local Residents.

The Principal Democratic Services Officer introduced the report, with the Committee asked to consider the call-in request received against the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development, shown respectively at Appendices 1 and 2 to the report. The options available to the Committee were outlined, alongside the urgent update provided.

Councillors Jeffery and Jones outlined their reasoning for calling-in the decision. The issues raised were that:

·  The matter had been debated at the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Policy Advisory Committee (PIED PAC), with a recommendation to withdraw the original draft submission, and re-submit a new letter, outlining that the proposal could not be supported; after having considered the irreplaceable loss of ancient woodland soil, the use of the quarried materials in construction and restoration, and the applicability of the exceptional circumstances as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·  The additional information submitted by the Cabinet Member did not represent the PIED PAC’s views on the matter, and requested that should the proposal proceed, evidence of its exceptional circumstances should be provided, alongside maximum mitigation and the site’s restoration. It was stated that it was not possible to restore ancient woodland and soil;

·  The submission of the additional information, as opposed to the actions recommended by the PIED PAC, created a negative impression of the Council’s governance arrangements to the public, press and relevant organisations, such as the Woodland Trust;

·  There were concerns that the effects of the proposal had not been understood by Kent County Council (KCC) Councillors; and

·  The matter was an issue of national importance and involved a higher loss of ancient woodland than the HS2 and Lower Thames Crossing proposals combined.

The preferred option was to refer the matter to full Council for reconsideration.

The Cabinet Member was invited to address the Committee, and stated that:

·  The consultation on the Kent Minerals and Waste Plan Review (KMWPR) had since closed, with the responses having been published and discussed by KCC’s Environment Committee. Given the objections received, another call for sites process would take place to see if an alternative site was put forward. If none were put forward, the Council and individuals would be able to respond to the Regulation 19 consultation.

Any further responses submitted to the closed consultation to strengthen the Council’s position would not be taken into consideration by KCC.

·  The proposal was not to extend the overall mining capacity of the quarry, but to extend the area able to be quarried as the site’s exiting planning permission would expire; the conditions included that 1% of the material produced had to be directed to heritage buildings;

·  A contributing factor to the original response’s submission was the 180 jobs in the area, which would be impacted if the proposal was not taken forward.

The environmental harm that would be caused by transporting materials from an alternative site, or from permission being given to build another quarry  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81