Hartlip Parish Council

HARTLIP PARISH COUNCIL

Planning Applications Group,

First Floor,

Invicta House,

County Hall,

MAIDSTONE,

Kent,

ME14 1XX

Dear Sir,

9 October 2014

Application No: KCC/SW/0301/2014

Proposed Phased excavation of brickearth, advanced planting, access improvements, restoration and replanting back to agricultural use at Paradise Farm, Lower Hartlip Road, Hartlip, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7SR

I write to advise you that Hartlip Parish Council (HPC) objects to this application in the strongest terms for the following reasons:

• Highways
• Landscape and Visual Impact
• Conservation Area Impacts
• Biodiversity
• Residential Amenities
• Noise
• Dust
• Rural Quiet Community

Highways

At the preferred options stage of Consultation, HPC objected on the basis that the nearest roads to the site were the A2 and the Lower Hartlip Road.

For many years the junction of the A2 with the Lower Hartlip Road and with Breach Lane were real accidents black spots. Many accidents occurred there and a great deal of expenditure was incurred by Kent County Council in endeavouring to make this section of the A2 safer including the installation of a speed camera on Hartlip Hill.

The applicant has not considered accident data on the Lower Hartlip Road and the A2 and the likelihood of more accidents as a result of the increased number of HGVs using the road.

The safety of children crossing the A2 for the school bus has not been considered, with more lorries turning out of /into Lower Hartlip Road

The Lower Hartlip Road is a narrow country lane designated in the Swale Local Plan as a rural lane and only just wide enough for two large cars to pass.

(See attached photograph taken on 2 October 2014).

It is certainly not wide enough for HGVs.

It is used by cyclists, by people on horseback and on foot (including by children walking to school.)

The application includes no details of visibility splays/access design at the access onto the Lower Hartlip Road.

Paragraph 4.10.3 of the Planning Statement actually accepts that: ‘The access to the site is not ideal’.A serious understatement.

Paragraph 2.51. of the Statement accepts that there are pinchpoints along the Lower Hartlip Road from the site access to the A2 and that should vehicles meet along this road it could result in ‘delay and inconvenience to local residents’. A serious understatement.

Paragraph 4.10.1 of the Statement further states the width of the road is ‘not ideal’ and that there would be ‘some requirement for vehicles to slow or stop which could cause inconvenience’. A serious understatement.

Whilst the applicant is offering a ‘token radio controlled system’ this does not take account of other large vehicles that use the Lower Hartlip Road such as the school bus, delivery vans or tractors not to mention pedestrians, dog walkers and horse riders who will be all put at very serious risk if the proposal is approved.

It would seem that this‘token radio controlled system’ function will be delegated so that the applicants will have little control over it and will no doubt claim ignorance in defencewhen problems/accidents occur which they will.

The road from the access to the site to the A2 is narrow and winding with blind bends and inevitably vehicles would need to reverse which would cause delay and be potentially dangerous. Very recently a car had to reverse almost 150 metres and was almost hit in the rear by another car not expecting such a manoeuvre. There have been a number of collisions on the Lower Hartlip Road some of which may not appear in any accident statistics as they did not involve personal injury fortunately.

The safety of the Lower Hartlip Road has not been demonstrated by the applicant and this will be adversely affected with a lorry movement from the site every 5/6 minutes or more frequently if the calculations set out later in this letter are accepted.

No Transport Assessment has been submitted – this is considered imperative in order for KCC and local people to be able to fully consider and conclude on the impacts of the development in highways terms. It is also surprising in view of the fact that concerns were expressed by Members of Hartlip Parish Council as long ago as July 2013 and by about 120 people who attended an exhibition given by Wienerbergers at Hartlip Village Hall in February of this year.

HPC disagrees strongly with the applicant’s assertion that there will be no significant highway constraints or that the impact will be minor. It is unbelievable that the applicant does not see fit to undertake any more detailed assessments or specify any mitigation measures in respect of highway safety.

The Lower Hartlip Road is designated in the Swale Borough Local Plan as a rural country lane and the proposed significant increase in HGV movements will impact significantly on it. No mention of this is made in the application.

Vehicles which drop off/collect children from Hartlip School will be tempted to use the Mill Lane/Hartlip Hill entrance/exit to/from the village which is a very dangerous manoeuvre especially turning right onto the A2 out of Hartlip. Accidents here and near misses are frequent.

Other narrow lanes may also be used as alternative routes with serious associated dangers to people and damage to the lanes, verges and the roads.

The village of Newington already has air quality management problems and if this proposal were to be approved it would have further impact on those problems. The health of residents is of prime importance. The applicant disregards this.

Newington High Street is very narrow with frequent roadworks taking placewhich cause major traffic holdups.

The additional traffic as a result of these proposals would bring the A2 through Newington to a standstill and would lead to higher maintenance costs and yet more roadworks.

No provision is shown for parking by employees and this should be clarified. Employees, of course, add further to traffic movements.

No details of the haul road are provided – location and materials. It is assumed it will run round the boundary of the site nearest to residential properties. The impact on those properties and residents warrant consideration.

Overall, the highway impacts and safety of the access have not been demonstrated to be acceptable.

It is highly likely that the impacts on highway safety and the inconvenience and danger to the community will be adverse and significant.

It would appear therefore that the application does not satisfy Policy B9 of the Brickearth (1986) saved policies in that the proposed access and the effect of lorries using unsuitableroads to reach the access will cause an unacceptable hazard to other road users and the application should be refused under those grounds alone.

It would also appear that the application does not satisfy Policy DM12 of the Emerging Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2014 which also requires the proposed access arrangements to be safe and appropriate to the proposed development and for traffic generated not to have a significant impact on the environment of the Local Community.

Finally, so far as Highways are concerned, there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the statistics regarding vehicle movements.

HPC submits that the figures supplied are seriouslyflawed.

The statistics for lorry movements would appear to have been calculated over a 4 month period rather than the operational period of 6-8 weeks.

A 6-8 week period gives 155-201 trips per day (not 86) and 19-25 trips per hour (not 11).

Even if a 12 week period is used, actual figures are still much higher than those stated by the applicant,

The statements in paragraphs 8.32 and 8.33 of the Environmental Statement are highly questionable therefore.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Hartlip has been described by various Planning Inspectors as a very special village and much of it is in a Conservation Area.

It is proposed to remove all of the hedgerows and tree rows within the site, including mature trees.

Drawing ST13371-03 (within the bat report) shows the many trees and hedgerows that are proposed to be removed.

Drawing number 00390-08 shows no tree lines retained or reinstated.

The extraction plan does not take account of these tree belts, but instead intends to bulldoze through them.

The hedgerows are described as ‘species poor’ and ‘defunct’ within the application. Whilst convenient to the developer’s needs this is an inaccurate and inappropriate observation.

The trees and hedgerows contribute greatly to the landscape and visual character of the orchard defining its special local character and their loss would be significant locally. The trees and hedgerows should be retained for the landscape benefits that they provide, along with the nesting and foraging opportunities for bats and birds that they provide.

Paragraph 4.3.10 of the Planning Statement states that the orchard does not make a significant contribution to the landscape – this comment is simply not true. To view this valley would convince anyone that the landscape is very special indeed and is enhanced by the orchard.

The restoration contour plan does not show planting within the extraction area or the reinstatement of the hedgerows and tree rows. The restoration planting plan should be made available with the planning application, in accordance with Policy DM18 of the Emerging Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2014).

The LVIA has not included the impact upon viewpoints along footpaths that transverse the orchard and these impacts would be significant.

Contrary to the comment in table 6.3 of the Environmental Statement, the removal of the internal field boundaries will have a long term impact, not a short one. Therefore the overall magnitude of change would be significantlyhigher than low to medium as stated.

Overall, the landscape and visual impacts would be extremely significant and would cause veryunreasonable harm.

Conservation Area Impacts.

The site is partially visible from the Conservation Area on The Street, Hartlip and para 4.12.2 of the Planning Statement notes that the Conservation Area may experience setting impacts. The setting of the listed Church may also be affected.

In reality the impact would be huge.

Biodiversity

There will be a loss of habitat for breeding birds and bats as a result of the proposal. Paragraph 5.1.3 of the bird survey report notes that ‘The habitats within the site are considered to be of value within the local zone of influence for breeding birds’.

At Wienerberger’s exhibition, it was confirmed that badger setts are also proposed to be closed. To impact upon these habitats and protected species in such an adverse and cavaliermanner is not considered to be acceptable.

Table 1 of the Planning Statement states that the orchard trees are ‘continually replaced’ and that therefore the orchard ‘does not support any important biodiversity’ – this is not the case – elsewhere in the report it is stated that trees are replaced every ten years. The hedgerows provide valuable nesting and foraging opportunities.

Areas where protected species are known to exist should be worked around, not destroyed and the animals translocated. The applicant has shown no regard for these protected species and their important habitat.

It is noted that a reptile survey has not been undertaken although there are ponds not very far from the site. Reptiles are certainly present.

Paragraph 7.85 of the Environmental statement refers to the need for lighting and this would have an effect on species such as badgers, bats and birds and there may be a displacement of species as a result. This is not an acceptable development impact.

Lighting would be seriously detrimental to this rural, conservation area and would seriously and adversely affect the comfort and lifestyle of residents. The suggestion is simply unacceptable.

It is not clear why the operation would need lighting at all when at paragraph 7.98 of the same statement it is stated that the works will be undertaken in daylight hours.

The applicant has not assessed the proposal against the Swale landscape and biodiversity assessment 2010 which they should have done as it provides a more local scale than the Kent landscape assessment. The Swale assessment outlines that the site is within the Newington fruit belt which has higher sensitivity than that outlined within the Kent assessment. The Swale document also refers to the importance of hedgerows. There should be a detailed assessment of final levels, with the reinstatement of field and hedgerow boundaries and woodland belts.

Residential Amenities

No information has been included within the application regarding the burning of the orchard and other trees with the associated pollution and other nuisance.

Amenities of the residential properties at Paradise Farm will be severely impacted upon. The excavation boundary extends right up to their boundaries and the access haul road runs adjacent too.

In addition, lorries are proposed to wait at the access adjacent to their boundaries and the properties in this location will experience an intolerable amount of noise, disturbance and dust.

The 7am-7pm Monday to Friday + Saturday working hours proposed is a very long day to inflict on residents and should be much shorter.

Vehicles moving on site early in the morning and into the evening would adversely affect residential amenity for the whole of the summer for the next nineteen years. It will impact very seriously upon people’s use of their gardens. Indeed gardens will be rendered of little value to residents.

Noise

The noise drawings submitted show that noise at neighbouring properties will exceed 55dB(A) in some locations. The land levels generally slope downwards from the orchards towards Old House Lane and Lower Hartlip Road and this change in topography may well lead to an increase in noise travelling.

It is assumed that the haul road would run around the boundary of the site nearest residential properties and this would increase noise levels for residents.

A report commissioned by Hartlip Parish Council from Grant Acoustics is attached.

Dust

The dust generated from the process is of graveconcern.

This could have a detrimental effect on properties (gardens unsuitable for children,dirty windows, washing hanging on line in garden, need to keep windows shut in the hottest months of the year).

Health of residents including young, elderly and those with existing health problems will be impacted upon.

Paragraph 4.8.3 of the Planning Statement accepts there would be some dust at residential properties even with mitigation.

The effect of the proposal on the Newington AQMA is also of concern with many more HGVs travelling through it.

Rural Quiet Community

There would be a significant increase in HGV movements along the Lower Hartlip Road during operations. This, along with the noise from the operation will impact significantly on the quiet enjoyment of the village. The existing quiet and tranquil character of the village will be significantly and adversely changed as a result of the proposals.

Regard for people seems to be completely absent from the thinking. People have worked hard and chosen this quiet, rural lifestyle quite deliberately. The developer seems not consider this to be of any significance.

Leaving the Medway Towns and travelling east towards the coast, the valley in question isthe first one comes across that recalls and displays the “Garden of Kent” heritage that was so beautiful and productive. It is part of a crucial green buffer between Medway Towns and Sittingbourne and should be protected for current and future generations for its sheer beauty, productivity as Grade 1 agricultural land, for its home to threatened wildlife and for its heritage.

To think that babies born in Hartlip to-day would have to wait until their post-university days to see this valley reinstated, if that ever happened, is appalling.

A richness of their lives would be removed.

Our young people need the quality of their lives enhanced not diminished.

Retired residents who have worked and looked forward to enjoying this peaceful location of choice will enjoy none of it. Their retirements effectively blighted.

To think that all this destruction and damage is proposed in the name of relatively low financial gain for a faceless,finance-led conglomerate is truly shocking. Greed over people and environment.

Increasingly, as a society, we are acknowledging the vital importance of quality of life, green spaces, clean air, wildlife, quality food and yet Wienerberger propose to destroy this area.

Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council should surely be seeking to value, preserve, enhance, be proud of and benefit from the few areas of heritage, quality food production and beauty left.

They should be supporting local residents who want to work to preserve these special oases.

General Comments