I was quite surprised that as many as 41 of our 53 councillors voted in favour of passing the plans, as at least 2 of them that I know of didn’t vote as they had been to China, so it was carried by a very large majority indeed.
Those councillors I have spoken to about this say that they received a lot of correspondence from people who were against the development, combined with the views of my friends and customers, the great majority of whom also say they are against it, does make me wonder how representative the 41 councillors of the electorate they are supposed to represent.
As Ken Wills said on the BBC inside out program that all three phases are essential, it would seem unlikely that anything will happen, until a decision is made about the agricultural land for phases 2 and 3, I understand this has to be done at a national level and is unlikely to be obtained.
I still haven’t heard from anyone who can explain how the surface drainage could possibly work given the site layout on the plans, nor can I see how Acol can have acceptable levels of air, light and noise pollution.
So now we have approved plans with conditions that seem impossible to fulfil, the planning department can’t tell me how they could be conformed to within the confines of the laws of nature, so perhaps now they are allowed to speak freely about it some of the 41 councillors that approved the plans could enlighten me.
News, Local history and Thanet issues from Michael's Bookshop in Ramsgate see www.michaelsbookshop.com I publish over 200 books about the history of this area click here to look at them.
Do you know if it is possible to get a list of who voted in which direction?
ReplyDeleteYes. As it was a recorded vote each person's name was called out and they said 'Yes' or 'No'. The problem is that the councillors were voting to approve and to include the amendment that unanswered questions be dealt with by the planning committee. We need a guarantee that the amendment is carried out fully not quietly forgotten about. Ask Democratic Services at TDC for who voted yes/no. The whole thing was a complete shambles and even at voting it wasn't clear what was being voted on. Two Labour councillors raising valid points were told to sit down by the Chair and Chris Wells who put forward an amendment that would have forced a new planning application (or so he was told) got his amendment turned down by his own party. If this is democracy then heaven help us. The Chair of Planning made silly comments and seemed to spend some time winking at the Cabinet (or so it seemed).
ReplyDeleteI agree it was a very poor reflection of the calibre of our councillors, the chairman and officers did not have control of their brief, and they disallowed Councillor Wells' amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is continue to try to expose our cabinet for what they truly are.
I'm surprised some people still think our Councillors are actually there to represent our views and interests.
ReplyDeleteCynicism took over a long time ago for me and I rate the whole lot of them as a self-serving waste of space.
OMG, apparantly I am a 'winker' Ok I've been called worse.
ReplyDeletePoor attempt at humour, Ken, when the point was it was taken as an indication that, as everyone knew beforehand, it was a 'done deal'. Perhaps calling you something similar to 'winker'....no, I'm not going there.
ReplyDeleteIf that was democracy, then heaven help us. A Chair who didn't know the rules and allowed two officers to dictate the way the whole thing operated. I think the whole thing was a farce and is it any wonder the general populace says' Why bother voting for anyone? They're all the same etc etc.'.
Your own party lost many supporters last night and that may affect the way Thanet votes in just over two years,I hope. You may find Thanet bucks the national trend.
It's a shame that much of what I read is hearsay and not completely accurate.
ReplyDeleteI asked the chair to confirm that we could only consider the phase one application and that's what we had to do, with the overwhelming majority of councillors of both parties supporting the motion but with the concerns expressed in the amendment that took an hour to thrashout. Cllr Well's further amendment did at first glance look attractive - Cllr Hayton beat me to seconding it - but we were directed by council officers that it would in fact lead to a rejection of the application and so procedurally it would noy have worked.
On a personal note and like many others, I've made considerable personal effort to investigate the application and corresponded with many people on the subject. The result of last night's vote is a pyrhhic victory of sorts that gives us a level of further control over the development and future phases should they appear. Most of us would probably want even more granular control but this might be the best result that both the council and the residents of Acol and Thanet could hope for.
Readers can only judge the outcome in the light of the planning system and its regulations which gives councillors very little room to manoever in such circumstances.
This was a tough decision for all involved and the length of the debate illustrated the deep concern that affected eveyone present.
With respect, Dr. Moores, I was there and the whole thing was a farce from start to finish. By 9p.m. most of us, including the councillors I'm sure, just wanted to get home (and you had another meeting to sit through). Cllr. Wells's amendment should have been accepted but your own party wouldn't accept that perhaps sending the application back would have been a wise thing to do. Doug Brown said he'd asked the developer to move the X-types and they refused. Now, if I have an application in to develop something and I'm asked to move something or reduce the height of something, I have to do so or I don't get permission. Why is this developer being treated differently? I accept it's a pyrrhic victory but you and your fellow councillors will have to live with the consequences and the public enqiry costs when the next phases come to the planning departament not to mention phases 4 and 5 that the developer is already planning having been talking to other landowners. Don't tell me that's rumour as it's fact the developer has been in talks with the Quex Estate over land purchases. Whether or not Quex sells is another story but it proves what Ken Wills said on tv about the other phases being essential to his plans. There's even talk of Phases 6 and 7. Heaven help us. We'll have no open land left in a few years.
ReplyDeleteAnd the alternative? The application is refused. The developer appeals. Then what? I've met with Doug Brown and questioned him closely for an hour over the different concern raised in the many letter and emails that were sent to me. The different options and risks were explained at some length.
ReplyDeleteThe developer might be "asked" to move something but I understood that he is quite entitled to refuse if there is no substantive planning reason to reject the application should he fail to comply with the request.
Perhaps more of a 'Hobson's Choice' than a Pyrrhic victory then!
I am disappointed to read your comments, Simon. The issue was to examine the plans set before Council. This did not happen. When the Planning Officer revealed he had been back to the developer to discuss redesign so that X types would not be in the most sensitive location on this site, then Council should have grasped that he, as a planning expert was not happy with this situation. Council failed to grasp this point and the attempts by Cllrs Poole and Wells to ameliorate this apalling situation. For goodness sake, TDC is the planning authority and if it asks a developer to re-design (via its Planning Officer) then Councillors should have referred this back to the developer. Last night was a procedural farce that illustrates the utter spineleesness of our elected Councillors. You were sitting as a Planning Body and failed to consider the basic flaws in this plan highlighted by your own Planning Officer. TDC can, whilst allowing development at MBP still insist on details of a poor plan being changed Is it yet another 'roll-over'by TDC to satisfy a property speculator, as the applicant has no track record of development?
ReplyDeleteMind you, I was impressed by Simon's comment in the meeting about being 'shanghaied' to approve this application that everyone knows is the first part of a multi-phase development. What is of more concern now is the way 1) the planning committee deals with this in the next few weeks and 2) What TDC does about the disgraceful way this meeting was conducted with the Chief Executive 'holding' Cllr. Kirby's hand, so to speak, throughout the whole evening. Who is in charge at TDC? Elected officials accountable to the electorate or the officers? Doug Brown should have told CGP months ago to withdraw the application, re-do areas of concern and re-submit.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the only councillors who came out of this with any credibility were Chris Wells, Simon Moores, Bill Hayton and the Labour councillors who, against the odds, managed to speak, especially Dave Green who got his amendment through. I know several tried to 'catch' John Kirby's eye but were ignored again and again. I have written to lodge formal complaints with TDc and hope others will do so.
The Tories should remember it's not that long until we have local elections and I know many of those who have been loyal supporters over the years are having second thoughts and we could have the scenario of a Tory government at Westminster but Thanet bucking the trend. I have spoken to residents in the areas to be affected by this development and they are feeling let-down by their representatives at TDC, not least by the lack of consultation by the councillors for those areas. Yes, we know you could't express an opinion but you could have called meetings and listened. You could have attended the various meetings held and listened. Several councillors for other areas did come and listened. None said anything that could have affected the vote but they heard people's concerns. I always thought that was councillors were for.
Why do you post as anonymous Alan Poole?
ReplyDeleteSurely you are not standing as an Anonymous candidate in next years council elections?
Anonymous is not Alan Poole but me but I have no intention of identifying myself if this is how people re-act.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the delay in responding I have been very busy with local history.
ReplyDeleteMatt and 12.45 I did yesterday no reply so far.
As far as the undemocratic, shambles that people have been describing the meeting as both in the shop and on the web, I can’t comment, as I didn’t go.
Having looked carefully at David Greens amendment copied from his blog, (link on sidebar) in brackets below, it would seem the decision is not a straightforward approval.
(" Permission is granted subject to the conditions listed and a Section 106 Agreement relating to the issues 100 to 109; Where the conditions listed, specifically 2,3,4,6,12,13,14,18,and 25, or the 106 agreement, require the applicant to obtain approval or agreement of the Local Authority, approval will not be granted until the Local Authority has consulted with statutory consultees upon the applicant's response, and has obtained the explicit consent of the Local Authority's Planning Committee."
The part in bold was the original recommendation, the rest was the amendment that I proposed, seconded by Cllr Nicholson.)
These conditions are listed here http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/drink/id41.htm
What we seem to have here is a situation where permission will only be granted once the applicant has conformed to conditions, some of which appear to impossible to conform to.
I am not very familiar planning law but this does seem to leave things still rather up in the air.
To those of you who voted for the application, regardless of your motives, I would say the reaction of ordinary people coming in the shop is not very favourable. My feelings here are that the whole issue could have been handled much better from the start, particularly in terms of local consultation and information.
With a project of this size that will dramatically change Thanet forever, I would have thought the very least some sort of mobile display visiting the Thanet towns would have been in order. As it is I still can’t get answers to the most basic questions, like where does the surface water go?
Now if I put in plans to build a house on the aquifer without proper drains, the planning department would just throw them out, frankly no one in their right mind would do such a thing, as they would know the plans wouldn’t be passed.
So one does wonder why this property speculator with a very close relationship with senior councillors, used an architect that was already acting against EA advice on another large development in Thanet, to produce plans for this huge development without proper drains.
The Council meeting was a complete and thoroughly embarrassing shambles; I shudder to think what the public thought of our democracy in action!
ReplyDeleteI tried many times to speak but the Chairman simply would not call me. I had to make a scene to get heard.
I wanted to move four amendments which I have been assured were perfectly legal.
1. All applications by the developer, to make changes to any of the agreed Planning Conditions /106 Agreement, will be referred to the Planning Committee for determination.
2. The land in the north-west corner of the application site (X type buildings) is to be removed from the application due to its close proximity to Special Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1) and the village of Acol.
3. The total number of HGV movements per day is to be limited to 1000. Unannounced checks to be carried out to verify this figure. (this works out at 1 per minute over 16 hours)
4. The current application is for a 24 hour operation, 7 days a week, 365 days per year.
The proposed hours of operation for working vehicles (starting up, manoeuvring, loading or unloading of HGVs and the use of fork lift trucks, cranes etc) is to be:
a). 0700 to 2300 Monday to Friday.
b). 0700 to 1200 on Saturday
c). No movements on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
(Condition 13 will need to be modified …… remove para 2)
I believe these conditions, had they been agreed, would have resolved many of the outstanding concerns.
My mistake was to inform the Chairman beforehand (to assist him)that I wished to move the amendments. He simply ignored me for most of the meeting. I can only assume he didn't want the amendments debated for some reason or other.
Anonymous is not Alan Poole!
Alan I would recommend that you register with blogger so that no one can impersonate you in these debates.
ReplyDeleteI shall be making a concerted attempt to get all of the public council and cabinet meetings webcast, using the methods that I used to get the statutory consultees published on the UK planning website.
I think if we could all see the meetings ourselves it would clarify the issue as to whether or not our democracy is democratic. If it is possible to prevent our elected councillors from moving amendments at council meetings, would the outcome of such meetings be legal?
I have it on good authority that the reason why the meeting was such a complete shambles was not entirely due to the Chairman being totally incompetent it was in fact due to him being 'tired and emotional'!
ReplyDeleteI have already drafted letters to various officers at TDC complaining about the way the whole thing was conducted. The outcome of the shambles will be further erosion of democracy as people, including your customers Michael, say, Why bother? Why vote? They just do what they want.
ReplyDeleteThere were men and women of integrity and probity on TDC but they were unable to make their views known due to Cllr. Kirby not only being incapable of operating his microphone, having any knowledge of planning law, but allowing Richard Samuel, Chief Executive to run things etc. I could go on but why bother?
As many told me when I was campaigning against this, 'It's a done deal. Don't waste your time. That's how things get done here'.
For the record both Cllrs. Hart and Harker on the Labour side had to leave before the vote. I'm sure in both cases for valid reasons. Cllr. Harker works at the hospital so I assume work was her reason. No doubt Clive Hart had a valid reason too.
ReplyDeleteCllrs. Hart and Harker were both unwell. Neither should really have attended due to being unwell but did so due to the importance of the meeting. Both requested permission to leave when the meeting dragged on........
ReplyDeleteall, can anyone give a straight answer on this bit please?
ReplyDeleteChinese companies will not be manufacturing anything here - too expensive, the minimum wage here being a few hundred percent more that China's top dollar.
So if its a distribution centre, where are the goods coming from for distribution? By road from Tilbury? Dartford?
Just got the voting list from TDC and Cllr. Crotty according to that voted 'for' and Cllr. Pickering 'against'. Apologies, in a way, to both but it was so confusing they could have been calling out bingo numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe councillor not present was Cllr. Sheldrick.
ReplyDeletepara 5 of the TDC response, dated 23/9/08, to FOI reads as follows:
ReplyDelete"All planning applications at TDC are considered taking into account the Development Plan and all other material considerations, including pollution of the environment and controlled waters. To the best of his knowledge Cllr Ken Gregory does not have any recollection of being involved in due diligence examination of the Sericol incident".
My FOI application was dated and posted 28th August 2008. It reached the Contaminated Land Officer at TDC 9th September 2008. The response was dated 23rd Sept. The queries TDC wrote they had no information on were referred on for reply by the Environment Agency.
The Environment Agency received the forwarded request on 1st October and replied on 14th.
The EA response is dealt with on Michael's post "Something nasty in the Water".
The EA revealed the amount of cyclohexanone so far extracxted is 470 tonnes.
So which concern is applicable?
EITHER TDC had no idea of the scale of the solvent remediation project at Poorhole Lane in spite of their statutory duty
OR TDC did know and TDC thought they would neither tell me nor the elected cllrs before they voted on CGP and ended up entrusting the proection of aquifer to Planning cttee.
It seems to me that every cllr who voted yes should be asked to state whether knowledge of the Sericol remediation would have caused them to invoke precautionary principle and reject the CGP application until Environment Agencyu and TDC Ground Contamination Dept approved the provisions in the application ?
ReplyDeleteAnd all cllrs should answer why Sericol was not designated as a landfill site subject of pollution which should have come up on property purchase searches and Planning matters like Westwood Cross.