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.
Page 1 of 8
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 pinch points 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 defence
when 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.
Page 2 of 8
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 place which 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 unsuitable
roads 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 seriously flawed.
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).
Page 3 of 8
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 significantly higher than low to medium as stated.
Overall, the landscape and visual impacts would be extremely significant and would cause
very unreasonable 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.
Page 4 of 8
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
cavalier manner 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.
Page 5 of 8
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 grave concern.
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 is
the 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.
Page 6 of 8
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
 There is an anomaly in the documents submitted regarding the quantity of
brickearth to be extracted.
The Planning Statement states 677,500 tonnes whereas the Environmental
Statement states 181,000 tonnes.
This needs to be clarified.
 The documents generally refer to phasing being 1 phase per year; however at
paragraph 12.123 of the Environmental Statement, it refers to the working of several
stages in a year – clarification is needed.
 The application form states that there will be no diversion of the Public Rights of
Way, but the documents state that there will be diversions (para 4.3.15 of the
Planning Statement). A notice has been erected on The Lower Hartlip Road near the
site saying that the proposals will affect a Public Right of Way.
 It is not true to say that the reserves at Claxfield Farm are reaching exhaustion – the
owner of the site has in fact withheld Wienerberger from making any further
extraction because the extraction has seriously affected soil quality. Further work
should be undertaken by Wienerberger to demonstrate that the quality of the soil at
the site will not be degraded as a result of the proposal.
It is likely that they cannot do so because degradation is very real and inevitable.
 A Planning Application in relation to a proposed Solar Panel Farm at Orchard Farm
Iwade which was heard by Swale Planning Committee on 9 October 2014 is on a
former brickearth extraction site which has been downgraded from Grade 1
agricultural land to Grade 3a agricultural land since the extraction ceased. It is
clearly wholly unacceptable to use and destroy such good quality agricultural land.
 The site at Paradise Farm is Grade 1 agricultural land. It is known that the country is
short of 2 million hectares of quality land for future food production and
reinstatement after such works tends to produce Grade 4 quality land.
This must not be allowed to happen to this site.
 The land adjoining the Lower Hartlip Road is at a lower level than the road and local
landowners are concerned about roads collapsing into their land.
Page 7 of 8



The cost of road maintenance in the Lower Hartlip Road will be increased because
these roads were not built to carry HGVs.
The site is sloping. It is proposed to remove all hedges and trees. The land will then
be compacted resulting in a serious flooding threat. More of weather conditions
experienced in recent years is predicted and so this problem is very real.
The revised site plan provided to indicate ownership is inaccurate.
A Hartlip resident owns a cluster of barns known as Paradise Barns and the revised
site plan includes his buildings and land.
Summary
The objections raised far, far outweigh the benefits of the proposed scheme and the general
policy support for brickearth extraction.
Cumulatively, Wienerberger suggest 86 HGVs per day/more likely 155-201 per day, from the
site; a potentially unsafe access and access route; the landscape and visual impacts; the
biodiversity and Conservation Area impacts; as well as the residential amenity impacts of
dust, noise and unreasonable disturbance will be extremely significant.
The quiet amenity currently enjoyed by residents, their quality of life and the health and
wellbeing of the community will be detrimentally affected.
For these reasons the effects of the proposal are considered to be significantly adverse,
contrary to policies DM10 and DM11 of the Emerging Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan
(2014).
HPC is so concerned about this application that it asks the Planning Committee to hold a site
meeting and also to view the site from various parts of the Village including the
Conservation Area.
Yours sincerely,
G.F. Addicott OBE
Chairman of Hartlip Parish Council
Page 8 of 8