Dear Kent County Council,

Can you please advise/confirm the following:

- that Port Ramsgate retains the status of a Protected Wharf for the purpose of discharging Marine Aggregates.
- please define Marine Aggregates for the purposes of this protected status and confirm that this status applies only to Marine Aggregates and, if not, to what other materials does it apply.
- please provide details of the parameters which are used to impose a protected wharf status in general and the specific parameters used in relation to port ramsgate
- please indicate the duration of this status. Specifically, is it permanent and, if not, under what circumstances and by what process can the designation be removed

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Byrne
Ramsgate resident

1 Attachment

 

Information request
Our reference: 13525835

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Byrne
 
Thank you for your request for information received on 24 April 2020.
 
Please find attached our response to your request.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 Kelly Leeson 
 Information Access Officer - Information Resilience & Transparency Team 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

Dear Kent County Council,

thank you for your prompt reply to my FOI concerning the Protected Wharf status of Port Ramsgate.
You state that you have no information in this regard and I should direct my FOI to TDC.
I must tell you that your response completely contradicts my understanding of statutory responsibilities, which I believe lie with KCC, in evidence of which I provide below a copy of a letter dated 6 May 2015 concerning a related matter.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

Mr M Davies Davies Planning 21 The Fairway Herne Bay
Kent
CT6 7TW
BY EMAIL
Dear Mr Davies
Askfor: Your Ref: OurRef: Date:
Environment, Planning and Enforcement
Planning Applications Group First Floor, Invicta House County Hall
Maidstone
Kent ME14 1XX
Tel: 03000 413484
Email: [email address] JimWooldridge
RamsgateHarbour(Brett) 6May2015
PROPOSED AGGREGATE PROCESSING PLANT AT RAMSGATE HARBOUR (BRETT AGGREGATES LTD)
I refer to your email dated 19 March 2015 (with photographs and attached drawing) in which you sought confirmation that: (1) the development of an aggregate processing plant at Ramsgate Harbour to process sea dredged sand and gravel imported by sea was a “county matter” (to be considered by Kent County Council as Mineral Planning Authority); and (2) that the proposed development would be “permitted development” by virtue of Class B of Part 8 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. I also refer to our meeting in Ramsgate on 28 April 2015 during which we discussed these and related issues and established the key locations in and around the harbour from which the proposed site could be viewed and considered the potential impact in each case.
Having given careful consideration to the matter I can advise you that I am satisfied that this is a county matter (1) and that the proposal represents permitted development in this case (2). My reasons for this are as follows:-
(1) Paragraph 1 (1) (e) of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is clear that county matters include the use of land for any purpose required in connection with the transport by rail or water of aggregates such as sand and gravel or the erection of any building, plant or machinery which it is proposed to be use in connection with this.
(2) Since you sent your email on 19 March 2015, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 has been revoked. It was replaced on 15 April 2015 by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The proposed development now falls to be considered against Class I of Part 7 to Schedule 2 of the new Order. However, with the exception of the numbering the wording is the same.
1
Part 7 Class I defines permitted development as development carried out on industrial land for the purposes of an industrial process consisting of (amongst other things) the installation of additional or replacement plant or machinery provided that it would not materially affect the external appearance of the premises of the undertaking concerned or any plant or machinery would exceed a height of 15 metres above ground level or the height of anything replaced (whichever is greater). Industrial land is defined for the purposes of Class I as meaning any land used for the carrying out of an industrial process, including land used for the purposes of an industrial undertaking as a dock, harbour or quay.
When seeking to establish those locations from which the existing and proposed development could be viewed during our meeting in Ramsgate it was evident that the proposed aggregate processing plant would not materially affect the external appearance of the premises. It would be no more than 8 metres in height and would be viewed at some distance in the context of existing buildings, plant and machinery, structures and erections associated with various port uses, many of which would be significantly greater in size or partially or wholly obscure the proposed plant.
Please note that this is an officer response based on the information provided in and with your email dated 19 March 2015 (including drawing number RG/48 Rev A titled “Indicative plan and elevations of Low-Level Aggregate Washing Plant” (dated 16 March 2015) and annotated aerial photograph showing the proposed location of the plant) and our discussions whilst in Ramsgate during which we viewed the proposed site from a number of locations in and around the harbour. Please also note that if the proposal changes in any significant way (e.g. in terms of location, scale and design) it may no longer represent permitted development. If such changes are envisaged, I strongly recommend that you contact me again to discuss the matter further.
If you require the formal opinion of the County Council as to whether this or any other proposal is permitted development it would be necessary for you to submit an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD) under Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Yours sincerely
Jim Wooldridge
Principal Planning Officer
For Head of Planning Applications

Good morning,
 
My apologies, it was my understanding Port Ramsgate was managed by Thanet
District Council.
 
I have forwarded your request to the Planning Officer for confirmation.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 Kelly Leeson 
 Information Access Officer - Information Resilience & Transparency Team 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kent County Council,

thank you for your prompt reply to my FOI concerning the Protected Wharf
status of Port Ramsgate.
You state that you have no information in this regard and I should direct
my FOI to TDC.
I must tell you that your response completely contradicts my understanding
of statutory responsibilities, which I believe lie with KCC, in evidence
of which I provide below a copy of a letter dated 6 May 2015 concerning a
related matter.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

Mr M Davies Davies Planning 21 The Fairway Herne Bay
Kent
CT6 7TW
BY EMAIL
Dear Mr Davies
Askfor: Your Ref: OurRef: Date:
Environment, Planning and Enforcement
Planning Applications Group First Floor, Invicta House County Hall
Maidstone
Kent ME14 1XX
Tel: 03000 413484
Email: [email address] JimWooldridge
RamsgateHarbour(Brett) 6May2015
PROPOSED AGGREGATE PROCESSING PLANT AT RAMSGATE HARBOUR (BRETT
AGGREGATES LTD)
I refer to your email dated 19 March 2015 (with photographs and attached
drawing) in which you sought confirmation that: (1) the development of an
aggregate processing plant at Ramsgate Harbour to process sea dredged sand
and gravel imported by sea was a 'county matter' (to be considered by Kent
County Council as Mineral Planning Authority); and (2) that the proposed
development would be 'permitted development' by virtue of Class B of Part
8 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995. I also refer to our meeting in Ramsgate on 28
April 2015 during which we discussed these and related issues and
established the key locations in and around the harbour from which the
proposed site could be viewed and considered the potential impact in each
case.
Having given careful consideration to the matter I can advise you that I
am satisfied that this is a county matter (1) and that the proposal
represents permitted development in this case (2). My reasons for this are
as follows:-
(1) Paragraph 1 (1) (e) of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 is clear that county matters include the use of land for any purpose
required in connection with the transport by rail or water of aggregates
such as sand and gravel or the erection of any building, plant or
machinery which it is proposed to be use in connection with this.
(2) Since you sent your email on 19 March 2015, the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 has been revoked. It
was replaced on 15 April 2015 by the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The proposed development now
falls to be considered against Class I of Part 7 to Schedule 2 of the new
Order. However, with the exception of the numbering the wording is the
same.
1
Part 7 Class I defines permitted development as development carried out on
industrial land for the purposes of an industrial process consisting of
(amongst other things) the installation of additional or replacement plant
or machinery provided that it would not materially affect the external
appearance of the premises of the undertaking concerned or any plant or
machinery would exceed a height of 15 metres above ground level or the
height of anything replaced (whichever is greater). Industrial land is
defined for the purposes of Class I as meaning any land used for the
carrying out of an industrial process, including land used for the
purposes of an industrial undertaking as a dock, harbour or quay.
When seeking to establish those locations from which the existing and
proposed development could be viewed during our meeting in Ramsgate it was
evident that the proposed aggregate processing plant would not materially
affect the external appearance of the premises. It would be no more than 8
metres in height and would be viewed at some distance in the context of
existing buildings, plant and machinery, structures and erections
associated with various port uses, many of which would be significantly
greater in size or partially or wholly obscure the proposed plant.
Please note that this is an officer response based on the information
provided in and with your email dated 19 March 2015 (including drawing
number RG/48 Rev A titled 'Indicative plan and elevations of Low-Level
Aggregate Washing Plant' (dated 16 March 2015) and annotated aerial
photograph showing the proposed location of the plant) and our discussions
whilst in Ramsgate during which we viewed the proposed site from a number
of locations in and around the harbour. Please also note that if the
proposal changes in any significant way (e.g. in terms of location, scale
and design) it may no longer represent permitted development. If such
changes are envisaged, I strongly recommend that you contact me again to
discuss the matter further.
If you require the formal opinion of the County Council as to whether this
or any other proposal is permitted development it would be necessary for
you to submit an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed
Use or Development (CLOPUD) under Section 192 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Yours sincerely
Jim Wooldridge
Principal Planning Officer
For Head of Planning Applications

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

Thank you for your confirmation that this information request is being dealt with by the KCC Planning Officer.
Can you please tell me the present status of the request

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

Good afternoon,
 
My apologies for not updating you sooner.  
 
This has been sent to the planning Department and I have yet to have a
reply regarding this.  The due date for this request is 25th May and i
will endeavour to have your response as soon as possible.
 
Kind regards,
Kelly Leeson
Information Access Officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kent County Council,

Thank you for your confirmation that this information request is being
dealt with by the KCC Planning Officer.
Can you please tell me the present status of the request

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

Dear Sirs

I write to remind you that the due date for your response to this FOI is tomorrow, Monday 25th May 2020.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

Dear Kent County Council,

Information request
Our reference: 13525835

This request is now out of time.
Can you please tell me why this is and if I must now request an Internal Review?

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

Good morning,
 
My apologies, given that yesterday was a bank holiday the due date is
today.
 
I have yet to receive a response from the Planning Officer.  I have
contacted her to make her aware that you have contacted us and the make
her aware that the response is due today, and stress the urgency. 
 
An Internal review can be requested once we have issued a formal response,
at which time the Planning Officer would need to explain the reason for
her late response.
 
As soon as I have a response I will be in contact.
 
Kind regards,
Kelly Leeson
Information Access Officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kent County Council,

Information request
Our reference: 13525835

This request is now out of time.
Can you please tell me why this is and if I must now request an Internal
Review?

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

Thank you for this update
I look forward to a full response as soon as possible

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

2 Attachments

 

Information request
Our reference: 13525835

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Byrne
 
Thank you for your request for information received on 24 April 2020.
 
Please find attached our response to your request.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 Kelly Leeson 
 Information Access Officer - Information Resilience & Transparency Team 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

Dear Kent County Council,
Thank you for your recent response to this FOI.
Can you please clarify the following:

- Your port plan shows the boundary of the area to be safeguarded. Can you please tell me the actual area, in sq metres, to be safeguarded.

- Can you confirm that planning permission will be required for processing any minerals within the safeguarded area other than those minerals detailed in your response.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

Good morning,

Thank you for your email, which I have passed on to the relevant team to
deal with. To clarify, this is now being dealt with as a follow-on query
to your previous request, under the same reference ' 13525835

The FOIA does not legislate for follow on request and therefore there is
no statutory timeframe for us to respond within. However, I will endeavour
to supply the data to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Kelly Leeson

Information Access Officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kent County Council,
Thank you for your recent response to this FOI.
Can you please clarify the following:

- Your port plan shows the boundary of the area to be safeguarded. Can you
please tell me the actual area, in sq metres, to be safeguarded.

- Can you confirm that planning permission will be required for processing
any minerals within the safeguarded area other than those minerals
detailed in your response.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

show quoted sections

Good afternoon,
 
My apologies for the lateness of the response.  This was missed on our
system.
 
In answer to your questions:
- Your port plan shows the boundary of the area to be safeguarded. Can you
please tell me the actual area, in sq metres, to be safeguarded.
KCC does not have the actual area recorded.
- Can you confirm that planning permission will be required for processing
any minerals within the safeguarded area other than those minerals
detailed in your response.
Yes it will.
 
If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with
legislation, you have 40 working days from the date of this response to
ask for a review.
You can do this by following our complaints process; details can be found
at this link
[1]https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-counci...
on our
website. Please quote reference 13525835.
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can appeal to
the Information
Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000.
Details of what you need to do, should you wish to pursue this course of
action, are
available from the Information Commissioner's website
[2]http://ico.org.uk/concerns 
 
Kind regards,
Kelly Leeson 
Information Access Officer - Information Resilience & Transparency Team 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Kent County Council,
Thank you for your recent response to this FOI.
Can you please clarify the following:

- Your port plan shows the boundary of the area to be safeguarded. Can you
please tell me the actual area, in sq metres, to be safeguarded.

- Can you confirm that planning permission will be required for processing
any minerals within the safeguarded area other than those minerals
detailed in your response.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Byrne

show quoted sections