DOCSLIB.ORG

Manston Airport Development Consent Order

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Manston Airport Development Consent Order Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 2: Biodiversity, Freshwater Environment, Historic Environment, Land Quality and LVIA June 2017 For consultation Scheme Name Manston Airport DCO Promoter’s Name RiverOak Strategic Partners Author Amec Foster Wheeler Document Number TR020002/SC/02/2 2 2017 Consultation Suite of Consultation Documents 1.1 As part of the statutory consultation under section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 a suite of consultation documents relating to the proposal to reopen Manston Airport is available to the public. Together these documents give an overview of the development proposals including information on the potential benefits and impacts of the Project, environmental considerations and the business case. The documents also provide further information on the consultation process and enable the public to submit their feedback. 1.2 This consultation also forms part of RiverOak’s initial engagement on the design of airspace and procedures associated with the airport. As such it is an opportunity for members of the community to highlight any factors which they believe RiverOak should take into account during that design phase. Having taken all such factors into account, the subsequent proposals for flightpaths and airspace will be subject to a separate round of consultation once the DCO application has been made. 1.3 The suite of consultation documents includes: 1. a Consultation Leaflet giving an overview of the proposals and details of where more information about the Project can be found; 2. a Feedback Form in order to collect responses to the consultation; 3. an Overview Report giving a summary of the proposals including the potential benefits and impacts of the Project, how we propose to mitigate against potential impacts, and a non-technical summary of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR); 4. a Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR); containing preliminary information on the likely environmental effects of our proposals as we have ascertained them so far, including noise, transport and air quality, and how we propose to minimise these effects, as well as how we propose to maximise the benefits of the Project; 5. a draft Masterplan for Manston Airport; 6. Manston Airport - a Regional and National Asset, Volumes I-IV; an analysis of air freight capacity limitations and constraints in the South East and Manston’s ability to address these and provide for future growth; 7. an Outline Business Case; 8. a Statement of Community Consultation; 9. a Location Plan; and 10. an Interim Consultation Report, setting out the details of the first stage of consultation and how feedback received has been used to help develop the proposals. 1.4 This Preliminary Environmental Information Report has been prepared pursuant to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, as amended. 3 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Contents 7. Biodiversity 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Policy and legislative context 7-3 7.3 Data gathering methodology 7-6 7.4 Overall Biodiversity baseline 7-21 7.5 Environmental measures incorporated into the Proposed Development 7-25 7.6 Scope of the assessment 7-27 7.7 Assessment methodology 7-35 7.8 Assessment of effects on on Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay SPA/Ramsar and Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI 7-37 7.9 Assessment of effects to Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA/Ramsar; Thanet Coast SAC; Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI; Sandwich and Pegwell Bay NNR through water discharge 7-43 7.10 Assessment of effects to designated sites/priority habitats through air quality effects 7-46 7.11 Assessment of effects to bat assemblage 7-48 7.12 Assessment of effects to great crested newt (GCN) 7-49 7.13 Assessment of effects to reptiles 7-51 7.14 Assessment of effects to breeding barn owl 7-52 7.15 Assessment of effects to terrestrial invertebrates/invertebrate assemblage 7-53 7.16 Conclusions of preliminary significance evaluation 7-54 May 2017 38199CR019i3 7-1 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 7. Biodiversity 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 This chapter sets out the results of a preliminary assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development on biodiversity. 7.1.2 This chapter should be read in conjunction with the Description of the Proposed Development (Chapter 3). Following a summary of the limitations of the PEIR, the chapter outlines the relevant policy, legislation and guidance that has informed the preliminary assessment, and the data gathering methodology that was adopted as part of the biodiversity preliminary assessment. This leads on to a description of the overall baseline conditions, the scope of the assessment, and the assessment methodology. The chapter concludes with a summary of the results of the assessment at this point in time. 7.1.3 The Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) will focus on the likely significant effects of the construction and operation of the proposed development on conservation notable and legally protected habitats and species. Potential impacts on nature conservation interests both within and outside of the bounds of the Manston Airport site will be investigated and will broadly include: Temporary and permanent habitat loss; Habitat degradation / change (e.g. through changes in air quality); and Disturbance / displacement of fauna. 7.1.4 Potential impacts may be associated with the: Construction of cargo facilities, hangers, aircraft stands, taxiways and associated infrastructure (e.g. a fuel farm); Operation of aircraft and associated activities (e.g. aircraft loading) whilst within the bounds of the airport; Operation of aircraft approaching and leaving the airport (i.e. outside of the bounds of the airport); and Road traffic associated with the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. 7.1.5 The EcIA will include an assessment of the potential effects on internationally, nationally and locally designated sites of nature conservation interest. This assessment (with regards to internationally designated sites) will be supported by the production of information necessary for the competent authority (in this case the Secretary of State for Transport) to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). Limitation of the PEIR 7.1.6 As outlined in Section 1.5 the PEIR provides preliminary information based on the Proposed Development to date and data gathered up to this point, that will May 2017 38199CR019i3 7-2 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited subsequently be provided in full and final form within the ES. In addition to the assessment of potential effects on European wildlife sites that will need to be addressed in the ES, there is a requirement under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No. 490) (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) to determine whether any of these sites is likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This will be achieved through the production of an Evidence Plan (in ongoing consultation with Natural England), supported by evidence gathered from desk studies, field surveys, and air quality and noise modelling. 7.1.7 This assessment is based on surveys and data gathered to the point of writing, and as such, it cannot be taken as a complete picture of the potential presence and significance of important biodiversity receptors that could be affected by the proposed development. As indicated here and in the baseline section (Section 7.4), it is intended to complete surveys for valued receptors so that a full dataset is available for the ES in 2017/18. The results of these surveys, where indicating the presence of a receptor, will allow for further design development. This will allow for refinement of the existing data and assessments, and consequently provide an informed assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development. 7.1.8 The decision as to whether to carry out further survey is influenced by two factors: the potential presence of valued receptors considered likely to be present in the zone of influence, and the potential for likely significant effects to arise as a result of development. Further surveys may need to be carried out: Where data are incomplete to date due to Site access constraints; and, To inform the design and planning of site specific design and development of mitigation in advance of the DCO determination being made. 7.1.9 After consultation with Natural England (NE), it was agreed that the biodiversity chapter of the Environmental Statement was to be based upon the results of information available in the public domain from other planning applications for the Manston Airport site, to be supplemented, if required, with targeted ecological surveys off-site and on-site to cover any identified gaps. Ground-truthing88 of an existing extended Phase 1 habitat survey89 was undertaken in February 2017, and concluded that the work provided an appropriate basis upon which to proceed. An application to grant access, under Section 53 of the Planning Act, to the site to undertake further (Phase 2) ecological surveys has been submitted to the Secretary of State, these surveys will be undertaken to support the Environmental Statement. 7.1.10 At the time of the PEI assessment, sufficient data on receptors is not yet available, and consequently, any evaluation of effects on receptors is considered following a generic approach to the delivery of construction works and operation for this proposed development. Thus, at this point, environmental measures are limited to those described in Section 7.5. A full assessment will be provided within the ES. 88 This is a process where the facts/information of a desk study are confirmed through a site visit. 89 This was associated with the Stone Hill Park proposal, which occupies the Manston Airport site and therefore has a site extent very similar to the current proposal.
Recommended publications
  • Manston Airport Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment

    Manston Airport Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment

    RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited Manston Airport Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment July 2018 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice RiverOak Strategic Partners The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Amec Foster Wheeler (© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2016) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to Main contributors another party or is used by Amec Foster Wheeler under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or Issued by copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Amec Foster Wheeler. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may ................................................................................. otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Approved by Third-party disclaimer ................................................................................. Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to Amec Foster Wheeler any third party who is able to access it by any means.
  • Faversham Conservation Area Character Appraisal (Extract from Report to Planning Committee 9 September 2004 (Agenda Item 1.1, Annex B.)

    Faversham Conservation Area Character Appraisal (Extract from Report to Planning Committee 9 September 2004 (Agenda Item 1.1, Annex B.)

    Faversham conservation area character appraisal (Extract from report to Planning Committee 9 September 2004 (Agenda item 1.1, Annex B.) Chapter 1: General Introduction Location and geology 1.1. Faversham is situated towards the eastern end of the Borough of Swale at the head of a narrow tidal creek flowing north into The Swale waterway. The town of Sittingbourne lies some 11 kilometres to the west, whilst Canterbury lies some 14.5 kilometres to the south east. At Faversham low interfluves of Thanet Sands with brickearth are separated by shallow valleys that have been cut down through the chalk. The town centre is sited on a ridge of chalk overlain with brickearth; it then extends west into a valley where springs emerging from the chalk feed into the creek. To the south of the town is the gently rising dip slope of the North Downs, whilst the extensive alluvial flats of the Swale marshes lie to the north. History 1.2. From a very early date the small, but navigable, waterway made the higher ground at its southern end an ideal place for settlement which, the evidence suggests, happened in pre- Roman times. Archaeological finds have confirmed that later, in Roman times, a small roadside settlement existed at Ospringe and that a series of villa estates prospered in the agricultural lands between Watling Street and the Swale. However, firm proof of a settlement on the site of the present town centre has yet to emerge. 1.3. During Saxon times, from the C6 at least, Faversham appears to have been a royal estate centre, perhaps of comparable status with Milton Regis to the west.
  • G Sites of Special Scientific Interest Screening Assessment

    G Sites of Special Scientific Interest Screening Assessment

    WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report G Sites of Special Scientific Interest screening assessment SSSIs considered Water dependent sites Sites within 2 km of option located downstream of Option types that require new Option name Sites within 200 m of new reservoir abstraction or Screening narrative Screening decision reference built infrastructure (i.e., pipeline or repair/amendments discharge points, or groundwater, reservoir to existing pipelines supported by target aquifer and water treatment works for groundwater options) abstractions Catchment management CGW-2 Catchment Management N/A None N/A No adverse impacts from water quality improvement No significant impacts likely. Interventions at actions Woodgarston CGW-3 Targeted catchment N/A Pembury Cutting and Pit [all N/A No adverse impacts from water quality improvement No significant impacts likely. management units at favourable condition] actions interventions in the Pembury area Water reuse EFF-35 Effluent reuse to River Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Proposed pipeline route runs adjacent to Lewes Brooks Measures to avoid significant effects on Lewes (plan Ouse: source – [100% of units at favourable or [100% of units at favourable [100% of units at favourable (no intersection with site) and in close proximity to Brooks and Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs SSSIs alternative Peacehaven (25Ml/d unfavourable – recovering or unfavourable – recovering or unfavourable – recovering Lewes Downs (minimum distance of approximately identified though SEA and recorded in option option) Option) condition] condition] condition] 200m), however no direct impacts and no drainage dossiers. For Lewes Downs this would include impacts anticipated. No significant effects likely either rerouting pipeline east of existing route via Lewes Brooks [93.6% of units at Lewes Brooks [93.6% of following implementation of standard mitigation.
  • Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004

    Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004

    CHILHAM: STOUR VALLEY Location map: CHILHAMCHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTION North of Bilting, the Stour Valley becomes increasingly enclosed. The rolling sides of the valley support large arable fields in the east, while sweeps of parkland belonging to Godmersham Park and Chilham Castle cover most of the western slopes. On either side of the valley, dense woodland dominate the skyline and a number of substantial shaws and plantations on the lower slopes reflect the importance of game cover in this area. On the valley bottom, the river is picked out in places by waterside alders and occasional willows. The railway line is obscured for much of its length by trees. STOUR VALLEY Chilham lies within the larger character area of the Stour Valley within the Kent Downs AONB. The Great Stour is the most easterly of the three rivers cutting through the Downs. Like the Darent and the Medway, it too provided an early access route into the heart of Kent and formed an ancient focus for settlement. Today the Stour Valley is highly valued for the quality of its landscape, especially by the considerable numbers of walkers who follow the Stour Valley Walk or the North Downs Way National Trail. Despite its proximity to both Canterbury and Ashford, the Stour Valley retains a strong rural identity. Enclosed by steep scarps on both sides, with dense woodlands on the upper slopes, the valley is dominated by intensively farmed arable fields interspersed by broad sweeps of mature parkland. Unusually, there are no electricity pylons cluttering the views across the valley. North of Bilting, the river flows through a narrow, pastoral floodplain, dotted with trees such as willow and alder and drained by small ditches.
  • Thanet Parkway Business Case 150127 V11.0.Docx Page Ii

    Thanet Parkway Business Case 150127 V11.0.Docx Page Ii

    Thanet Parkway Station Business Case On behalf of Kent County Council Project Ref: 28470 | Date: March 2014 Office Address: Caversham Bridge House, Waterman Place, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DN T: +44 (0)118 950 0761 F: +44 (0)118 959 7498 E: [email protected] Thanet Parkway Station Business Case Document Control Sheet Project Name: Thanet Parkway Station Project Ref: 28470-001 Report Title: Business Case Doc Ref: Date: 12.03.2014 Name Position Signature Date Darren Rawls Senior Engineer Prepared by: Paul Gebbett Principal Planner 12/03/2014 Alastair Mackie Associate Reviewed by: Leo Eyles Consultant 12/03/2014 Approved by: Bob Pinkett Partner 12/03/2014 For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved Taking on board client comments 1 12.03.2014 PG AM BP on first issue 2 31.03.2014 Further amendments to text PG AM AM 3 28.01.2015 Further amendments PG AM AM Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.
  • Deal Town Council Transport & Infrastructure Committee Comments

    Deal Town Council Transport & Infrastructure Committee Comments

    Deal Town Council Transport & Infrastructure Committee comments on KCC Rail Strategy November 2020 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the KCC’s Draft Rail Strategy 2021. We are writing on behalf of Deal Town Council’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee with comments, observations and some suggestions. Overview Before we make some specific comments on specific paragraphs in the report we would like to present a reaction and some thoughts about the thrust of the strategy. The draft strategy kicks off with good intentions and aspirational words but then retreats into business as usual. There’s still a presumptive thread that runs through the strategy that train travel is about getting to and from London. The world has changed. The days when London Commuters financed the railways in Kent are over. Few if any organisations or corporations wants to go back to full time offices. The savings and convenience have been too great for everyone. The Mayor of London’s office is researching what the new future of Greater London will be. They know that this hiatus will change the way we work for good. It is wholly unrealistic to expect that commuting will be back to pre-pandemic levels by 2025. So, the strategy has got to think of train travel in new ways, which is tough for a hard fixed infrastructure. The strategy is doesn’t appear to be considering those every day journeys we want people to take by train and not by car. Again, with train travel at record lows, a re-nationalised operation, a desperate need to move away from road usage, now is the time to re-imagine our rail services, resolve the decades long problems of unbelievable dis-connectivity on and off the rails, poor safety & security, uncompetitive pricing, extreme peaks and troughs.
  • Written Guide

    Written Guide

    Invasion coast A self-guided walk between Walmer and Deal in Kent Explore two towns shaped by the sea Discover how the East Kent coast has faced centuries of invasion Find out how this fragile landscape has evolved over the centuries Enjoy beautiful shingle beaches with diverse wildlife and spectacular views .discoveringbritain www .org ies of our land the stor scapes throug discovered h walks 2 Contents Introduction 4 Route overview 5 Practical information 6 Detailed route maps and stopping points 8 Commentary 10 Further information 37 Credits 38 © The Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers, London, 2014 Discovering Britain is a project of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) The digital and print maps used for Discovering Britain are licensed to the RGS-IBG from Ordnance Survey Cover image: WW2 pillbox above Kingsdown beach © Grant Sibley 3 Invasion coast Explore a changing coastline between Walmer and Deal The East Kent coast between Walmer, Kingsdown and Deal has faced the threat of invasion for centuries. Its flat shores and proximity to Europe have attracted many overseas invaders from Julius Caesar’s Roman legions to Napoleon’s warships, from First World War bombers to Hitler’s planned invasion in 1940. But humans are not the only threat to this part of Britain’s coast. This coastline faces constant attack from the powerful forces of the North Sea. Wave and storm erosion along this coastline creates both threat and opportunity in a constantly shifting landscape. This walk explores the dynamic East Kent coast from the medieval village of Old Walmer to the twenty-first century seaside town of Deal.
  • Waste Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (Revised Edition September 2012

    Waste Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (Revised Edition September 2012

    Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report. Revised Edition– September 2012 Kent Minerals And Waste Development Framework Waste Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (Revised edition September 2012 The full responses for the Waste Sites Development Plan Document Consultation can be found at: http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal/waste-dpd/waste-options?tab=list 1 Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report. Revised Edition– September 2012 This revised edition of the commentary report includes some minor changes to address concerns raised by the Kent Downs AONB unit. Produced by : Planning and Environment Environment and Enterprise Kent County Council Invicta House Tel: 01622 696815 County Hall Email: [email protected] Maidstone Web: www.kent.gov.uk/mwdf Kent ME14 1XX Textphone: 08458247905 The full responses for the Waste Sites Development Plan Document Consultation can be found at: http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal/waste-dpd/waste-options?tab=list 2 Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report. Revised Edition– September 2012 Contents Page 1. Abbreviations 4 2. Introduction 5 3. Site Proposals 7 4. Responses for Waste Sites DPD 9 5. Energy From Waste 11 6. Hazardous Landfills 27 7. Non-Hazardous Landfill 31 8. Treatment/Materials Recycling Facility Sites for Consideration 35 9. Composting Sites for Consideration 59 10. Household Waste Recycling Centres & Transfer Sites for 75 Consideration 11. Inert/Construction, Demolition and Excavations Landfill & 99 Landraise Sites for Consideration 12. Environmental Improvement to Closed Bio-degradable Land- 129 fill Sites for Consideration 13. Glossary 143 14. Biodiversity Comments Glossary 148 The full responses for the Waste Sites Development Plan Document Consultation can be found at: http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal/waste-dpd/waste-options?tab=list 3 Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report.
  • Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

    Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

    The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6.
  • 233 08 SD50 Environment Permitting Decision Document

    233 08 SD50 Environment Permitting Decision Document

    Environment Agency permitting decisions Bespoke permit We have decided to grant the permit for East Kent Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Facility operated by Veolia Environmental Services (UK) PLC. The permit number is EPR/VP3130WU We consider in reaching that decision we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that the appropriate level of environmental protection is provided. Purpose of this document This decision document: • explains how the application has been determined • provides a record of the decision-making process • shows how all relevant factors have been taken into account • justifies the specific conditions in the permit other than those in our generic permit template. Unless the decision document specifies otherwise we have accepted the applicant’s proposals. Structure of this document • Annex 1 the decision checklist • Annex 2 the consultation and web publicising responses EPR/VP3130WU 20/11/14 Page 1 of 9 Annex 1: decision checklist This document should be read in conjunction with the Duly Making checklist, the application and supporting information and permit/ notice. Aspect Justification / Detail Criteria considered met Yes Consultation Scope of The consultation requirements were identified and consultation implemented. The decision was taken in accordance with RGN 6 High Profile Sites, our Public Participation Statement and our Working Together Agreements. Responses to The web publicising and consultation responses (Annex consultation 2) were taken into account in the decision. and web publicising The decision was taken in accordance with our guidance. Operator Control of the We are satisfied that the applicant (now the operator) is facility the person who will have control over the operation of the facility after the grant of the permit.
  • Southeastern Trains Map Pdf

    Southeastern Trains Map Pdf

    Southeastern trains map pdf Continue Routes encoded by three London terminals. The best experience from several routes to London. Offer the Priorat to be dumped from Dover as it was a long time since there was no Marine Corps, Harbor or City Station. London Bridge is completely open. With work on the redevelopment of London Bridge. Not 45o lines to the right of the map. It's a bad map type that makes something that's just on earth unrecognizable. Since when did Kent look like this - with a club leg? The map takes straight and straight south-east main lines (London - Tonbridge - Hastings and Tonbridge - Ashford - Dover) in a tangled few corners. Tonbridge - Dover line arrow straight (superb piece of engineering Cubitt) - why put four bends in it? Not only that, but it's so boring you can die of depression just by looking at it. Pointless headline. Buffers in London termini, but not elsewhere. Poor geographical relations between London terminals. Strange and gloomy flower-breeding - not typical (and two dark brown colors from Charing Cross). Lines do not intersect correctly, for example in Ebbsfleet. No statement on the choice of station (stations disappear along the north Kent coast). The routes are colored. Includes Thameslink to Bedford as a co-service. Poor presentation of Javelin's new fast services: unclear around Gravesend showing Eurostar passes; The North Kent lines stretched too far to the right making Javelin/Eurostar very indirect. The map below was added without a rethink. Some very small type there. You may not recognize this important route on this map.
  • Waste Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (November 2011)

    Waste Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (November 2011)

    Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report Kent Minerals And Waste Development Framework Waste Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (November 2011) The full responses for the Mineral Sites Development Plan Document Consultation can be found at: http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal/waste-dpd/waste-options?tab=list 1 Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report Produced by : Planning and Environment Environment and Enterprise Kent County Council Invicta House Tel: 01622 696815 County Hall Email: [email protected] Maidstone Web: www.kent.gov.uk/mwdf Kent ME14 1XX Textphone: 08458247905 The full responses for the Mineral Sites Development Plan Document Consultation can be found at: http://consult.kent.gov.uk/portal/waste-dpd/waste-options?tab=list 2 Kent County Council—Waste Sites Options Commentary Report Contents Page 1. Abbreviations 4 2. Introduction 5 3. Site Proposals 7 4. Responses for Waste Sites DPD 9 5. Energy From Waste 11 6. Hazardous Landfills 27 7. Non-Hazardous Landfill 31 8. Treatment/Materials Recycling Facility Sites for Consideration 35 9. Composting Sites for Consideration 59 10. Household Waste Recycling Centres & Transfer Sites for 75 Consideration 11. Inert/Construction, Demolition and Excavations Landfill & 99 Landraise Sites for Consideration 12. Environmental Improvement to Closed Bio-degradable Land- 129 fill Sites for Consideration 13. Glossary 143 14. Biodiversity Comments Glossary 148 The full responses for the Mineral Sites Development Plan