Response 387292897

Back to Response listing

Seeking your views

4. Please provide your comments on the environmental permit application received from East Kent Recycling Limited

Please provide your comments on the environmental permit application received from East Kent Recycling Limited (Required)
I would like to oppose the issue of any permit to East Kent Recycling Limited. As one of the closest residents to the existing EKR site I can honestly say that the noise from the site is at times intolerable.I am aware that the consultancy firm Waterman representing EKR have commissioned a noise report to support their application. This report would make a fiction writer proud and an alternative report commissioned by Redacted textand sent to KCC waste planning authority points out many errors in the original. Paramount in this are the places receptors were placed avoiding the new housing estate at Oare Gravel Works being developed by Anderson Developments, and the fact that one receptor at Pheasant Barn lay on its side for some time. I live opposite the EKR site and the noise on many occasions is way beyond annoying or irritating, it is positively detrimental to health causing anxiety and depression. This is in blatant contravention of the original permit where noise suppression methods are called for. Redacted textwho is EKR promised Oare Parish Council 5 years ago, that noise suppression measures such as rubber buckets and the replacement of the beeps from reversing lorries would be implemented, this has never happened. On page 99/112 of Permit AB3108XA am/19424 Plan2013 the sluice gates between the Dyke and the Creek should be closed in the event of a spillage, these "sluice gates" have been non operational for many, many years. According to many locals they have never even been in place. The drainage from site straight into the Dyke is supposed to be inspected regularly, why then do we see films of oil and chemicals on the water surface as well as a blue discolouration (no not algae) on a regular basis. The site stands on the very edge of a SSSI, an SPA and a RAMSAR site, the original permit issued to Faversham Skips in 1993 was for a small industrial operation with many restrictions on numbers of vehicle movements, tonnage of waste, noise dust and general pollution. It was easy for KCC to view this industrial area as suitable for EKR to run a "skip" company from the same site. EKR have created a much, much larger operation using enormous vehicles towing enormous trailers. The number of vehicles far exceeds the permit but KCC have refused to accept my count and do not have the resources to do their own, they have admitted so in a response to a letter from our MP. It used to be a pleasure to walk along the Saxon Shore Way chatting to the bird and wildlife watchers and the artists at their easels before the noise and pollution from EKR scared them and the wildlife away. The Saxon Shore Way is part of the National Coastal Path it is the very boundary of the SSSI, SPA and RAMSAR sites, it is also the only access route to EKR with its multitude of very large vehicles. Did I mention the 330 new homes being built just to the south east of EKR. They will also have to endure horrific noise and pollution from the site. I have enclosed a photograph of the dust cloud that emminates from the site, photographs do not do the situation justice. With the wind in the right direction my home, my car and inevitably my family get covered in this dust, we do not have it analysed, we wouldn't know how, maybe we should ask the EA to do this for us. We strongly suspect it contains cement and concrete dust, the kind that has been found to cause silicosis. A walk along the Saxon Shore Way would show evidence of this dust encrusted on what little vegetation survives. The current permit mentions a fit and proper person to run such a company. Please ask Redacted text at the EA if his quote that "Redacted textactions showed a blatant disregard for the environment", means a fit and proper person. This was after a previous prosecution. Although EKR have never been prosecuted the only name for any responsible person on the current permit is Redacted text. This permit relates only to what happens on site, the current permit require suppression of dust, there is non, no damping down no covers. The current permit calls for noise suppression, there is non. There is no enforcement of the current permit, once again a letter to our MP Redacted text from Redacted textsaid that the number of vehicle movements was the responsibility of KCC. Is the process of accurate record keeping on site the responsibility of the EA or KCC? There is no enforcement of permit or planning permission either on or off site and the constant buck passing makes it almost impossible for any complaint to be taken seriously.Please do not issue a permit.

Attachments