| Pre Inquiry Meeting Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12/06/2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
INQ/1 Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 Public Inquiry into the appeal by Kent International Gateway Ltd arising from Maidstone Borough Council’s failure to determine an application for planning permission for a proposed Rail/Road Freight Interchange, Warehousing and Other Works on land between the M20 and the A20, to the west of Junction 8 and east of Thurnham Lane, Maidstone. Note of Pre-Inquiry Meeting held on Friday 12 June 2009 1. Introduction Andrew Phillipson, the Inspector, introduced himself and Malcolm Rivett, the Assistant Inspector, and the representatives of the parties present. He reminded everyone that the purpose of the meeting was to consider the administrative arrangements for the Inquiry, not to debate the merits of the proposal. The main representatives of organisations present were: Kent International Gateway Ltd (KIG) – Christopher Katkowski QC Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) – Stephen Whale (of Counsel) CPRE (CPRE) – Richard Knox-Johnston Cemex (CX) – Andrew Street Environment Agency (EA) – Angus Ferguson Highways Agency (HA) – Mark Beard (of Counsel) Joint Parishes Group (JPG) – Peter Waite Kent County Council (KCC) – Libby McCutcheon Kent Downs AONB Exec (AONB) – Richard Bate Kent Police (KP) – Meyric Lewin (of Counsel) Natural England (NE) – David Tyldesley STOPKIG (STO) – Richard Ashness Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) – Richard Ground (of Counsel) Other representatives of the above organisations, the press and several members of the general public were also present. MBC indicated that the Council had not formally published a notice of the Pre-Inquiry Meeting (PIM), although the time, venue and purpose of the meeting had been reported in the Kent Messenger on 5 June 2009. Following discussion, it was agreed between the parties that, as the meeting was an Inspector’s PIM, there was no statutory requirement for it to be formally advertised. 2. Scope of
the Inquiry |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Inspector emphasised the importance of discussion between the parties in the period before the Inquiry to: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He also reminded the parties
that, whilst some objectors had
raised alternative sites as a
matter to be considered at the
inquiry, his remit was to
consider and report on the KIG
SRFI, not other possible SRFI
sites. Evidence on alternative
sites would be relevant in the
context of need and the
justification for KIG, but the
scope of the evidence brought
before the inquiry on other
sites should be limited with
that in mind. Parties expecting to call witnesses at the inquiry are: KIG - 11 (possibly 12) witnesses covering the following areas: Planning, Transportation (Road), Transportation (Rail), Landscape/Visual, Archaeology/Cultural Heritage, Drainage, Ecology, Noise, Air Quality, Security, Lighting (and Engineering Feasibility). Maidstone BC – 11 witness broadly aligning with those called by KIG. CPRE/STOPKIG – 14 witnesses (including Water Resources, Leeds Castle Conservation Area, Effect on the Community, Climate Change and Engineering Feasibility). CPRE and STOPKIG are individual Rule 6 parties in their own right but are likely to jointly present their evidence. Cemex – may elect not to appear at the Inquiry but to rely on written submissions (to be submitted at the time of exchange of Proofs of Evidence). Environment Agency – 2 witnesses covering drainage and ecology Highways Agency – 2 witnesses. Joint Parishes Group – it was initially suggested that the JPG could call up to 40 witnesses. However, the Inspector urged the Group to reduce this substantially -whilst he recognised that the group represented many Parish Councils, in his view it would not be helpful to have witnesses representing each Council individually. Where matters of concern overlap, one witness should be able to effectively represent the interests of several Parishes. Kent CC – 4 witnesses covering Planning Policy, Highways, Public Rights of Way and Archaeology. Kent Downs AONB Exec – 1 witness Kent Police – 2 witnesses Natural England - 2 witnesses (if necessary) Tonbridge and Malling BC – potentially 4 witnesses although they will liaise with others in an attempt to reduce this. 3. Inquiry Programme The Inspector confirmed that the Inquiry will open on Tuesday 13 October 2009 at 10.00. Thereafter it will sit on four days each week (Tuesday to Friday), nominally between 10.00 and 17.00 (with some 09.30 starts where the parties agree that this will be helpful). It was agreed that, on the information currently available, eight sitting weeks should be allowed to complete the Inquiry. Given the overall length of the Inquiry and the presence of half-term holidays it was agreed that the Inquiry would not sit on 26th, 27th or 28th October. Having heard the varying views of the parties, the Inspector indicated that the order of appearances would follow that preferred by the Rules with Maidstone BC giving their evidence first, followed by the other objectors and finally the appellant. Notwithstanding this, it was agreed that the Highways (trunk and major local road) evidence would be heard separately as a discrete topic (ideally immediately before KIG give their evidence). The Inspector confirmed that at least one evening session would be arranged for local residents to attend and speak. It was indicated that demand from local residents to speak is likely to be high. Short opening statements from KIG, MBC, the EA and STOPKIG/CPRE would be heard at the beginning of the Inquiry. Closing submissions will be expected from all the main parties calling evidence at the Inquiry. The Inspector indicated that the closing submissions will be used as a framework for the gist of the cases reported to the Secretary of State (SoS). The submissions will therefore need to be comprehensive and include all matters relied on. Cross-references to the evidence (with document and paragraph numbers) and concessions made during cross-examination (with the day and approximate time) should be included. Whilst the Inspectors will edit the submissions and add to them if they feel it desirable in the interests of fairness or clarity, they will not cast around for additional points mentioned in support of a case made - if the matter is not covered in the closing submissions, the parties should assume that it will not be reported. Copies of the closing submissions will be included with the Inquiry documents submitted with the report to the SoS. They will therefore need to be in writing. The inquiry will be adjourned if necessary to allow adequate time for their preparation. 4. Documents and Evidence Statements of Common Ground and Core Documents The Inspector once again urged all the parties to work together in the run up to the Inquiry to narrow the areas of dispute as far as possible. All areas of agreement should be included in bi-lateral or multi-lateral Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs), which should be prepared following the guidance in Circular 05/2000, Annex 3(ii). Where matters are not fully agreed, but the areas of dispute are clearly defined, the scope of the disagreement could usefully also be recorded in the SoCGs. A set of core documents should also be agreed (KIG offered to send out a draft list to which other parties can add). The organisation nominating the document should normally supply the necessary copies of it. Items published by the Government (e.g. PPSs, PPGs), need not be included as core documents unless they are specific to the area or otherwise not likely to be readily available to the Inspectors. Proofs of Evidence The Inspector advised that proofs should be prepared following the advice in Circular 05/2000, Annex 3(i). However, all proofs will be included as Inquiry documents and will be sent with the report to the SoS. Accordingly, it will not be necessary to separate the tables and technical data out into appendices – they can be included wherever is most convenient. Appendices to proofs should not duplicate material contained in the Statements of Common Ground or core documents. Where proofs exceed 1,500 words, a summary should be provided. For further guidance on the preparation, numbering and indexing of documents, see Appendix A. Conditions and Undertakings The Inspector advised that a draft list of conditions should be available at the opening of the Inquiry along with Heads of Terms of any s106 Undertakings. Fully executed undertakings will be required by the close of the Inquiry. 6. Pre-Inquiry Programme It was agreed that documents will be submitted in accordance with the following programme: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Programme Officer will make arrangements for the exchange of documents. The provisional requirements are as follows (numbers of copies and exchange of electronic versions to be finalised between the parties individually): | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As to core documents, the
Inspectors require two sets for
their use during the Inquiry. A
further set should be placed in
the Inquiry library (to be kept
available for inspection by the
Council/programme officer before
the Inquiry opens). The Inspector advised that the gist of any legal submissions should, wherever possible, be disclosed well in advance of the Inquiry. 7. Administrative Matters Programme Officer MBC indicated that they anticipate appointing an experienced programme officer shortly. The programme officer’s primary duty will be to act as a link between the Inspectors and the parties, with responsibility for co-ordinating the Inquiry programme, taking account of witnesses’ availability and other commitments wherever possible. He/she will also maintain the Inquiry library and document lists. The Inspector requested that contact details for the programme officer (with a mobile phone number) be circulated to the main parties as soon as the appointment was confirmed. Inquiry Venue and Facilities MBC indicated that they were in the process of organising a suitable venue for the first week of the Inquiry when a large number of local residents are expected to attend. For the subsequent weeks a smaller room in the Council’s offices in central Maidstone will be used (accommodating around 100 people). The Council was urged to consider making arrangements for the public to access the venue for the first week if it is not well served by public transport. The Inspectors indicated that a small ancillary room would be required for their use at both venues, together with separate rooms for the other main parties, if possible. Photocopying facilities will be required at both venues, including facilities for copying coloured material. A table or shelves will need to be provided for the Inquiry library, in a convenient position either near the back of the inquiry room, or in the vestibule. 8. Any Other Business Additional Information KIG confirmed that they intend to formally submit amended plans for the scheme and further environmental information on 3 July 2009. They would also arrange for the submission to be advertised. The Council indicated that they would be able to give an officer view on the adequacy of the further environmental information submitted and the appropriateness of the Inquiry considering the amended plans by the end of the first week in August (however, a Committee resolution on these matters may also be necessary). It was agreed that any representations in response to the formal consultation on the amended plans/additional information should be directed to MBC who will copy them to Sarah Banwell at PINS. In response to questions, the Inspector indicated that any consultation responses to the advert should be restricted to comments on the changes proposed. Representations made on other matters at earlier stages in the process would be taken into account at the Inquiry. Conflict of Interest The Inspector advised that his daughter works at the Environment Agency’s Kent office. However, her team at the EA had no responsibility for the matters at issue at this inquiry and she would have no involvement in the proceedings. Accordingly, he was content to continue as the Inspector appointed to consider the appeal. No one objected. Guidance for Document Preparation and Numbering See Appendix A Contact List See Appendix B for main contacts of organisations represented at the PIM. Andrew M Phillipson and Malcolm Rivett Inspectors 19 June 2009. APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Cemex UK Ltd |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||