29th Oct - Day 9 CPRE – now known as Protect Kent commenced presentation of their evidence, with Brian Lloyd speaking on the Planning aspects of the KIG proposal. Using his experience of working for Planning Authorities he argued that KIG is contrary to many Government policies which are designed to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside for people to enjoy. During cross examination, Mr Katkowski tried to argue that the South East Plan policy relating to SRFIs did not contain the same wording about protecting the countryside nor did it mention that SRFIs should be on brownfield sites, but Mr Lloyd replied that the SE Plan should not be read in isolation, and that the wording in other policies still applied. Brian Lloyd was followed onto the witness stand by Dr Hilary Newport who spoke on the visual impact KIG would have on the landscape and surrounding villages, and views from the AONB and the Pilgrims Way. Graham Warren then spoke on drainage and water resources, and the effect that KIG would have on the aquifer and local boreholes, including the threat of contamination of local water supplies. His knowledge and experience in this field was impressive, and the Inspector asked him to be involved in discussions on conditions that could be imposed if KIG should be approved. Sean Furey then spoke on the climate change aspects of the KIG plan, calling into question the claims made by KIG of reducing carbon emissions. He noted that KIG had not produced a carbon budget, and also referred to the Land Registry documents regarding a higher payment to the landowners if KIG did not have to put the railhead in, arguing that if the railhead was not built, then KIG would not lead to any carbon emission reduction at all. The next Protect Kent witness was John Wale, speaking on Engineering Feasibility and Geology, specifically the complications of building on the underlying Gault Clay and Folkestone Sand, each of which presents its own challenges. The enormous amount of earth-moving required would potentially lead to instability of the slopes by the M20 and the CTRL, and the piling required under the biggest warehouse at the western end of the site would most likely lead to vibration effects being felt in neighbouring properties. He said that insufficient engineering method information had been supplied by KIG, but Mr Katkowski referred to the fact that this was, after all, an Outline Planning proposal, and that this detail would be dealt with at the detailed Planning stage, and that if problems were then foreseen, then building would not be commenced. Richard Knox-Johnston then replied that if this should occur, then the land would already have been blighted by the approval of Outline Permission. All the cross examination today was done by Mr Katkowski, who became agitated a couple of times during the day! He appeared to be missing the support of his side-kick, Mr Litton who was not there on Thursday. The day’s session was completed by a couple of speakers, including Dena Ashness, the first of the public speakers, who gave an excellent speech on harm to the local community. She said there was more protection for wildlife than people, and asked where the expert witness was to ensure that there was no long term harm to the 10,000 people of Bearsted! 30th Oct – Day 10 We had an excellent public attendance today for the start of STOPKIG’s evidence .THANK YOU. The day started with Richard Bate of the Kent Downs AONB, who was an excellent witness on the effect that KIG would have on the enjoyment of the Pilgrims Way and the North Downs Way. His main case was centred around the noise and light pollution that the site would create. An extremely robust witness, Mr Bate stood up extremely well to cross examination from Mr Katkowsk, who was trying to argue that protection of the view from the AONB had not been carried from one policy to another, the South East Plan, and therefore did not need to be considered. Mr Wade explained that the policies were intended to be used in conjunction with each other, not in isolation. He quoted an inspector from a previous planning inquiry who had said “There is no case for squandering the achievements of those policies over the years”. He continued that just because there is a policy that supports SRFIs, it should not be considered as the only policy, and that no one policy ‘trumps’ another. Following Mr Bate was the first of the STOPKIG witnesses, Mr Ray Saunders, who was presenting some pretty dramatic evidence on Safety, Security and related Crime. The Inspector noted how many people had attended the Inquiry and decided to allow the photographic evidence that Mr Saunders had to be shown on a screen. The effect of an explosion in a container of hazardous chemicals would require the evacuation of an area of 1500m radius, which would involve evacuating a large proportion of Bearsted and could lead to closure of the M20 and Channel Tunnel Rail link. He also noted that it is well-known that hazardous cargo is not always declared as such, because that causes restrictions on its movement and handling. This can and does lead to HGVs removing their HAZARD plates to avoid costs and delays. The whole presentation by Mr Saunders was superb, and the cross examination by John Litton for KIG, was limited, and mainly an attempt to discredit Mr Saunders, rather than argue against him on a technical basis. KIGs evidence in this area is lacking considerably, and the Inspector asked for some more research to be undertaken on the storage regulations for hazardous cargo. All in all it was a very interesting presentation! The next witness was due to be Mr Brian Clifford, giving evidence on Harm to the Community for STOPKIG, but with time becoming an issue, it was decided to leave this until the following week. There was one speaker scheduled for Friday, Paul Young, who spoke very well regarding the impact KIG would have on his family, and read a letter written by his six year old daughter.