10th November - Day 15 The entire day was devoted to members of the public. The first to speak was Alan Thomas, Chairman of STOPKIG, and he was followed a short time later by Val Springett, also a member of the STOPKIG team. Some very good points were raised by both of them. One of the more interesting statements came from Ian McDonald, speaking for the South East division of Railfuture, a national group campaigning for better use of rail for both passengers and freight. They generally support opportunities to get freight off the roads and onto the rail network, but explained that in this case, the site was in the wrong place to work as an SRFI. 11th November – Day 16 The majority of the day was devoted to the witnesses called by the Joint Parishes Group. They presented 10 witnesses today, but unfortunately they did not have the levels of expertise needed, and did not prove as robust as expected under cross examination. 12th November – Day 17 The day commenced with Peter Titchener, another JPG witness giving evidence on the business case and the failure to demonstrate need. He was followed by Paul Harwood, from the Highways Agency on the effect on the M20 and particularly J8. There had been some points of disagreement, mostly relating to traffic flows when Operation Stack is in operation, but following some discussions, the Highway points of issue were resolved by the KIG legal team. Graham Rusling the Kent County Council Public Rights of Way officer spoke at length about the negative effect the footpath and bridleway changes would have on the amenity value of those routes. Various Acts relate to footpaths, including The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and sections of the Highways Act 1980 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. One of the main themes is that any changes to Public Rights of Way should not allow the new route to be any less convenient for the public to use, nor reduce the amenity value of that footpath or bridleway, and this formed the basis of his excellent evidence. In cross examination, Mr Litton struggled to find an angle to gain a point, attempting to argue that although the open aspect of, and views from the existing footpaths would be lost, that this would only apply to existing users, and that new users would not miss what they hadn’t had, much to the amusement of the members of the public. Mrs Anne Rillie took the witness stand for CPRE. She is the Access and Bridleways Officer for the British Horse Society, and a statutory consultee for any changes to bridleways. She explained the popularity of the bridleways for horse riders from across a large area, and also explained what aspects of the proposed development and revised bridleways would be liable to frighten horses and cause a danger to them and their riders. She was followed by Dr Felicity Simpson , again speaking for CPRE, on local views. The day ended at 5.45 13th November – Day 18 Another group of members of the public took to the witness stand today to give their views, in some cases giving emotional statements which were really quite poignant. Some very good points were made. Following on from the members of the public was Mr Phil Rech, speaking for the Appellant (KIG), on footpath stopping issues. The frustration of the members of the public, to some of Mr Rech’s comments was very apparent, especially when he suggested that the footpaths and bridleways would be just as enjoyable to use after the development had been built! He went on to say (with respect to crossing over the intermodal area right next to lorries loading and unloading) “ some won’t like it, others will find it interesting”! Cross examination of Mr Rech by Mr Howell-Williams the QC for Kent County Council commenced after lunch, and was in full swing until interrupted by a fire alarm in Kent House! Once the session resumed, cross examination continued by KCC and the other Rule 6 parties. In response to the question from STOPKIG – ‘but won’t people hear the bleeping noises from reversing lorries?’ Mr Rech replied “No, because they will use less intrusive bleepers”!! However, he did concede “ I accept there will be a significant detriment to the area”. The disbelief of Mr Rech’s evidence left the members of public astounded. The day ended at 5.15pm

3rd November - Day 11 Daytime Session: Today saw the first of the STOPKIG witnesses to speak. Tony Pagett presented his case on Logistics, having 25 years experience in the Freight Industry, was a robust witness. Despite the best efforts of Mr Katkowski, Tony stood up well to tough cross examination. With an early finish planned due to the evening session, cross examination was not finished today and will continue tomorrow Evening Session: This was held back at the Ramada Hotel, to allow room for members of the public to attend to listen. Over 300 people attended to support those speaking, and although both Inspectors - Mr Phillipson and Mr Rivett were there, Mr Katkowski was not. Only Mr Litton from KIG attended for the Appellant. The speakers made some excellent points, which were noted by the Inspectors. All the statements have been copied and entered into the Inquiry documentation, and will be re-read by both inspectors when they consider their decision. The evening over-ran and did not finish until 11.15pm 4th November – Day 12 Mr Katkowski continued cross examining Tony Pagett this morning, but as yesterday, he did not succeed in gaining much ground. Once Tony Pagett had completed his evidence, he was followed to the witness stand by Mr Bert Blissett, STOPKIGs Rail witness. He started his introduction by explaining that when first asked to appear for STOPKIG, he had declined, as he was in favour of freight on rail. However, once he had looked at the proposal, he then decided to assist STOPKIG as he considered that the KIG proposal would not increase rail freight, and may do harm to other sites. Mr Blissett has many years of experience of working in the rail freight industry, and brought robust evidence to argue against the KIG proposal. 5th November – Day 13 The day started with Brian Clifford giving evidence on the harm that KIG would cause to the community. Brian presented an excellent case, and stood up well to subsequent cross examination by John Litton. In the afternoon, Richard Ashness of STOPKIG took the stand, and presented his evidence on the need for an SRFI in this location. He gave a very polished and confident performance, which was enjoyed by the public. Cross examination has not yet commenced by the KIG legal team, as Mr Ashness is unable to attend next week due to other commitments. His questioning by Mr Katkowski or Mr Litton was deferred until Tuesday 17th November. 6th November – Day 14 More members of the public took to the witness stand today to give their views and a great variety of angles were highlighted. Some good points were made. Also speaking this morning were two CPRE witnesses, Victoria Wallace, the CEO of Leeds Castle, and Dr Felicity Simpson – Chairman of CPRE Maidstone. Ms Wallace spoke about the economic impact that the KIG proposal would have on tourism, particularly relating to Leeds Castle.