Review of the eighth week of the Public Inquiry

1st December - Day 27 – The week began with KIG’s hydrology witness, Mr Whiting, having to admit that the submitted drawings would need to be amended at the detailed design stage. Interrupting a question from Mr Knox-Johnston of CPRE about the angle of slopes Mr Phillipson asked if Mr Knox-Johnston was aware the plan showed an exaggerated vertical scale. (NB As the Inquiry opened on Wednesday Mr Phillipson apologised and explained his interpretation had been incorrect). The JPG’s Peter Waite followed with questions about foul water drainage which will, apparently, be pumped direct to the waste water treatment works at Aylesford.
Mr Bracegirdle, KIG’s geotechnical witness, then took the stand, saying that although it was a large site the level of complexity was similar to other sites he had seen. Detailed questioning by Mr Knox-Johnston failed to shake his confidence, although he was unable to say what the impact on local properties would be. He did add, though, that the effect on the 10,000 local residents would be “uncomfortable”! Mr Bracegirdle was unable to say whether or not any risk assessment had been carried out in terms of earthmoving works relative to the railway embankment. Those residents present were left uneasy following Mr Bracegirdle’s attempts to reassure them about the effects of using lime to stabilise the gault clay. Possible problems of dust during construction would have to be dealt with through conditions. Local residents will be dismayed to hear that dust pollution problems would be “an unpleasant experience” and, if prolonged, could become dangerous. Bore piles were more likely to be used on gault clay but any problems from driven piles were more likely to arise from noise rather than vibration, particularly at a distance of more than 200 m. Mr Bracegirdle appeared completely unconcerned about the development’s buildability, reiterating that he could see engineering solutions. In response to two questions about the balancing volume of earth left over and also drainage, Mr Bracegirdle said that these issues would have to be considered very carefully at the detailed design stage. He conceded that the resultant traffic would have the greatest impact but fortunately it would all arrive and depart via the entrance just off junction 8. The Inspectors left for their unaccompanied visit to the affected area at lunchtime.

2nd December – Day 28 – The Inspectors described their walk around Bearsted the previous afternoon: Yeoman Lane, across the Green towards the Telephone Exchange, Fremlins Road, along the footpath into the site, back and along The Street, towards the church, on to the Bearsted Woodland Trust, returning towards the tennis courts and back along the road around the edge of the Green. They then drove and parked by Barty House, walked up towards Barty Farm, then drove up past Woodcut Farm and then back to see the view in the opposite direction by the car wash on the A20. They drove up the A229 and parked in the car park at the top, with a view towards Aylesford, which they observed was very obvious but considerably further away than the KIG site would be, and also towards Maidstone.
Mr Chadwick took the stand to present evidence and answer questions on archaeological matters.

3rd December – Day 29 - Security experts crossed swords on Thursday: STOPKIG’s Ray Saunders (supported by David Hatcher at his side) cross examined KIG’s security expert, Mr Keeling, with interesting results. Under cross examination Mr Keeling’s attention was drawn to the inadequacy of Water Lane as an emergency access point. Mr Keeling said that emergency access was not in his remit – he had been instructed not to discuss it! Mr Saunders turned to on site ‘crisis management’ and drew attention to the fact that the north west sector of the development was an ‘island site’. The largest industrial unit (1,045,900 sq ft) could only be approached from the NE, yet the prevailing wind is from the SW – so in the event of a serious fire all emergency services were expected to approach from and set up incident support units downwind of the fire! Mr Keeling’s response – not my remit!
Mr Saunders turned to terrorism: Mr Keeling agreed that KIG would be a potential terrorist target but his standard answer was to boast the excellent security measures that would be put in place which would, in his opinion, reduce the risk to ‘an acceptable level’. He was then asked about whether he would expect certain cargos to be allowed onto site (details not published here for security reasons). Mr Keeling tried to resist answering specific questions about the cargos. “Not my remit?” quipped Mr Saunders and pointed out to him, that if he, as a security expert, didn’t know whether to allow the load through, how would the gatehouse? He then admitted that he would allow the said cargo in, at which stage it was pointed out that he had allowed in an ‘IRA bomb’. He had to admit that for all their ‘state of the art’ security, it would not catch all scenarios.
Mr Saunders pointed out that both he and the police in preparing their evidence had produced plans with explosion zones on them – Mr Keeling had not. Had he at any stage prepared such charts? Yes, he had but only in draft. So why had he not produced them in evidence – perhaps they didn’t show KIG in a favourable light? Hmm, difficult one to answer!

A high point for STOPKIG was reached when Mr Keeling was asked about the number of HGVs expected per day. Mr Keeling didn’t know – not my remit! He thought 2,500 but Mr Saunders helped him out – 2,900 as the lowest estimate – ie. 2 per minute if there was a totally even flow, but we all know there will be surges as trains discharge at Folkestone and ships at Dover etc. So Mr Keeling, how long to security check each lorry? Answer: 3 minutes each – it takes that long for the ANPR cameras to get feedback etc. Hang on, said Mr Saunders, “KIG do not seem to be talking to each other – there is no joined up thinking here – 3 minutes per lorry yet 2 lorries per minute?” Mr Phillipson interjected “Mr Saunders has a point here that is also of concern to me...” and went on to expound – “this would need a toll booth style entrance – and I don’t think KIG have enough land”. Mr Keeling tried unsuccessfully to dig KIG out of a hole – he had just confirmed STOPKIG’s own expert, Mr Geoff Heard’s, estimate of 3 minutes and contradicted KIG’s expert’s previous opinion of 1 minute.
In light of the identified failings in communication between KIG experts and the compartmentalisation of responsibilities Mr Keeling was asked about 'the concept of integrated security'. In explaining it, he totally omitted to include 'full integration with the business operations and traffic management etc.', whereupon it was clear his whole approach to creating his 'sophisticated and effective security strategy' was anything but that.

After approximately 3 hours of cross examination, Mr Keeling rather lost his cool. Mr Katkowski tried to interject and explain what his witness was trying to say, but was reminded by Mr Saunders that it was for the witness to explain himself, not his QC.
Mr Phillipson accurately and fairly summed up the session – STOPKIG were concerned about the close proximity of the site to the people, there was a real risk and KIG’s security however good, could not prevent a planned attack. KIG had not adequately planned against VBIEDs being received into the site by rail and various explosive devices would not be detected by the protections in place...etc
Altogether a thoroughly entertaining exchange that was at least 5-0 in favour of StopKIG!.

4th December – Day 30 – 9.30 start – Mr Rech, for KIG, began the day by responding to questions posed by STOPKIG the previous Friday. He went on to say that the development would not be highly visible from the AONB, indeed the polytunnels towards Otham were particularly visible due to their reflective covering. The original KIG photomontages, validated by MBC, had been redone without leaves on the 24th November 2009. Mr Rech said he felt that any landscape and visual impact issues had been overstated by MBC and other objectors. Mr Corner for MBC asked Mr Rech a large number of detailed questions about the methodology used in his assessment. It emerged that KCC’s assessment of the site had fallen into two areas, the Hollingbourne Vale West and Leeds Lenham Farmland, both of which were described as landscape to be “restored and created”. Mr Corner dug deeper into the apparent lack of any assessment of landscape capacity or sensitivity in Mr Rech’s evidence. Mr Corner went on to highlight the importance of a landscape witness offering transparency in his methodology. The standard response to many such questions appeared to be “No, but I have taken it into account” Following questions about the construction phase Mr Rech admitted that the “character of the site would undergo enormous change”. Mr Corner’s next line of attack centred on the large number of viewpoints which had not initially been mentioned in the Environmental Statement. Again and again Mr Rech’s stock response to questions regarding substantiating his methods used was “We have as part of the evidence”. Mr Rech emphasised on several occasions “the eroding effect of the transport corridor” implying that the area was already ruined by the presence of the M20/CTRL and so adding an SRFI might not make much difference.

Mr Phillipson was keen to know whether or not car drivers counted as much as walkers and local road users, describing the difference in his perception of motorway driving eg. around a city such as Sheffield as opposed to parts of rural Lancashire. He added that passengers have greater possibilities of appreciating views. Probably the final insult was Mr Rech’s response to a question from Mr Corner regarding the impact on walkers attempting to reach the AONB from Bearsted “not if they use a car”!!
Mr Bate, from the Kent Downs AONB Unit, offered some quickfire questioning of Mr Rech leaving him clutching at yet more straws when asked about sightlines from the M20 over the fencing and also from the AONB looking down over the intermodal area, admitting that the fencing would not help from this direction.
No points were gained from Mr Tyldersley (Natural England) either.
A variety of discrepancies in levels were uncovered by CPRE’s Mr Knox-Johnston although later on Mr Rech likened this proposal to that of the Blythe Valley Business Park and suggested that both the local community and employees would be invited to “enjoy” access to the Public Rights of Way through the site. Mr Rech then revealed that he wasn’t aware that approximately 500 horses were kept in the area and also that he had offered no evidence to show that he had considered the large number of people who would be affected. He also revealed his lack of attention to historic maps in order to chart the evolution of landscape features over the centuries. The questioning followed on through rooflights, movements of cranes and vehicles and the possible difficulties posed by working with gault clay. At this point Mr Phillips (wearing his engineer’s hat) interrupted to object most strongly to the repeated references to gault clay, which would be managed by engineering.

STOPKIG’s Brian Clifford concluded the questioning with references to the close-up views, footpaths and discrepancies in some photomontages (although Mr Katkowski laughed this off with a quip about the shrinking size of cars). Mr Rech admitted to some errors. Mr Clifford persisted with questions about the so-called screening of the rail activities very close to properties in Thurnham Lane and finished off with the statement “You cannot cocoon this site”.

Review of the ninth week of the Public Inquiry

8th December – Day 31 – 10 a.m. start – Mr Rech, KIG’s witness on Landscape and Visual, continued to be cross examined by David Tyldersley from Natural England. CPRE’s Richard Knox-Johnston asked searching questions which flushed out the absence of a landscape and visual impact plan and also the lack of evidence that the number of people and horses in the area had been considered. Nor had Mr Rech consulted maps from the eighteenth century or even the Domesday Book to understand the evolution of the site’s landscape. He did, however, admit that the AONB was “very attractive and worthy of its designation” and “the backbone of the tourist trade”.

The issues of rooflights, and comparison with the Aylesford Newsprint site were raised yet again, as was the difficulty of working with gault clay. At this point Mr Phillipson interrupted “It can be engineered. This is my professional opinion” and “There is a cost issue potentially”. Mr Knox-Johnston continued to drive home the point that other discrepancies in the plans could be seen in the pond diagrams.

STOPKIG’s Brian Clifford continued with this theme with questions regarding the integrity of some photomontages and also the location of some footpaths. The point having been made with the admission of an error with respect to a photomontage in the Woodcut Cottage area, Mr Clifford then moved on to describe how misleading other photos were, such as the view from houses at the southern end of Thurnham Lane which would be changed for ever from long views east and north towards Water Lane and the North Downs, to a gigantic bund of earth with woodland planting in an attempt to disguise the presence of shunting trains.

Mr Clifford summed up with the statement “You cannot cocoon that site.”

Mr Corner focussed on discrepancies in KIG’s figures.

9th December Day 32 – 10 a.m. start – Mr Phillipson opened by saying there was no reason to think that any one party was going to claim costs from any other.
Mr Hugh Bullock, KIG’s Planning witness, spent the day in the witness box. He proved a strong witness, referring on several occasions to case law and also to the current conference in Copenhagen on climate change, adding he felt that “local concerns were overstated”! In the global picture he said that major changes were necessary which might cause “severe discomfort for those in the local area”. (NB Later on, Mr Rivett questioned how reducing food miles squared with Mr Bullock’s vision of the thousands of lorries transporting goods from across Europe to the KIG site in their bid to save the world from the effects of climate change! He also wondered what the 12,000 tonnes of CO2 saved actually meant. Mr Bullock responded it was just the outcome from the vehicle miles (and manufacture of those HGVs) saved)).

Mr Corner questioned him closely on the twin issues of benefits and government policies, gaining many points, particularly in relation to carbon dioxide emissions. This was also the case in relation to the need for SRFIs and their locations.

A general discussion followed about the weight to be given to locally designated areas. In response to questions about people changing their behaviour Mr Bullock said that if the development went ahead he “could not see a change in behaviour” as “some may not know what was there before” and others might see it as “a modern very well designed piece of industrial infrastructure.”
The timing of the proposal in relation to the draft SE Plan and the Howbury decision was discussed, followed by questions about National Policy Statements, regional strategies and the Maidstone Borough Core Strategy. Mr Bullock was adamant that the proposal was not premature.
There were no questions from CPRE, STOPKIG or the JPG.

10th December – Day 33 The morning was devoted to a detailed discussion about Conditions and S106 payments which would be made by the developer should the appeal be upheld. This is normal procedure and is followed through without prejudice. The session continued after Mr Richer’s evidence below.

Mr Richer, KIG’s witness on Air Quality, gave a strong rebuttal of objectors’ views. The JPG’s Dr Gavin McLaggan asked some questions of the witness to further his understanding of the evidence. He asked if it were desirable to go further than the minimum standards in order to reduce the impact on residents. Mr Richer replied that it was, indeed, desirable in an ideal world but it is not possible in the real world. He added that the site would be a source of air pollution.

11th December – Day 34 – The day was devoted to the cross examination of Mr Sharps, representing KIG on noise and vibration matters.

The session started with a summary by Mr Sharps of the basis for his case for the development. Cross examination for STOPKIG was conducted by Mr Brian Clifford. Mr Sharps stated that he had given evidence on noise to 300 public inquiries. Mr Clifford asked how often he had appeared for developers, and how often for the objectors – Mr Sharps responded “about 90% for the developers”.

He was also asked how often, when an appeal was successful, and a development proceeded, he had returned to a working site to check his assumptions about noise levels. He replied “about 10 times”. He said he generally found noise levels to be lower than he had assumed, but gave no specific examples.

Mr Sharps was asked about measurement of current sound levels. He had to admit the measurement locations shown on the map in his proof of evidence were incorrect. He also had to admit that a diagram shown in his report giving the reduction in sound levels with distance from source did not apply to M20 noise which is currently the main source of ambient, background noise. This apparently is because his diagram applied to a “point” source of noise not a “line” source such as the M20. His report, therefore gives no basis for calculating the attenuation of M20 noise at Bearsted’s residences.
Bearsted residents are expecting that when the M20 is re-surfaced locally, traffic noise will be much reduced. Mr Sharps agreed that if KIG is built, residents will be denied the benefits of this development since KIG noise will then predominate.

Mr John Wale, for CPRE, raised the question of vibrations rising from piling operations during the construction period. Mr Sharps admitted that some piling operations would give rise to some degree of vibration in the nearest buildings. However he did not believe that these would be at unacceptable levels but the actual levels would depend on the local geology.

He also stated that the impact in this case would be mainly from road freight which would not pass through a residential area and so he did not think that the impact would be significant on individual residents. Mr Garrett, however, proved a difficult witness for Mr Ashness, and gave little ground. Mr Rayner of Protect Kent also failed to gain much ground.

26th November – Day 25  Prof. Braithwaite's logistics evidence was taken apart so effectively by Mr Corner that STOPKIG decided that there was nothing to be added by further questions. An important aspect of this was the agreement by the Professor that if KIG met its forecasts for modal shift (which all opponents argue is highly unlikely) the CO2 saving would not be the tens of thousands of tonnes forecast by the KIG representatives at the Maidstone Studios meeting. Rather it might be about 12,000 tonnes pa which compares with 8,650 tonnes saved by one daily train carrying freight from Spain to the UK. This train runs to existing terminals in the UK and there is no need to build KIG for others to do the same.

The final logistics witness was Mr Russell who operates freight trains and road haulage. He said that he would be willing to operate at KIG and expected that there would be a demand, but did not add to his written evidence. The KIG case having been made to look so weak during the Prof's evidence opposition parties took the view that there was no need to ask more than the few questions put by Mr Corner.

27th November – Day 26  9.30 start. The evidence given today, if it were not so serious, could be described as pure Alice In Wonderland material. Mr Pollard, KIG’s witness on Night Time Visual Impact ie. lighting and skyglow, gave evidence. Mr Litton declined to ask any questions so Mr Corner QC for MBC asked some very searching questions, particularly with respect to the view towards the southeast, which is currently dark apart from just a handful of properties. Mr Pollard had to admit that 30% of the site would be lit (still an area equivalent to about 45 football pitches). In addition, as some of the large warehouses may also contain offices with skylights, Mr Pollard suggested that these could be darkened at dusk and throughout the night using industrial scale louvred blinds! Mr Pollard did admit, though, that he didn’t know whether or not such blinds would be included in the plans for this site. STOPKIG’s Richard Ashness then pounced with some piercing questions relating to the lighting in the intermodal area which would be clearly visible from the Bearsted Woodland Trust area and Church Lane, and a variety of other detailed questions about the impact of lighting on local residents, none of which Mr Pollard could deny. Mr Pollard was forced to admit that the reason for time restrictions on sports’ ground’s floodlighting was “to give the residents respite”. With the threat of 24 hour working this would clearly not be the case here. Mr Bate, from the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, followed on with some equally searching questions focussing on the fact that the vehicle lights on the M20 are not noticeable from the AONB, as they are moving perpendicular to the line of view, and also the M20 is unlit along this stretch, as is Junction 8, John Horne, for the JPG, asked some detailed technical questions about the lighting, as did Inspector Phillipson. Mr Pollard displayed a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of Public Rights of Way when asked about the lighting of footpaths through the site by Inspector Rivett.

Mr Ignatius Froneman, an architect, was the next KIG witness, giving evidence on the Historic Built Environment. Mr Whale, for MBC, focussed on the setting of the two listed buildings adjacent to the site, Barty Farmhouse and Woodcut Farmhouse. Mr Froneman appeared to relay on Mr Pollard’s evidence in terms of the impact of lighting but denied that he was informed by Mr Rech’s judgement regarding landscape and visual matters. When questioned by Richard Ashness about whether or not one’s appreciation of our cultural heritage was both for and by people, Mr Froneman replied that although the purpose was appreciation by human beings, the people are not protected. Mr Froneman admitted that on arriving at Bearsted Green, he experienced only a feeling of arrival rather than enjoying the Green set within its surroundings with the Downs as a backdrop. Inspector Rivett enquired whether or not the fields to the southeast of Woodcut Farmhouse were included in the setting Mr Froneman replied that the setting of any such building could not be rigidly defined and that in this particular case he didn’t think that the near landscape contributed to the setting.

The Inspectors closed the Inquiry for the day, thanking the Rule 6 parties for the lack of repetition in their questioning.

It is possible that the Inquiry will not sit on Wednesday morning and so the Inspectors may well do a site visit. It is vital, therefore, that as many posters are displayed as possible.