Montage of documents for the Brett proposals for an aggregates washing plant at Ramsgate Port.

Letters opposing the Brett application for aggregate washing in the Port of Ramsgate

Brett’s have recently applied to Kent County Council (KCC) for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use or Development (CLOPUD)  for the erection of a sand and gravel washing plant in the Port of Ramsgate. As a local resident and councillor, I am extremely concerned about the detrimental impact the proposal could have on the nearby habitats, including Pegwell Bay SSSI.

This is an issue raising considerable public concern about the way that granting a Certificate of Lawfulness under the General Development Order could circumvent the statutory protections on the adjoining designated areas and, along with other local interest groups, such as The Ramsgate Society, I am anxious to ensure that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)  is carried out before the application can be considered further.

Below are two letters which I recently sent to KCC and Natural England in response to the public consultation on the application.

My letter to Kent County Council about Brett’s application

Application Number KCC/TH/0261/2016


Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the application on the following grounds.

The proposed plant constitutes a second Part B activity at Brett’s site on Ramsgate Port and as such requires a full environmental permit. The Brett’s site is exposed & within 1km of Pegwell Bay SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar area. It is also within 500 m of a heavily populated area and in direct sight of a large quantity of housing.

I cite the following legislation.

Under DEFRA’s Process Guidance Note 3/01 (12) Statutory guidance for blending, packing, loading, unloading and use of cement

1.6 – Sites with more than one Pt B activity …. will require a full permit not a simplified permit, therefore the whole installation comprising both activities should be subject to a full permit.

2.8 Conditions should also be reviewed where a complaint is attributable to the operation of the process and is, in the opinion of the regulator, justified.

Under Habitat Reg 98 (5) “Where any question arises as to agreeing to a plan or project, or affirming a permit on review, under regulation 62 (considerations of overriding public interest), the competent authority must refer the matter to the appropriate authority which must determine the matter in accordance with that regulation and give directions to the competent authority accordingly.

In addition this is a dirty and unsightly industrial operation, the local community object to this on aesthetic grounds. This is not what we the people of Ramsgate want. Please take notice.

Can you please confirm receipt of my email and also update me within 14 days of any developments in connection with this application.

Yours Sincerely
Cllr Karen Constantine.



My letter to Natural England about Brett’s application

Dear Heather,

I wish to state my objection to the further industrial development of Ramsgate Port area.

The proposal under consideration will increase the current operation by the size equivalent to two football pitches.

We have an SSSI site, Pegwell Bay within one kilometre and we are a Ramsar site. This site is currently polluting the local environment, with 2 tonnes of dust containing silica entering the air every 6-8 weeks.

Our local Council Thanet District Council are aware that this site should be subject to Habitat regulations. This being covered in our local plan.

I believe any increase of this operation or any similar should be subject to a full EIA.

Kind regards
Cllr Karen Constantine