CROWN/2025/0000002 Written representations
Showing 1 to 25 of 54 representations, newest first.
Results per page 25 | 50 | 100Natural England on behalf of comments on final unilateral undertaking
Our ref: 535624 Your ref: CROWN/2025/0000002 Thank you for your consultation on the above, which was received by Natural England on 09 December 2025. Natural England have reviewed the final draft unilateral undertaking. We advise that as it does not address issues within our remit, we have no comment to make. For any queries regarding this advice, for new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consulta... Read more
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 12 December 2025
National Highway on behalf of comments on final unilateral undertaking
I represent NH Spatial Planning whom I am advising on this matter. I refer to the wording of the Universal Undertaking (‘UU’). National Highways is not a party to the UU but DfT have confirmed to NH that they have corresponded with KCC and they are satisfied with the wording of the UU. I can now confirm NH has no further comment on the wording of the UU.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 11 December 2025
Stephanie Holt-Castle on behalf of Kent County Council
Please find attached the response to the recent consultation on the Crown Development at Sevington.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 30 September 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Roland Mills on behalf of Ashford Borough Council
Please find attached the Council’s response to the Consultation in respect of this application comprising the Consultation Response with cross references to the associated report to the Council’s Planning Committee.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 25 September 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Future Growth Planning Team on behalf of Southern Water
Please see attached letter.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 23 September 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Padraig Herlihy on behalf of The Ramblers
It was unfortunate that the Inland Border Facility led to a substantial diversion of the public footpath through the site, with a much longer and more tortuous route around the facility. However, that footpath has now been extinguished. It is vitally important that the new planning permission should retain and protect the new, longer footpath around the site, to continue to link Mersham with Sevington Church. As part of the planning permission the Government should honour its pledge to hand the ... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Could you please tone down the lighting at Sevington IBF if it is going to be made permanent. The light pollution impact on the dark skies of the North Downs AONB is significant, and the site is underutilised - there is simply no need to have such terribly polluting lights on across the site 24/7. The site could be put to much better use, or reduced to the size needed, or you could actually allow lorry drivers the ability to stay there long enough to visit the facilities, instead of them feeling... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
All bushes, trees, shrubs which were planted around the site to buffer the artificial light and sound are now 95% dead as they were never cared for when they were first planted these need to be replaced from both a respect for neighbours, biodiversity and to counteract the light pollution. Foreign lorry’s now park over night and during the day in ‘authorised vehicle only’ lay-bys and more worryingly decide to stop and park on the chevrons and sleep in there cabs on the roundabout itself of o... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
This site should be returned to farm land and not used any more, it’s an eye sore and a huge light pollution to our local area , it also causes a lot of particulate pollution from all the diesel engines running at all hours and a noise problem. The drivers leave a trail of rubbish and bottles of urine all around the site and the local roads, they park up on roundabouts when there hours run out and in lay-bys not meant for them. There seems to be no enforcement of our traffic and parking rules an... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
I am saddened to see that the original 5 year plan for this site is now proposed to be extended to ‘permanent’. I was never in favour of this facility, and having experienced it over the past few years, I am even less in favour. This facility essentially extends the urban sprawl towards Mersham & Smeeth, and the light pollution from it is shameful. As one of the nearest villages to the facility, Mersham quite often has Lorries taking wrong turns into it, and the narrow lanes cannot cope. ... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Linda Arthur on behalf of The Village Alliance
We need a commitment from D of T for the long term protection of the land to the East of Highfield Lane up to Blind Lane to be preserved as a green buffer between Mersham and the IBF. This land has been designated a buffer under the current Ashford Borough Local Plan to 2030 Policy SP7 to protect the integrity of the village of Mersham from encroachment. We also need assurance that the land will be managed in the future to prevent the spread of noxious weeds onto adjoining land. More recently... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
The proposed changes are not required, the site is already under utilised with only a limited number of trunks using the site per day. To extend the site is another waste of taxpayers money. The investments should be used to improve Dover docks or maybe looking at rebuilding other suitable docks to take the strain from Dover and the M20
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Mersham Parish Council on behalf of Mersham Parish Council
Mersham Parish Council is concerned about the light pollution from this site, the litter that has increased along the A2070, in particular near the IBF site, the future of the High Field, the maintenance of the High Field, maintenance of the paths, the littering of the footpaths, the planting that was promised and not maintained and the traffic control systems as there are lots of issues with tail backs on the A20 around J10a. Mersham Parish Council supports the submission made by other Parish C... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Sevington with Finberry Parish Council on behalf of Sevington with Finberry Parish Council
Please find attached the comments
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Smeeth Parish Council on behalf of Smeeth Parish Council
Smeeth Parish Council wishes to raise concerns about Light pollution and traffic issues with J10a making Hythe Road very difficult to negotiate. The Parish Council also supports submissions from other Parish Councils affected.
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Jacob Grant on behalf of JG Electricals
The application should be declined due to the following points: 1. The facility breaches the National Planning Policy Framework by causing significant harm to health, quality of life, and public amenity, particularly through noise, light, and traffic pollution. 2. A full and up-to-date Environmental Impact Assessment is required for developments of this scale, and its absence or inadequacy undermines the legal basis for continuation. 3. The site contradicts Ashford Borough Council’s Local ... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
I have personally suffered damage to my own vehicle due to increased lorry traffic and poor traffic management around the site. I have also witnessed numerous other incidents involving heavy goods vehicles and local drivers — accidents, near misses, and traffic violations are now routine. This is not acceptable in a town that was never designed to absorb this volume or type of traffic. The facility has brought noise, light pollution, litter, and an overwhelming industrial presence into a resi... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
is clear that this planning process was not made easily accessible or well-publicised to the people of Ashford. Many residents, including myself, were unaware of the opportunity to comment or oppose the development when it was first proposed. Proper community consultation should be a cornerstone of any major infrastructure decision — not treated as a tick-box exercise by central government. The lack of transparency and genuine local engagement is unacceptable and suggests the government is pushi... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
total capital cost for the Sevington IBF was reported to be £154 million, including £70 million for the Border Control Post (BCP), with additional running costs of £88 million incurred by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) since 2020. Ridiculous! Enough said- get rid! The people of Ashford have suffered enough
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Christine Drury on behalf of CPRE
Christine Drury for CPRE Ashford 1. This application is for a continuation of the now existing built structures and installations at the Sevington IBF. It is an opportunity to correct some of the mistakes that were made when the Sevington IBF was built in great haste and with scant regard for good planning practice during 2020 under the present Statutory Development Order. CPRE wrote to the SoS for Transport, Grant Shapps in July 2020 to urge the Department to work with both th... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
The facility has had a demonstrably negative impact on the local community and violates key principles under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires developments to avoid unacceptable harm to health, safety, and residential amenity. The light pollution is extreme, with residents comparing it to “Wembley Stadium” due to the intensity of artificial lighting throughout the night. This, combined with 24/7 noise from heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and engine idling, makes peaceful ... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
I drive past this site every day, and the roads surrounding it are now dangerously overloaded. What was once a manageable commuter route has become an accident-prone, congested, and unsafe area. Thousands of lorries pass through or park in and around the site daily — and the local road network was never designed for this volume or weight of traffic. The result is a rising number of crashes, blocked junctions, and serious danger for families and schoolchildren. Ashford has essentially become a... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Mark Knighting on behalf of Active Travel England
On the basis of the information available, Active Travel England is content with the development proposed.
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
The ineffective safeguards around imports to the country via Dover have been widely reported. To compound such ineptitude and the political and economic farce that Brexit has imposed on the annual tax burden of every citizen, and therefore the massive financial burden to the public purse by extending and/or expanding the use of this site is unconscionable. I drive past this site several times a week and rarely see more than a a very few trucks on site. There is no convincing argument to say t... Read more
Submitted by: Interested party
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Kevin Bown on behalf of National Highways
National Highways’ Ref NH/25/12357) Dear Sir/ Madam National Highways were notified via Ashford Borough Council on 1 August 2025 of the consultation on the above Crown Land Application with any representations to be made to PINS by 23.59 on 12 September 2025. We have assessed the application and supporting documents. Taking account of them and our wider experience of, and engagement with, the Sevington IBF, please find attached our formal response of No Objection subject to the impositi... Read more
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 12 September 2025
Contains attachment(s)