- Application Information
- Documents
- Written representations
CROWN/2025/0000002 Written representations
Showing 1 to 50 of 50 representations, newest first.
Results per page 25 | 50 | 100Future Growth Planning Team on behalf of Southern Water
Please see attached letter.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 23 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 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 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Tanya Lomakin on behalf of Environmental Protection Team
See attached document
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 12 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Alice Brockway on behalf of Historic England
Please find attached Historic England’s response to the above application for retention of the Sevington Inland Border Facility. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 12 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
I strongly object to any plan to make the Sevington lorry park a permanent feature. This facility is completely unsuitable for a built-up residential area like Ashford. It’s dangerous, disruptive, and has already caused lasting damage to the town. • The light pollution is extreme — the whole area is lit up like a stadium all night, making it impossible to sleep or enjoy our homes. • The noise from lorries arriving, idling, and moving through the night is constant and stressful. • The local... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
I strongly object to the plan to make the Sevington lorry park a permanent fixture. Here are the main reasons why: • Light pollution: The park is lit up like an airport runway every night. The floodlights shine straight into our homes and bedrooms. It’s hard to sleep, and our once-dark street now feels like an industrial estate. • Noise and disruption: Lorries come and go all night. The engine noise, reversing alarms, and general movement make it impossible to enjoy peace and quiet at home —... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
I am writing to formally object to the proposed extension and potential permanent designation of the Sevington lorry park, which is located directly opposite my home. The operation of this facility has already caused significant harm to residential amenity, road safety, public health, and local environmental quality — all of which fall within the scope of material planning considerations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The scale and intensity of light pollution from the facility... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
I wish to strongly object to the proposed extension and potential permanent designation of the lorry park and customs facility at Sevington, directly across from my home. The introduction of this development has already caused a serious decline in the quality of life for nearby residents, and it would be wholly inappropriate and unjustifiable to make this situation permanent. One of the most immediate and unavoidable issues is the level of light pollution generated by the site. Similar to obj... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
I am writing to formally object to the proposal to extend or make permanent the lorry park and customs checkpoint at Sevington. Since its construction, this facility has had a significant and deeply negative impact on my quality of life, the safety of local roads, and the overall character of Ashford as a town. I urge the planning authority to seriously reconsider the implications of allowing this development to continue indefinitely. One of the most immediate and distressing effects has been... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed extension and potential permanent status of the Sevington Lorry Park, which is situated directly opposite my home. I believe this development has already had, and will continue to have, a severe negative impact on both local residents and the wider Ashford community — and should not be permitted to continue in its current or extended form. 1. Light Pollution and Loss of Residential Amenity The hundreds of industrial-grade lamp po... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
The lorry’s on the roads and round abouts are constantly creating dangerous situations for drivers in the areas, they are always parking near in locations they are not supposed too. The light pollution from the site is a disgrace, lights never turn off and are equal to that of a football stadium 24/7, the noise of the site is also constant and destructive to the once calm area. This site was never discussed and agreed by the local community , it was planned and forced by politicians that l... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
Wendy Rogers on behalf of Kent County Council and Ashford Borough Council
Redacted representation comment
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
Introduction 1 The development of the SIBF site has already caused substantial harm to the setting of the Grade I Listed Building, St Mary’s Church, Sevington. This impact was meant to be mitigated in three ways as part of the development consent: • Protected views through the commercial site. • A 30-bay church car park. • A circa £200,000 contribution to ‘church works’ before development commences. 2 The first two were implemented but the third has not so far been forthcoming. There is... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Helen Forster on behalf of Kent County Council’s Ecological Advice Service
See attached document
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 11 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
As a neighbour to this site, I lodge my objection to this application as submitted on the following grounds: 1. Noise: The noise emitted from the site has resulted in significant loss of amenity, regularly intrusive outside, often intrusive internally. The noise has impacted sleep and induces a feeling of nausea, particularly when continuous over several hours. Noise issues from the site, in order of impact, are as follows: a. Low frequency noise from multiple idling engines and ref... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 10 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Ruth Judge on behalf of Wye with Hinxhill Parish Council
At the Parish Council meeting on the 8th September Cllrs resolved to OBJECT on the grounds of the high level of light pollution and glare contrary to Ashford Borough councils dark skies policy env4 and the wide-ranging effect on the views from the Kent Downs AONB. The proposals continue to cause harm to the local environment, bats, insects and wildlife. Further lighting mitigation proposed would be welcomed if enforced and actively managed.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 10 Sep 2025
S Moore on behalf of Natural England
Please see Natural England’s response below to CROWN/2025/0000002
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 10 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Malcolm Wills on behalf of Kent County Council - Public Rights of Way
The only comment we have regarding this application is that we would wish to see the retention of the s106 requirement to reinstate the original alignment of the direct route Sevington to Mersham Church should operation of the site as an inland border facility ever cease.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 10 Sep 2025
Clerk to Brabourne Parish Council on behalf of Brabourne Parish Council
Brabourne Parish Council supports the planning matters raised by Sevington with Finberry Parish Council and Mersham Parish Council.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 4 Sep 2025
Katie Miller on behalf of Kent Downs National Landscape team
The Border Facility lies within the setting of the KDNL. The NPPG on natural environment specifically recognises that ‘Land within the setting of these areas often makes an important contribution to maintaining their natural beauty, and where poorly located or designed development can do significant harm. This is especially the case where long views from or to the designated landscape are identified as important, or where the landscape character of land within and adjoining the designated ar... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 3 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Jennifer Wilson on behalf of Environment Agency
Please find attached our response to the above consultation.
Submitted by: Consultees
Date submitted: 3 Sep 2025
Contains attachment(s)
Redacted representation comment
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Aug 2025
Redacted representation comment
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 11 Aug 2025
The current facility, is poorly sign posted and there are still trucks that become stuck on Cheesemans Green lane causing major disruption to local residents as the trucks are unable to turn, leading them having to reverse back down tight country lane. There has been considerable amounts of rubbish on the surrounding verges of the site where truck drivers have left and emptied there trucks leading to large quantities of rubbish, totally unacceptable for local residence being effected by this. Fi... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 5 Aug 2025
Rikk Sowerby on behalf of UK Power Networks
We refer to the Planning Application for the above site. The proposed development is in close proximity to our substations and have the following observations to make: If the proposed works are located within 6m of the substation, then they are notifiable under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The Applicant should provide details of the proposed works and liaise with the Company to ensure that appropriate protective measures and mitigation solutions are agreed in accordance with the Act. T... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 4 Aug 2025
The massive amount and brightness of the lighting seems unnecessary. At night the whole sky is lit up across the whole site when there are barely any lorries there. I don’t see the need to have the whole site lit up to the extent that it is. It’s wasteful, unnecessary and intrusive to the surrounding area and homes. I live over a mile away from the site but it still streams light into my home all night.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 3 Aug 2025
As a nearby resident, I have some safety concerns around the Sevington interchange as a result of the continuing operation of this facility. Lorries occasionally attempt to enter via the staff entrance, which leads to blocking church road with no area to turn. For those residents who live nearby, this is hazardous. On exit from the site, many lorries head towards the m20, dover bound. I have personally had more than 6 near misses on the 10a roundabout in 18 months where lorries change lane... Read more
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 2 Aug 2025
The site needs to be much more proactive on reducing the constant lighting that is on all night when absolutely not required. Not in consideration with the green agenda and is highly unpleasant for those living in the area. Also maintaining the areas surrounding which have become a dumping ground for rubbish and excrement. Better signs for lorries and what lanes they need to be in to navigate. Signs in other languages.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 2 Aug 2025
To be used as overflow car park for the William Harvey Hospital.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 2 Aug 2025
The creation of the temporary Inland Boarder Facility never recognised the destruction of the Roadside Nature Reserve AS07 along Highfield Lane as administered by Kent Wildlife Trust. This would have been an area of species rich meadow recognised for holding chalk grassland species. As this was there in 2020 and I believe the baseline for BNG goes back to 2020, then this roadside nature reserve and the habitat that was there should be recognised in this applications BNG assessment.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 2 Aug 2025
I plan to provide comments as the Ward Member (Ashford BC) who's ward covers the application site ahead of the deadline. This submission is to obtain a reference number.
Submitted by: Interested Party
Date submitted: 1 Aug 2025
Contains attachment(s)