China Gateway Approved
The plans were sent to full council after planning committee members failed to come to a decision on whether to grant permission in August.
In the end 41 councillors voted the plans through while 10 voted against.
AS the clock struck 6pm council chairman John Kirby opened the meeting and agreed to suspend normal council procedures and adopt the protocol of a planning committee.
Planning chairman Ken Gregory was first to speak saying: "This comes before full council after it was deemed important enough for all 56 councillors to hear the matter. I make no bones about it I was all in favour of the planning application. We're looking at land that is designated for employment purposes in the local plan. I want Thanet to have thriving community not a dieing community. I don't care who develops the land, we'll have their money. Let's look to the future not to the past."
People in the public gallery who had booked a three minute slot to talk were then allowed to make their points.
Campaigner Malcolm Kirkaldie argued that Thanet's water supply could be under threat as the site would cover an area where part of Thanet's drinking water is stored.
Norman Thomas, who has recently run anti-Gateway rallies, spoke out against developer's promises of jobs.
Former teacher Paul Wells received rapturous applause from the 50-strong crowd in the public gallery for his comments questioning the integrity of the council and demanding an independent planning inspector look at the application.
The Trees For Thanet front man said: "There is a serious issue of this council's property company partnered with KCC, East Kent Opportunities. Your own company, with Cllr Latchford as a director, charging CGP £2.25 million for five acres for its Gateway Building and a ransom strip.
"If your property company had released all its holdings, a better plan could have resulted. Is this council now compromised being a direct beneficiary of its own approval decision?
"I urge you to consider not only this council's good name and integrity which is now in question but if you move to pass this application, you will have missed the opportunity to enhance this council's reputation rather than further damage it."
Planning case officer Doug Brown then gave a presentation on the application admitting that jobs for local people could not be guaranteed but insisted assurances by developers had been made that there would be up to 1,000 jobs for locals.
He also clarified issues surrounding HGV movements saying there could be two HGVs on Thanet's roads every minute.
He moved on to Theatrical Pyrotechnics which is situated in the middle of the proposal.
Under health and safety regulations three of the phase one buildings cannot be built within a varying circle around the site.
The fireworks company run by Malcolm Armstrong have a lease on their property until 2013 but construction work on the Gateway must begin within three years or developers would have to resubmit an application.
This leaves CGP with a problem because Mr Armstrong, who has been in the pyrotechnics business for 58 years, has refused to move until his lease is up.
He said: "There can't be any buildings built around the safety area. We intend to stay here until our lease is up in 2013. Any construction can only go up to the circled boundary dictated by the HSE. We're happy that the decision has been made taking into account that we are here and will remain here."
Labour councillor David Green proposed an amendment to the final decision calling for nine of the planning conditions to be taken to committee for approval.
The relevant authorities will also have to be consulted about the issues including foul and surface water drainage, noise and light pollution, use of the buildings, landscaping on the site and car parking provision.
No building work can take place until these conditions have been agreed.
Planning Officer, Doug Brown, said this would delay the project by two weeks and the amendment was accepted on a show of hands.
Planning chairman Ken Gregory agreed to the proposals and was seconded by Cllr Wise and therefore a vote was not required.
However, because Cllr Kirby put it to a vote it was construed by some as actually a vote for whether planning permission should be agreed.
Broadstairs councillor Chris Wells described the meeting as "absolutely chaotic" adding that "serious errors" had been made.
He said: "At this point one realises that the meeting itself has dissolved into near chaos. Whenever a serious decision has to be taken, procedures and consistency of treatment are the bedrock of a good decision. In this case the decision seemed built on sand. Mercifully the council managed to approve the planning application twice. If they had reached contradictory decisions on those votes, Lord alone knows where we would stand this morning."
Cllr Wells then proposed a second amendment which asked for the largest warehouses to be moved away from Acol.
Chief executive Richard Samuel said this would fundamentally change the application and councillors were expected to deal with the application in front of them.
Despite this a vote was held on whether this change should be made.
Cllr Kirby said: "My advice on protocol says that this amendment is unlawful and we have to determine the application before us. If the matter around this is of importance you should vote to refuse the application."
A vote was then held on whether a vote should be held to move the X-type warehouses.
There were eight votes for the amendment, six abstentions and the rest voted against it.
Chris Wells said: "I understand Richard Samuel's advice and position. However, I am also aware that planning officers have tried to get the applicant to make similar changes, and the applicant had refused. The positioning of the unit in phase one are one more piece of evidence that this is not a standalone application. The dilemma of being asked to consider this as a standalone application when it clearly isn't was not resolved before the night, was not resolved on the night, and will not be resolved for many months and years to come."
Cllr Poole then asked for a further amendment to be made which would limit HGV movements to 1,000 and limit the working hours of the complex.
Chief executive Richard Samuel informed Cllr Poole this, like Cllr Wells suggestion previously, was not possible as it changed the planning application.
Cllr Poole argued that amendments should be discussed but Cllr Kirby refused and asked Cllr Poole to sit down.
The Ramsgate councillor shot him down with: "I will not accept that, Chair," before ceasing his argument.
Speaking after the meeting he said: "As far as I can see these were legitimate amendments which were completely ignored by the Chair. I will write an official letter of complaint because it was totally unacceptable for him to refuse these amendments."
Finally finance boss Martin Wise told the councillors they needed to make a decision before the developer ran away.
He said: "There has been so many times when that has happened and I am desperate we get this development to improve the lot of Thanet."
After 162 minutes councillors decided to record their votes and each name was read out in turn.
Of those leader Sandy Ezekiel, deputy leader Roger Latchford, Cliftonville councillor Clive Hart, vice-chairman Margaret Sheldrick and Ramsgate councillor Kerry Harker did not vote.
YES vote:
Aldred; Bayford; Broadhurst; Brown; Bruce; Cameron; Crotty; Day; Gideon; Goodwin; David Green: Elizabeth Green; Gregory; Harrison; Jarvis; Johnston; Kirby; Kirby; Lawson; Lodge-Pritchard; McCastree; Moores: Nicholson; Nicholson; Nottingham; Peppiatt; Roberts; Roberts; Rogers; Russell; Scobie; Sullivan; Sullivan; Taylor; Tomlinson; Tomlinson; Ward; Watkins; Watt-Ruffell; Wiltshire; Wise.
NO vote:
Wells; Savage; Poole; Pickering; King; Hayton; Fenner; Dark; Clark; Campbell.
Protest outside the council offices
Comment on this story