Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 11th November 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings.

The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'. You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete. This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 09/09/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee

4 22/1816/FH - Rose and Crown, High Street, Elham, Canterbury CT4 6TD

Share this agenda point

Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Slide 65
Slide 66
Slide 67
Slide 68
Slide 69
Slide 70
Slide 71
Slide 72
Slide 73
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Slide 90
Slide 91
Slide 92
Slide 93
Slide 94
Slide 95
Slide 96
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Slide 101
Slide 102
Slide 103
Slide 104
Slide 105
Slide 106
Slide 107
Slide 108
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Slide 113
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Slide 122
Slide 123
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Slide 128
Slide 129
Slide 130
Slide 131
Slide 132
Slide 133
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Slide 137
Slide 138
Slide 139
Slide 140
Slide 141
Slide 142
Slide 143
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Slide 152
Slide 153
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Slide 159
Slide 160
Slide 161
Slide 162
Slide 163
Slide 164
Slide 165
Slide 166
Slide 167
Slide 168
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Slide 176
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Slide 181
Slide 182
Slide 183
Slide 184
Slide 185
Slide 186
Slide 187
Slide 188
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Slide 200
Slide 201
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Slide 209
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Slide 218
Slide 219
Slide 220
Slide 221
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Slide 226
Slide 227
Slide 228
Slide 229
Slide 230
Slide 231
Slide 232
Slide 233
Slide 234
Slide 235
Slide 236
Slide 237
Slide 238
Slide 239
Slide 240
Slide 241
Slide 242
Slide 243
Slide 244
Slide 245
Slide 246
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Slide 253
Slide 254
Slide 255

5 22/1846/FH - Rose and Crown, High Street, Elham, Canterbury CT4 6TD

Share this agenda point

6 25/1183/FH - Land adjoining Brookland Cottage, Stone Hill, Sellindge

Share this agenda point

Slide 267
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270
Slide 271
Slide 272
Slide 273
Slide 274
Slide 275
Slide 276
Slide 277
Slide 278
Slide 279
Slide 280
Slide 281
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Slide 285
Slide 286
Slide 287
Slide 288
Slide 289
Slide 290
Slide 291
Slide 292
Slide 293
Slide 294
Slide 295
Slide 296
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Slide 300
Slide 301
Slide 302
Slide 303
Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Slide 307
Slide 308
Slide 309
Slide 310
Slide 311
Slide 312
Slide 313
Slide 314
Slide 315
Slide 316
Slide 317
Slide 318
Slide 319
Slide 320
Slide 321
Slide 322
Slide 323
Slide 324
Slide 325
Slide 326
Slide 327
Slide 328
Slide 329
Slide 330
Slide 331
Slide 332
Slide 333
Slide 334
Slide 335
Slide 336
Slide 337
Slide 338
Slide 339
Slide 340
Slide 341
Slide 342
Slide 343
Slide 344
Slide 345
Slide 346
Slide 347
Slide 348
Slide 349
Slide 350
Slide 351
Slide 352
Slide 353
Slide 354
Slide 355
Slide 356
Slide 357
Slide 358
Slide 359
Slide 360
Slide 361
Slide 362
Slide 363
Slide 364
Slide 365
Slide 366
Slide 367
Slide 368
Slide 369
Slide 370
Slide 371
Slide 372
Slide 373
Slide 374
Slide 375
Slide 376
Slide 377
Slide 378
Slide 379
Slide 380
Slide 381
Slide 382
Slide 383
Slide 384
Slide 385
Slide 386
Slide 387
Slide 388
Slide 389
Slide 390
Slide 391
Slide 392
Slide 393
Slide 394
Slide 395
Slide 396
Slide 397
Slide 398
Slide 399

7 25/1410/FH - 62-68 Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, Folkestone CT20 3AR - WITHDRAWN

Share this agenda point

8 25/1648/FH - Plots D & E Phoenix Court, Howey Road, Mountfield Ind.Estate, New Romney, TN28 8GT

Share this agenda point

Slide 403
Slide 404
Slide 405
Slide 406
Slide 407
Slide 408
Slide 409
Slide 410
Slide 411
Slide 412
Slide 413
Slide 414
Slide 415
Slide 416
Slide 417
Slide 418
Slide 419
Slide 420
Slide 421
Slide 422
Slide 423
Slide 424
Slide 425
Slide 426
Slide 427
Slide 428
Slide 429
Slide 430
Slide 431
Slide 432
Slide 433
Slide 434
Slide 435
Slide 436
Slide 437
Slide 438
Slide 439
Slide 440
Slide 441
Slide 442
Slide 443
Slide 444
Slide 445
Slide 446
Slide 447
Slide 448
Slide 449
Slide 450
Slide 451
Slide 452
Slide 453
Slide 454
Slide 455
Slide 456
Slide 457
Slide 458
Slide 459
Slide 460
Slide 461
Slide 462
Slide 463
Slide 464
Slide 465

9 25/1759/FH - Plot G, Pearl Court, Howey Road, Mountfield Ind. Estate, New Romney, TN28 8GS

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

I'd just like to tell you that some of the micro funds are not working very well and

the speaker I believe is, we're down to one speaker, as in the mechanical speaker,

not the speakers for the applications.

So if you could speak up clearly tonight so that it can pick up your voice it would be

very very appreciative, thank you.

So good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licencing Committee.

This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.

For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you'll need to leave the chamber.

For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones are used

so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.

Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as it can be distracting.

I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under

consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.

So members, as chair of this committee I would like to make a statement for the benefit of

all councillors present at this meeting and for members of the public.

The applications before you tonight and indeed any applications you consider in the future

must be considered on planning merits only.

It is essential that members adhere to this principle

and ensure that their decisions tonight

are based on the papers before you

and any information provided to you during this meeting.

This is not the forum to discuss any unsealing issues

relating to the planning applications before you,

so we will move on.

Do we have any apologies for absence, please?

1 Apologies for Absence

Thank you, Chair. We have no apologies this evening.

Thank you very much. Do we have any declarations of interest, please, councillors?

2 Declarations of Interest

I'm not seeing any declarations of interest.

3 Minutes

You have before you a record of the minutes of the meeting held on the 9th of September

2025.

May I sign this as a correct record please? Thank you very much. So we will go on to our

4 22/1816/FH - Rose and Crown, High Street, Elham, Canterbury CT4 6TD

first application of the evening which will be 22 -1816 F .H. Rosencran, H .E in Canterbury.

Do you have any updates please? Thank you very much and we have one speaker this evening

this and this is a Mr John Stubbs to speak against the application. Is that

yourself sir? If you'd like to come forward.

You'll have three minutes from when we start speaking sir. Thank you.

Thank you for letting me speak to you.

I'm the inhabitant of the old bookshop which is the neighbour of the Rosencrown.

Three years ago, the Rosencrown erected decking which resulted in a loss of privacy for my

property.

The height of that decking was the problem.

The assumption seems to have been that elevation is profitable,

for which I find no evidence.

A two -foot reduction in decking height at that time would have solved the problem.

This new application does not do this.

Instead it can result in decking and tables up against the boundary ball and raising the construction with a trellis.

I object to such a superstructure since it will reduce daylight in my living room which looks directly into it

and sunlight in my tree garden.

I have a series of trees which require light.

If it hems me in and overshadows my property, I object.

Or, if it affects my privacy, I must object.

To put this in context, my house lies eight feet away from the boundary wall.

Now a further heightening.

Tables close to the wall on the other hand will from past experience result in loss of

privacy and amenity.

I respectfully ask that the Planning Department take these concerns into account and refuse

the application in its current form.

If the application is to be considered further, I request that alternative measures be considered,

such as reorientation of structures and decking.

The Rosencrown has a very large garden and there are many other ways of dealing with

their requirements.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Over to you Councillors, would anyone like to ask questions, ask for clarity?

Oh, Councillor Cooper.

Thank you, Chair.

I understand from reading reports that the...is it open now, somebody closed?

Correct, it doesn't have an occupant at the moment.

It's not, it is still a public house, but it is not currently running.

But it's short of the public?

Correct.

I'm wondering, in that case, there might be a procedure with a planning application

if the building is closed to the public?

That would have no bearing on whether a planning application can be submitted and or considered.

At the time of submission it was open.

I believe that the tenants have vacated subsequently.

But that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not an application would be considered.

Thank you.

Councillor Purnell, Blakemore.

Yes, just a question arising again from the report.

Is it right that there was a larger area of decking and it's been reduced?

That's correct. The decking extended over what I could see was an existing paved area

outside the back of the public house and it at some point in the last couple of years

it's been removed and reduced down to the area that's shown on the plan within the report.

No, in essence because it is not more than two feet above the ground. I don't have the

measurement of how far above the ground it is. I believe as we pass through the images

on the presentation you'll see it's just under two decking boards high so I would say it

is under a foot above the existing ground level at its highest.

Can it slip in?

As the speaker just sort of requests, take it as what you're referring to there, he's

asking me to be reduced by by two feet which would be below ground level as it

currently stands I think there may be a misunderstanding of how high above the

existing ground level it currently is. Obviously what we are considering tonight

is the retention because the decking has been obviously it's in situ and it's

whether or not members consider it to be acceptable to retain it as is or not.

So basically that's been there for a long time and now he wants it to go because it

takes away his privacy and what have you. Did he complain when they put it in first

off? It seems as though that's been there ages. I don't know.

The decking was put in without the benefit of planning permission.

It's been there, the application was submitted.

I think there was an initial complaint which we investigated

and we garnered an application from Shepherd Neame.

It lay dormant for some years, 2 .3, and until we're here now tonight.

So it's up for consideration now.

So it's been there for approximately three years.

obviously during that period as Councillor Cooper has raised as well and set out in the

report the pub hasn't been operating for all of that time or at least part of that period

of time.

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wonder if the person that spoke is getting confused between decking and trellis

because there's an image that comes up on the screen there,

that one that says, proposed trellis.

And that trellis is about two feet higher than the wall.

And I wonder if that is the wall he's talking about,

and maybe that trellis is directly in front of his lounge window

and cuts the sun out and cuts the light out to his trees.

If that's the case, then I can't agree it,

because that trellis doesn't seem to be serving any purpose.

Councillor Haynes, please.

When I read this and I saw the mitigation for the wall,

I thought I was quite happy with this.

I have listened to the speaker and I do worry about that window,

but actually when you're looking at the wall there is very little window actually showing.

And I think if there is trellis and the planters further away from the wall,

that doesn't allow people to look over, which it seems to me is his concern.

So I'm actually happy to move the recommendation.

Do you have a seconder? Councillor Thomas has a seconder.

Councillor Blakemore. Yeah the trellis is mitigation isn't it for

the to stop people from looking over there but I do like Councillor Hollingby I can see

why that might block light to that window but it doesn't look like there's very much

the gap between the top of the wall and the top of the window. But I just wanted the point

the Speaker made about whether or not the decking could be reconfigured is the rest

that area out there also just used by customers drinking or is that the car park?

Is there a reason why it couldn't be reconfigured so that it didn't go right up to the wall?

I've come across a few, if I may address a couple of queries that have arisen there from

members.

As part of the proposal, I've suggested a condition for final details of the choice

plant within which we could secure the overall height of it and the final location.

The plans indicate the wall to be 1 .8 metres high as it currently stands above ground level

and obviously when you stand on the decking that extra elevation moves you into the position

of being able to potentially see over the wall.

Previously that was an all tarmac area and I think it was very informal.

Car parking and or patrons could stand out the back should they wish.

I don't know how busy the pub was, it's not one I'd ever visited in my life,

but that was the situation.

So there is some security there.

In terms of reconfiguring the decking,

The full extent of it as has been put to members is what they are applying to retain tonight.

Obviously there could be if you, I'll discuss the policy, but obviously if you refused this

then applicants obviously could appeal that or they could apply for a smaller area.

Then you then get into a bit of how far is far enough and could that situation be addressed

in any case by saying well if it was permitted as is but with the final details of the condition

showing the plants are moved slightly to the west of the site so it's not immediately adjacent

to the boundary.

I would, as members will have seen previously on different applications where we try and

stop overlooking from windows, we secure a 1 .7 metre sill height.

With this, I would anticipate that any trellis would only need to be 1 .8 above the decking

level to act as an effective screen to help ameliorate the current situation. I hope that's

some help.

So if the decking wasn't, if the trellis wasn't right up against the wall that might make

it less of a problem with blocking light but nevertheless stop customers from going right

over the wall and peeping into the living room?

That's correct, yes.

Sorry, can I just cheque that we can actually put that down as a condition for officers to put down in the final details?

Correct, yeah. Condition 2 at the end of the report has final details to be submitted.

Thank you. Councillor Fuller?

Hello. As luck would have it, Mr Allen has answered both of my questions with his response.

Councillor Keelan.

What I'm worried about is we've got to be sure. Is it the trellis or is it...

and what I don't understand is why they decided to keep the decking there

and not further back away from that wall and away from his property.

If it's a trellis, that's fine, and we can ask

or insist as a planning consideration.

But if it's not that and he's unhappy about...

It just doesn't make any sense to me why you need decking there anyway.

It's a pub garden, so surely if it's about the trellis,

then the trellis can be moved, but if it isn't, it's about the application.

It just seems odd.

Thank you Chair, good evening Members.

In terms of trellis and the planters, the purpose is too far.

The trellis is designed to compensate for the effective loss in height of a wall arising

from the decking.

So it wouldn't tower above the wall, it would simply compensate for the loss of the effective

loss in height of the wall arising from the decking and the planters, the purpose of those

is to keep people further away from the wall to add an additional benefit in terms of reducing

overlooking.

Now if members are concerned that the trellis and the planters and the decking in combination

are so harmful to residential amenity that planning permission should be refused then

and that obviously is within members gift to make that decision.

In terms of the layout of the trellis and the planters, the condition in the report

requires the details to be submitted to us.

Now my understanding from looking at the drawings is it gives the impression that the trellis

would be flush with the wall, but you could in fact have it the opposite way round so

that the trellis is further away from the wall, has less of an impact that is as effective

in terms of ameliorating any overlooking.

And that, I think, could comfortably be dealt with within the terms of the condition

as set out in the report or possibly strengthened if members were so minded.

I hope that provides a degree of clarity.

Councillor Lockwood.

Yeah, thanks for that.

I think I've understood what's happening.

He did say at the start of his slot that he spoke to the pub two years ago

and if they'd agreed to not have the trellis that height,

none of this would have occurred.

So, anyway, from what you've said,

hopefully common sense can prevail.

We have a condition in the planning that allows our fine officers to go

and make sure that privacy is protected

and amenity is also protected

and if that condition is there then I'm happy in it.

Thanks for explaining it because I didn't make any sense at the start.

Councillor Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I was going to say what Andrew Edron, Councillor Lunkwood said.

So, yeah, I'm fine with it now that that's been explained.

So, this is the geometry between the wall, the trellis and that would be acceptable.

Thank you.

Councillor Phillip.

Yeah, just on the geometry, this would be a test of whether or not I remember geometry,

but presumably if the trellis were at a distance from the wall that's equal to the height of

the...

The actual height of the...

I've forgotten what it's called.

No, not the trellis.

The plant...

No, the panelling.

Deckings.

Sorry. God dear.

Then presumably that would actually create an angle such that there would be no effect on somebody viewing from the window anyway?

Because you'd be viewing from the window and the angle would be...

What I'm saying is if you could... I think that would be the minimum you would need

and maybe adding that if my geometry works, which is, you know, a 20 year old, no, 30 year old,

then that would probably deal with it.

Maybe I'll let you do the math.

My geometry is equally rusty, but I think what you're saying is the further the trellises

away from the neighbours, the less likely they are to see it.

And I would agree with that.

Yes, exactly.

Yeah, absolutely that.

But what I reckon is that you can, based on the height of the decking, you can actually

work out the minimum amount of distance you need, and you could actually put that in your

second condition, and that would do it.

He says, hopefully.

I mean that's a decision for members to make I think.

But I would look to avoid putting specific complicated geometry in place.

Maybe an informed issue.

In a planning condition where ever possible I would say members.

So members we do have a proposal to accept the officer's condition,

not condition sorry, proposal on this application.

However, I'm hearing that we want to be quite strong about the position of these planters

and the trellis to ensure that amenity is not lost completely and to the absolute minimum.

The beauty of putting planters in there does mean that they can't put the tables directly

up against that shared wall as well which should actually help with noise.

Councillor Ockwood I believe it was you who proposed are you, oh sorry, Councillor Hysby,

are you happy for us to...

I'm very happy, I'm very happy.

But to leave it to the officers, I think we've made our point very clearly to the officers

and I think that condition is fine.

So I'm happy with that and I hope my seconder is as well.

As long as the war works on.

Thank you.

Thank you. So, we have a proposed and a second to accept the officer's recommendation with the

rightly worded conditions that we're leaving to the officers in this case.

All those in favour, please raise your hand.

And I can see that is unanimous, thank you.

Did he walk out or did he go to the toilet?

Did he come back out again?

Oh he did.

5 22/1846/FH - Rose and Crown, High Street, Elham, Canterbury CT4 6TD

Right so we're actually going to move around from the green agenda that you had and we're

We're going to listen to application for 22 -1846 -FH which is the Rose and Crown Hoey Street, Elam

Canterbury again and this is to do with the listed building consent.

Do we have any updates please?

No updates Chair.

So it's directly Councillor Wansby.

Move the recommendation Chair.

Thank you.

Do you have a seconder?

We have a seconder.

All those in favour please show.

And that is unanimous. Thank you very much. So we move on to our third application which

6 25/1183/FH - Land adjoining Brookland Cottage, Stone Hill, Sellindge

is 25 -1183 -FH which is the land adjoining Brookland Cottage Stonehill Selling. Now we,

oh sorry, are there any updates? Thank you chair, good evening councillors.

Short update, we've received a further letter from the neighbouring residents at Brooklands

Cottage.

It sets out that horses have been grazed on the land for over 50 years and they request

a condition to prevent change of use of the barn but otherwise raise issues already considered

within the report.

Change of use of the barn would require planning commissions so conditions not required in

this regard.

Officers suggest amending condition 10 to require details of the siting of any manure

trailer to be submitted and approved before it's put on site.

Thank you chair. Thank you very much and we did have a speaker on this but unfortunately

he is unable to attend today so you should have a letter that he has put forward to ourselves

if I just give you a moment to read that. Thank you.

Thank you. Hopefully you've all had a chance to read and quickly digest. So over to you

Does anyone want any qualification, clarity, want to ask any questions regarding this application

please?

Councillor Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

And this is just a clarification.

So in the officer's report it states that a previous application for a similar scheme

was approved but never implemented by the previous owner.

So again, the question from me would be what was the scope of the work from the previous

application and what conditions were imposed.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor.

There's two historic applications on the site.

None of them were approved with conditions.

I think that's the key point of clarification.

There's an application from earlier this year, which is reference 25 -08 -04, and that sought

planning permission for the erection of stables on this land, but the application was withdrawn

when it became clear that planning permission was required for change of use of the land

as a matter of first principle.

So the applicant withdrew that application, gathered more information and said, resubmit

as this current application before us.

The previous application was reference 940550, which was back in 1994.

That related to construction of stables, a barn, a woodshed, a swimming pool and an equestrian

manage on land much further to the south,

from part of the the cottage of Glebe cottage

from the very southern corner of that photo there.

The current application site

formed part of additional grazing land

that that applicant was using as part of their

sort of equestrian operations on their site.

But the two have now been separated.

This piece of land that we're looking at tonight

has been sold on through a separate party,

the current applicant,

and it doesn't relate to Glebe Farm anymore.

Good evening. A following report Mr McCordell. No issues with this. Move the recommendation.

We have one proposal to accept the officer's recommendation. Do we have a seconder? We

have a seconder thank you. Would anyone else like to speak or ask for clarification?

Councillor Horsby.

Thank you, Chairman.

It's in my ward and I know the site very well.

I just wanted to go through one or two of the residents' concerns, particularly with

regard to the access.

As I think I said to the officer earlier, that's a civil matter and it's not part of

the planning application.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

And the other thing that Sellington Parish Council have asked for was a condition to

prevent the site being used for any residential purposes in the future.

And again, I don't think that's anything, that's not a condition that we can add to

the application or the approval if we approve that.

So I just wanted again to make that clear.

With regard to the road, and I know highways haven't made a comment or, and I know that's

that the residents are concerned about.

But, you know, and it is a busy road,

and it is sort of run up and down.

But I don't think, and maybe I'm wrong,

and maybe the officer can tell me that

the current application would actually increase

the traffic to any great extent.

So, per horse, I believe, wouldn't have the effect

on residents that they think it might do.

Actually, as I say, the highways haven't raised any issues.

One thing on this additional letter, it talks about spare stables will be used for storage.

And again, they're objecting to the fact that they think it's rather large.

I just wonder whether the officer would like to make a comment on that, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to try and cover those in turn, yes, you're correct.

So the access issues that the residents are raising would largely be a civil matter.

I think there's rights of ownership that they're concerned about, but that's outside of the planning process.

A condition about change of use, as per my update, we wouldn't need this change of use away from keeping the forces for anything else would require planning permission.

and so we don't need a condition to that effect.

We could, if necessary, enforce against the change of use

or consider a planning application for that.

The road, I take residents' concern in that regard.

However, KCC highways don't object.

They're happy with it.

The NPPF advises us that we can't refuse an application

on highways matters unless there's clear,

clear issues that need to be overcome.

In terms of an increase of traffic,

I think a private stable for one, maybe two horses

isn't going to raise any vehicle movements

in excess of highway capacity,

as my highway's colleagues would say.

And then in terms of the size of the barn,

the applicant has provided justification

as to why they need it.

It's set out in the report that they buy their hay in bulk

during the season when it's cheaper to purchase.

They need to store quite a lot of it.

But also it's set out in the report

that the land's quite small,

but the combination of the storage of feed at this volume and the grazing area is sufficient

and in that regard yes we're comfortable that they need a building of this size for

both storing feed and bedding and a small tractor to manage the land.

Councillor King. How many horses are they keeping here then?

Because you say they're buying hay with bulb and feed in bulb. That's only one horse and

the occasional visitor. They're not buying that in bulb. You know, I've got horses, four

of them, that my friend looks after for me. She only has 300 bales for four horses. And

there's no way that you would need a massive storage for one horse, possibly two with a

visitor. Although I've got to say, none of my equestrian friends ever bring their horses

for the weekend.

I've never heard anything like it.

I'm a little bit shocked, because I can't,

that's too much storage for one horse.

I wouldn't presume to comment on that.

I don't, no experience of horses myself,

but as I say, the applicant has set out why they need it.

We don't consider it to be unacceptable.

Referring to the size of the barn,

as set out in the report,

It's not a significant structure.

Officers then consider it to be overly large regardless of the storage requirements of

the applicant.

It's also in a location where you can't see it from any public vantage point.

So we can't identify a harm from this building being this size regardless of how much hay

is being stored in it.

Councillor Cooper.

Thank you, Chair.

Go back onto this white paper that we've got here.

paragraph three, where it's about the palace council etc.

And he said, however, should members decide to approve demand,

the council would like to see it reduced in overall size.

Can we actually do that?

Can we actually put a condition on that, that it should be

above a certain size or otherwise, or not?

We couldn't put a condition on a councillor,

we'd have to go back and ask for amended drawings.

So, as Mr Bailey correctly advised me, or refuse the application if members consider

that route appropriate.

Clerk's comments.

Just one clarification.

Just in terms of Condition 9, because we're talking about horses and the capacity of the

place, no more than two horses shall be kept on site unless otherwise agreed in writing

by the local planning authority.

How feasible is that?

What's the vehicle for doing that?

I don't understand, you know.

If they decide they're gonna bring an extra horse in,

I mean, how do you do it?

Thank you.

As with many conditions, Councillor,

it relies on officers and, to a certain degree,

sometimes neighbours and the public keeping an eye

on the site, and advising us of this.

This would perhaps be a fairly easy one to enforce

because we could see fairly plainly

if there's more than two horses on the site.

Would any other Councillor like any other clarification at all?

Okay, so we have a proposer and a seconder to accept the officer's recommendations.

All those in favour, please show your hand.

Thank you.

Those against?

And abstained.

Thank you chair, there's 11 in favour and one abstention.

Thank you, that application has passed.

7 25/1410/FH - 62-68 Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, Folkestone CT20 3AR - WITHDRAWN

8 25/1648/FH - Plots D & E Phoenix Court, Howey Road, Mountfield Ind.Estate, New Romney, TN28 8GT

We move on to our next application which is 25 -164H -FH which are Platts D &D, Phoenix Court, Helmy Road, Montfield Industrial Estate, New Romney.

Do we have any updates please?

Thank you chair, very short update on this one.

The applicant's agent has contacted me late last week to advise he's working on amended

drawings to address KCC highways ecology and flooding comments.

Thank you chair.

Thank you and we have most speakers on this particular application so over to you councillors.

Councillor Thomas.

Yeah, thank you chair.

When you have a look at this site and you have a look at that roadway,

on the southern boundary,

you see the Church Lane runs adjacent, runs parallel to that.

We have had issues with another development further along,

where they'd taken some of the railings out

to gain access via Church Lane.

So again, I've been contacted by a local resident

who's really quite concerned about how do we make sure

the construction traffic doesn't use Church Lane,

which is completely unsuitable for any construction vehicles,

and the people don't use it as a shortcut

for getting in and out of the Mountfield Road Industrial Estate.

I wonder whether there was some way in which we could actually

put that in the construction management plan,

or something of that nature.

Because again, for me this is about making sure we protect

local residents and local amenity.

The second question if I may is,

I've read the comments from two of the neighbours

and I'm a little bit, I don't understand it

because immediately adjacent to what looks like the north

on the photograph that we have in the pack,

that there is the new Romney town council allotments.

So there are no direct buildings overlooking this site.

That's the width of the allotment away from that development.

So I didn't really understand how people felt,

other than the potential traffic coming along Church Lane,

how that could affect their amenity.

So again, two questions already.

One is protecting residents and the other one is,

I don't understand how people believe

that that could be affecting their visual amenity.

Thank you, Chair.

I think there was two points there which hopefully I'll capture.

So access via Church Lane we can include within the construction management condition a requirement

to provide details of routing of delivery lorries.

The other fallback we have here is that the council currently owns the site so we can

keep an eye on people fiddling with the fence.

In terms of impact on neighbouring amenity, as set out in the report, officers don't consider

that there'll be an impact here.

The separation distance between the very western edge

of this site and the very eastern edge

of the neighbours gardens on Bellevue Close

is about 60 metres, and as you say, with the allotments,

and there's an informal footpath in between,

so the potential for any immunity harms

is quite minimal.

There's also conditions set out in the report

to restrict openings on the western side

of the closest buildings and require details

of any mechanical ventilation or extract systems to minimise noise.

So officers don't consider there's going to be any amenity harms that would justify refusal.

So I'd like to move the Office of Recommendation for approval of this application.

Thank you, Chair.

Lots of phones have suddenly gone up.

Are you all seconders?

You are.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sorry?

I'd like to say something.

Yes, certainly.

Can't speak.

Just picking up on the comments in the report from the

Labour consultation about concern about out of hours

working I just wondered if it was worth putting in a

condition once a build is operational rather than doing

the construction phase this is. I just wondered if it was

worth putting in a condition to appease those concerns.

Thank you.

We can certainly attach that, Councillor.

I'm not seeing any other Councillor wishing to speak.

Councillor Thomas, are you happy for the extra condition regarding working hours to be attached

to the plan?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I mean, those kind of things would normally be included in the Construction Management

Plan in terms of working hours.

but you're talking about the normal operational hours.

OK, yeah, normal operational hours. I'm fine with that. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll pick...

Councillor Hollingsby is the seconder,

because all the hands went up all of a sudden.

Are you happy to accept that as well, Councillor Hollingsby?

Thank you. So we have one proposal with the condition,

which is to agree with the officer's recommendation.

All those in favour, please show me.

And I can see that your name is therefore passed, thank you.

9 25/1759/FH - Plot G, Pearl Court, Howey Road, Mountfield Ind. Estate, New Romney, TN28 8GS

So we move into our last application this evening, which is 25 -1759 -FH, which is Plot

G, Pearl Gate, Haney Road on the Mountfield Industrial Estate.

Just for your information, Councillors, you do have another application that was included

in your pack. The call in for that was cancelled and therefore we're not hearing it this evening

so just for your information. So do we have any updates please?

Yes thank you chair, slightly longer one for this one. We've received amended drawings

in response to KCC Highways comments and Highways officers now raise no objection subject to

conditions. KCC Ecology have also responded to say they've got no objection subject to

conditions. As at paragraph 3 .7 of the report an occupant's now been identified for the

unit the application description and condition 17 therefore need to be slightly amended to

refer to a sui generis use class which better reflects the intended use of the applicant

as a coach and minibus depot and then an hours of use condition is also needed to minimise

potential for noise and disturbance. Thank you chair.

Thank you over to the councillors. Anyone not wishing to raise a question or ask for

clarification? Councillor Torins.

Thank you, Chair.

Just the same as previously, because this is adjacent to the fence, so we just need

to make sure that through the construction management plan there's no bypassing and using

the use of Church Lane, which is, as I said, completely inappropriate.

And again, I understand, and I've seen some of the paperwork associated with the potential

use of this site, so I'm glad that there's also going to be our usage included in that

as well.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Do I have a proposer? Councillor Cooper. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Polly

Blakemore. I'm not seeing anyone else wish to speak. All those in favour of the officer's

application. Yes, that's unanimous, thank you very much. And that is the last application

for this evening, so thank you very much. Wishing you safe journeys home and until the

next meeting.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Folkestone & Hythe District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 11 November 2025, 7:00pm - Slides Tab - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting