Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 16th December 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

7 25/2140/FH/CON - Bus station, Bouverie Square, Folkestone, CT20 1BA

Share this agenda point

Slide 548
Slide 549
Slide 550
Slide 551
Slide 552
Slide 553
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 554
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 555
Slide 556
Slide 557
Slide 558
Slide 559
Slide 560
Slide 561
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 562
Slide 563
Slide 564
Slide 565
Slide 566
Slide 567
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 568
Slide 569
Slide 570
Slide 571
Slide 572
Slide 573
Webcast Finished

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.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00

Planning and Licencing Committee.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:02

This meeting will be webcast live to the internet,

and for those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed,

you will need to leave the chamber.

For members, officers, and others speaking at the meeting,

it is important that the microphones are used

so that 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 they 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 the public

speakers with respect.

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

all Councillors present at the 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 ancillary

matters relating to the planning applications before you, so we will move on.

Do we have any apologies for absence, please?

Microphone A - 0:01:20

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we have received apologies from Councillor Jones and Councillor Spiertman

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:24

here as her substitute. Welcome, Councillor Speakman.

Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:01:31

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:35

Members you have before you the minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2025. May

I sign them as a correct record, please? Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:46

Do we have any declarations of interest on any of the applications this evening, please?

Councillor Cooper.

Item 2, Chair, I kneel the applicant in another capacity.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:02:00

Other than that, that's all I can say.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:04

Any other declarations?

I'm seeing none.

Thank you.

So we will move on to our first application this evening,

which is 25 -1531 -FH, which is 69 Sycamore Place, Lyd Romney Marsh. Do we have any updates,

please?

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Councillors. No update.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:30

Councillors, you will notice that there is some supplementary information on your form

regarding this, thank you.

So we have one person to speak this evening,

which is Paul Sims, who is the agent

to speak on the application.

Good evening, sir.

If you'd like to come forward,

and you will have three minutes

from the time that you start.

Microphone Forty - 0:02:59

Good evening, yeah, I'm Paul Sims from Profile Architects.

We designed the scheme.

Just a couple of things I just wanted to run through

really this evening.

Obviously I'm speaking in favour of the proposal.

I just wanted to address some of the objections

perhaps that were raised.

So in no particular order, but just looking through,

there were comments regarding the impact of light

and privacy on the neighbouring house for the proposal.

And also a comment about over -intensive size for the plot.

It's just worth noting that the built form

combining the existing building and the proposed

amounts to a total building.

So the total building site is 712 square metres,

existing building is 136, the new building is 90,

so total building coverage is less than 33 % of the total site.

Our design was informed by an extensive study

that we undertook in which we analysed the house typology,

the siting, the mass, the relationship,

of the street for all dwellings in the immediate area.

So our analysis then concluded that a new dwelling

of this size, this format, this particular configuration

would be in keeping with the surrounding dwellings

and the neighbourhoods who were very much led by

the design of the streets and the houses in it.

So we're also pointing out, there was a comment

about the driveway, the proposed driveway being closed

close to the junction, so obscure the view when pulling in.

In the proposal, there will be two driveways.

At present, there's one, so we'll be reusing the existing,

So no issue.

And the second is a new one that's at least,

it's more than 10 metres away from the junction.

So shouldn't be causing any kind of issue.

There was also a point raised about drainage.

But I think as the planning officer

will probably point out as well,

that both Southern Water and Affinity Water

have been consulted and requested

a condition will be imposed.

Ensuring that a correct layout,

a correct configuration, you know,

is part of the approval for the planning.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, sir.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:05:06

So to you, Councillors.

Councillor Fuller.

Thank you, Chair.

I did have one question about this.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:05:13

It's around biodiversity net gain.

So it mentions on page 19 of the pack,

if I'm understanding my acronyms correctly,

that because it's self -built,

it would fit outside the requirements

a biodiversity net gain, but then we've got at the end a number of conditions around that.

It's also asserting that there is a net gain, despite the fact that I've counted on the

plans five trees and they are being cut down and only one is replacing it. So I just wanted

a bit more explanation around, A, is it covered and B, if it is covered, where's the net gain?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:05:55

Thank you, Councillor. As a self -build, it's not required to meet the BNG requirements.

they're specifically exempted by the legislation,

so they don't have to demonstrate that.

If you, struggling, if you could just point me

to the condition you're referring to, sorry.

Good point.

Oh, sorry, is it condition 11?

Yes.

I think there's a couple that mention it,

actually, to be fair.

11, okay, let's use the wonder of search.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:06:24

11 mentions it, 12 mentions biodiversity as well.

13 and 14.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:06:34

Okay, thank you. Looking at the same thing. So Condition 11 is, regardless of what the

BNG requirements may or may not require of a site, and this development is exempt, there

is a duty placed upon us by the local and national guidance to ensure that all developments

enhance ecology and biodiversity irrespective of BNG. So Condition 11 is an attempt to address

That's a standard condition that we attach to most applications.

And then conditions 12, 13, and 14,

they're our standard hard and soft landscaping conditions,

which require details of planting, et cetera, et cetera.

And the reference to biodiversity within that

is that we seek to ensure that whatever planting scheme

comes forward makes a contribution towards biodiversity

through, for example, native species,

plants that encourage pollinators, berries, things like that.

Just to come back on that, just focusing on the trees for a minute then, therefore.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:07:29

So the fact that the number of trees has effectively decreased by four, that wouldn't count against

biodiversity at all because maybe they're trees of little value or that it can be achieved

in other ways perhaps.

Yes, it could be achieved in other ways.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:07:49

So we would take that into account broadly when looking at the details put forward under

the conditions.

we wouldn't forensically assess it to the degree that a B &G matrix or assessment requires you to do,

but we as officers would make sure that whatever comes forward

contributes positively and appropriately and has the right kind of stuff going in.

Councillor Goddard.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:10

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:08:15

Yeah, to be honest, I don't think this should really be here from, obviously, the comments

from the town council has been answered.

Only 33 % of the site, there's plenty of room.

I think Mr Hobbs could probably get a nine tonne, straight 13 tonne in there to do the

work.

So, you know, there's plenty of room.

So happy with this.

Move the recommendation.

So we have one person, Clive Goddard recommending.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:39

Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Hinesby.

Mike Blackmore to speak next.

Yeah, thanks, Chair.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:08:49

So the speaker mentioned that this proposal is,

the building is in line with similar buildings around them.

I just wondered, is it of the same or similar height

to other bungalows that are surrounding it there?

It is, Councillor, yes, this was covered

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:09:07

through a bit back and forth with the architect

at the pre -app stage.

So the height, the reach height of the building

was reduced to be more in accordance

with what's within the area.

I don't have the exact measurements to hand, I'm afraid,

but it is there or thereabouts with existing.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:25

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

A couple of questions, if I may.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:09:32

In section 6 .14 of the report,

it says that the garden doesn't meet the depth requirements for HB3,

but it's still okay because there's a bit of garden on the side,

which is collectively taken into consideration,

and therefore the garden amenity is sufficient.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

Thank you.

Yes, Councillor.

So the reference to that is to what's happening

to the existing dwelling.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:10:00

The drawing on,

just after paragraph 2 .14 shows the proposed layout,

and you can see that the existing house

where it has a rear projection

would have a shorter bit of garden

that comes in at about 5 .3 metres.

That's the narrowest point.

And that's what is referred to in that paragraph.

The policy says that dwellings have to have

a 10 metre garden for the full width of the house.

But in this instance, that that reprojection

wouldn't achieve it.

But on balance, officers consider that the wider extent

of private garden available to this property

is sufficient, that it meets the intention of the policy,

if not the exact wording,

because there would be enough space for a family

to have a usable garden area here.

If I may, just in 6 .18 and 6 .20,

it talks about parking spaces.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:10:55

Condition seven refers to this drawing, P0600,

which I didn't see in the planning application

when I have a look.

Because again, it just recognises that

With the existing property having lost the garage,

and therefore technically a place to house a car,

was the building of this,

even though it has its access from the road and a hard standing,

which in the report says will accommodate two vehicles,

is there going to be a net loss of parking capability,

and therefore does that support the viewer Lidtown Council

in terms of it being over -intensive

and therefore potentially impacting other local residents,

either in Poplar Lane or in Sycamore Close.

Thank you.

The parking provision, so as the speaker made reference to,

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:11:48

the parking provision for the new dwelling

makes use of the existing access, which is,

you can see it there in that picture, straight ahead.

So the parking will be in front of that garage.

There's, excuse me, there's nothing being lost in that regard.

Then the parking for the existing dwelling would be,

and it's the same drawing that we were looking at earlier,

just above, below paragraph 2 .14.

It's two parking spaces to the front of the site.

That's not removing any existing parking

or adding any impact for neighbours

or other local residents.

The loss of the garage is supposed to be blunt

neither here nor there really.

The current adopted guidance doesn't count garages

as a parking space because of people's inclination

to fill it with bikes and storage, et cetera.

So, we as officers and also the policy don't view

the loss of that garage as a loss in net parking.

The existing house would be properly accounted for

or provided for as with the proposed dwelling,

both in accordance with policy.

So the parking is considered to be satisfactory.

And just with regard to your point

about over -intensive development,

I think as set out in the report,

both existing and proposed dwellings

would have sufficient garden spaces, separation distances,

the 25 degree angles aren't breached, et cetera.

So we as officers don't agree that there's any argument

in terms of over -intensive development.

The one letter which does come from a local resident

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:13:16

has concerns which the agent referenced

and includes a drawing which shows where the sewage runs go

and has concerns that, you know, the new dwelling and how it's connected into that.

I know there's a separate condition associated with that.

But, you know, are you satisfied that connecting it into those places there and the condition

that is associated with that is adequate?

Because, again, you know, the comment from the local resident is quite strong, actually,

with regard to issues.

and we're all aware of sewage -related issues in LID

from November 23 when we had the very heavy rains.

So again, I think it's just how do we put that to bed

in terms of making sure that the local residents

can be assured that whatever is gonna happen

is not gonna be directly affecting their property.

Thank you.

The connexion to the sewer point

would really be an issue for building control

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:14:18

to ensure that it's properly connected, serviced and drained.

I think ultimately what we need to focus on here

is that neither Southern Water nor Affinity Water

have raised an objection to it,

which indicates that there is sewage capacity.

If there are capacity issues,

we frequently do get comments from Southern Water

to that effect, and I haven't said that in this instance,

so we've got no basis on which to say

that there's insufficient capacity here.

And then in terms of the connexion point,

again, that would be a matter for building control.

But we would assess it.

we would make sure that they are addressing it through the details submitted under that

condition just to show that they can connect and will connect in the appropriate place.

Thank you very much for that.

That's a very comprehensive response, thank you.

But again, it's local knowledge.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:15:05

People know what is happening with the drainage system, particularly with what's happened

in the last couple of years.

So thank you very much for answering that, Ross.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councillor Spinks.

Councillor Thomas, I think it's pretty much preempted me on that point, but there was

Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:15:21

just a detail on that, but I had picked up the same concerns. 6 .24, which is relatively

acceptable with regard to drainage, you said both Southern Water and Affinity Water have

been consulted and in the event of an approval have requested a condition be imposed requiring

details of both foul and surface water drainage. I appreciate there is a condition or recommendation

in relation to that, but in fact actually, am I right in thinking that Affinity Water

haven't requested a condition because they haven't actually come, I mean Southern Water

have come back, as far as I can understand from their letter, that it's not within their

statutory jurisdiction anyway and Affinity Water haven't actually come back with anything,

have they?

I think what you're referring to is the two water companies do two slightly different

things as I understand it.

Southern Water don't supply the water here but they do take it away, so they're responsible

for the sewer lines.

so Affinity Water haven't commented either way because I don't think they are involved

with the premises much.

The development site is not located within Southern Water's statutory area for water

supply drainage services. So, presumably, what does that mean then? Does that mean that

they are not involved? That's in their letter. And they say, please contact Affinity Water,

who are the relevant statutory authority?

All I could say, and I'm not sure I know the answer to that question,

but all I could say is that we have consulted Affinity Water

and they've not come back with an objection to it,

so we have to go on that.

No, OK.

Yeah, well, OK, fair.

OK.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:59

Councillor Hinesby, did you want to speak?

Thank you, but I think everything's been covered, thank you.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:17:05

And it was good for the agent to actually address some of those concerns, because we

don't often have that directly, and I think that was very good.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:19

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

Therefore, we have a proposal and a seconder, and that is to agree with the officers to

give permission for this application.

All those in favour, please raise your hand.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:39

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:41

I can see that's unanimous, thank you.

So we'll move on to our next one this evening.

So we move on to 25 -1818 -FH, Spencer Exchange, Mountfield Industrial Estate in New Romney.

Do we have any updates, please?

No update, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:18:01

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:01

We have one speaker on this application, and that is Sonny Spencer.

Good evening.

If you'd like to come forward, and you will have three minutes from when you start speaking.

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:18:21

Good evening, councillors.

I'd just like to basically provide some background into how we come about this application and

and why we feel it's a benefit to the local area.

So basically I'm the director of EAV,

which is an electrical company,

and EAVnet, which is a local broadband company.

We started as electrical and solar PV

around sort of 10 years ago,

and we were one of the first businesses locally

to fully transfer over to EV vehicles

and now run a pure electric fleet.

One of the struggles with that

is there's not that many rapid charges about in the country.

Nowhere near as many as what there should be.

And specifically in New Romney, you won't find a rapid EV charging point.

You'll only find fast charging points that still take around eight hours

to actually complete a charge on a typical electric vehicle.

Whilst working locally in the community as electrical contractor,

it became apparent to us that New Romney also struggles with either

a good broadband connexion or a reasonable price for a broadband connexion.

So just over two years ago we launched EA VNet, our wireless solution,

where we started with one transmitter base at our office in Mountfield in New Romney

on a small semi -professional mast.

Our aim was to cover the entire Romney Marsh with a good broadband connexion with reasonable prices.

For instance, our home broadband package offers customers broadband at £20 per month with no instal fees,

and it's only a 30 -day rolling contract.

This has worked really well for families that are struggling in the current climate we find ourselves in.

Within launching our service two years ago, we became inundated with requests,

and it became apparent that we needed to also expand our transmitters across the Romney Marsh.

We now have transmitters on Dungeness, Great Stone, Lid and Ivy Church.

However, our current mast is at full capacity in terms of the amount of equipment on it.

And we need a taller mast to cope with some tree foliage that is around New Romney and the surrounding areas.

Which then brings us to this application.

With the lack of EV rapid charging points in the area, we wanted to find a location

where we could provide the EV charging points as well as find somewhere for our telecom

mast. The site itself is actually situated left and right of some substations so it would

be a perfect site for the EV chargers as well as to house our equipment and the canopy above

the EV chargers would also provide a solar PV renewable input into the power requirements

we have on site. I can see I'm running out of time. The EV chargers will be for public

use and the telecom mask will also be opened up to other providers should other providers

need to use it. Thank you for your time.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:33

Thank you very much, sir. Councillors, oh gosh, hands up. Councillor Fuller, then Councillor

Thomas, please.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:21:40

I think this is an excellent application, a really useful service for the March, as

it were.

But I did have one question.

I suspect the planning officers won't be able to answer it just because it's tangentially

related to planning.

The – where is it in here?

Sorry.

Let's find the right bit.

Right, on 3 .6 it mentions that the transmitters don't fall under the ICNIRP regulation because

they function at lower frequencies than mobile phone transmitters.

I was curious to understand a bit more about that.

As I say, I suspect planning officers won't be able to answer it, but I suppose how do

we assess that and make sure that we're not providing something that should be regulated

or the applicant is.

You happen to know a bit about this actually.

So the -

You had to get my geek on.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:22:42

The ICNIRP regulations are to do with mobile communications,

generally telephone masks.

And as I understand it in layman's terms,

a mobile phone mask blasts out a lot of radiation

that can do quite a lot of harm.

So they need to be perfectly regulated,

set at certain heights, et cetera.

I spoke to the applicant about this.

Their equipment that they use functions

at much lower frequencies.

It's not blasting out stuff that's quite as dangerous to the public.

And the equipment that they can buy or procure for their broadband is available off the shelf

without a licence.

Anyone can buy it because it's not going to cause any harm.

So they don't need an ICNRP certificate to function because it's in effect not as dangerous

as a mobile phone must.

That's what I thought.

In which case I'll propose the officer's recommendation.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:23:32

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:33

We have one proposal and Councillor Thomas to second and Councillor Thomas to speak.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Again, to support the scheme really, 59 letters sent out, no objections, no responses actually.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:46

And the sighting of it, it's actually right outside the Fochland High District Council business hub.

So you never know, we might encourage a few people who park their cars in there to come and use those facilities.

and it's something else to offer as part of the growth of the industrial estate down there.

So, yeah, I'm happy to second and I think it's a really worthwhile scheme. Thank you.

Councillor Hiersby?

Yes, I just want to reiterate that really.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:24:19

I thought actually it would tidy up the site, to be honest, when I was looking at it.

But I think it's an excellent scheme for the Marsh.

I think the applicant again gave a very good explanation

of what he was trying to achieve,

which I think was very useful.

And to my mind, it can only be a good thing

for all of the marsh.

So I'm happy to support the applicant.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:46

I'm not seeing any, oh, and Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:24:51

Yeah, I'd like to echo what's been said

and agree with everything and applaud the applicant

on the progress they're making with their company

and providing reasonably priced broadband and the like

around the marsh, that's much appreciated I'm sure.

My point is I absolutely applaud the use of solar PV

on carports and in Germany, in fact,

the government have made it law

that anybody building a new car park has to provide carports, solar PV.

So, I don't know if our local MP is listening,

but it would be good if our government took on a similar sort of thinking.

And it would be good to see lots more of that.

So, I'd like to applaud the applicant for putting solar PV on the roof of carports.

and let's hope we see lots more of that.

Councillor Goddard.

Yeah, I've just got to touch on the green,

because we're all green in our own right minds, aren't we?

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:26:02

When it comes to solar panels and stuff like this.

And it was a good photograph I see today

where it's got a picture of fields.

Don't cover our fields, cover our car parks, basically.

And they're putting the solar panels above car parks.

But like Councillor Thompson and everybody else said,

This is excellent initiative for the Marsh.

Good to see it, it's for the Marsh, et cetera, et cetera.

And good advert for the company as well,

live on channel five.

So that's even better.

So wish them all the best

and hopefully they'll grow, grow and grow.

So we have one proposal which has been seconded,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:40

which is to agree with the officer's recommendation

to allow this particular planning application.

All those in favour, please show.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:52

And I can see that is unanimous.

And Maya also applaud the company

on being so entrepreneurial and seeing that gap,

which is actually helping local families as well.

So congratulations to you.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:09

So we move on to our third application,

which is 25 -1530 -FH.

which is 12 Sandgate Road in Folkestone.

Do we have any updates, please?

Mr Robert Allan - 0:27:24

Good evening, Chair. Any members? No updates.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:28

Thank you very much. And we have no speakers on this.

So over to you, councillors.

Would anyone like to ask any questions?

Councillor Goddard.

Thank you, Chair.

Went through this. Can't see too many issues.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:27:40

Councillor Thomas mentioned the letters new on the earlier.

this had 12 letters sent out, no objections.

Well above the GILs, well above the designated square meterage.

And like I say, I think it's all plus, plus, plus.

We're just happy to move the recommendation.

We have one proposal. Do we have a seconder, please?

Councillor Mike Blakemore.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:05

Would any other Councillor like to speak?

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:28:09

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:10

Councillor Polly Blakemore.

I can see that there is a real effort to make the best use of the space here and to come

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:28:19

up with two shops and the new living accommodation.

I am just concerned about the daylight issue.

I know that is why it has been referred by the town council because of the lighting levels.

I know that we need to be flexible in our approach to this, to get as many homes coming

policy HB1 does safeguard that vision of adequate light and it seems to me that the levels here,

even with the revised layout and the added skylight fall well below the guidelines, which

are of course just guidelines, but they seem to fall well below them according to paragraph

315.

I know I read in the report that it's an improvement

on the other flat further back that did get approval.

But I'm just a bit concerned that here we might just rely

on that precedent and not judge it on its own merits.

And it's not just light of course, it's ventilation as well.

If a single aspect and the only window opening

is at the back and even then it comes onto a courtyard.

I don't know, I just have concerns about ventilation and lighting

and I just wanted to voice those here. Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:29:44

Would the officers like to come back with any comments?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor.

Yeah, it's a very balanced argument,

Mr Robert Allan - 0:29:52

or I'll try to put a very balanced sort of consideration of the issues here.

as you're quite right to point out,

the BRE guidelines are just that.

And they sit in the context of within themselves,

offering their guidance to be used flexibly

alongside the direct planning guidance,

which also encourages, you know,

two -pronged approach, looking at the flexible

use of guidelines such as this,

and also encouraging the best use of land

and buildings where they are otherwise potentially underutilised.

You might have noted as part of it,

a condition four we're sort of seeking to ensure that any,

that the sort of revised layout is implemented in this form,

so that the, upon completion, they'd have to sort of demonstrate to us

that they had indeed installed the rear, the full height openings

to maximise the daylight to the internal area

and the roof light as well

so that it would meet the modelled levels.

I mean, the levels from the BRE span between,

I think it was at 100 and 200,

with the 100 being at the lower end for, I believe, bedrooms.

So yes, it's a very balanced argument.

There's a lot of factors weighed out there

in terms of vitality of the sort of area,

the provision of the housing,

and also the flexibility of the standards to be,

sort of, guidelines to be sort of,

loaded against this sort of proposal.

Thank you.

Councillor Paul Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:35

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

So, sections 728 and 729,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:31:41

729 says there's no cycle space.

728 said there's no off -street parking,

but you can use the train station short walk away

and public car parks available.

We've seen that quite a few times

with town centre developments

where we've had conversion properties

where they've now been made into flats.

And I just wonder, if you look at all the times

that we've said that there's adequate car parking provision

in these car parks, if you add all those together,

do we actually have enough car parking spaces

in that immediate area?

I mean, it's just something that I think,

it's almost a throwaway comment these days

that we see in developments like that.

So I just wonder, is somebody actually adding these up?

Because again, how viable is the use of an adjacent car park?

That's my question, thank you.

In terms of the actual car park and the provision,

the standards do allow a zero level.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:32:40

So I understand what you're saying in terms of potentially,

if we sort of said, well, there was a provision for one

or a requirement for one, but, you know,

because incrementally that would accrue.

But in this case, as there is a potential

to have zero car parking provision,

which is how the applicant has proposed it,

and many other applicants do within the town centre location

that's been deemed acceptable.

In terms of the cycle parking,

There are practicalities associated with some of the other

schemes we get in the town centre.

For example, we know trying to ensure that a third floor

flat, for example, has an allocated cycle space.

Not that this is a third floor flat, but you know,

could be difficult because we wouldn't want to see people

carrying them upstairs and often the constrained nature

of a lot of these sort of historic town centre layouts

This dictates that if you're balancing that sort of consideration, you may end up with

a lot of refusals if you applied the policy absolutely rigidly and not in the context

of the overall aims of the development plan and national policy as a whole.

So the balancing exercise here has been that, you know, yes, there is no cycle parking,

but on balance, considering we have in terms of,

whilst we don't set precedents,

there is a consideration and consistency of approach

that must be applied by the council,

and also looking at sort of the other aspects

that are being pushed forward.

It's a balancing act, and we've said,

okay, it's probably in the scheme of things

outweighed by the other benefits that are being accrued.

Yes, again, I think my question is as well the fact that there are two further

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:34:39

floors with accommodation on in the same area, all vying for the same space.

And just along the road, we approved an application not that long ago for conversion

of offices to residential, which again are all competing for the same car parking

space, arguably.

So it's just this thing about are we looking at the cumulative effect of all of those

in a relatively small area.

And I take your point, the fact that it would be,

you know, unacceptable, you could say,

to refuse an application on that basis.

But I just wonder whether, you know, as a council

and as a planning authority, you know,

we maintain the overview and say at some point

we have to stop because actually there isn't sufficient

car parking to accommodate those in the future.

So it's more about what we do in the future

rather than this particular application.

but thank you for your response, I appreciate that.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

Councillor Speakman.

Sorry, my apologies.

Yeah, just a technical point.

I'm also interested to know what the,

Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:35:42

as those being local comments and local objections,

under comments, you heard there was a,

said there was new folks in society had made a comment.

I was on file, but on file, I can't actually find it,

so I don't, was it?

I would have been quite interested in that.

Just let my colleague have a quick look to see if they can locate that. It should be

online.

Councillor Speakman, are you all right if I move on to the next speaker whilst they

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:13

look that up for you? Thank you very much.

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:36:24

We quite often comes up about what is the solution

to all these empty shops on the high street.

And part of the problem is the size of the units.

Most of the empty units up Sandgate Road

are the larger units.

We've seen recently that the former Oriental buffet

has been split into six or seven smaller units

by the Pound family, and they're all now full.

And I think left as a big unit,

that would have sat empty for years,

like some of the other larger units up there,

which are still empty and have been for years.

So I think this is quite an innovative looker,

way of using this space more productively.

I think the shops will let fairly quickly.

The flat is a studio flat banging the town centre,

where properties tend to be more transient.

I mean, the applicant is not looking to build

a family home or a forever home.

This is a small town centre studio flat,

which will inevitably not have parking space

and will be slightly compromised in the living space

and in this way, sort of lack of windows.

So I'm happy to support this application

because we're desperately short of living space

in Ferguson Town Centre.

There are in fact plenty of underutilised car parks in the town centre currently.

That could change, we keep putting our applications through that require parking in those spaces.

Is there any way we could insist in condition four that the roof light is openable so that

it also provides fresh air.

Thank you.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:38:43

It's unlike, I don't think that would be specifically

a planning matter, because ventilation, I think,

is more covered by building regulations,

and where you have the capability for rapid ventilation

with the back doors being there, or partial ventilation,

that would fulfil the requirement of that.

So I think it would fall outside the sort of acceptability of the planning condition

to do that in this instance.

Chair, sorry, there's no more.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:39:14

Do we have Councillor Speakeman's?

Councillor Speakeman.

The new folks in society comments have been taken account of.

They are the only comment that was made and that was summarised within the representation

section of the application.

But it appears that there's a clerical error and they haven't been made public,

which we will obviously put right first thing tomorrow morning.

Thank you.

Roberts.

Counsel Fener.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:41

Thanks, Chair.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:39:46

The question about ventilation actually just got me thinking, and I can't remember

if I saw one on this, but does the, well, A, does the applicant provide an extractor

or something in the washing facilities?

And B, would they be required to if it's not shown,

would it be covered by building patrol or planning or,

because that is just oversight on my part,

I didn't notice whether or not there was one.

Yeah, again, that would be something that would fall

under the building regulations side of things.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:40:16

So it is with bathrooms, for example,

you don't have to have to have windows,

they can be mechanically ventilated.

That again is a building regulations sort of side of things.

So I wouldn't be entering into that.

I suppose my follow up to that is they do have to be ventilated in some way though.

Is that right?

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:40:37

Or because otherwise that's going to be a mole sort of nightmare.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:40:47

Yeah, I understand my understanding, limited understanding of building regulations is that they do.

Councillor Polly Bankmore.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:52

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:40:56

I think the question is around the ventilation issue and the fire hazard, which I am sure

is a building control issue.

But again, just looking at the layout of the proposed apartment, the kitchen area, the

cooking area is a long way from the window.

And again, that gives me concerns about ventilation and safety and so on.

But is that, would that be down to building control?

Would it?

So it's not good for him building control stepping in.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:41:34

Yeah, it would be there is obviously I mean, within studio flats are not uncommon.

And as a, you know, in a housing solution, you can have internal sort of ventilation

or it could even be ducted or if there's an external wall which, as you say, sort of sits

towards the sort of core of the building.

So that would be harder to achieve.

But, yes, that would be a consideration for building regulations.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:01

I have two Councillors who have already spoken but have asked to speak again.

I would like to speak on this application.

I think the splitting down of the retail unit

is an extremely good idea and will give more businesses

a chance to actually use those units.

However, I do have grave concerns regarding the light,

the ventilation and the living accommodation.

I do believe that as councillors,

we should be encouraging the best possible accommodation within our town.

And I'm concerned that I think there's still some work left doing on this,

but I'll leave that there.

Councillor Thomas, you wanted to come back?

Yeah, thank you.

Just on the point that you've made, just reinforcing what you were saying, really,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:42:58

in terms of compliance with AWAS law, which is all about having properties which are

adequately maintained and maintainable, and specifically in association with making

sure that mould and other things don't arise as a consequence of the conversion.

So again, just reinforcing your point really about how do we make sure that it would

be compliant as part and parcel of its conversion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, members.

FHDC Officer - 0:43:33

Just for the sake of clarity, matters relating to adequate ventilation, means of escape during

a fire, are not dealt with under planning.

They will, I understand, be dealt with under the building regulations, which is separate

legislation.

I can't pretend to be an expert on that, and I'm not employed to be an expert on that,

I'm not going to advise you on the building regulations,

but from a planning point of view,

the means of ventilation and means of escape

are not material planning considerations here.

Thank you.

Mike Whitmore?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:10

Sorry, I haven't actually spoken on this.

No, I seconded it and I was waiting patiently to speak.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:44:17

Councillor Lockwood made many of the same points I wanted to make.

I think it's very important that we provide homes in the town centre, we provide small

homes, they're much in need.

And I don't think it's reasonable that we can always think that every home we build,

people are going to have a car.

Not everyone can afford to run a car, not everyone needs to run a car, particularly

when they're living in a town centre location where they're walking distance of two or three

supermarkets and a train station, et cetera.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable that we approve applications here where there isn't

parking space.

it is regrettable there isn't cycle storage for on there.

I think that is a shame.

And I think it's also to be welcomed with this

that the division of larger retail units,

as Councillor Lockwood said,

will bring more vitality to the town centre

and is also to be welcomed.

So that's why I'm minded to support this application.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any other councillor wanting to speak.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:14

We have one proposal which has been seconded,

which is to accept our officer's recommendation

to support this application.

All those in favour, please raise your hand.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:34

Thank you. Those against?

Thank you, Chair. That's eight in favour and four in response.

Microphone A - 0:45:42

Is that everyone? Yes.

Any abstentions?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:45

No, okay.

Thank you.

That's eight in favour and four against.

Microphone A - 0:45:52

Thank you.

That application has passed.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:55

Thank you very much, committee.

Thank you for all your work.

Oh, we've got one more.

Sorry, I'm rushing because I know the mince pies are outside.

I do apologise.

So our last one of the year is 25 -2140 -FHCON, is that correct?

Yes.

Which is the bus station, Bovary Square, which is an approval of an informative regarding

the biodiversity gain plan.

Do we have any updates, please?

Thank you, Chair.

FHDC Officer - 0:46:31

No updates, members.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:35

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:46:41

I am very disappointed in this because it is only delivering 3514 % biodiversity net

gain.

7 25/2140/FH/CON - Bus station, Bouverie Square, Folkestone, CT20 1BA

I mean really, could we not have done better?

It does seem a little bit silly that we have to do a report on improving upon two planters

by putting a garden in place.

But there you go.

What can you do?

I'll let someone else move the recommendation as I see it on cabinet.

Councillor Thomas then, Councillor Horninsby.

Happy to move the officer's recommendation for approval.

Do we have a seconder please?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:13

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:14

Councillor Horninsby, would you like to speak?

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:47:18

I was only going to say that you learn something all the time from reading these planning reports, don't you?

3 .2 I was quite interested in, where it talks about,

well I suppose you can all read it,

don't need me to read it, but I found it quite

an interesting point in terms of that it's a decision,

it's a condition that's automatic,

and I wonder how many times, or how many times

we've perhaps missed that on previous applications.

But just an interesting point.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:55

Thank you, Councillor Thomas. Did you want to speak? Oh, sorry, I saw a flurry of hands.

Who else would like to speak on this particular item? No, nobody? In that case, we have one

proposal which has been proposed and seconded, and that's to go with the officer's recommendations

regarding this to be approved in accordance with the details and the documents provided.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:23

All those in favour please raise your hand. Thank you and I can see that's unanimous.

And that is the last application for the year. Thank you Committee for all your work this

year, it really is appreciated and also officers and staff, thank you very much. Have a peaceful

Christmas and a wonderful Christmas break and we will see you in 2026. Thank you.

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 16 December 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting