Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 20th January 2026 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

Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1
Microphone B
Cllr Jackie Meade

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Cllr Clive Goddard
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 16/12/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee

Slide 2

4 25/0542/FH - Land Opp Marten Farm, St. Mary's Road, Romney Marsh, TN29

Share this agenda point

Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Microphone Forty
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 66
Slide 67
Slide 68
Slide 69
Microphone Forty
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 106
Slide 107
Microphone Forty
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 145
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Slide 152
Microphone Forty
Microphone Forty
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 192
Slide 193
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Slide 200
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 201
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 209
Cllr Paul Thomas
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
Slide 256
Slide 257
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Slide 265
Slide 266
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
Slide 400
Slide 401
Slide 402
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 454
Slide 455
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 456
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 457
Slide 458
Slide 459
Slide 460
Slide 461
Slide 462
Slide 463
Slide 464
Slide 465
Slide 466
Slide 467
Slide 468
Slide 469
Slide 470
Slide 471
Slide 472
Slide 473
Slide 474
Slide 475
Slide 476
Cllr Jackie Meade
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 477
Slide 478
Slide 479
Slide 480
Slide 481
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 482
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 483
Slide 484
Slide 485
Slide 486
Slide 487
Slide 488
Slide 489
Slide 490
Slide 491
Slide 492
Slide 493
Slide 494
Slide 495
Slide 496
Slide 497
Slide 498
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 499
Slide 500
Slide 501
Slide 502
Slide 503
Slide 504
Slide 505
Slide 506
Slide 507
Slide 508
Slide 509
Slide 510
Slide 511
Slide 512
Slide 513
Slide 514
Slide 515
Slide 516
Slide 517
Slide 518
Slide 519
Slide 520
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 521
Slide 522
Slide 523
Slide 524
Slide 525
Slide 526
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 527
Slide 528
Slide 529
Slide 530
Slide 531
Slide 532
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 533
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 534
Slide 535
Slide 536
Slide 537
Slide 538
Slide 539
Slide 540
Slide 541
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 542
Slide 543
Slide 544
Slide 545
Slide 546
Slide 547
Slide 548
Slide 549
Slide 550
Slide 551
Slide 552
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 553
Slide 554
Slide 555
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 556
Slide 557
Slide 558
Slide 559
Slide 560
Slide 561
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 562
Slide 563
Slide 564
Slide 565
Slide 566
Slide 567
Slide 568
Slide 569
Slide 570
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 571
Slide 572
Slide 573
Slide 574
Slide 575
Slide 576
Slide 577
Slide 578
Slide 579
Slide 580
Slide 581
Slide 582
Slide 583
Slide 584
Slide 585
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 586
Slide 587
Slide 588
Slide 589
Slide 590
Slide 591
Slide 592
Slide 593
Slide 594
Slide 595
Slide 596
Slide 597
Slide 598
Slide 599
Slide 600
Slide 601
Slide 602
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 603
Slide 604
Slide 605
Slide 606
Slide 607
Slide 608
Slide 609
Slide 610
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 611
Slide 612
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 613
Slide 614
Slide 615
Slide 616
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 617
Slide 618
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 619
Slide 620
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 621
Slide 622
Slide 623
Slide 624
Slide 625
Slide 626
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 627
Slide 628
Slide 629
Slide 630
Slide 631
Slide 632
Slide 633
Slide 634
Slide 635
Slide 636
Slide 637
Slide 638
Slide 639
Slide 640
Slide 641
Slide 642
Slide 643
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 644
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 645
Slide 646
Slide 647
Slide 648
Slide 649
Slide 650
Slide 651
Slide 652
Slide 653
Slide 654
Slide 655
Slide 656
Slide 657
Slide 658
Slide 659
Slide 660
Slide 661
Slide 662
Slide 663
Slide 664
Slide 665
Slide 666
Slide 667
Slide 668
Slide 669
Slide 670
Slide 671
Slide 672
Slide 673
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 674
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 675
Slide 676
Slide 677
Slide 678
Slide 679
Slide 680
Slide 681
Slide 682
Slide 683
Slide 684
Slide 685
Slide 686
Slide 687
Slide 688
Slide 689
Slide 690
Slide 691
Slide 692
Slide 693
Slide 694
Slide 695
Slide 696
Slide 697
Slide 698
Slide 699
Slide 700
Slide 701
Slide 702
Slide 703
Slide 704
Slide 705
Slide 706
Slide 707
Slide 708
Slide 709
Slide 710
Slide 711
Slide 712
Slide 713
Slide 714
Slide 715
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 716
Slide 717
Slide 718
Slide 719
Slide 720
Slide 721
Slide 722
Slide 723
Slide 724
Slide 725
Slide 726
Slide 727
Slide 728
Slide 729
Slide 730
Slide 731
Slide 732
Slide 733
Slide 734
Slide 735
Slide 736
Slide 737
Slide 738
Slide 739
Slide 740
Slide 741
Slide 742
Slide 743
Slide 744
Slide 745
Slide 746
Slide 747
Slide 748
Slide 749
Slide 750
Slide 751
Slide 752
Slide 753
Slide 754
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 755
Slide 756
Slide 757
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 758
Slide 759
Slide 760
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 761
Slide 762
Slide 763
Slide 764
Slide 765
Slide 766
Slide 767
Slide 768
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 769
Slide 770
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 771
Slide 772
Slide 773
Slide 774
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 775
Slide 776
Slide 777
Slide 778
Slide 779
Slide 780
Slide 781
Slide 782
Slide 783
Slide 784
Slide 785
Slide 786
Slide 787
Slide 788
Slide 789
Slide 790
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 791
Slide 792
Slide 793
Slide 794
Slide 795
Slide 796
Slide 797
Slide 798
Slide 799
Slide 800
Slide 801
Slide 802
Slide 803
Slide 804
Slide 805
Slide 806
Slide 807
Slide 808
Slide 809
Slide 810
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 811
Slide 812
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 813
Slide 814
Slide 815
Slide 816
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 817
Slide 818
Slide 819
Slide 820
Slide 821
Slide 822
Slide 823
Slide 824
Slide 825
Slide 826
Slide 827
Slide 828
Slide 829
Slide 830
Slide 831
Slide 832
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 833
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 834
Slide 835
Slide 836
Slide 837
Slide 838
Slide 839
Slide 840
Slide 841
Slide 842
Slide 843
Slide 844
Slide 845
Slide 846
Slide 847
Slide 848
Slide 849
Slide 850
Slide 851
Slide 852
Slide 853
Slide 854
Slide 855
Slide 856
Slide 857
Slide 858
Slide 859
Slide 860
Slide 861
Slide 862
Slide 863
Slide 864
Slide 865
Slide 866
Slide 867
Slide 868
Slide 869
Slide 870
Slide 871
Slide 872
Slide 873
Slide 874
Slide 875
Slide 876
Slide 877
Slide 878
Slide 879
Slide 880
Slide 881
Slide 882
Slide 883
Slide 884
Slide 885
Slide 886
Slide 887
Slide 888
Slide 889
Slide 890
Slide 891
Slide 892
Slide 893
Slide 894
Slide 895
Slide 896
Slide 897
Slide 898
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 899
Slide 900
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 901
Slide 902
Slide 903
Slide 904
Slide 905
Slide 906
Slide 907
Slide 908
Slide 909
Slide 910
Slide 911
Slide 912
Slide 913
Slide 914
Slide 915
Slide 916
Slide 917
Slide 918
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 919
Slide 920
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 921
Slide 922
Slide 923
Slide 924
Slide 925
Slide 926
Slide 927
Slide 928
Slide 929
Slide 930
Slide 931
Slide 932
Slide 933
Slide 934
Slide 935
Slide 936
Slide 937
Slide 938
Slide 939
Slide 940
Slide 941
Slide 942
Slide 943
Slide 944
Slide 945
Slide 946
Slide 947
Slide 948
Slide 949
Slide 950
Slide 951
Slide 952
Slide 953
Slide 954
Slide 955
Slide 956
Slide 957
Slide 958
Slide 959
Slide 960
Slide 961
Slide 962
Slide 963
Slide 964
Slide 965
Slide 966
Slide 967
Slide 968
Slide 969
Slide 970
Slide 971
Slide 972
Slide 973
Slide 974
Slide 975
Slide 976
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 977
Slide 978
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 979
Slide 980
Slide 981
Slide 982
Slide 983
Slide 984
Slide 985
Slide 986
Slide 987
Slide 988
Slide 989
Slide 990
Slide 991
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 992
Slide 993
Slide 994
Slide 995
Slide 996
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 997
Slide 998
Slide 999
Slide 1000
Slide 1001
Slide 1002
Slide 1003
Slide 1004
Slide 1005
Slide 1006
Slide 1007
Slide 1008
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 1009
Slide 1010
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 1011
Slide 1012
Slide 1013
Slide 1014
Slide 1015
Slide 1016
Slide 1017
Slide 1018
Slide 1019
Slide 1020
Slide 1021
Slide 1022
Slide 1023
Slide 1024
Slide 1025
Slide 1026
Slide 1027
Slide 1028
Slide 1029
Slide 1030
Slide 1031
Slide 1032
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 1033
Slide 1034
Llywelyn Lloyd
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 1035
Slide 1036
Slide 1037
Slide 1038
Slide 1039
Slide 1040
Slide 1041
Slide 1042
Slide 1043
Slide 1044
Slide 1045
Slide 1046
Slide 1047
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1048
Slide 1049
Slide 1050
Slide 1051
Slide 1052
Slide 1053
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 1054
Slide 1055
Slide 1056
Slide 1057
Slide 1058
Slide 1059
Slide 1060
Slide 1061
Slide 1062
Slide 1063
Slide 1064
Slide 1065
Slide 1066
Slide 1067
Slide 1068
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 1069
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 1070
Slide 1071
Slide 1072
Slide 1073
Slide 1074
Slide 1075
Slide 1076
Slide 1077
Slide 1078
Slide 1079
Slide 1080
Slide 1081
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1082
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1083
Microphone B
Slide 1084
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1085
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1086
Slide 1087
Slide 1088
Slide 1089
Slide 1090
Slide 1091
Slide 1092
Slide 1093
Slide 1094
Cllr Jackie Meade

4 25/0542/FH - Land Opp Marten Farm, St. Mary's Road, Romney Marsh, TN29

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1095
Slide 1096

5 25/1104/FH - Royal Victoria Hospital, Radnor Park Avenue, Folkestone, CT19 5BN

Share this agenda point

Slide 1097
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1098
Slide 1099
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1100
Slide 1101
Slide 1102
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 1103
Slide 1104
Slide 1105
Slide 1106
Slide 1107
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 1108
Slide 1109
Slide 1110
Slide 1111
Slide 1112
Slide 1113
Slide 1114
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1115
Slide 1116
Slide 1117
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1118
Slide 1119
Slide 1120
Slide 1121
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1122
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 1123
Slide 1124
Slide 1125
Slide 1126
Slide 1127
Slide 1128
Slide 1129
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1130
Slide 1131
Slide 1132
Slide 1133
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1134
Slide 1135
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1136
Slide 1137
Slide 1138
Slide 1139

6 25/0449/FH - Land Adjoining 26 Blackhouse Hill, Hythe, CT21 5UL

Share this agenda point

Slide 1140
Slide 1141
Slide 1142
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1143
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1144
Slide 1145
Slide 1146
Slide 1147
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1148
Slide 1149
Slide 1150
Slide 1151
Slide 1152
Slide 1153
Slide 1154
Slide 1155
Slide 1156
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1157
Slide 1158
Slide 1159
Slide 1160
Slide 1161
Slide 1162
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1163
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1164
Slide 1165
Slide 1166
Slide 1167
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1168
Slide 1169
Slide 1170
Slide 1171
Slide 1172
Slide 1173
Slide 1174
Slide 1175
Slide 1176
Slide 1177
Slide 1178
Slide 1179
Slide 1180
Slide 1181
Slide 1182
Slide 1183
Slide 1184
Slide 1185
Slide 1186
Slide 1187
Slide 1188
Slide 1189
Slide 1190
Slide 1191
Slide 1192
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1193
Slide 1194
Slide 1195
Slide 1196
Slide 1197
Slide 1198
Slide 1199
Slide 1200
Slide 1201
Slide 1202
Slide 1203
Slide 1204
Slide 1205
Slide 1206
Slide 1207
Slide 1208
Slide 1209
Slide 1210
Slide 1211
Slide 1212
Slide 1213
Slide 1214
Slide 1215
Slide 1216
Slide 1217
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1218
Slide 1219
Slide 1220
Slide 1221
Slide 1222
Slide 1223
Slide 1224
Slide 1225
Slide 1226
Slide 1227
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1228
Slide 1229
Slide 1230
Slide 1231
Slide 1232
Slide 1233
Slide 1234
Slide 1235
Slide 1236
Slide 1237
Slide 1238
Slide 1239
Slide 1240
Slide 1241
Slide 1242
Slide 1243
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1244
Slide 1245
Slide 1246
Slide 1247
Slide 1248
Slide 1249
Slide 1250
Slide 1251
Slide 1252
Slide 1253
Slide 1254
Slide 1255
Slide 1256
Slide 1257
Slide 1258
Slide 1259
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1260
Slide 1261
Slide 1262
Slide 1263
Slide 1264
Slide 1265
Slide 1266
Slide 1267
Slide 1268
Slide 1269
Slide 1270
Slide 1271
Slide 1272
Slide 1273
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1274
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 1275
Slide 1276
Slide 1277
Slide 1278
Slide 1279
Slide 1280
Slide 1281
Slide 1282
Slide 1283
Slide 1284
Slide 1285
Slide 1286
Slide 1287
Slide 1288
Slide 1289
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1290
Slide 1291
Slide 1292
Slide 1293
Slide 1294
Slide 1295
Slide 1296
Slide 1297
Slide 1298
Slide 1299
Slide 1300
Slide 1301
Slide 1302
Slide 1303
Slide 1304
Slide 1305
Slide 1306
Slide 1307
Slide 1308
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 1309
Slide 1310
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1311
Slide 1312
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 1313
Slide 1314
Slide 1315
Slide 1316
Slide 1317
Slide 1318
Slide 1319
Slide 1320
Slide 1321
Slide 1322
Slide 1323
Slide 1324
Slide 1325
Slide 1326
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 1327
Slide 1328
Slide 1329
Slide 1330
Slide 1331
Slide 1332
Slide 1333
Slide 1334
Slide 1335
Slide 1336
Slide 1337
Slide 1338
Slide 1339
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 1340
Slide 1341
Slide 1342
Slide 1343
Slide 1344
Slide 1345
Slide 1346
Slide 1347
Slide 1348
Slide 1349
Slide 1350
Slide 1351
Slide 1352
Slide 1353
Slide 1354
Slide 1355
Slide 1356
Slide 1357
Slide 1358
Slide 1359
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 1360
Slide 1361
Slide 1362
Slide 1363
Slide 1364
Slide 1365
Slide 1366
Slide 1367
Slide 1368
Slide 1369
Slide 1370
Slide 1371
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1372
Slide 1373
Slide 1374
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1375
Slide 1376
Microphone B
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1377
Slide 1378
Slide 1379
Slide 1380

7 25/1661/FH - Studio1, Brewery Tap, 53 Tontine Street, Folkestone, CT20 1JR

Share this agenda point

Slide 1381
Slide 1382
Slide 1383
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1384
Slide 1385
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1386
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 1387
Slide 1388
Slide 1389
Slide 1390
Slide 1391
Slide 1392
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1393
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 1394
Slide 1395
Slide 1396
Slide 1397
Slide 1398
Slide 1399
Slide 1400
Slide 1401
Slide 1402
Slide 1403
Slide 1404
Slide 1405
Slide 1406
Slide 1407
Slide 1408
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 1409
Slide 1410
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1411
Slide 1412
Slide 1413
Slide 1414
Slide 1415
Slide 1416
Slide 1417
Slide 1418
Slide 1419
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 1420
Slide 1421
Slide 1422
Slide 1423
Slide 1424
Slide 1425
Slide 1426
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1427
Slide 1428
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1429
Slide 1430
Slide 1431
Slide 1432
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

that's in committee.

This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.

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.

With 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 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 ancillary 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

Microphone B - 0:01:23

Thank you, Chair, and no apologies this evening.

Thank you very much.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:27

Councillors, do we have any declarations of interest on the matters tonight?

Councillor Goddard.

Thank you, Chairman.

Good evening.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:01:36

Just more information than declaration, Chairman.

Item 2251104FH, Royal Victoria Hospital, Radnor Park.

Obviously, that used to be in the ownership of Alliance, who I work for, and just for

one or two of the eagle -eyed members of the public

on channel five.

Obviously that has been sold to another development.

We designed the fine building in 2020,

but no ownership now.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:01

Thank you for that clarification.

Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to follow, I'm not sure if the microphone's on, is it?

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:02:12

Oh, sorry.

Voluntary one on application 25 -1661 FH is that I worked for the landlord for seven years

and may well have put the application in the first place to change it from a pub to a community

educational centre 15 years ago.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:38

Thank you very much.

Any other declarations?

I'm seeing none. So we'll move on to the minutes. Before you, you have the minutes to consider

and approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2025. May

I sign them as a good record, please? Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:02

So we move on to our applications this evening.

3 Minutes

4 25/0542/FH - Land Opp Marten Farm, St. Mary's Road, Romney Marsh, TN29

And our first application this evening is 25 -0542 -FH,

which is the land opposite Martinform, St Mary's Road, Romney Marsh.

Do we have any updates, please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:03:25

Good evening, members. Thank you, Chair. Yes, we have one update.

One further letter has been received from the applicant in response to additional comments

that we have received from local residents that have already been set out in the written

update report.

In response to comments stating that limited weight should be given to the scheme benefits

unless a grid connexion is proven, the applicant states that there is no planning requirement

for them to provide this information and no support is contained within the MPPF for giving

limited weight to the benefits of renewable energy.

The applicant also states that the cumulative impacts of the nationally significant infrastructure

project schemes are not material to the planning application.

Further, in response to comments from objectors that the drainage strategy is lacking and

existing field drains have not been considered, the applicant states that the scheme has been

developed with the active participation of the landowner and that such matters are addressed

through the agreed technical framework that would be overseen by statutory consortees.

The applicant further states that whilst objectors consider the traffic impact would be severe,

this is not a view shared by KCC, who have stated that solar farms do not generate significant

traffic movements and notes that a construction traffic management plan can be secured by

a planning condition.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:04:45

And we have four speakers on this this evening.

I would say to all speakers please, you have three minutes.

The lady to your side will give you a yellow card

which tells you that you have a minute left.

And when the red card comes up at the three minutes,

I will ask you to finish the sentence that you're currently on.

Thank you.

So our first speaker this evening is a local resident, Amanda Farrant,

on behalf of Hands Off Our Marsh CIC to speak against the application.

Microphone Forty - 0:05:21

Good evening and your time will start when you do. Thank you.

Good evening. I speak on behalf of Hanzafarmash.

Excuse me, my throat is bad at the moment.

We're a community group with over 2 ,000 members facing at least four industrial -scale solar projects

covering up to 8 .5 square miles of Romney Marsh.

We remind members that last September you along with members of the whole council

supported our petition recognising the harm that industrial solar schemes would inflict on Romney Marsh.

To be clear, we're not against renewable energy. We support it in the right places.

This proposed scheme is the wrong project in the wrong place. More than 80 objections have been made explaining why residents feel this is the case, which I hope you've read.

If you have read all the proposals and objections,

you will have noticed that there are some major gaps

and inconsistencies in the application,

especially related to Romney Marsh's vital drainage system,

soil quality and health, heritage, and visual impact

on the far -reaching views

from the Kent Downs National Landscape.

The proposed site is currently producing

a very healthy crop of winter wheat,

which would indicate that the downgrading of the land

to non -BMV status may not be entirely accurate.

Even after the extreme rainfall of the last few weeks,

the fields in question are showing no signs

of ponding or excess water,

indicating that the drainage pipes

under the fields are working well.

Unfortunately, it seems that various soil

and drainage assessments didn't look into the presence

of under -field drainage pipes,

which have been historically crucial

in keeping water off the marsh

and producing high -yield crops.

damage to any existing pipes will cause costly untold problems.

There are many more aspects of the project design that either rely on studies not relevant to Romney Marsh's situation

or overstate the benefits of the project, not least the ability of the power plant to adequately contribute to carbon reduction targets.

The grid in this area of Kent is already constrained due to lots of renewables

and we wonder whether all the energy generated by the scheme will actually be able to reach the grid.

When the grid is constrained, it's highly likely the operator will be asked to stop generating energy as we see happening with wind power in Scotland.

This scheme will have far -reaching consequences that will affect hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the area,

not only in the short term, but in the medium and long term.

Your decision should not be taken lightly, as it's your responsibility

responsibility to serve your constituents and act on our behalf with our best interests in mind,

we ask that you defer your decision until you visit the proposed site in person and take time to fully

understand the very complex and technical issues that form the basis of our objections.

The Office's report says the decision is finally balanced. Please do the right thing by ensuring you fully

understand the long -term impacts of industrialising huge tracts of our most precious and productive

rural countryside. Thank you for listening.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:30

Thank you and directly on time. Thank you very, very much. So our second speaker this

evening is Councillor Colin Woolard on behalf of New Church Parish Council to speak on the

Good evening, sir, and you have three minutes from when you start.

Microphone Forty - 0:08:51

I represent parishioners of New Church and parish councillors who are unanimous in opposition

to both this scheme and the other three NSIP schemes on Romy Marsh.

SSE's Area 6 butts the proposed Environmena scheme, literally the other side of the ditch.

The Environmena solar application proposes to take 100 acres of agriculturally productive

land and cover it with solar panels.

The power output from this scheme will be sold by EnviroMina's own admission to an

end user elsewhere in the country by what is known as the sleeving process.

Our parish therefore derives no benefit from this, however our parish will have to live

with the loss of visual amenity for 40 years, the disruption and damage that large amounts

of heavy construction traffic will inevitably cause to the road network, possibly even to

properties during the construction phase and most worryingly of all the very real and completely

misunderstood and ignored factor of increased flood risk.

It is incredible that the applicant has not considered this in the application nor consulted

with the Romney Marsh internal drainage board.

Drainage is a great concern for us on the marsh and the lack of involvement of the IDB

in this project is alarming.

The drainage system, especially the clay pipes under the land and under roads must be protected

and not destroyed by piling.

The soils which are currently, as we speak, growing an excellent winter wheat crop must

be protected and not compacted by panel runoff.

There is no evidence that suggests that soils will naturally improve under solar panels

without proper management plans.

It's clear that the economic impact on tourism has not been assessed adequately, with socio -economic

assessment only focused on benefits.

Impacts during the construction phase to the nearby caravan sites in Samaritan Road, as

as well as the nearby National Cycle route are likely to be significant.

Few jobs over the long term will be created locally in relation to the cumulative harm

that this and other solar schemes will have on local tourism and leisure businesses.

This brings us to the question of decommissioning.

This must be enforceable through the condition of an index -linked financial bond rather than

the Council relying on corporate goodwill 40 years from now.

We do not want to be saddled with a white elephant in our midst.

Our Parish Council does not oppose the need for clean energy, but large schemes like this

must ensure that local residents' day -to -day lives are safeguarded and their sense of place

is not harmed.

We invite the committee to join us on a full site visit before making a decision to see

for themselves the suitability of the land, the road network and the likely impact on

the footpaths and landscape.

As our District Councillors on the Planning Committee, we are asking you to ensure your

decision today represents the concerns and best interests of Romney Marsh residents.

A decision grounded in incomplete evidence and inadequate conditions today undermines

both public confidence and good planning tomorrow. We would respectfully ask that a decision is

deferred until the various claims made by the applicant can be properly assessed. Thank

you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:51

And our third speaker on this application is Councillor David Wimble, who is the ward

member to speak on the application.

Good evening.

And you have three minutes from when you start.

Microphone Forty - 0:12:02

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I speak tonight as a local resident, a town district and Kent County Councillor who is

currently working with officers of Kent's emerging energy strategy policy.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset, this is not an objection to renewable energy.

Kent is firmly pro -solar.

We strongly support brownfield developments, rooftop solar, across homes, businesses and

commercial sites.

What we do not support and what this application represents is a large -scale solar on high -quality

greenfield agricultural land.

National policy is clear.

The National Planning Policy Framework requires councils to protect the best and most versatile

agricultural land and to avoid unnecessary harm to valued landscapes and soils.

This site is not marginal land, it is productive marsh farmland, part of the food infrastructure

of this country and will increasingly rely on this in uncertain times.

Kent's emerging energy strategy reflects this reality.

It puts food security first and draws a clear line.

The green field solar land is not acceptable where alternatives exist, and alternatives

do exist.

Across Kent we have vast areas of brown field land, industrial sites, warehouse roofs and

commercial buildings that are far better suited to solar generation without permanently removing

land from food production.

There's also a very real and practical issue that cannot be ignored, grid connectivity.

Through our work with officers, national grid and distribution network operators and the

government's Great British Energy team, we've been repeatedly told that the local grid on

Romy Marsh is constrained.

To accommodate schemes like this, the network would require major reinforcement approaching

super grid level upgrades.

Without that, projects risk becoming generation without delivery.

The energy that cannot be exported, stored or used locally.

This is not good planning and it undermines the climate benefits being claimed.

The committee must also consider landscape impact.

Romney Marsh is not an industrial site, it's a historic rural agricultural landscape.

Forty years of panels, fences, substations and access tracks is not temporary in planning

terms and once this land is lost it's effectively gone for a generation.

This comes down to a simple judgement.

This is the wrong solution in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Refusing this application is not anti -solar, it's pro -smart solar.

Solar works with policy and with infrastructure, reality and our responsibility to protect

both energy security and food security.

For those reasons, I urge the committee to refuse this application.

And just finally, you mentioned about KCC's policy.

that's dated 2014, on much smaller solar farms than this.

And as I said, there is a new energy policy coming out

in the next two months that will back up

everything that's been said.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:09

Thank you, Councillor Wimber.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:14

Sorry, can I just ask, is that gentleman at the back OK?

Yeah, I just want to cheque that the gentleman was okay, because are you okay?

Okay, wonderful, thank you.

So our fourth and final speaker is Steven Bainbridge.

I'm from the applicant to speak on the application.

Good evening, sir.

and you have three minutes from when you start.

Microphone Forty - 0:15:47

Good evening, I'm Stephen Bainbridge from EnviroMina.

I'm a qualified planner, like your planning officers.

I just happen to work at EnviroMina.

We acquire, build, and manage our own sites,

so if this scheme is approved,

we are the ones who will be implementing the conditions

and operating the development.

You have a very comprehensive officers report

in front of you and the answers to any planning questions you might have are in there and

your office is the best place to guide you through them if needed.

So setting the report aside for a moment, I'll use my time to focus on context.

We see that objectors are concerned about NSIPs and the lack of local control.

NSIPs sit at one end of the scale, this proposal sits at the other.

The fact that we are all here demonstrates local decision making in practise.

We submitted our application last year. Consultees asked for further information

where necessary that information was provided and the result is a detailed

committee report with no technical objections and a robust suite of planning

conditions. Those conditions give you control. There's two on archaeology, three

on construction and operation, three on drainage, four on highways and transport

and nine on environmental matters.

This is a tightly regulated scheme,

not an open -ended concern.

To answer a few public talking points,

rooftop solar has been supported by successive governments,

but even under the most optimistic assumptions,

it cannot meet national energy requirements.

When we refer to temporary development,

we mean it's reversible in planning terms,

and importantly, cannot then qualify

as previously developed land.

It's not prime agricultural land, the soil is not lost and can remain in pastoral use,

having rested for 40 years.

Our drainage strategy is not based on American data.

One of the scientific studies cited in all solar farm drainage reports is American, but

to focus in on that is unscientific.

You have to deliberately ignore pages of local data to do that.

Of course, we know where the pipes are.

I've got the map of them here.

And finally, all our important point of connexion

is on the site.

Turning to requests from consortees,

construction traffic is controlled

through a construction traffic management plan.

Residential amenities controlled through conditions

on hours and complaints procedures.

Landscaping, road condition surveys,

public rights of way, all controlled by condition.

There's nothing new or novel here,

you've been here before.

The Sycamore Farm site provides your template

for small -scale solar farms on the marsh.

Returning to the application before you,

and co -opting the objectors opinion on Sycamore Farm,

it's fairly inoffensive really.

The surveys and reports have been provided,

your officers have set out clearly how the proposal accords

with the development plan and the conditions

we respectfully repress your grant permission.

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:04

So, councillors, do you have any clarifications, any comments, any questions?

Councillor Mike Blakemore.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:19:16

The issue of soil quality has been mentioned by several of the speakers, and I know that

Some may question whether why our designation of the land

is different from the designation of the land

that the applicants have come up with,

i .e. that it's not prime agricultural land.

So I just wonder if we could be assured

that the agricultural land there isn't of the high quality

and it is of the moderate quality,

as I think it says in the report,

and what we base that assertion on.

Thank you.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:19:49

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Blakemore. So we start when we are looking at agricultural

land classifications with sort of the national picture, which was some geographical mapping

done in quite some considerable time. As with flooding, that is a very high level and large

grain assessment of where land may or may not be. In this case, the applicant has submitted

with their application a detailed analysis of the land that actually exists on the site

and concluded that it doesn't meet the terms of best and most versatile.

And in that case, we're basing it on that because that's additional empirical evidence

to back up the high -level information we have from the national picture.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:20:32

Councillor Paul Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:20:38

I've got a number of comments and questions which I'll go through internally if I may.

I'd just like to point out that I have already provided these questions to the officers ahead of the meeting.

So just in terms of the report itself, I mean, you have to say it's a very comprehensive report.

It makes the assertion about the planning balance that's actually given to this

in terms of the substantial weight has to be given

to schemes such as this.

And the report actually lists all of those

quite complexly and then links them back

to the supporting information within the planning application.

However, there are a couple of things which I feel

are not adequately addressed within the information

that we've been provided with

and consequently it's not in the report.

I'd like to start first of all with the benefits.

So right to the front end of the report,

in fact the design and access statement talks about

the 16 megawatt scheme powering 10 ,600 homes.

Well if you do the math, that's 1 .5 kilowatts per home,

which is laughable.

Most solar schemes suggest that for five megawatts

you'd look at 1350 to 1500 homes,

so about 3 .3 kilowatts. So in terms of benefit, if you're going to be presenting

things to us, then arguably four and a half thousand homes per annum, less than

half is what's been put forward by the developer, is probably more in line.

What we also have to remember in that, and it is referenced both in the

developers reports and in the planning statement, is that in terms of

successive governments drive towards net zero,

reducing the reliance on fossil fuel, including gas,

will increase the usage of electricity in people's homes.

And so therefore, when you look at that,

that benefit, it doesn't seem to be,

doesn't seem to stack up with the evidence.

Just in terms of something which has already been raised

by a number of our speakers, and that's to do with drainage.

So in appendix one of the attachments that we have,

that shows that this site is bounded by the Eastbridge sewer

to the northern boundary and the Clobston sewer

to the southern boundary.

And these are managed by the internal drainage board.

If you look at page 24, section 3 .96 of the officer's report,

you'll see in there that there are a couple of requirements

which I don't believe are addressed.

And so part two of that says the sites should avoid the need to impact on existing drainage systems and water courses.

Culverting existing water courses or drainage should be avoided.

Where this is unavoidable, it should be demonstrated no reasonable alternatives exist.

And where necessary, only temporary for the construction period.

So my question, or my questions really, relate to the drawings that are provided as part of this submission.

These show the access to this site being amended with a 5 metre wide by 12 metre long bridge,

carrying nine culvert pipes, which will carry the Clobston sewer underneath.

The Clobston sewer is an ancient water, it's an ancient river that's run across the marsh

and has drained the marsh adequately for many, many years, centuries.

The applicant has not identified how this will be managed during construction.

And so how will this roadway be constructed

and still maintain the vital role that the clubs and sewer plays

in terms of draining Romney Marsh?

And so my question also is why is there no condition?

And I accept that the internal drainage board are a statutory consultee

of the requirement for this to be pre -approved

and for us to view what those proposals are

prior to us making a decision on this application.

And similarly, the drawings for that new bridge

and the new culverts show both inlet and outlet screens

on those pipes.

If that inlet screen becomes clogged,

it means that all the water upstream of that will back up,

and therefore it won't perform its function.

So again, my question is, I haven't seen anything in here

that relates to conversation with the internal drainage

board about maintaining those screens,

and therefore maintaining the effectiveness of the Clobston sewer going forward.

And that does concern me.

For those people who remember November 2023,

when we had the one -in -30 -year rain events

and we had all the issues to do with drainage across Romley Marsh,

you'll see why it's so important that those drainage routes

are maintained and effectively managed.

So, again, I have that.

On soil compaction, on page 25, section 3 .106,

It says that during the first few years of the solar farm becoming operational, regular

inspections of the planting and soil would be undertaken, confirm that the grass is growing

properly and is not bare or compacted.

Any additional remedial work would therefore be completed as soon as possible.

And so my question is, should this be a planning condition that defines the period for the

inspections and the frequency of those inspections, and also what remedial work has to take place?

One of my real concerns regards the response from Kent Fire and Rescue, dated May 2025.

And on there, there are seven bullet points where it says the solar farm facilities should

be designed to provide adequate separation between the panels, provide a detection and

monitoring system to identify potential failures of failure conditions on site, to provide

fire suppression technology where it's appropriate,

for safety and isolation information

to be made available to fire crews,

ensure that sufficient water is available for firefighting.

External hydrants should be located in close proximity

to the solar arrays and they should be tested regularly.

The site design should include safe access routes

for fire appliances to enter and manoeuvre,

and an alternative access route

and approach route should be provided.

So my questions are, if you look at those,

Bullet points one to four are actually addressed adequately within the information that we

have in the planning report.

On bullet point six, I just asked should there be a condition that defines how Kent Fire

and Rescue comments are included in the design.

At the end of the day, this is a solar power station, however we wanted to wrap it up.

It's no different to any other power station.

It just happens to be powered by the sun rather than gas, nuclear or some other means.

So again, I just have concerns that of those seven bullets, only two of them are

actually referenced at all by the developer in the information that they

provided and therefore only two of them are actually referenced within the

officer's report. On the planning design and access statement on page 4 section

3 .3, it says the resulting development would provide an export capacity of

approximately 16 megawatts of renewable energy during peak operation. Page 7 says

the connexion to the national grid, the site has the benefit the direct

connexion to the national grid, a key consideration in the assessment of

acceptability of solar farms. So as we've heard from the representative from

EnviroMina tonight, they're saying that the connexion is available on site.

However, within the information provided by the developer,

there is no certificate, there's no confirmation

that such a grid connexion is actually viable and available to them.

Without having that grid connexion,

they're not going to be able to export anything.

In fact, the site's not going to be able to be commissioned and tested

without that in place.

So again, I just wonder why there's no planning condition or no specific requirements to make

sure that that connexion is available and viable prior to the planning application being

submitted to us.

I accept what the officer has said this evening in terms of the KCC highways comments to do

with the construction, the fact that

of the 28 week construction period,

there's a very specific period where you're going to have

trucks coming along, delivering the materials,

and everything else that goes with this.

This is along a 4 .2 metre wide road,

and in the transport note that's associated with this,

that's referenced in the officer's report,

The applicant contends that there are 68 HGV movements every day.

And what that does is to say that with the HGVs that are proposed,

eight each day is what they're saying, so 16 movements,

only adds up to 11 .8 % increase in HGV traffic along the road.

I lived on St Mary's Road for 11 years.

I can tell you that that is absolute garbage.

Within the transport note, they haven't taken any cognizance.

They've measured the strips across the road.

What they haven't taken any cognizance of

is the normal agricultural traffic that uses that road.

The tractors, the tractors with the trailers,

with all the other types of equipment that is used in an agricultural area

that would actually trigger these sensors into thinking that it was an HGV

or a bigger truck going along the road.

So again, I have real problems with the way the transport note sets out that argument

in that particular decade.

So I'd like to see the traffic management plan in its entirety presented to us and presented

to the public for scrutiny before we move forward with this application.

I think the last thing finally is that it does say on page 23,

section 6 .27, the solar roadmap.

It says the government recognises that as with any new development,

there'll be questions about the effects of land use, changes

and the impacts on local environment.

It's important to start to balance between local considerations

and securing a clean, secure energy system for the future.

So my question is, does this mean that local consideration must be taken into account to

ensure the planning balance secures the energy requirements of the future, but must be cognisant

and address genuine local concerns?

As I say, those questions I've put to the Office's private committee.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Thomas, over to you, sir.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

I'll try and answer, and I'll turn to colleagues who want to start saying things that at least

I've got to list something.

So, to deal with drainage, as on page 43 of the report

says in the consultation section,

the local planning authority consulted

the internal drainage board,

and they have raised no objection to this development.

And note that any changes or otherwise there too

would possibly require their approval.

It is not permissible in planning law

to attach conditions controlling its secondary legislation.

We don't attach conditions requiring control

of a building control.

The same goes for the regulatory powers

of other authorities such as the Internal Drainage Board.

We will of course get details in due course

of what is proposed.

They will need to seek permission

from the Internal Drainage Board.

And to the point on the culverts potentially being blocked

by screens, we're all aware of existing culverts

in many existing places across the country

which gets blocked without screens anyway.

And I think the screens are due to minimise

the sort of detritus that can collect

in difficult to clean places.

On the point around changing culverts, et cetera,

and it must be very mind, officers are not here

to defend their report or the applicant,

but just to clarify information,

the existing crossing into the site is already culverted.

It would be an upgrade in the replacement

of existing culverted situation,

which would need approval by the IDB.

So we're happy that there are no grounds at moment

to take a differing view, as there were no objections

from the internal drainage. Turning to soil and drainage and soil compaction, these are

addressed at paragraphs 3 .013 to 3 .017. I'd note condition 20 of the Planning Commission's

recommendation which requires consultation with the lead local flood authority regarding surface

water drainage who are the subject experts and would obviously comment on any drainage

aspects. As officers, we were satisfied that's enough. We have since spoken to the applicant

who is more than happy for the council to impose a soil management condition. We have

one at hand. It stretches to numerous separate points, but that could be covered if members

felt it was absolutely necessary. However, from a drainage point of view and soil compaction,

there are controls already within the planning, the recommendations we see fit.

Turning to Kent Fire and Rescue, we have replicated their comments, but I would note that those

comments are highly generic comments taken from their websites.

They haven't commented on any of the specificities of this planning application, and in fact,

they refer to battery energy storage systems, which of course this proposal does not include.

What I would say, and we're satisfied as officers, and it would be tremendous to debate, that

Other than it being a generic response,

members decision tonight is to balance

the land use planning implications here,

not the other technical aspects of the decision.

You will have to make a decision about whether

this is acceptable in land use planning

and the impacts there too.

There will no doubt, because of the nature

of the installation, be a number of other

regulatory bodies around the health and safety

and the adequacy of it.

We are aware that the solar panels are separated

by roughly seven metres and there are means

of accessing those.

I can clarify that solar farms are not high risk developments

from a fire point of view.

They are ground mounted solar arrays

requiring bespoke firefighting infrastructure at any time.

Kent Fire and Rescue have confirmed

that there is no authority to approve

or refuse planning applications on fire grounds.

so we cannot hear the opportunity.

Absolutely, my apologies.

I'll continue.

Ground -mounted solar farms continuing open panel arrays

did not contain combustible materials.

And where we have the transformers, et cetera,

they all located near the road

with access to them being easily accessible.

There is no legislative requirements

to provide access to fire hydrants.

In fact, there are many buildings in the rural areas,

farms and houses, which don't have access

to fire hydrants or other to deal with it.

And that would be a matter for the applicants to deal with.

On that basis, we don't believe we could advise you

that there's a reason for refusal,

but obviously members, you can debate that amongst yourselves.

Just to clarify, this is not a power station.

It does generate power,

but it's not a power station in that sense.

So if I understand the colloquialism there too.

In terms of the design and access statements,

you've raised a number of points, Council,

some of which you didn't touch on,

but I'll go through them anyway.

In terms of cabling through the ground

and protection of trees,

the planning application includes a plan

setting up the root protection areas of trees.

It also has a condition saying that trees should not be

harmed during the laying of anything else.

and we can't see where cabling would be lying in that case.

In terms of reference to a condition regarding

trees and protection and cabling at Sycamore Farm,

I've reviewed that planning application,

there was no such condition.

There was a landscaping condition at condition three,

but that just dealt with landscaping details

as opposed to necessary protection for cabling.

It just protected trees in the way that condition 19

and condition 18 of the recommendation

currently covered for you.

It's been highlighted that there are no details

of the customer and DNO substations.

There are two drawings on the planning application file

covering both of these and what they look like

and where they're going.

They are covered off.

And there are no transformers being proposed in buildings.

There's a question here about connexion points

and anecdotal information about it not being in place for a couple of years.

Tonight you cannot make decisions based on anecdotal information.

You have to make it based on the information...

Sorry. Excuse me.

You have to make it based on the information before you,

both in the planning applications and officers' reports.

You can draw whatever conclusion and weight you are pleased to apply to either,

but anecdotal evidence is not going to be a reason for refusal

that will stand up with any subsequent appeal

should it go that far.

And I once again would reiterate

that planning applications would be turning

on land use issues as opposed to other secondary issues

like connexions to the grid.

There's obviously questions about the connexion.

The applicant has stated they have gate two approval

for connexion, but what I would suggest at this point

is if there's no connexion available,

the scheme won't happen,

therefore there will be no impact from the development.

And it would follow then that it couldn't

provide any benefits to the country

in terms of carbon reductions.

That said, the Planning Commission

comes with a three year implementation time period.

The applicant has confirmed that they have

a connexion within the site.

There are no grounds to suggest that it wouldn't

be able to be implemented in the next three years.

But like many projects that get planning permission,

some do not follow through eventually,

for many reasons outside of the discussion tonight.

On highways, Kent Highway Safety and Transportation

raise no objections to traffic information supplied.

They have suggested there needs to be a more detailed

construction management plan to detail

where and how that will be managed.

They have suggested there are numerous different ways

of doing it rather than simply passing points.

And that is covered off at paragraph 7 .3, page 63 of the officer's report.

And again, get highways and transportation arrays, no objection, both for the short -term

28 -week installation period, nor following.

And to your final point, Councillor, regarding striking the balance between local considerations

and securing secure energy systems for the future?

Absolutely.

The planning system is about weighing the pros and cons of everything.

In this particular instance, as officers have said in the report,

the government direct us to identify that we did not need to suggest there is a need,

because the government have identified that this is needed for the country at a strategic level.

We then must assess whether there is material planning harms, be it visual, highways, environmental.

As officers, we have gone through that, and we're advising you that we do not believe

that whilst there are some harms, that those harms weigh in favour of a refusal.

It is for yourselves tonight to debate whether you believe that weighting is appropriate

and to reach your own conclusion. And hopefully I've covered everything, Councillor Thomas.

Thank you very much. Would you like any clarifications, or are you happy at this point?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:10

Sorry, Chair. No, I've written down the responses, so yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councillor Goddard.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:41:17

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:17

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:41:24

I could support this if it was in Reading, where the applicant comes from.

We've got a massive football club there.

We've a stadium.

You can put all the panels on top of there.

I drove there a while back and you've got hundreds of warehouses, big massive industrial

unit.

You can put all these solar panels in Reading.

They're fitting there lovely.

No, I totally support what Councillor Wimble said.

I think that was my script and he stole it

because I can't find it.

I can't support this wrong area, too big.

I don't know how the applicant can compare it

to Sycamore Farm, but he has.

But no, best place for it is Reading, Mr. Chairman.

And I think where people are quoting

that there's a lot of misinformation,

Perhaps the best thing is to defer this and make sure we have got everything we need and

what we're actually voting on.

Because there's been a lot of people saying this isn't in the pack, this isn't in the

pack.

Councillor Thomas picked on issues.

I think all the speakers picked on the issues.

So are we in fact voting on the right field or the right area?

Perhaps we should vote for Reading.

But like I say, I'll leave it there for now, Chair, and see what my other colleagues say.

But I'm sort of heading towards perhaps deferral to make sure we have got all the right information.

And because perhaps one or two people in this room probably are not aware of Sycamore Farm

and now that's probably, you know, blown up.

You know, that was many, many years ago and much, much smaller.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Goddard.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:02

Unfortunately, this application isn't for Reading, but one of the officers would like

to come back.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:43:06

Thank you, Chair, Councillor Goddard. Just a matter of clarification. In terms of site

area, Sycamore form is slightly bigger than this application site. But just if you're

drawing conclusions on comparing the two, in site area, Sycamore form is marginally

bigger than this application site.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:27

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:43:32

Thank you chair. Yeah, I've got a number of questions I guess I'll get what Councillor

Thomas did and read them through and hopefully get some answers. Starting on page 19, 3 .36,

it mentions that basically over time the landscaping is going to become fully integrated but I'd

like to know what time frame that is because if it's 40 years then it feels a

bit pointless. That's my first one. Page 21, it mentioned there's two bits 3 .45

and 3 .46, talks about grey crested newts and also reptiles. One of the sort of

justifications for not worrying about that is because that area is currently

being farmed so presumably they're being chopped up or whatever.

way when, you know, they don't particularly want to run across that farmland. I'd like

to know what the plans would be for those animals in particular that may be accessing

the pond after the 40 years, as it were, because presumably, because there's no danger to them,

there's going to be a likely increase in the numbers, as it were. Moving to page 27.

Sorry, Councillor Fuller, can we take this bit by bit?

Because you've obviously got a list there.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:56

And the officers, yes, no, and the officers are worried that they're going to miss something.

So if I can hand over to the officer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Fuller.

I mean, the hedging will grow over time.

Normally a planning application requires plants to be in place for at least five years to

allow them to establish fully.

They will continue to grow thereafter.

I think the point being is we have made a decision based on now and in the future.

There are some existing hedgerows in the area.

They would be advanced and thickened to ameliorate any impact.

But I couldn't give you a – everything will be fully in place within the first seven years

because who knows what dies and then needs to be replaced, but the landscaping condition

would pick that up.

On the point around Great Crescent Utes and other invertebrates on the land, you're absolutely

because the land has been extensively farmed,

in ecological terms, it would be deemed

as being inhospitable for the creation of habitat

that would normally be happening in the margins

and the ditches and the hedgerows that exist.

Once the site is returned to agricultural use,

a farmer could do with it as he wishes

in terms of agricultural use.

And after that period, if there are wonderful

wonderful biodiversity gains on that site,

there might be bits that could be lost.

Now obviously it is a legal act to intentionally

or otherwise harm protected species

when it comes to development of things.

I think there'd be other legislation that would kick in,

but normally the planning legislation requires

biodiversity net gain to be secured for 30 years

to establish and of course this permission would be

for a temporary 40 year period.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:46:47

Moving on. Right, page 27, this is just more of a general question. It identifies in 3 .64

the various sort of 37 bird species, 10 on the red list, 11 on the embliss, six schedule

one lists, seven schedule 41 lists. What does that mean would be my question. So what's

the significance of those lists.

Should I go with that one or do a couple at a time?

Depending on how long we want to take.

I think because that's a representation

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:47:18

of the applicant's report,

they've obviously had an expert who's gone and said,

these are the birds that exist and where they sit

is probably in a hierarchy of importance across the country

in terms of what schedule they fit within.

Yeah, my question is, how do we measure that?

because we don't know what those schedules mean.

So they could be the most valuable,

in sort of ecological terms,

birds in the history of mankind,

but I wouldn't know that because I don't know

what a red list or a amber list is in this context.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:47:48

So do the officers know what that is and can they do it?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:47:51

Well, I think we would rely on Kent Ecology,

who are ecological experts,

who obviously raise no objection to development.

And at paragraph 3 .69,

the application includes recommendations for mitigation.

and obviously all works too.

Any hedgerows would take place outside

of the bird nesting season

and require conditions there too.

So what it's suggesting is this is what exists.

We're improving, well the applicant is proposing

to enhance existing mitigation on sites

and existing habitat on sites.

There wouldn't be any harm,

but there would be a change to the area

in terms of how it is used.

Next question.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:48:34

You mentioned the ancillary equipment is going to be 150 millimetres raised compared with

the panels being 600 millimetres raised and the levels are profiled.

I didn't see anywhere that was specifying the level, how much the levels, the ground

levels were profiled by.

I'm therefore assuming it's 450 millimetres so that they're all at roughly the same level

but could you confirm that that's the case?

Because ancillary equipment getting flooded

sounds like a bad thing for...

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:49:27

Thank you, Councillor Fuller. That will depend on where the land levels are lying across

the site, depending on where the land level needs to be to move the plants and the solar

panels out of the flood zone.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:49:43

Effectively, you're saying that it will be whatever it needs to plus 150 to make sure

they sign up. Right, okay, good. Then moving on to page 34, 3 .117, it talks about anomalies.

what are the chances of those anomalies being significant?

So these are architectural, sorry, archeological anomalies.

And when would we know that and how would we make sure

that nothing important is destroyed?

Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:50:11

In terms of the archeology,

the applicant has done the geophas survey

in response to find out more information

about those anomalies.

And it has identified further areas of field work

that needs to be carried out.

So we have suggested a couple of detailed

archeological conditions that would require

all of those works to be done prior to any other

commencement starting on the work on the land,

which would be in consultation with the county

archaeologist and if mitigation is required,

that would be determined relative to the significance

of what is or isn't there and secured

but prior to anything happening.

Thank you for that.

Just a comment on page 36 where it mentions

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:51:00

there's no significant effects on traffic

yet we've got to upgrade the route.

That seems like a, yeah, they seem to be a contradiction

in terms to me, but I don't need an answer to that.

It's just more of a general comment.

On page 45 it says that climate change is nonsense

and that's a planning consideration.

That surprised me, but again, that's a general comment.

More to questions, specifically when it lists the objections, I'm surprised that particular

one wasn't put in, not relevant.

It's there, yeah.

Yeah, good.

Page 56, 6 .51, it talks about irradiance, which was a blast from the past when it comes

to science GCSE, I think.

But it says that the panels might increase irradiance in the area, but it doesn't specify

by how much and is there any potential, because obviously if that's a significant effect,

then you can have people nearby that are not going to be enjoying their homes.

So is there a way we measure that?

Is there a way we can prevent that from causing adverse effects in terms of the enjoyment

of people's homes?

I think in terms of that, the applicant has submitted a specific survey which has been

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:52:13

carried out by appropriately qualified professionals. That has been looked at by our Environmental

Health Officer who raises no objections and that is obviously subject to the mitigation

contained within the application in terms of planting in various locations to prevent

there from being any harm.

One final question, around, on page 63,

I can't remember which item it was,

but it mentions about parking places,

sorry, passing places, and the fact that they will be

created and then effectively removed after the development.

My question on that is coming off the back of what

Councillor Thomas was talking about in terms of things

like Camp Fire and rescue.

I was just surprised to see that they were being removed

I would assume they might come in quite handy if you have a large fire engine bombing down

there and a car or a tractor coming the other way. Why are they being removed? Is that just

standard practise or could we condition for them to actually remain?

I think it would depend where they are and if there is a desire for us to keep some with

the Kent County Council's agreement,

then I think that would probably be fine.

But we don't have those details yet.

We need that to come forward as part of the detailed

construction traffic management plan.

And I don't think we would have any objections

to that, would we?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:53:40

No, I think the crucial bit is that normally

with temporary permissions, you take away everything

that you've done beforehand.

A point raised by some of the speakers this evening.

But obviously, if Kent County Council

has the highways authority today,

who knows who's the highway authority

in a couple of years time, determine that those passing places are fine and they're

working when they're safe for that purpose, then I'm sure an applicant is not really necessarily

going to want to go and take away something that's working to the benefit of the local

area. But I think it's sort of a happenstance of it's a temporary planning position, so

potentially you go away and take things, but we could pass that as an informative to the

planning position.

Presumably off the back of that, given that they're improving the bridge and indeed the

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:54:21

entrance, they're not going to take that back at the end of 40 years, are they? Not later,

because it probably cost them more than it did to actually do it in the first place.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:54:30

I suspect that's probably tied up in whatever commercial agreement is being entered into

with the landowner regarding using his existing access to access the site. So I suspect that's

part and parcel of that bit. But I think there is a condition regarding restoration plans

and what what site will be returned to. So that would include details of works to be

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:54:52

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:53

retained. Thanks for that, that's one more question. Thank you. Councillor Jones. Just

a quick question about the winter wheat that was mentioned by one of our speakers, because

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:54:59

obviously we're being told this is lower grade agricultural land. I don't know whether you

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:55:12

could expand on how then it's being used at the moment. I can't, Councillor. The evidence

before me suggests that whilst the land has a versatile use to a degree, the evidence

suggests it's not the best and most versatile ranking in the higher echelons of protection.

Yes, it can be used for wintering wheat. It's a farmer, but that is a decision for the farmer

and it could go back to that use afterwards.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:55:39

Thank you. I think it's just finding it a little bit confusing when you hear the two

I think it is a really challenging application because I wonder if it wasn't on the back

of the other larger ones which are being proposed for the marsh, whether it would be opposed

in such a way when you compare it to the Sycamore farm, which a lot of people are unaware of

until recently, which as you say is slightly larger.

I think you said, yeah, slightly larger.

So I think it's very difficult for councillors

because obviously we have to look at this as it stands

because there is no other planning application

to compare it to standing for anything else

that is potentially gonna be proposed in the near future.

So I think that puts us all in a very precarious position

because obviously we appreciate the value of the marshland

and the landscapes there.

and you wonder whether this one alone, if it wasn't on the back of the others, wouldn't be such an issue.

I'm not in huge favour of the industrialisation of our landscapes,

but solar is a good way of dealing with our thirst for energy that we have in this country.

Obviously it is better on rooftops, but that doesn't solve the problem.

So, I'm very much in two minds about this,

I wonder whether the further detail would help us or whether we will debate it longer.

I will listen to what everybody else says.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Polygore.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:08

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:57:14

Thank you, Chair.

It kind of picks up on what Councillor Jones was saying there.

Just a word on the cumulative impact.

We have this 40 hectare site before us today.

We also know that there are three much, much, much larger sites coming down the track towards

us, the NCEP schemes.

They obviously don't have development consent orders yet.

We here today can't make a judgement on the cumulative impact of these proposals.

and it is up to the Secretary of State to do that

when looking at those huge sites.

But it just strikes me, and albeit I understand

we are meant to be looking at the papers in front of us,

so it would stop me if I am not supposed to say this,

but if this doesn't get approved, one, two or three

of those much, much, much, much larger sites surely will.

And I think, I don't know, it seems like, you know,

There is a note of realism that needs to creep in here.

And also, and sort of backing that up,

looking at the revised draught

national planning policy framework published just recently,

it is going to be up to us in our local plan to demonstrate

we are committed to providing renewable energy infrastructure

in support of the transition to clean power.

So, and as part of that, we're going to have to apply substantial weight to such proposals,

not just significant as it is now.

So, you know, the pressure is growing and growing for us to consider these issues in the round

and in the context of the amount of energy that we need to be able to provide.

I personally think this is a well -designed scheme.

I think it has good biodiversity proposals.

It's a known quantity.

It's a scheme over which we have some control.

And we won't be able to say that of the much larger schemes

that are going to be completely out of our control.

So that's me.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:38

Councillor Holmesby.

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

I don't think there's a lot left to be said, actually,

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:59:46

because I must say it's a very comprehensive report.

Councillor Thomas and Councillor Fuller

have raised a number of questions

which have been answered in detail,

so it's quite difficult.

But I've got a few things that people have just mentioned,

and actually, Councillor Jones, I've got cumulative,

and I know we can't base our decision

on the cumulative effect,

but I do think it's really important,

I do think it is possible, whether it is, possible to defer to find out more about those

schemes.

I actually disagree with Councillor Pauli Blatimore in terms of if this is not passed

or if this is passed, others may not be or will be.

I think that is the opposite way around, actually.

If we give this a go -ahead, it gives a message out to the Secretary of State that we are

actually quite happy with solar farms and to have them all over the marsh,

whereas in fact it's completely the opposite. I don't think anybody's got any

problems with solar panels but I do think they've got to be in the right

place and why be on, I believe, from, I mean it's very difficult to say, it seems

to me it's probably good agricultural land but I mean evidence says

otherwise, but we can argue that, I'm sure.

And so I am a bit concerned about that.

One of my concerns also was the grid,

and that's been answered.

I think I've raised that question several times,

the connexion to the grid,

because obviously that's really important.

And we've been told a number of times

that the grid can't take anymore,

or it takes a long time to get connected to the grid.

But I think in terms of what Llewellyn has said,

that it's a three -year planning application.

They don't have to do it for three years.

And so by that time, they would have probably got,

that might've been sorted out

and we might have more solar farms here as well.

I was a bit concerned about the archeological,

but again, I think that's been answered.

So, and I've gone through the report in quite some detail, and it seems to me,

although the word balanced, which I always look for when it says balanced,

it always says to me that the officers could make a case for refusal.

But it seems to me that it's only on one ground.

And I don't know whether we could turn this down on the visual impact.

and it does seem to me that that is the only one,

the change of character of the area,

and the fact that, you know,

to make it more as part of the marsh,

again, the planting will take a number of years

to come forward.

So it is a visual impact in the character of the area

that I think we could actually turn the application down.

But I will wait and hear what other people are saying.

Can we hold that thought, please, Councillor Hollingsby?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:03:09

Can I ask the officers the thoughts around the visual amenity

and the amount of time that the vegetation that is planned on being there

will actually be able to shield, shall we say,

the screens from the public view, please.

Thank you, Chair.

It's well held in planning law

that you don't use landscaping to make something acceptable.

It is either acceptable and you use landscaping

to make it more acceptable or to soften whatever impacts

that you've decided you will live with.

So in this case, officers recognise

there will be a change to the landscape

and that does introduce a degree of visual harm.

One that is mitigated over the life of the development by additional landscaping schemes

across the scheme.

And then we put that in the planning balance of the other benefits that the applicants

put forward, which officers have weighed.

And we have to consider that against the government's position around the contribution of solar

and the zero of sustainable energy sources to reducing carbon demand.

We weigh that up against the benefits to biodiversity net gain.

and we come to the conclusion that there aren't any harms.

So whilst officers have said openly

there is a degree of visual harm,

we don't believe that's in and of itself enough

to recommend reason for refusal

because there are harms and they are outweighed

by other benefits in our position.

The finely balanced argument is recognising

sometimes planners would like a slam dunk.

It would be, this is absolutely fine.

We have no questions asked and we'd write a report as such.

We recognise this is a large -scale installation,

an area that is currently devoid of these things,

unless we go further to the west,

the sort of the southwest towards Sycamore Farm.

That is the balance we've reached.

It is up to members to reach their view

on what weight they apply to the benefits versus the harms,

and come to the conclusion.

But as officers, we stand firmly behind our recommendation

and due course.

Just to touch on a couple of points, it's quite correct.

accumulated impact tonight can only be considered

against this combined with Sycamore Farm.

And many of you have already highlighted this evening,

Sycamore Farm is to use the colloquial term

that's been presented tonight, fairly inoffensive and okay.

So we might not be on two greater grounds there.

And when the inspector, if NSIP schemes reach our shores,

if and when they are considered,

the inspector will have to take into account those schemes.

And if this were to be approved,

either by Councillors or otherwise,

the cumulative impact of this plus those.

And the Inspector will take the same decision

that we will have to take on balancing the harms.

They won't go, well, you approved one,

therefore you must be totally cognizant of it.

They're completely different scale applications,

and you'll have to consider them

on their own planning merits entirely.

And then you'll get into a degree of cumulative impact.

As officers, we watch the case law coming out of this,

and there is lots of it at the moment.

There have been some recent DCOs where cumulative impact

has been not given the weight that local residents

might want it to,

but that's not affecting our recommendation tonight.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:29

Does that answer your question, Councillor Hinesby?

Okay.

Councillor Fere, then Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:06:40

Yeah, it was just a very quick question on the draught MPF

When we have a draught local plan,

we have to give it a certain amount of weight.

Is that also the case for a draught MPPF

when it's out to consultation still, isn't it?

But I just wanted to be clear on that.

Thank you, Councillor Fuller.

In the update report we touched on this,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:07:00

obviously it signals the government's direction of travel.

So it must be given limited weight.

Obviously, if members were minded to refuse

And by the time it got to appeal, the MPPF was in place.

That would be a material consideration

for everybody to take into account,

which is why we have given it a degree of limited weight,

but it has some weight.

But we don't know what weight that should be given just yet

because we don't know how many of those national policies,

and they will replace local policy,

will carry forward as they're currently drafted.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:38

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:07:46

Thank you, Mr Lloyd. Can I just say this? How many of you in this room, how many of

us are going to be here in 40 years time? Very minimal, if any. What guarantees have

you got, Mr Lloyd, of this scheme actually being reverted back to agricultural use in

We've got any assurance of that?

Planning Commission will run out.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:08:09

It will become unlawful to be remaining on the site.

And the local planning authority of the day will have to enforce.

If they choose fit, they might choose not to.

But that would be within the gift of the local planning authority at the time,

as it is in your gift this evening.

But what I would say is, if anybody applies for temporary planning for the time,

they can do it for a bit, and then when that runs out,

they either reapply and they get the chance

to argue for it again, or they have to remove it.

We have a condition on the Planning Commission

that requires restoration of the land

and what's gonna happen, that binding on the applicant.

But in 40 years time, the applicant may have made

an application for a whole new application.

They may have removed it.

We don't know what's gonna happen in 40 years,

other than what we can say is,

are we happy with this proposal being there

for the next 40 years?

We can't take into account whether they may or may not remove it

or the council in the future may or may not grant an extension.

Your decision tonight is, is this application for this development

in situ as proposed for the next 40 years acceptable in planning grounds?

Yes or no?

What happens in the future is a matter for the future.

Thank you.

Can I just also ask a question?

In respect to the application form, if you go to the application form,

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:09:27

There's various boxes being ticked.

And one of them includes, for example,

would give you any connexion, for example,

to firewater drainage, et cetera.

And the question that has been ticked is no.

If this science is to provide employment

for people in the future,

irrespective of which two, three, four or half dozen people,

where's their welfare facilities?

There's been no thoughts on that.

And basically, the whole objective is not on.

I mean, I can't support this.

On the basis of these emails from the local parish councils,

one from St Mary in the Marsh, which I'm a member of,

says quite clearly that they want to see something in the conditions

in respect of where the traffic is going to go and the state of the roads.

There's one there from Dimchurch parish council

that doesn't want any traffic going through their place.

And what about the cumulative effects of the traffic down by St Mary's Road

on its left -hand turn there?

because I don't know if it's gonna be like

in New Romley Ice Trees, but that is gonna be incredible.

I can assure you of that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:08

Bear with us, Councillor Cooper, they are looking for a specific part within the reports,

so bear with them.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:11:18

I don't see any reference there to parts of Dimchay being excluded, in all due respect.

and not if we've got any bits of the roadway being supported as per the email from the

City of Minnijen and the Parish Council.

You raised an objection to it, by the way.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:11:39

You're quite right.

The Parish Council did request concerns about traffic and construction management, which

is why we have a condition attached specifically in the recommendation to deal with construction

and we've discussed significantly this evening

about the requirements of that to be agreed

with Kent Highway Services to make sure

they're passing places, banks, et cetera, et cetera,

as touched on on paragraph 7 .30, page 63

of the committee report.

So there are means and ways of dealing

with the construction management impacts

which the parish council have raised.

It's not in the committee report,

but no doubt everybody has read it

as part of their peruse of the papers.

In the transport notes, there is an access route

provided setting out where construction management

would come from and would be taking placement.

And that would also be in the set up.

So there are mechanisms and that will be fully consulted

with Kent Highway Services.

So that concern raised by locals has been,

was initially considered by the applicant in their proposal,

but also Kent Highway Services and officers.

And in terms of the no foul drainage proposals,

though there are no welfare facilities on site,

I'm not aware of many substations across the country

where there are sort of welfare,

normally people turn up, cheque things

and then carry on with their day.

These are very low frequented sites

once they're up and running.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:13:01

Thank you.

Councillor Shueb.

Thank you.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:13:07

I do have a lot of sympathy

with local residents and the changes

that are perceived to be, you know,

that will come with solar farms such as this.

And obviously, as has been sort of mentioned,

it is, even if, you know, we can't,

there is no cumulative impact yet

from the big solar parks that don't yet exist.

That is obviously the forefront of everyone's minds

and it is a legitimate concern.

So to echo what Councillor Jones

and Councillor Pauli Blakemore have said

and indeed Councillor Hollingsby.

I think we do have to give great weight

to the low carbon energy that can be produced

from solar parks, solar farms such as this.

There are, I think there are a lot of pros

to this particular proposal, as Polly has said.

I feel it is well designed.

I know a lot has been said about the connexion,

but you know,

proposals such as this that do have a connexion,

I think the speed is of the essence

in the need to up the renewable energy

that we need to see.

The biodiversity net gain is very high.

So again, that's another sort of thing in its favour.

I think there's a lot to be said for the rest period to allow the soil to regenerate.

And obviously, there's a lot being said in the report about the work to avoid soil compaction.

I know again, perhaps contested,

but the report before us is saying

that this is not the best agricultural land,

but this, again, the proposal would see

some immediate economic agricultural use with sheep.

So that benefit is not lost entirely.

There are cons as well, weighing it up against,

there was mention of the Skylarks and the loss of,

potential loss of breeding ground for Skylarks,

but I know there is a mitigation proposed for that.

It's totally, I totally agree that we should be

getting solar on roofs as much as we can.

But I go back again to the, you know,

the whether, you know,

whether that's not going to be able to provide

our entire energy requirements

and the scale at which that can be done.

I think we need to, you know,

at least be doing these in parallel,

if not prioritising sadly,

solar farms because of where we are now

and the need for speed to scale up

so that we can get low carbon energy

as quickly as possible to avoid

any further climate catastrophes.

So I think, yeah, really interesting comments

about food security, protecting agricultural land.

But I think there is a bigger picture,

we could spend a week here talking about food security.

And there's a whole host of things

threatening food security and energy costs

is a huge part of that.

So it's all, I absolutely understand people's desire

feelings that we do need to be producing food.

But as I say, it's also part of the bigger picture.

We need energy to do that as well.

So I think, as has been said,

it's actually smaller than Sycamore Farm,

that's nearby, not quite adjacent, but nearby.

But overall, I think the benefits do outweigh the harms, not denying that there are clearly

some harms, but I think weighing them up, I would have to go with the officer's recommendations.

So I would, yeah.

I'm...

Councillor Shubbe, is that a proposal?

That is a proposal to accept the help of the relations.

Do you have a seconder?

Councillor Bightmore.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:18:36

Sorry, Polly Bightmore.

Councillor Mike Bightmore.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:18:43

I'll keep this brief, Chair, because Councillor Shubbe said much of what I was going to say,

and I have listened very carefully.

There's been a lot of very good questions and very good probing of this application

this evening.

I do think it comes down, as Councillor Hollingsby said, really, to what we could turn this down

or the grounds of where we'd mind it to,

and I think it is about visual amenity,

but I do note from the report that the impact

will be largely, not wholly, but largely confined

to the site itself, and there will be mitigation

against that.

It also, as others have said, bring a lot of,

but it's a well thought through, well planned scheme

that offers some huge biodiversity net gains.

You can still have sheep grazing there.

Yes, we don't want to lose the nesting grounds

for skylarks, but it may increase foraging opportunities

for them and I also noted in the report the evidence from Cambridge where solar farms

attract three times as many nesting birds presumably because it's a safe environment

for them there.

So there are gains here as well but I don't underestimate the strength of feeling about

it and I completely understand that this is a really difficult thing to have presented

to you for the marsh but it isn't the same as the NSIP schemes, it is of a different

order.

We do need solar energy and I do think we I can't see the grounds for us turning this down given national policy

given the urgency as council sheep said of the situation and the benefits that this scheme offers as well as the

As well as the negatives so I'll mind to support it

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:20:14

Thank You councillor break more councillor Lockwood

Thank You chair

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:20:23

Um, fellow councillors will know that whenever I get the opportunity to say, uh, to say this,

I take it. So I'm going to take it. Every single school in this country should have

solar on the roof if the roof is suitable. Schools need power during the day. There would

be no need for batteries and the schools could do with cheaper energy. I'm sure they could

use that money to teach children.

So that's my soapbox bit out of the way.

But it relates to the idea that we can get all of our solar

on roofs and we can't.

We need to find places to put solar as well as roofs.

Roofs and where else is the question.

Councils across the country are gonna be having meetings

like this about schemes like this going forward.

We are not allowed this evening to take into account the effect of the three much larger

schemes that are coming along.

We're only allowed in terms of comparison to look at the Sycamore Farm scheme.

Based on that, in terms of balance for this decision,

I haven't heard any complaints

about the Sycamore farm scheme.

It's 20 megawatts, this scheme is 16.

So it feels to me like that was a scheme approved,

I don't know, 10 years ago,

that's doing what we need it to do,

which is generate clean energy.

So this makes this decision as set out,

finely balanced and very difficult.

I take on board Councillor Shubin

and Councillor Blakemore comments about the positives.

I do have a concern like Councillor Hollingsby

about visual amenity.

You know, one of the beautiful things about this district

is standing up the top somewhere like Port Lim

and looking down at that spectacular view.

And if 10 or 15 % of that is covered in solar panels,

we're gonna lose that view entirely.

Or the pleasure from that view.

And so again, very difficult to tell

to try and work out if approving this scheme

opens the door for the other schemes.

There's a person who probably never visit this district

making a decision somewhere else in the world

about those bigger schemes that will just say,

well, the local council's just approved a scheme nearby.

So the locals are happy.

Or is it the reverse?

You know, if we refuse this scheme,

does that send out that message?

Or does it say, well, you know, the locals won't put solar there, so we will.

So then we get covered in solar that way.

So I'm completely torn.

I see the benefits.

We need to put solar somewhere.

Other councils in Kent have got massive schemes that have gone in.

much to the locals' disgust,

but they're there and they're generating power.

This district needs to take its fair share.

It's got to go somewhere.

The overall schemes that have been proposed

is way more than our fair share for this region.

We would be percentage -wise

covered far more in solar than we need to be.

So I am really stuck, I'll be honest.

I'm torn between the environmental benefits,

the fact that what I'm reading in the report,

the elements where consideration has been given

in this scheme for the wildlife and those benefits,

but just worried for that part of our beautiful district.

No question.

This will be the last speaker this evening.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:25:09

Councillor Hinesbury.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:25:18

I just wanted to say what we need in this area, of course, is a small modular reactors.

At Gammesne Piersdage, we need the nuclear.

But unfortunately, this council do not want to mention the word nuclear.

Can I say, I mean, I think all the objections of local people have actually been covered,

but on that list, I just thought I'd mention one, and that was concerns about how the solar

panels would be recycled and where they would be sourced.

Now, I know that's not a planning matter, but it's an interesting point because they probably come from China.

So is it actually doing any reduction of carbon? And then, of course, the recycling as well.

So I mean, I've got no problem with solar. I've got it on my house, actually, but there are other sides to this issue.

Thank you.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:26:22

Chairman, before I have got another proposal, if I can put that to the committee.

Sycamore, I mentioned Sycamore earlier.

That was 2012 that application started, 14 years ago.

Of course you can't see it now.

It's covered up with stuff.

This sticks out like a sore thumb in the wrong place.

So that's why I'm going to propose that we go against the officer's recommendation

with the harm and the effect and to the amenity of the marsh.

Thank you.

And I see you have a seconder on that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:26:51

We have to go for the first proposal first,

which was to agree the officer's recommendation.

Just in summary, because I've tried to give this particular application

as much time as it deserves,

so that everyone could ask questions, ask for clarifications,

or actually put comments forward.

What I would say, councillors, is you are looking at this application alone.

It's got nothing to do with the bigger solar power farms that are being dealt with up in

Westminster but what I would say is that that will be coming to consultation to this chamber

for us to put our comments forward.

So, please remember, we are looking at this application as if it was completely stand -alone.

Sorry, Councillor Jones.

Could I just ask a question?

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:27:47

If we were to defer, would that be an option so that we could see what happens with the

consultation, or would that be a problem?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:28:01

It is always open to Councillors to seek deferral.

But as we've discussed in this chamber many times before,

you need to set out exactly what it is

you are deferring for.

Why that information is either not available

or what amendments you are seeking.

Because you'd be asking applicants to go away,

do more work and come back.

So they'd have to have certainty that in doing so,

they were addressing a finite point.

So you could defer, but you will have to,

as a collective, be very clear about

what is it that's missing?

The applicant may take the view that we've given you

a best and most versatile land use assessment.

What is the council's evidence that suggests

that that is wrong?

Tonight we don't have any.

We would have to be very clear

about what information is missing.

Now, planning guidance in the MPPF and well established

also suggests that if you can make a proposal

acceptable in planning terms

by the application of conditions,

i .e. we need extra information,

but that can be covered by something else

which has another layer of approval,

you should also do so.

In this case, the key points this evening

seem to be the construction management plan

and some of the areas around the soil management plan

around compaction.

Now, those are matters that can be secured by condition

and will be consulted on with the technical expertise

when they come in.

So it would be open to anybody to propose a deferral,

but in doing so, they will need to be very clear as to what they're deferring it for

and what they are seeking. Similarly, if we need to, anybody setting out a reason for refusal,

if already has to set out exactly what the reason is that everybody is setting out and against which

policies they wish that to be determined. But that's not the question you asked.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:29:50

No, sorry. It was just because, again, it is a struggle to make a decision on this when we are

aware of the other big projects and I know we can't refer to them but it's very difficult

not to.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:29:59

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:30:03

I must be clear councillors in making a decision tonight you must pretend that the sites which

are being discussed at large are not in front of you. They do not exist. They are flights

of fancy at this moment for the purposes of planning purposes and if any of your decision

was clouded by that, this council would be found

to have acted inappropriately very, very quickly.

Tonight your decision is,

is the development of this site acceptable?

Yes or no?

And can any concerns you have be made acceptable

through your application of planning conditions?

If there are more conditions you seek to have attached,

please, you can raise those as well.

But whilst, even as officers,

we're across the public feeling on this, we get it.

We're planners and we get into this job to look after places,

but we have to make the decision based on where we could,

what is a robust decision -making process.

And tonight you are district councillors making a decision for the district.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:31:07

Thank you.

You talk about conditions.

We went back earlier and I think it was Councillor Thomas

was talking about the soil management

and you mentioned that a condition could be added around the soil management,

and you had several points with that.

Would it be possible just to run through those again, would you mind?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:31:35

A draught condition which we could attach would require,

prior to any site clearance or commensal development,

so before anything were to take place,

the applicant would submit a soil management plan.

That should include soil resource survey,

site preparation and seeding,

details of soil stripping, handling of soil spoils,

import of construction materials,

plant equipment to the site,

establishment of site construction compounds

and welfare facilities,

table installation and where required jointing,

temporary construction compounds,

trenching and sections,

upgrading existing tracks and construction

of new access tracks and roads within the site,

the upgrade of construction crossing points

and bridges and culverts,

appropriate storage, capping, management of soil,

appropriate construction of drainage, cable pulling,

testing and conditioning, site reinstatement,

restoration of land to the approved quality

at the end of the site's operation,

arrangements for effective supervision of the SMP,

monitoring and reporting, arrangements for expert review

of the SMP before decommissioning.

All developments and site clearance shall be carried out

in accordance with the approved site management plan.

And that condition is not currently in this application.

Councillor Shub, would you consider having those conditions put on your proposal?

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:32:52

Yes, very happy to.

And Councillor Polybake -Mann?

Yep, likewise.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:56

Thank you.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:32:57

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:57

So, we have two proposals in front of us.

The first one is to accept with the conditions attached

the guidance from our officers

to allow this application to go forward.

Before we vote, I will put the councillors

who proposed to defer on notice

to ensure that should the first proposal fall,

you will have to give some very precise objections

in order for the second proposal to come forward.

Right, so all those in favour of going with the officer's

recommendation with the additional conditions,

please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:56

Those against?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:03

Thank you. Any abstentions? No abstentions.

Microphone B - 1:34:09

Thank you, Chair. That's eight in favour, four against, no abstentions.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:13

Thank you very much. That application has passed.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:17

If those that would like to leave the Council chamber, please do so quietly as there are

other applicants here who are waiting for their planning applications to be held.

Thank you.

4 25/0542/FH - Land Opp Marten Farm, St. Mary's Road, Romney Marsh, TN29

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:15

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:19

Can you please leave the chamber quietly, thank you. Which is 25 -1104 -FH, which is the

5 25/1104/FH - Royal Victoria Hospital, Radnor Park Avenue, Folkestone, CT19 5BN

Royal Victoria Hospital in Radcliffe Park Avenue in Folkestone. Do we have any updates,

please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:35:33

No updates, Chair. Just a reminder that members should have received a statement or letter

from the applicant and their agent as they are unable to attend today.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:43

Thank you very much. And there are no speakers on this particular application.

Councillor Goddard.

Hi Chairman. Excellent design. Design many years ago. Probably one of the best designs

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:35:55

in Folkestone. But moving on from that, very minor amendments. It's an excellent design.

and I'll pop down to himself a couple of days ago,

I think they've done really well.

And move the recommendation.

Do you have a seconder?

I'll go to second, Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor Hinsby.

I'd like to say something on this particular application, please.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:36:20

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:36:20

You may remember I was not in favour of this particular application

when it passed through back,

but it was accepted and the residents accepted it as well.

I'm very happy to see that the houses that are being built that are closest to the residential

have actually been lowered in height now, because I do know that the residents have

been very concerned.

So although Councillor Hollandsby got in first, I would also have seconded on this.

Sorry, would anyone else like to speak on this?

Sorry, Councillor Fuller.

Yeah, I only had a question on this and you may have just answered it actually.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:36:57

I just wanted to understand with the changing of the levels, does that mean that all of

the new build, or none of the new builds will end up with higher ridge lines than the existing

buildings around.

You are correct, the majority of the land levels lower, so whilst the majority of them

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:37:13

hasn't changed, they sit lower than they would have done if the approved scheme had been

carried out, and the properties nearest the rear gardens of Fyfe Ragnar Park have been

lowered to the same parameters as those approved.

So in fact we'd be lower because the land is low as well.

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:32

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I support this application by the way.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:37:37

Just in the consultation, 116 letters set out, eight letters of objection.

I know it's not on.

We don't know any way to that.

One of the things in here was loss of privacy.

And I note there was a very good table in there

which showed the adjustment in heights across the site.

but the concern was still around plot 19.

So are we satisfied that the plot 19

still meets all the requirements

with regard to not infringing other people's privacy?

Thank you.

Officers are satisfied.

There are two windows in the flank elevation

facing the garden number five.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:38:12

There were two windows originally approved.

These will be obscure glazed.

It's also worth noting that there's additional landscaping

on that boundary which will further screen

or act as a screen.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:38:31

I am not seeing any other Councillor to speak, so we have a proposal to accept the officer's

recommendation.

All those in favour, please show your hand.

And I can see that that is unanimous and has therefore passed.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:38:40

Thank you.

So we will move on to our third application this evening, which is 25 -0449 -FH, which is

6 25/0449/FH - Land Adjoining 26 Blackhouse Hill, Hythe, CT21 5UL

the land adjoining 26 Blackhouse Hill in Hoyth.

Do we have any updates, please?

Good evening, councillors. No update, Chair.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:39:01

Thank you. And we have no speakers either.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:39:03

So over to you, councillors. Any comments?

Councillor Fuller.

I've got questions again. Sorry.

There's a list.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:39:13

So I have mentions on 2 .1, page 125,

about the retaining wall serving the station.

Is there the potential for anything archaeologically significant on the site and are we sure that

we've adequately prepared for that, if that's the right phrase, you know, we've got the

right conditions for that?

I'll do two questions first of all.

And just on page 130, it talks about the Badger potential report of something being redacted.

Why?

Why is a report on badgers redacted?

Those are my first two starters for 10.

In terms of archaeology, the sites within an area

where KCC County archaeologists have indicated

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:39:58

they don't particularly want to be consulted

on applications of this scale.

So they've no comments to put forward on this one.

And the redaction of the Badger section

of the ecology report is in line with national guidance

in order to protect Badgers and prevent people

from destroying their sets, any information about the presence of badges on the site has

to be redacted.

So how, I suppose in response to that, how do we therefore safeguard badges if we're

not allowed to know if there are any badges?

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:40:28

We take advice from KCC Ecology on that.

So they see the full unredacted report and provide information.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:40:36

As per the report, they've requested a bit of clarification, which the applicant has

provided.

It's with KCC officers at the moment and we're waiting for their final comments, hence the

request for delegation at the end of the report.

Okay, thanks for that.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:40:55

Right, on to, let's start with page 139.

This is my sort of biggest set of questions.

It's around the car parking spaces and so on.

So, I want to note that KCC requested carports

instead of garages, that doesn't seem to have been

taken on board or maybe it was decided

that it wasn't a good idea or whatever.

Some of the plans showed at the top end

that there's two parking spaces next to the property

and one of the plans shows four, but the report says two,

so I was a little uncertain about that.

cycle parking.

There doesn't seem to be, unless I missed it,

mention of at least one space per house or flat.

Isn't that, I believe that's required in T2, is that right?

Obviously T2.

This is me not being able to read my notes, sorry.

Also, the report talks about IGN3

in terms of parking standards,

but my understanding is that that's been superseded

by the 2024 policy update that KCC made to their parking standards and that they no longer

have a maximum number of parking spaces on applications.

Also as part of that they've changed the sizes of parking spaces that they expect I believe

So are we sure that the spaces that are provided are big enough for modern vehicles?

And also within that they say that the parking spaces need to be set at least a half a metre

back from the footway.

Are we sure that that's the case as well?

Because if not, obviously, then we've got a problem with the report and following cases

policies based on it.

I hope I've got all of these down.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:43:02

So, in regards to carports instead of garages, that was discussed between offices early on.

We came to the conclusion that design -wise it would have made the scheme much less acceptable,

but there would have been, in offices, been sort of shadowy, dank spaces under the buildings

that wouldn't have been acceptable in design terms.

We took the view that because maximum parking standards apply here, of one space per unit,

Those spaces are provided to the front.

There's no need for additional spaces.

In policy terms, under the building,

therefore the garage spaces are acceptable,

and as I said, better in design terms.

The number of spaces for flats,

I believe that may just be an error

on the drawing that's been uploaded.

The scheme was originally four spaces.

That's been amended down to two spaces.

I think it's probably just an old drawing

that needs redacting from the file.

Cycle parking.

Quite often with household developments,

KCC will request cycle parking and officers can take a view on that.

And in this instance, there's space within the private gardens for the houses

for cycle parking to be provided, a garden shed, for example.

In terms of the flats, I don't know the answer to that, I'm afraid.

The detail escapes me, but we can certainly apply a condition requiring cycle parking

to be provided for the flats. That wouldn't be a problem.

IGN3 superseded it.

The IGN3 standard is the same as our adopted, excuse me,

policy parking standards within our local plan.

So while KCC may have adopted a newer document,

the policies, sorry, the requirements of IGN3

remain live within our local plan.

The same with the sort of sizing and positioning, et cetera.

It's all as per our policy, which was guided by IGN3.

And then the spaces set back, the spaces to the front have been provided in accordance

with those adopted standards.

KCC highways don't have any objection to the size, the position, sight lines, excuse me,

anything like that.

They are happy with the parking spaces that have been provided.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:45:08

There was a comment about biodiversity net gain credits.

I've not seen this before.

So how do we go about ensuring that those are achieved,

if that's the right phrase?

It also, the report mentions that residential amenity

is not affected by the buildings

because of the retaining wall and the trees and so on.

I would say how can we be certain

that the general light levels aren't affected by removing those trees and so on.

Is the effect going to be the same as having a building there?

How can we be sure that that's the case?

As regards to BNG credits, so BNG is dealt with at the conditions application stage.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:46:00

All the applicant has to demonstrate at the moment as part of the planning application

stage is that they can meet the 10 % betterment requirements, which they have indicated they'll

do through offsite credits.

When the conditions application comes in,

they need to demonstrate that they've purchased

those credits and they can be,

that land can be reserved for 30 years

to meet the requirement.

So it would be dealt with at a later stage

and in detail through submission of information.

In terms of residential amenity,

I presume you're referring to the houses over the road.

So as it is in the report,

there is some impact at the moment

from the retaining wall.

It's quite a tall structure.

Officers consider that the impact of the houses

would be no worse than that existing structure

in terms of loss of light, shadow, et cetera,

partly because the separation distances

between the proposed dwellings and those over the road

is significant.

It's, I believe, 16 to 18 metres,

which is a substantial distance.

There's no minimum front -to -front separation distance

within planning law, and what's put forward

is considered to be acceptable in order to minimise overlooking, overshadowing, loss

of light, overbearing to acceptable standards.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:47:19

One final thing, one big concern I do have about this, probably if it is a substantial

planning or relevant planning, is the design of the development in terms of the surroundings.

so it's how it fits into the character of the area. I know obviously the report says

that on balance the way it's designed, because it's designed to be similar colours to the

retaining wall and so on, it fits in better than say something that was of a similar sort

Is it Victorian era design?

Are we really clear on that, that that's good enough, I suppose is the best way of saying

it?

Because personally, I'm not entirely convinced.

I feel it's totally incongruous compared with all of the properties down there.

And weirdly, the planning application that was refused in 2023 is probably closer, even

though it's over. So yeah, how convinced are we that that's okay? Because I'm not basically.

I suppose to put it short, officers are convinced that it's acceptable.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:48:38

The character of the area is very mixed. If you look at the eastern side of the street,

it's quite established. You've got those, I think they're Edwardian properties that establish a very

regular pattern, a very traditional design. But if you look at the wider picture of the street

you've seen the western side of the road, it's very mixed.

You've got houses of all different types,

designs, sizes, and styles.

In that regard, what's been put forward,

the architect has designed it with reference

to those traditional properties next to it.

It's terraces of four with pitched roofs,

gable ends, fronting up, fronting the road, et cetera.

So the form and scale of the buildings

is considered to sit comfortably

with that existing character on that side of the road.

And then the design overall, it's contemporary design, which can be divisive,

but officers consider that it's a good design, it meets the required standard in terms of policy requirements,

and it would sit comfortably within the context of the area.

And I suppose also to add in is that contemporary design is increasingly a feature within Hith.

There are a lot of newer buildings that sit comfortably within that traditional landscape.

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:52

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:49:57

Just in terms of the High Town Council's objections,

they talk about overlooking loss of privacy.

In 710 in the Officer's Report,

it says that the 25 and 45 degree lines are not bridged with regard to number 26.

So does that mean that there is no loss of immunity

with regard to overlooking privacy with any of the residences in that area.

And also, one of the previous refusal elements for the scheme

was about gardens being too small.

In 7 .15, it says the duplexes don't have gardens which are 10 metres long,

so they're slightly down on policy requirements.

So is that acceptable?

And then finally, one of the other reasons for refusal

for the previous scheme is on slope stability.

But I note the condition five requires the slope,

sorry, slope stability report to be provided.

So that's my questions.

Thank you, Chair.

The 25 and 45 degree test generally applies

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:51:13

to the immediately neighbouring dwellings,

which in this instance is number 26.

The proposed development doesn't breach those angles,

so as part of the overall assessment,

that indicates that there will be no unacceptable

amenity impacts on that closest property.

And then of course, the rest of the properties in this area

due to the site and the layout of the street,

they're much further away than that neighbouring property,

and they therefore are well outside of those

25 and 45 degree considerations.

And again, as per Councillor Fuller's question,

the separation distances involved are such that

officers consider there's gonna be no

unacceptable degree of harm to those neighbouring residents.

The garden sizes for the flats,

the policy requirement is for

relatively smaller balconies

than the areas that have been provided

as part of this development.

So the flats, I believe exceed the minimum requirements

of our policies for flat amenity space.

And then in terms of land stability,

it is in an area that's highlighted

for potential instability,

a full survey has been provided.

It's been assessed and it advises that the site

could be made unsalable by the development,

but that can be completely addressed

through the installation of a retaining wall,

which is the retaining wall shown in the sections

in the back gardens of the property.

I've consulted with the architect

and he says that that can be provided

to the required standard without affecting the design

or the layout of the scheme at all.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:52:50

So, if I may, I know that 7 .2 says the principle of development is acceptable, so I'd like

to move the Office for recommendation for approval of this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I have a seconder here.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:52:58

Councillor Anita Jones would like to speak.

Yes, I mean, it's a curious bit of land, this.

I took another walk up there the other day with my dog to just go and figure out how

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:53:09

they were going to fit these houses in, because it is an odd bit of land.

I think you've answered my questions about stability.

I think that was my first concern.

I was just going to ask a question about,

because obviously there's been a number of planning applications,

is there anything currently standing that if we didn't approve this,

could be built anyway?

No, the previous permissions expired.

They've all gone. OK, that's fine.

I would just agree with Councillor Fuller.

I don't think they're very attractive.

I think they're quite ugly.

And I don't know who would want to have such a big window in the house like that.

There would be very little privacy if you actually lived there.

I think compared with the...

I know they are trying to ape what they have got shape -wise,

but they are not as pretty, are they?

So, I would struggle to support,

because they really are out of keeping with the street scene, in my opinion,

and with the ones over the road,

although they have obviously got different designs over the road.

They are not quite as bland as that.

Sorry, thank you.

Councillor Hinsby.

Thank you, Chair.

I was just going to say, actually, before you said that, that I quite like the design.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:54:19

One of the things we do consider is the difference between the old and the new and allowing new

to come forward in a range of different places.

So I quite like the design.

And I was taught, and one of the questions I was asked,

stability is always an issue there.

So, but I think that's been answered.

The other thing was,

I think, oh, I've lost it now.

Lost a bit of a number.

About the, oh yeah, 7 .10.

I just wanted to ask about the 25 degree and 45.

I know exactly about the 45 degree, but the 25 degree,

I wonder if you could just explain what that relates to, please.

Bear with me, Councillor, I'll get the wording up.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:55:25

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:55:26

25 degrees is applied in two different instances.

Firstly, you apply it on rear -facing extensions

to deal with overbearing,

and you apply it to the 45 -degree line

to see what would reach on that.

What you would also do, as we did at Station Road,

is apply it from the properties

on the other side of the street.

You'd cast a 25 -degree line upwards across the street

to see what level of this development

is in breach of that.

Now, the Council has previously approved

a significant building on the other side of the street.

the properties adjacent are no higher than this one,

there is a land level difference.

So it wouldn't be apples for apples.

We haven't, because of the separation distances

and the land level changes,

carried out the 25 degree assessment

on the properties on the other side of the road.

We have assessed the impact on the neighbouring property

because they are the closest and we deem that's acceptable.

So we couldn't tell you whether it passes the 25

because we just haven't actually done the drawing itself.

But what I'd say is because of the separation distance,

it's quite a wide road,

and the property on the western side of the road

is not only set across the road behind the driveway,

but the driveway drops the house down as well.

So any application of the 25

would probably be breached by a standard fence

as opposed to the property on the other side of the road.

And if this property was unacceptable,

then the, I think probably,

I'm not sure if they're Edwardian or Victorian, stuff next to it would also be in breach of

the same sort of consideration.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Would any other Councillor not good?

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:57:05

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:57:05

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:57:08

I also quite like the design, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, obviously, and

I quite like walking up streets and seeing the different decades and centuries reflected.

And I think this scheme, long after I'm gone in 50 years time, someone walking up this

street will see this block and think, oh, that's probably the Charlie period.

Next to some Victorian, some nice Victorian ones before that.

So I'm going to support this.

I think they've done well to design a scheme that fits on quite an awkward, difficult piece

of land and we need homes and we need people to think creatively and I think that's what

they've done.

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:58:04

So we have one proposal which has been seconded which is to accept the officer's recommendation.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:58:20

All those in favour, please. Those against. And abstention.

Thank you, Chair. That's ten in favour, one against and one abstention.

Microphone B - 1:58:30

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:58:32

Thank you. That application has passed. So on to the last application of the evening,

7 25/1661/FH - Studio1, Brewery Tap, 53 Tontine Street, Folkestone, CT20 1JR

which is 25 -1661 -FH, which is Studio 1, Brewery Tap, 53 Tontine Street in Folkestone.

Do we have any updates, please?

Thank you, Chair.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:58:54

One update, the red line boundary and the certificate being referred to in paragraph

3 .2 have been received.

Thank you very much.

We have no speakers on this, so over to you, Councillors.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:59:06

Thank you, Chair. I think it is really nice of them to provide training as part of this,

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:59:13

especially as we have absolutely no way of making sure that they do so. Indeed, there

aren't necessarily the facilities to do so. But I shall ever be the optimist and assume

that that will sort itself out and around. On that basis anyway, I think it's a perfectly

acceptable notification. I don't have a problem with it and I'm quite happy to move the officer's

recommendation.

And Councillor Lockwood, will you second it there?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:59:43

Yeah, I'm happy to second.

And do you wish to speak?

And if I may?

Certainly.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:59:48

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to copy Councillor Goddard and say, oh, what a fantastic design

that was done 15 years ago to sympathetically convert

a period pub into creative art space

and living accommodation for the 21st century.

And if I remember rightly, there were quite a lot

of objections to this change of use

from pub to creative workspace.

So I wouldn't be surprised if there are again lots of objections to it being changed from creative space back to pub, sort of pub wine bar.

But I wholly approve of spaces being in continual use with different uses and it's had its moment of not being a space for hospitality and now it's back again.

So that's good to see, I think. No question.

Thank you, Councillor Goddard.

Yeah, totally agree with Councillor Lightwood, excellent design.

You know, just like that.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:01:01

The area needs, fits in there, fits there like a glove.

And totally support it. Well done.

Thank you. I'm not seeing any other Councillor.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:01:13

I'm always sad when we lose community space.

and I did speak to the officers regarding this,

and the business that has moved in there is what they call like a prime business.

They've extended through from further up the coast, which again makes Folkestone a place to visit.

We do have quite a few other community spaces that can be used,

and it would appear to me that the owners or the applicants at least

are doing what they can to make sure

that there is still some training, et cetera.

And it will help with some local jobs as well.

So I also do support this.

So, oh, sorry, Councillor Blakemore?

I just wanted to sort of come in

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:01:56

on that community facility issue, actually,

because I likewise had a momentary concern about it.

But there are so many other community facilities

in that part of town, not least the cube,

just on the other side of the road,

which as we know is pretty much empty.

Although Councillor Lockwood tells me that

Creative Foundation are now letting out

a couple of spaces there for community use.

So yeah, and I think this business will undoubtedly

support the economy viability and vitality of the town.

So yeah, I'm all in favour as well.

Thank you. So we have a proposal and a seconder,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:32

which is to accept the officer's proposal on this application.

all those in favour please raise.

And I can see that has passed unanimous.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:45

Thank you, that is the last application this evening.

Thank you very much for what I regard as a very healthy debate this evening.

Safe journeys until the next committee.

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 20 January 2026, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting