Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 26 February 2026, 6:00pm

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 26th February 2026 at 6:00pm

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 John Wing
Mr Jake Hamilton
Cllr John Wing
Cllr John Wing
Cllr John Wing
Councillor Tony Hills
Cllr John Wing

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

3 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) Schemes On The Romney Marsh

Share this agenda point

Adrian Tofts
FHDC Officer
Cllr John Wing
Cllr John Wing
Councillor Tony Hills
Cllr John Wing
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Paul Thomas
FHDC Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
Adrian Tofts
Cllr Paul Thomas
Adrian Tofts
Cllr Paul Thomas
FHDC Officer
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
FHDC Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
FHDC Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
FHDC Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Adrian Tofts
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Alan Martin
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Alan Martin
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Anita Jones
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Elaine Martin
Adrian Tofts
Cllr Elaine Martin
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Bridget Chapman
FHDC Officer
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr John Wing
Councillor Tony Hills
Mr Ewan Green
Councillor Tony Hills
Cllr John Wing
FHDC Officer
Councillor Tony Hills
Llywelyn Lloyd
Councillor Tony Hills
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Alan Martin
Cllr John Wing
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Stephen Scoffham
Cllr Stephen Scoffham
Cllr Jim Martin
Cllr Stephen Scoffham
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 John Wing - 0:00:03

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to welcome you to the overview and scrutiny committee meeting.

I'd like to make officers, members and members of the public.

This evening, we only have one item on the agenda, so starting off, can I have any apologies

or absence?

Thank you, Chair.

Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:00:25

We have apologies from Councillor Holgate.

Thank you.

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:30

And any decorations of interest from the committee?

No?

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:37

Okay, so we're moving on to our main item now.

Sorry, Councillor Hill.

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:44

Councillor Tony Hills - 0:00:46

It's a voluntary decoration, but I'm a member of the town council in case he comes up.

So just making a note.

Thank you.

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:53

Yep, that's it.

Okay.

Right, moving on to the main item now.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) Schemes On The Romney Marsh

This is a National Significant Infrastructure Project, which is NSIP,

Schemed for the Bromley Marsh.

And I believe Adrian, you've got a presentation for us, have you?

Adrian Tofts - 0:01:09

Yes, Andrew and myself were going to introduce it.

Thank you. Yes. So good evening, everybody.

So this report was written in response to the e -petition

that was submitted to full council in October last year

about large -scale solar farms,

and full council resolved to refer the petition

to this committee.

As you'll be aware, there are free large -scale solar farms

being proposed for sites in the Romley Marsh.

There is the South Kent Energy Park,

which is around Old Romley,

the Shepway Energy Park near Newchurch,

and part of which, small part of which,

goes into Ashford Borough,

and the Southbrooke Solar Farm near Lyd

and a small part of that goes into Rother District.

The plans in the report show the approximate extent

of these schemes and Andrew will go through them later.

But as we stressed in the report,

the site areas and the capacity may well change

as the promoters refine their schemes.

But in any case, all three schemes are above the threshold whereby they're classed as nationally

significant infrastructure projects under the 2008 Planning Act.

And this means that the District Council isn't the deciding authority.

They will go through a separate process whereby they're assessed by planning inspectors.

And the final decision will be made by the relevant Secretary of State and for energy

schemes.

In this case, it's the Secretary of State for Energy Security in net zero.

These are the first nationally significant infrastructure projects or NSIP schemes that

we've had in the district.

But as you can see from Figure 1 in the report, there are a large number across the country,

around 270 at the moment.

Around two thirds of those are energy schemes

and most of the remainder are transport schemes.

The decision making process is set out

in section four of the report.

There's a lengthy process of scheme development

which, during which the promoters may undertake

public consultation and refine their schemes.

There are proposals to amend that process

which Andrew is going to talk about later.

But when the schemes are formally submitted

to the Planning Inspectorate,

there's a fixed timetable of acceptance,

pre -examination, examination and recommendation.

At the recommendation stage,

the examining authority will write a report

with a recommendation that's then passed

to the Secretary of State for a decision.

And at the end of the process, there's a six -week period

where by an aggrieved party can mount a judicial review

of the decision.

So from the point of acceptance through examination

to decision, the process should last around 15 months.

So it's quite a compressed process.

Section five of the report sets out the role

that the local authority has in the process.

And that's set out in legislation

and we are required to input at certain points.

These will include agreeing a statement of common ground

with the promoters setting out where we agree and disagree.

We will also need to submit a local impact report

and that is a detailed report setting out the facts

about the local impacts on the environment or the highway network or whatever it may be.

In that report, as I say, it's supposed to be factual, so we are just supposed to set out the

facts, but we will have an opportunity to write a relevant representation where we give comments on

the planning merits of the developments. All of these documents will need to be supported by

evidence and we as a local authority may need to commission specialist evidence such as

on landscape or flood risk or whatever it might be.

The examination process is largely written but they're slightly to include public hearings

and is made take the form of open floor hearings which are more for local people or interest

groups to put their views across.

There will also be issue -specific hearings, which are more technical, detailed examinations

of particular topics and we're likely to be called to give our views in those hearings.

And if the applicants need to compulsively purchase land to bring their schemes forward,

then there will be specific hearings about that.

At the end of the process, if the development is approved, the Secretary of State will grant

a development consent order, and as was set out in section 7 of the report, this is a

statutory instrument and unlike a planning provision, it may grant a whole host of consents

for sort of highways approval or the consent to compulsory purchase land, as well as giving

and consent to develop the project.

Also in the report we discuss the potential

to draught a community benefits policy

and we give an example from a local authority

in Lincolnshire which has seen five solar projects

in its area.

And the idea is to use that policy

to try and negotiate with developers of the scheme

to secure funding for local environmental projects.

But as Andy will touch on later,

there are also proposals to review that part of the process

and put it on a mandatory footing.

So kind of in summary, the bulk of the work

is still to come over the next few years,

particularly around local impact reports

and the relevant representations.

But as was set out in section 10 of the report,

There are certain key considerations to take note of.

That is that the schemes that have been consulted on

may be amended before they're submitted

to the Planning Inspector.

And so that the site areas may change

and the generating capacity may change.

Also important to note, the District Council

is a statutory consultee in the process.

We aren't the decision maker.

And we have particular inputs to make at certain stages

which are set out in the legislation.

Also very important to note, there is a strict timetable

for our representations and the planning spectra

won't vary that or won't extend it.

So we will have to respond quickly

if we are to get our views across.

And the guidance encourages residents

and community groups to respond directly

to the promoters and the planning inspectorate

to make sure that their views are heard

and they can participate in the examination.

So that's kind of a rough outline of the process

and I was now going to hand over to Andy,

who was going to say a bit more about relevant changes

to the legislation.

FHDC Officer - 0:09:00

Yeah, thanks Adrian and good evening members.

So in terms of future changes proposed to the NSIP process, in paragraph 5 .3 of the

report, that sets out the pre -application stage, as is currently the case in legislation.

And that pre -application stage is a statutory requirement.

Legislation has been passed now to remove the statutory pre -application process and

replace it with more informal guidance in terms of engaging with local communities.

That's not yet been enacted, but we understand that that's likely to be enacted prior to

the formal submission of the scheme, so it may affect the way in which the schemes come

to a pre -application stage. Even without that statutory process, we would still expect significant

pre -application involvement, even if it's no longer statutory. And if that doesn't take

place, we have the opportunity at acceptance stage to raise that with the planning inspector

and say that we have not had enough involvement at that point, and the inspector will consider

that when determining whether to accept an application.

So there's a change there in terms of how the pre -application stage is at the moment

set in a statutory process which will become guidance in the future.

The second change relates to the community benefits policy which is set out in section

8 of the report.

The government undertook a working paper last summer

looking at making that mandatory for all energy projects

over a certain threshold.

It doesn't appear that that has gone beyond

the consultation stage.

So it will depend on whether or not anything moves

between now and when those applications

are formally submitted to the planning inspector as to whether or not there could be a mandatory

system in place that sets a predetermined amount of money that is collected on these

projects or it may be a set out in section 8 that we continue with the current process

which is essentially to discuss and negotiate with the developers over that.

So those are two changes that may affect the NSIP process,

depending on their timing as to when they're enacted.

I was just going to run you through a couple of the maps

that will be in the report and in the appendices.

This is a general overview map which is useful

just to understand how the schemes sit alongside each other

and within the Romney Marsh area itself.

If I just put my pointer on.

So this is the Sheppway Energy Park

which is centred around the New Church area.

This is the South Kent proposal

proposal, which is centred around Old Romney, and then the pink area is the Southbrooke's

solar proposal, which is centred around Lid.

The other smaller sites that you can see, this blue one here is Sycamore Farm, which

is an existing smaller -scale solar facility that the Council approved a few years ago.

This one here is known as Martin Farm, which has planning permission from the Council,

and again was a smaller scheme that was submitted

to the Council as a planning application

as opposed to a large scale project.

And then the areas up here are related to Otterpool.

They haven't come forward yet,

but the Council has considered utilising that land

for solar development as well.

So just some more detailed information

on the three large -scale parks.

This is the Shepway Energy Park.

It comprises six parcels of land

which are centred around Newchurch here,

comprises around 406 hectares of land,

and the proposals would include solar and battery developments,

which would be capable of delivering 200 megawatts of electricity

and storing 400 megawatts of electricity,

which is capable of powering roughly 73 ,000 homes a year.

The first public consultation was undertaken

in summer last year, and further consultation is expected

in the spring and summer of this year.

The applicants have submitted what's known

as a scoping opinion to the planning inspector

as the examining authority. That scoping opinion is to set out how they intend to approach

the environmental statement that they submit with the application. That environmental statement

will set out, have a series of topic areas dealing with the main issues arising from

the proposals and the likely significant effects. And the Council has had the opportunity to

input into that and provided its advice to the planning inspector.

And the time table for the formal submission of that application is the autumn of this

year.

The second scheme is the South Kent Energy Park.

That's the scheme that's centred around Old Romney.

Three main parcels of land, 600 hectares in total.

Solar and battery development again, capable of generating up to 500 megawatts of power,

which in this instance is deemed to be capable of powering 140 ,000 homes every year.

First public consultation on that scheme was undertaken in late 2024 and early 2025.

The further engagement with the local community is scheduled in the spring and summer of this

year and the timetable for submission of an application to the planning inspector is the

winter of this year, early 2027.

And the third scheme, Southbrook Solar Farm, that comprises seven parcels of land arranged

around lids, 1 ,094 hectares of land.

Again, solar and battery development capable of generating up to 500 megawatts of power

and powering 140 ,000 homes every year.

First public consultation on that scheme

was undertaken in September and October of last year.

They submitted a scoping opinion to the planning inspector

and the council has had input into that.

And that scoping opinion was issued

by the planning inspector in December last year.

And further engagement with the local community

is expected in the summer of this year

with a timetable for submission of the application to the Planning Inspector in Spring 2027.

Thank you.

Cllr John Wing - 0:16:58

Okay, well, thank you very much for your precise and clear presentation.

Okay, so that opens up to questions.

Who wants to start?

Councillor Hills.

Cllr John Wing - 0:17:08

Councillor Tony Hills - 0:17:11

I'd like to first say I think it's a very good report from the officers.

They don't exit job on that.

So thank you very much.

But I'll lay my cards on the table from an ecology point of view.

And I will say again that climate change, where the weather's changing, I think this

could be suicide for the marsh.

Projects of this size like this will industrialise the marsh

and it's gonna cause us immense problems.

So my starting point is I don't want it,

but I'm not getting solar farms.

We got two, we got one, we got one coming,

and they're fine because they're big enough

to work within the scale of Robley Marsh.

These don't work within the scale of Robley Marsh.

And my thought of two years of build time on this

is unbearable.

You've got mediaeval road structure on the marsh.

I mean, you can't get down to the high street

in New Romley moment,

because the Ashford Road is closed for repairs and the like.

And that's what happens.

It's an old, old system.

Can you imagine what would happen two years ago?

It'd be like a nuke in the winter.

We wouldn't have any visitors, any business.

The small businesses on the coast

would depend upon residents visiting.

I think it's going to be a tragic situation.

Now, I know it's political, we can't stop it in that sense.

We can make what we can do, we can make our views clear

that we think this is not the way to treat the Romney Marsh.

That's the first thing.

I'm actually a ward member for Burmarsh, Newchurch,

St Mary's Bay and Dimchurch.

What you might realise is right in the middle of one of them,

Shepayski.

But I also live next door to the South Brooks one.

And the South Brooks one has got Dungeness nearby, which has got cabling and everything

else and getting power away, but the rest haven't.

It's going out of, it's very cataclysmic.

So I'm hoping at the end of this, we take a view of writing to the government and saying,

we understand what you need, but you're doing it in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

I don't think we will succeed in that context, but we can try.

I would rather go down trying to defend the Romany march than roll over and accept it.

I might say more later.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr John Wing - 0:19:39

I don't know if you want to come back or listen to how you want to do this.

Do you want to make any comments or anything from the officers?

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr John Wing - 0:19:47

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:19:52

Again, just to echo Tony's words really in terms of the report,

it's very clear, allows us to fully understand,

I think probably for the first time,

all of the different things with regard to the timescale of the project,

the interactions, which I think we've seen in some bits and pieces,

but it's the first time we've sort of pulled it all together,

and again made it clear in terms of how that's being phased,

or being proposed to be phased with the individual schemes

as they are at this moment in time.

So just a couple of things on the process itself, because I think that's important.

So section 5 is about local authority involvement in, and in there it makes it very clear that it's so important to have this local perspective on the project.

So there's two bits to that.

Would you mind if I ask a couple of questions on different bits at different times and then get the answers to each bit first of all?

Is that okay?

So, just in terms of the local impact report, does that have to be funded and how is it put together?

Is that put together within using existing resources within the district?

Or is it something that we can back charge to the developer to say,

if it wasn't for the fact that we had to do this,

then why should we carry the burden, the cost associated with that?

Is that something we can back charge? That's my first question.

FHDC Officer - 0:21:28

So it's common for the developers to enter into planning performance agreements with councils,

which provides funding opportunities for councils

to cover their costs.

We've entered into a planning performance agreement

on the Shepway Energy Park.

We are very close to entering into an agreement

on the Southbrookes Park.

A little bit further away on the South Kent Energy Park

scheme just because that seems to be in general

lagging a little bit behind the other two.

Within that, we've costed for officer time.

We've also costed for employing consultants, in particular in relation to assessing landscape

and visual impacts and built heritage. There are obviously a number of other key issues in areas.

Councillor Hills has mentioned drainage and ecology. We would suggest that we obviously

We don't have in -house ecologists, we rely on Kent County Council to provide ecology

advice and drainage advice as well.

They will also be a statutory consultee in the process and we would expect Kent County

Council's experts in those fields to provide feedback on those elements.

But yes, we will be funded to cover officer time and to be able to employ consultants

to deal with key elements that we need to look at as part of the scheme.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:06

Just to add for those people not familiar with planning performance agreements,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:10

they're a project management tool used across the planning industry.

They don't guarantee an outcome.

They're just to allow the council to have the resources allowed to do the job

when it otherwise doesn't have those resources.

So as Andy has pointed out, then we'll pay for officer time.

that will allow us to get our costs back

of any expertise that we don't normally carry out

because the planning fee for these projects

goes to the planning and spectra.

We won't get a fee so we can try to recoup some of that

through the performance agreement.

But it is not an agreement that there is an outcome,

it's an agreement to a process of how we might work together

through the consultation periods.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:54

So just on the same theme, Section 516 of the report talks about, well there are a couple

of things actually, so Section 5 .7 talks about the statement of community consultation, 5 .10

talks about the statement of common ground, and then when you've done both of those, it

would appear that we have to produce a principal areas of disagreement

summary statement. You can't make this stuff up. But tied in with all of that,

in section 5 .6, what I want to know is how do we enable community groups to be

represented to be included in each of those elements? Because again it comes

back to this thing about making sure we have that local perspective on all

of these projects. So how would that be enabled? Thank you.

Adrian Tofts - 0:24:49

Yes, certainly in terms of our comments on the consultation, we can reflect what local

communities are saying. But on a lot of the other statements we'll have to produce, the

timescale will be very truncated and we won't be able to consult on what we do. We will

need to submit it by the deadline.

So the guidance throughout the process

encourages local people to respond directly

to the promoter as they do their consultations

and to the planning and spectra

so that they can have their views heard.

And just following up on that,

so that compressed timescale, that turnaround time

is 28 days for pre -application, I believe.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:25:30

That's correct, isn't it?

Yes, there are different timescales for different parts of it.

Adrian Tofts - 0:25:37

Some of the responses we'll have to do are about 14 days and others are 28 days.

So, yes, it depends what part you're talking about.

Some of the documents will run along as the promoter develops their scheme and we will

have longer to submit, but others are quite focused

in terms of their time scales.

Yeah, thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:26:08

So just in terms of the planning performance agreements,

one of the things which is, in fact,

probably the most contentious part of any

of the solar schemes is about land use,

current land use and why people believe it's acceptable

to go and build solar farms on good arable land.

So within our existing policy,

within for our own things that we control in the CC6,

we talk about should not result in the loss

of best and most versatile agricultural land.

I think one of the key things that we need to understand

is how do we ensure that whatever is presented to us through the planning

process from the developer, we can underpin. Does the planning

performance agreement allow us to go and get a second opinion, for example, in

terms of how this land is classified currently, how it's being used, and

and therefore it reinforces or gives us confidence that what is being said by the developer is real.

Because I know the discussion we had most recently, there was a lot of discussion about,

you know, what was this land, you know, grade one, grade two, grade three, grade three B,

so it hit the post and it went in, you know.

So as far as that goes, I think it's important that we understand that

and how can we make sure that that is acceptable.

Thank you.

FHDC Officer - 0:27:49

I think the first point there is obviously we need to see the information presented to us.

So we would expect a detailed statement that sets out the agricultural land classification for the development.

And we would then need to take a view on whether we think that that's robust or not.

We don't have that level of expertise in -house, obviously, as a local authority.

We may have options to review that in different ways.

Natural England will be a consortee in the process.

They will often have input regarding the loss of agricultural land.

It will be a matter to look at the evidence and take it from there and see what is in

the reports and if we feel that something doesn't seem right or deficient or so on,

we could approach the developer, ask them for more information.

then potentially we could seek further advice from a consultant, but obviously that comes

at a cost to the council, which may need to be absorbed by us. That may or may not need

to be a member decision. I'll let Llewellyn take over before I spend his budget.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:29:27

The short answer to that question is in theory, yes, it could be. But we're not the determining

authority. So we will have to assess the information in front of us and in doing

so we'll have to have regard to the government's advice on who carries out

best and land use and agricultural classification work and that's set out

by the DEFRA guidance notes on the planning websites, the government

maintaining the planning practise guidance notes and that sets out a

series of things people doing these tests have to do. Number of boreholes,

certain qualifications, anything else.

And of course, they have to that report

that has to be signed off by someone

who has all of those expertise.

So it is completely open to the council,

either through our own funds,

if the developer will not agree to a performance agreement

to cover those costs or to not, to look at that.

Obviously, we'd be hiring someone

with the same qualifications and the same insights

and taking that view, but we'd have to be mindful

as an authority that with the tight time scales,

we need to get comments back to the planning inspector.

What is also useful is that the policy you've cited will have regard to,

but the planning inspector will have regard to.

And they will have to pick up their view on whether it complies with policy or doesn't.

And they will have to have regard to whether they think the evidence submitted by the applicant is robust.

And given discussions on previous applications,

even if this authority doesn't raise that as an objection,

I saw there will be others raising it

with the planning inspector directly through any inquiry

as members of the public,

and they will have to address that point themselves

as well as satisfy themselves that they've met the test

as much as we would have to if we were the local authority.

Again, if I may, just following that sort of chain through then,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:31:15

in the same way that we would get a verification statement

from highways or from drainage,

would we get a verification statement from Natural England

that they were satisfied with what had been presented to them

or been presented by the developer in relation to current land use

and loss of land, arable land potentially?

We won't get anything because any...

FHDC Officer - 0:31:43

Yeah, it will go to the planning inspector, yes.

So we would expect that Natural England will be consulted as part of that process.

and will have the ability to comment on it.

If I may, along the same lines,

in Section 6 .6 .1 .6,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:32:00

and this relates to planning at MPPF,

it talks about that these developments,

it says that this may not...

The development itself, it says,

this may not be without some significant residual adverse effect on the land.

So again, I think my question would be, what does significant residual adverse effect mean?

Do we have any examples from other developments where we could say,

this is the kind of thing that you would expect to see as a significant adverse effect?

Thank you.

That will be in the hands of the inspector and the secretary of state, and that will

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:32:48

be for them to weigh in the balance.

The level of significance one attributes to different impacts is a matter of professional

judgement, in the same way that it is with the impact on visual amenity for certain projects

and also for other environmental impacts.

So one, first of all, has to ascribe there to be a level of harm and then needs to come

to a conclusion as what you believe, as a professional, the evidence in front of you

based on evidence whether that is significant and that is a matter of planning judgement

and I don't think the courts have ever said that there is a threshold for any of that.

Every scheme will be different.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:33:28

Again, just following that line in terms of the balance benefit against harm,

in many of the schemes the benefits from the solar farms as presented are significantly

overstated and inconsistently stated across many of the schemes. When you have

a look, and I've done some comparisons between what some of the other schemes

across the country are claiming in terms of, you know, 500 megawatts is going to

deal with 173 ,000 houses, while someone is saying it's 140 ,000, some of the say it's

120 ,000. So again, I'm just concerned that however these schemes are presented in

of benefits and then the balances benefit against harm,

we make sure that that benefit is adequately

and correctly stated so that when that decision is made,

and as the one has already said,

it is a balance and it is something you do have to consider.

We need to make sure that that is, as I say,

correctly stated.

How do we ensure that, do we get that consistent

application of, is it one megawatt for 300 homes,

which is what is being suggested in many of the other schemes.

You know, what is that number? I mean, I just.

FHDC Officer - 0:34:49

Yeah, I think that this process is very heavily evidence based

and you would expect the benefits to be

to be evidenced very clearly in the in a report.

and likewise, you know, any harm that's identified,

whether it's by a local authority, by local residents,

by the planning inspector, to be evidenced as well.

I've got a couple more, if I may, and then we can move on.

Is that okay?

And, Jamal, I've got two more questions, actually,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:35:22

and one comment, if I may.

So my first question is, at what stage are we notified

of the agreement and timescales for connexion of the individual schemes to the grid.

So for me, it's a fundamental, if you can't connect these blooming things to the grid,

why do you build them in the first place? Thank you.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:35:48

As I understand it, Councillor, and we're all coming to grips with the ins and outs of all of this,

a lot of these projects will be looked at by those, you know,

the central government and otherwise, and the regulator,

as to where do they need them,

and where do they have connectivity to.

It's a bit like any planning application.

You get planning permission for something.

We don't know if someone who gets an extension

for their house can ever afford to build it.

That's not really relevant to the question at hand.

The question at hand is, is the development acceptable,

and is the benefits that come with it acceptable?

So the planning inspector will make a decision

on planning grounds alone, which is,

is this project going to, if built,

contribute to the aims that central government guidance

wishes to seek.

Are the harms that come out of it, you know, less than the benefits?

They will make that decision.

There's only, I imagine, depending on local network capacity,

do they need all of it in account? Do they need some of it up in Sussex?

Who knows? That's a decision outside of our hands.

Our recommendation as the planning authority,

as a local authority, will be,

we have the following points of view.

The inspector will take a view on planning grounds.

It will then be up to, I imagine, a regulator

to take the view as to whether they grant

the ability to ever connect.

Because in theory, if they can't connect,

it doesn't matter whether you've approved it or not,

it's not gonna happen.

So it's moot.

And it's not really part of the assessment.

Is what's being proposed acceptable?

If it's not, is the mitigation enough?

Nobody's come to a conclusion on those grounds yet.

And therefore the inspector will do that bit of balancing work

and come to a conclusion,

the Secretary of State will have to sign off.

If they can't connect, there is no harm.

And nothing then happens.

The same way that if we grant a new house in the countryside

and no one builds it, there's no new house in the countryside.

and therefore no harm to the vision and immunity of anywhere.

Thank you for that. If you look through the other end of the oscilloscope,

if you can't connect, you've got no benefit anyway.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:37:54

So it doesn't matter if you're looking to harm or benefit, the same rule applies really, doesn't it?

Two of the big schemes employ battery energy storage systems

and they're some of the most contentious aspects of solar development right there across the country.

What can be done to make sure that we secure the most robust arrangements in place to protect valuable arable land,

including adjacent land, because these are very separated systems.

They're going to have very separated battery energy storage systems.

If you get a fault, if you get an issue on one, you're likely to affect all of the arable land around it.

How do we make absolutely certain through the process that we get the assurances

that the design, the construction and delivery of those will absolutely guarantee

that they will not affect the surrounding land? Thank you.

FHDC Officer - 0:39:10

So in relation to the battery energy storage systems, again, it's about engaging in the

process, providing information, providing evidence.

There are key consortees that are involved in the process. Kent Fire and Rescue Service

are involved in the process. They're obviously best placed to provide advice on whether a

development is likely to provide a significant fire risk or not. So we would expect that

information again to be evidenced in the process and for a range of

consultees to comment on that, some with more expert knowledge than others.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:40:00

My final comment if I may is okay. Please can we write to North Kestevan asking for their

policy, scrub out North Kestevan at the top and put FOCUS on the High District Council on it

because we'll have that, thank you very much, at £500 a megawatt. That's £600 ,000 a year

potentially, £24 million over the last time of the project.

So if we do have to suffer these brilliant things,

at least let's get some decent payback for it.

Adrian Tofts - 0:40:27

Yeah, as was said, there is the potential

to create this community benefit policy,

but as Andrew mentioned earlier,

there is the potential for this to be mandatory

with set amounts and with kind of guidance

as to what it could be spent on, but we don't know yet whether the government is minded

to bring that in under that legal framework.

Thank you.

Cllr John Wing - 0:40:55

Councillor and Martin.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Paul.

Cllr Alan Martin - 0:41:03

It was helpful to go through that in the methodical way that your questions took us.

I want to go in a slightly different direction really.

So we, as a council, we voted in favour of this petition

being picked up by the council.

And in my mind, that means that the council should work

to proactively support the aims of the group

who put the petition up.

And I just want to make sure that we don't just,

so we're saying it looks like we're gearing up

to do all the right things.

I just want to make sure that we're not just going to be passively partaking in a planning

process.

Planning is a very rules -based logical process that just calmly happens.

And I don't want us just to rock up and answer questions when asked and to just be part of

someone else's process.

And it's really important here because this isn't a planning application that's come up

and we know what we're dealing with.

we're sort of being ambushed by a multitude

of different developments.

We've got no control over the decision making around them.

We don't know what other ones are gonna appear next week.

They're all being looked at individually.

They're all being looked at on different time scales.

And if we just sit here very knowledge,

very knowledgeably contributing to all these different

random planning applications as they happen,

we're just gonna get eaten alive

and we won't be taking any control of the situation.

So as a council, we shouldn't be looking at this

as a pure planning thing.

This is a political point, not party political,

but this is a point where we've got the opportunity

to stand up and represent the views of our residents

and lots of us as councillors, I think,

also feel really passionately about this.

So I think all this detail's great,

but our council needs to take a view on this

and it needs to take a stance and fight for it.

I'm really unhappy about how this,

I know we can't change the process here,

but the context that we're in is kind of out of our control

and we've discussed in this chamber a number of times

the fact that because all of these different sites

and developments are happening to different time scales,

it's very difficult for us to know

what we're fighting against,

what conversation we're having.

And so I think we need to get onto the front foot

and ahead of the opportunity to contribute

to those different kind of planning processes,

I think we need to get a very clear view

of what our council believes is the right way forward.

So the sorts of things that I've got in my mind,

so first of all, we should be actively engaging

community groups like Hands Off Our Marsh,

and I think it'd be helpful for us to sit down with them

and get really clear on our collective positions

on these sites collectively, but them individually,

and get clear on which of our positions

do we collectively agree on,

so that we can start communicating

and to an extent campaigning together.

And then beyond that, I think we as a council

should be proactively commissioning or doing our own work

so that we form our own view of what can be tolerated

in the area, taking account of the flood risk,

the cumulative impact, the impact on local businesses

whilst these things are being built,

the impact on the area and tourism

after they've been built.

And we need to come up, I think, with a clear set of red flags, whether that's on the classification

of farmland, whether it's on what we would deem to be a reasonable maximum size of development,

maximum percentage of land that these developments could be on, our views on the cumulative impact

on the area of these multiple sites.

And then I think we should also take a view

of these developments individually and collectively

against that criteria that we form.

We won't actually be making the decision,

but I think we should go through that process

of making a decision to enable us to fight

for what we think is right once we form that view

of what we think our local area can tolerate.

And I don't know what we then do, whether it helps,

do we build aspects of that into our planning strategy?

Do we just have that all ready to go

so that we can sort of stand up for our residents

as these various applications come through?

But I kind of feel if we just do a small amount

of homework now and then wait and follow everyone else's

processes and agendas, we're not gonna be

in the right position to properly fight

our residents' cases.

So I'm interested in your thoughts about that.

The concern I had about the report is it's quite passive.

It's kind of, this is the process we need

to go through, et cetera.

It doesn't really, I think, speak to the essence

of what was originally in the petition,

which was, hold on chaps, we're in danger

of having the whole of the Romney Marsh

covered in solar panels, what we're going to do about it.

Thank you, Councillor Martin.

I understand the points.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:46:50

I think we're here tonight because a petition was put to full Council,

and full Council wanted it debated here before it mattered going back to full Council,

as I understand.

So I think a lot of the points that you've raised around collective position,

now the Council gets on the front foot as a Council,

are probably matters for that forum and probably not the planning staff

here this evening.

The report in front of you is there to set out

what the process for these applications will be.

So it's not passive, it's factual as to,

this is what we're gonna face with

and understand the concerns.

In terms of getting the council's position across,

officers will at some point draught the local impact report

and other reports where we have the time.

They'll be taken to planning committee

and planning committee will therefore either,

and we will present the planning case.

And you'll have to appreciate that that is very different

to the case that you as counsellors might make

and the case that potentially people who,

you know, we're within the bandwidth of a framework

and there is more to this,

but we have to work within that framework.

So any report that we produce tonight or in the future

will be bound within the planning framework

because that's the way the process,

once it leaves this chamber, will be.

That doesn't stop members of that council saying that's all well and lovely,

and we like bits of your recommendation, whatever it might be,

but we'd like you to go further and say the following things,

because any letter that leaves this council won't be a planning decision.

The decision of the council, you know,

we would like you to look at the following things,

we're concerned about the following things,

all of the things that you have raised can go into that representation.

And councillors, you will have the opportunity to sit in those public inquiries

and answer those points.

It doesn't necessarily, it won't necessarily be the planning officers doing that because

we can fight the planning bits, but the bits outside the planning process, there is another

aspect to it.

But I think the points around what is the council's position on all of these things

is important to understand.

I think it's definitely something that Shible and Rory will come out of tonight.

On the cumulative impact points, and I raise, it's a point in our report, I think it's the

summary, paragraph 9 .5.

You'll see that we've already urged officers, PINS, to consider these cumulatively.

And if it gets to the point by the time they reach, all three are in at some point.

Ideally, they'll all be considered as a collective, but at least we will be in a position to start

commenting on them cumulatively.

And I think that point will come out.

It's just when we've discussed it in the past, we'll have to deal with it stage by stage

based on the evidence in front of us.

The Council will have to consider whether it wants to take forward any front foot research.

My planning a bit of me is I don't know what I'm reacting to, so I'd like to make sure

I'm putting my armoury into the right point, attacking the right bits or discussing the

right bits as opposed to doing a lot of work that might otherwise be abortive or not helping

the end position that you as the councillors might wish to take.

But I think out of tonight, the feedback probably to full councillors,

this point around, well, your point around the collective next bit,

it's probably Councillor Thomas' point around the Northka -Stevenson bit,

but the report isn't trying to be passive, it's more this is the planning process.

So unfortunately, that's the bit that we're bound by.

The eventual letter this council sends won't be completely bound by that,

the planning inspector will read that letter

for the planning bits.

That's my advice.

So, yeah, so thank you very much for that.

I guess reflecting on your answer,

Cllr Alan Martin - 0:50:38

and maybe it's more of a question to Jim

and my fellow councillors really

around what else we should be doing beyond this document.

And in my mind, and I think a lot of fellow councillors

would agree we should be doing a lot more.

I mean, I know Jim, you've had quite some success

fighting authorities who are trying to build

on our precious countryside,

and I wonder whether you feel like locking and loading

once more and moving your attention

along the coast a little bit.

But I honestly think the council should be

quite emotionally attached to this discussion,

and it's right that we have the kind of planning piece there.

I do think we would benefit from having a very clear view

ourselves of what is possible locally,

and I think our arm would be strengthened

going into those planning processes

if we'd done some of that work proactively.

And I think alongside that,

I'd like to have a conversation with fellow councillors

around what more we can do to support the,

and frankly we're residents ourselves,

but so we all feel quite passionate about it.

Thank you.

Councillor Jones.

Cllr John Wing - 0:52:02

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:52:06

So I mean this is devastating really for the Romney Marsh.

Solar at this scale, it's a very special place, the Marsh,

and I think there's a number of things that concern me.

When we sat in a planning meeting recently

and discussed the small solar farm,

we weren't allowed to reflect on the others,

and I do worry, I mean, you've just talked about the community of thing,

and it really concerns me that if each one's looked by itself,

they might go, oh, that's okay by itself,

but if they're not allowed within the planning framework

to look at the others at the same time,

I think that brings a real problem, because it is the community of effect.

So that's just one big concern of mine,

because our hands were really tied in that planning meeting.

The other thing I wanted to ask about was,

obviously, the Shepway Energy Park sits right next

to the Kent Downs National Landscapes.

We had a similar one, obviously, which our council rejected

in a different part of our district,

which was right at the bottom of Kent Downs National Landscape.

What kind of weight will be given to that?

And likewise, I see the one round lid is right next to,

I see the RSPB reserve and site of special

scientific interest down there.

I was wondering what kind of weight again

will be given to that because that will massively

impact that.

It's a really special part of our district down there.

And the effect that will have on the wildlife is huge,

I would think, but I don't know,

and the landscape down there.

So I don't know how much weight their opinion will be given.

So any ideas on that would be gratefully received.

Thank you, Councillor Jones.

Defer to my colleagues for help on this.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:53:54

David, the cumulative impact point first.

When we dealt with the last application,

which is not part of tonight's discussion,

but it's useful to reflect on it.

There was nothing else in the formal well

that allows us to consider anything else.

It's, whilst it's all being talked about

for the purposes of planning considerations,

they are ideas rather than realities.

When we get into the next one,

they're all EIA developments,

so they have to consider cumulative impact.

But there's a sequential aspect to this.

You wouldn't deal with the first one

that got through the planning inspector

and then say the next one that comes along

has to also just look as though that one hasn't been,

because once they're formally in the planning process,

they have to be considered as a possibility

as part of that cumulative impact point.

So cumulative impact will be an issue for these developments,

but it's likely to be a sequential issue

unless they all land at the same time,

in which case it becomes much simpler.

Or if they're all conjoined into one hearing,

it becomes a bit simpler,

but I wouldn't have thought the latter is likely.

On the national landscape and AONB point,

the government guidance gives strong weight

to the protection of the national landscape.

And so that will have a heightened role in the determination of any application within

its setting, which of course this would be.

It will be for the council as decision makers or in commenting, but also for the planning

inspectors as decision makers to attribute what weights they give that versus the weights

they give the project.

And once we start at a basis of we should protect the national landscape, one has to

then ascribe weight to how much you give that

versus the benefits.

And that is, again, in the decision -makers hands.

Likewise with the triple SI,

it will very much be a factor that has to be protected,

but one would have to look at the evidence

of what those impacts are likely to be

based on probably a number of ecology reports

and the views of natural England and KCC Ecology.

And to understand what the impacts are,

can they be mitigated?

And if they can't be mitigated,

what weight do you give that harm versus any benefits

that the applicant outlines.

And so the level of weight is a decision maker thing,

but we start from a presumption in favour of protection

both in the AOMB and in the SSSI,

and indeed in the landscape.

Planning policy doesn't have the words

to protect the countryside for its own sake anymore

in the way it used to back in sort of the early 2000s,

but that is still the premise of all planning policy.

We just have the development must be sustainable

as the golden thread running through all developments,

and that you have to look at everything in the round.

But those protections are there.

It's then for the decision -maker to weigh up harm versus benefit,

and what weights they give that was no different

to many of the planning committee decisions we come up with.

There is an impact.

Is it so bad that you can't let it happen?

Would be the question for the planning inspector.

I hope that helps.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:56:54

Yeah, so, obviously, they're going to ask for what our comments are as a council.

can we state that again in our submission,

you know, that we're concerned about that.

And in addition, as Councillor Hills was saying

about the flooding risk and, you know,

we know what the marsh is like, you know,

it's, and I worry about a minister up in Westminster

not understanding what the marsh is like

and looking at it and go,

that's a nice big flat piece of land.

But obviously we saw the reeling packs

and storm karate on the marsh.

and Councillor Hill has done a particular investigation into that

and he would certainly be able to give us advice on what we could say there.

I mean, can we add that weight to any feedback we give to the Government on this?

The purpose of the local impact report and any other statements we make

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:57:47

is to give over the local view of what we think the impacts are.

So yes, absolutely, you could set out that we believe this is more important than this.

That is the purpose of the consultation.

And then it will be for the inspector to weigh that against,

as Andy has suggested, the evidence presented to support those arguments.

And so the council in making any argument,

especially when it gets to a public inquiry,

will have to have that fully evidenced empirically,

or have experts on hand who can deal with the less empirical parts of it to argue that point.

But the council can say whatever it wants,

as long as it's prepared to back it up,

and that's where the statement of common ground comes in,

because you might say lots of things

and decide actually to row back on bits of them afterwards

and focus on the bits that are really important.

But those are actually in your gift.

This is a slightly different beast,

and this isn't, you're not making a planning decision.

You can't be challenged on what you say,

but what you do say will be interrogated probably

by a planning inspector and a barrister at some point.

From both sides of the aisle, there might be other parties involved

who are Rule 6 who want to question the Council over its stance

on why it didn't take a stronger one or why it didn't take a weaker one.

But we can't be challenged for our decision,

whether it is right or wrong, but we will have to evidence it

if we wish to then make the case in a public inquiry.

Cllr John Wing - 0:59:19

Yeah, I'm going to move on to Elaine Martin.

I know you're waiting, but as you've already spoken, I'll make sure every council has got

a chance to speak.

Councillor Laine Martin.

Thank you.

That was a bit of a surprise.

Cllr Elaine Martin - 0:59:31

The report was really good, really clear, particularly the visuals.

It kind of made me very aware of the fact that Old Romney is going to be completely

consumed by solar farms, solar parks, which is a bit worrying that the whole community

is going to go and be taken over.

Plus, it's right on the A259, which is busy anyway, and with the construction traffic,

as Councillor Hills has said, it's going to make it even worse.

What I wanted to ask was, you've said that the North Kedvstyn District Council report

is likely to become mandatory.

Do we just sit back and wait for it to become mandatory?

Can we not be working on a policy of our own to put forward?

Yes, we could work on a community benefits policy ourselves.

Adrian Tofts - 1:00:32

we just have to be aware that it might be overtaken by events

if the government says that these schemes should, by law, provide community benefits.

So, but there's nothing to stop us working on one in the meantime.

Cllr Elaine Martin - 1:00:51

Well, I mean, I feel that we should because we can't, if we sit back and wait for the government

to say, you know, this is going to be a mandatory, then, you know, what are we going to do?

because we won't have anything.

If they say, oh no, it's not, you just get on with it.

So I just feel like we do need to be working on it.

Councillor Davidson.

Cllr John Wing - 1:01:12

Thank you, yeah.

I also found the report really helpful.

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:01:18

I didn't find it passive.

I found it very clear in laying out the information.

So thank you for that.

I also thought the website pages that we've got up at the moment are helpful as well in

terms of laying out the information about the different schemes.

I think it would be really important to keep those updated and make sure there's information

that's available because it is complex.

I mean, the process is incredibly complicated, isn't it?

And the volume of work involved is massive from the looking at it.

So everything that we can do to kind of help ourselves

and our residents to have a clear understanding

of how they engage with the process

and how it will move forward,

I think would be really helpful.

And maybe just something that summarises the key points

of each scheme might be helpful on the website as well,

because I did find myself having to kind of do

my own tabulation of the hectares versus the megawatts

versus the number of households.

And obviously, I think you made the point, Councillor,

about that might be different in different analyses.

So at least having it all clear in one place

is quite helpful for getting your head around it.

I think some of what I was gonna say

was also about the kind of political,

if you want to call it that,

versus the planning aspects of it.

I think it's been really helpful, actually,

to have the petition to bring the focus

to us looking at this and giving that opportunity

to really understand it and focus on it

and develop our approach at an earlier stage.

Although it feels like there's going to be a lot

in the time that is available that we have to navigate.

So my understanding was also that the comments

that we make this evening will then go back

to inform full council in terms of how we take things forward

and what decisions we might make

in terms of a principled position.

I think it's a good idea for us to develop the lens

through which we would examine the different applications

and the different criteria that we might look at

in that respect because I think there are a range

and some of them have been mentioned this evening.

I think we should also look at the potential benefits

as well in terms of the community financing

that could come in if the projects go ahead.

But I think we need to have a range of factors

so that we're taking an informed view

because if it's going to be scrutinised closely

when it gets to the process, then clearly we need

to have taken a kind of evidence and balanced approach.

So I think it makes sense to kind of do that in the round,

accepting the strength of feeling there is.

I think the other really basic point

is the one that's been covered,

which is about it being looked at in a joined up way.

And I think that's something we could be saying

really early on and has already been said,

but we could reinforce that as a council collectively

that that's very important.

The timing on making any kind of principle decisions

in the round or on the schemes individually,

I'd probably need to be guided around

when would be the right time to do that,

when would we be in the best place to have

kind of created our criteria and made our judgements

against that, but we don't have loads of time, do we?

So it is something we would need to press on with, I think.

I was also going to make the point about

the community benefit policy, that I think it makes sense

for us to have to develop that ourselves

and have that in case that mandatory requirement

doesn't happen, but we need to be in a place where we've got that prepared ourselves as

well so that we've got that safeguard.

I think those were probably the main things, so I'll stop there.

Cllr John Wing - 1:05:27

Can't start up for Kelly.

Thank you.

Thank you for Kelly.

Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:05:34

So one of the things that I'm thinking about is obviously with increasing climate change

and this move to trying to use renewable energy. This is something that might come up over and over

again. So at the moment lots of people have highlighted the fact that we are looking at

individual planning applications for solar farms and we're seeing more and more of them. And more

unlikely this will be something that we see more and more of because we are trying to

move to more renewable energy. So what I'm thinking about, it's not just the joined up

thinking for these ones that we have at the moment, it's about actually thinking about

what's our policy in general for future applications, because this will come up again.

And what do we want our landscape to look like?

Is there a point when we say this area is just not,

regardless of maybe what we might think are the benefits,

this area cannot sustain any further solar panels?

Because we also know that we have new developments coming up

where we're going to have a greater number of people,

a greater population in this area as well.

And then what will more than likely happen is that we will be told that we need increased energy.

So is there any sort of mechanism that we can create and start looking at to decide on what,

to actually future -proof and decide on what our judgments are going to be in future to ensure that

this is not something which we're doing in a piecemeal sort of process where every single time

an application comes up, oh, we don't,

and then we all have to discuss it.

Well, we know that it's going to come up again.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:07:36

The council already has planning policy

about solar farms in the district,

and yes, we could definitely start looking at policies

for the future about the controls and mechanisms

that we would have on policy and applications.

The way the planning system works is even if we had a policy

that said we will not accept solar farms across the entire marsh,

if we could get that past the planning inspector in the first place.

But if we could, it wouldn't stop someone applying for a planning application

to put one there.

And what would happen is even if it was small scale and we refused it,

it would go to a planning inspector and he would weigh up the harms

versus the benefits.

And likewise, if it went to the planning and spectrum

for a large scale, they'd do the same thing.

But you obviously have tests in place,

but the world of planning policy having blanket no

to things, because in theory there already is a blanket no

if you don't do anything in the countryside

unless it's justified, which is why we have an application,

we have the one for the smaller one,

and we will have applications in,

well, for Secretary of State will for the larger one.

I think it's definitely, the other thing to recognise

is the government, we're looking at it at this scale at the moment.

There is lots of discussion at the government level through, I think it's NSO, correct me

if I got that wrong, and others, which are looking at solar and other energy, sustainable

energy across the country.

And sort of what is the jigsaw puzzle for everything?

I come back to an earlier point about if the regulator doesn't allow one of these to go

ahead because they don't need it or it's in the wrong place.

It'd be that level where they go, okay, well, we don't need three down there.

we need one down there, we need one over there.

And so I think it's unlikely you'd ever say

blanket no to anything, but you would put in place

local policy to a degree.

What I would add for those who are following

the planning press, and hopefully none of you are,

the government's releasing lots of national planning

policies at the moment, which will, in large part,

start to overtake local policy.

And we won't be allowed to have policies at local level which contradicts national

policy or seek to replicate it in a slightly different way.

And that is coming in in probably later this year, probably, national policies.

There will be national plan -making policies and there will be national decision -making

policies.

And if we have a policy which is completely contrary to the government, it won't be found

sound by an inspector.

Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:10:11

I just wanted to come back on that. I completely understand this is not about NIMBYism or anything

like that. I'm just thinking about the fact that we're having a local government reorganisation

and we're supposed to be having the power to make decisions about what goes on in our

own area. And I understand about the legislation that you say is coming forward. But if we

do have LGR and we are supposed to be making decisions about what's good for our area,

it is important to consider what I suggested.

That's...

Absolutely.

I think under LGR,

not only will you have a strategic authority

in some variety,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:10:46

and you will be able to plan where things can go

for large scale developments across a wider area.

And you'll be able to take a view

as to whether you put large scale solar,

in this case, it's the flippance,

but do you put low scale solar here,

or do we put it up in Thanets?

if that's where the map falls.

Obviously, then you'll have people in Thanet saying,

why isn't it happening in Ashford?

And that will be the decision making for other people.

Because you could plan for where you think

it could be the better place to be,

but you'd have to do a lot of legwork with operators

as to whether it's actually technically feasible

to put it there in the first place.

But I understand the point.

Councillor Chapman.

Cllr John Wing - 1:11:29

Cllr Bridget Chapman - 1:11:34

Thank you. I thought the report was really good. It really helped me to understand the

issues. Thank you very much. Thank you also to Councillor Thomas. Your questions always

really genuinely helped me to get my head around things. I am really happy that we are

I am really happy that we reflect the fact that residents have come to us and said this

is something that they are not happy about and that we back them on that. Ultimately,

the decision is going to be made at a higher level. We need to be expressing our views

of our residents. What I am trying to get my head around is, do we have any evidence

as to what the lifespan of a solar farm is?

Do we have any evidence as to what,

whether the land is reclaimable afterwards?

Can it be put back into, is it gone for good?

If we give planning permission, is that land lost forever?

Technologies move on.

Other forms of electricity generation

might become more popular, more economic.

this solar farm might become outdated and no longer used.

Can we get, is that land damaged beyond use again?

Or can ultimately we, and can we put in any kind of,

anything into the planning permission that says that

after a certain period of time, we look at this again,

and we have the possibility to return that land

to its former use.

I'm sorry, that's a really convoluted question,

but that's something I'd like to try and get my head around.

FHDC Officer - 1:13:28

So, in the three proposals from the information

that's been provided so far,

I think the lifespan of the parks

is somewhere between 40 and 60 years.

In decisions that I have seen

on these large -scale proposals,

the government's position on them is that they are

temporary uses, even taking into account that time,

times, timescale, and that the land is capable

of being put back to agricultural land afterwards.

The development consent order, if it's approved,

which is effectively the decision notice,

but a very, very long decision notice.

It includes lots of other requirements as well.

That would set out a backstop

for when the development would,

when its lifetime is over, and decommissioning.

Now, off the top of my head,

I couldn't tell you exactly how that's worded, but I would expect it would say something

like after 40 years of operating, which is the timescale that may have been given for

that particular proposal, or when it ceases to be used to generate energy.

So I suspect that there will be, you know, if in the scenario you've suggested that in

20 years time a new technology comes along and wipes out the need for solar farms and

that they're deemed to be very inefficient,

there are probably mechanisms in place that,

if that stops being used,

that would allow it to be decommissioned

and brought back into agricultural use.

Just to add to the points Andrew's made,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:15:27

DCOs or Development Consent Orders,

the government has slightly more powers than we do

in what they can ask applicants to do

as part of any permission.

They're not quite the same as a planning commission.

Also, as part of the DCO process, applicants must submit upfront.

I'm reading this live off the internet, so this is good fun.

And outline decommissioning strategy and environmental management plans.

They have to deal with how they're going to clean up the sites prior to the DCO being

made and then that gets bound into the commission.

But as we've said, the theory is that they are returned to agricultural use at the end

of their lifespan and returned back to an agricultural field.

Cllr John Wing - 1:16:11

Okay, well, Councillor Hills, thank you for your patience.

Okay, to you.

Councillor Tony Hills - 1:16:17

I'll try and be patient, but it's very frustrating.

And I have to thank my fellow members here,

the points they've raised from the marsh is quite right.

But we don't know the full details yet.

I attended every single briefing session,

in all three schemes.

And I spoke to them and they're reasonable people,

not necessarily well read, but they're reasonable people.

And so we'll come back, we'll do a proper consultation,

second stage consultation in the spring, early summer,

and then we'll know where the batteries will be

and where the problems will be and whatever.

So here we are, so almost before we go down the rabbit hole,

which Llewellyn is very aware of,

and look at all the detail,

we don't know what we have to worry about yet.

So I've got a feeling this meeting's happened

not too early, because it's very good to discuss it,

but we need a second meeting before we go to council,

because I don't think we know enough yet

on where we're gonna be in three months time.

And we'll have one shot at this, I feel,

with the government of saying,

this is gonna be cataclysmic.

And so I really think we've got a little ponder about that.

Design life, I've been told by the people who are briefing me, is about 45 years usage.

And they all say, yes, you can go back to using it as agricultural land.

Well, I'm not so sure that's right, because after 45 years, certain things happen,

aerobically in the ground and everything else.

And also, if you look at the size of the items, I worry about water runoff.

So the problem, DEFRA have already said,

they want that water runoff captured.

Okay, so what the water could be,

because short of water by 40 years,

so that water's captured, where's it gonna be stored?

Where's the attenuation ponds?

Where's the reservoirs that go with that?

Because it will be needed by then.

One of the consuls you haven't mentioned is the Met Office.

Now I've worked closely with the Met Office

over the last eight years on flooding,

and weather change.

And they're telling me, within 40 years,

we could experience hurricanes because of warming oceans.

Is climate getting its own back on us a little bit?

It'd be climate change.

It has to be weather change.

And how are these things gonna function going forward?

But if you're saying it's gonna be long in 40 years,

I mean, the problem with the marsh,

you're gonna have to manage the water.

Now, the IDB haven't got the manpower to do the investigation work to see the effects.

So I now need to be indemnified in some way, because I haven't literally haven't got the manpower, and I serve on the IDB.

So that's going to be a big problem. Natural England haven't got the ma - they can't respond quickly to anything.

And because they've been stripped down as well. They haven't got the manpower. I mean, you know that.

Natural England haven't got that. The EA are going the same way.

I haven't got the manpower. Great guy, some of them.

Really good people. I've worked with them for 30 years.

But it's tragic. They've just been cut back and cut back.

And I think we are being forced into a very difficult situation.

I think you're right. The planning bits you've done have been spot on.

And I've been for public inquiry. I've given evidence to public.

It's not a happy place. It's very dry. It's not emotional.

and I think we've got to try and make sure

that it's emotional from our point of view

before we go down that rabbit hole for detail.

So I'd like to see us have a,

once we get the detail, what we've got to look at,

have another meeting and get a firm proposal to council.

I know the council wants to do the right thing,

it's not a case of that.

We all want renewable energy,

we all want a better climate change, we all want that.

But you can see, just look at that map there,

and I'm not sure those three are finished.

There might be more.

You can see such a classic change to the marsh.

The marsh, after the great storm at 1287,

the coastline changed.

And basically they started in -ing the marsh,

draining if you like, very cleverly,

and brought it into farming,

because the fertility is amazing.

It's you know, it's wielding clay

and it's really, really good in the farming process.

That's why you get such good sheep,

because the grass grows.

Here we are, we'll be wrecking that.

And I think within 40 years,

we desperately could eat farming.

We could definitely eat food, be sustainable.

And by that stage, I'd hope they'd build,

I'm sorry guys, lots of nuclear plants

to actually supply us good base load energy.

So you know, it's so much we don't know,

But once they decide to go ahead with this on the marsh,

we've had it, right?

One way or the other, it's had it.

So we've got to make sure we get our best shot

in advance of that.

And I think we've got to see the whites of their eyes.

I want to see more detail.

I've had chats with EDF about South Brooks,

and they'll say to me,

well, Tony, no, we'll put the batteries

where you think less probable.

Hang on, you're the guy proposing this, not me.

I'm not an expert in this area.

I haven't got a clue about the deep signs I'd do it.

But I know that it's not gonna work for the marsh.

So I do think, have a ponder about this.

I think we need a second meeting of the Oveon Streetly

before we go and get more diesel

before we go to full council.

But what's been said, all's been said is great.

I mean, it's all on the money.

And I thank the Wellington for being so patient with us.

But it is so serious, I can't stress,

because if you look at our districts,

it's not half that new, below high,

it's about a third a foot, a quarter or more

of our landmass, which is going to be

irreparably damaged, I've got that word out.

And it's a problem.

I'll rest my case.

Thank you, Councillor Hills.

Mr Ewan Green - 1:22:31

And just to pick up the point about full council,

I think my suggestion would be that actually,

full council has asked you to consider the matter tonight,

that we do report back to full council,

but in the report back,

we can ask that we can put forward the view of the committee

that you would like to further consider this

once more information is provided.

I thought you were mentioning it.

I mean, you've got a logical mind there, I know.

Councillor Tony Hills - 1:22:56

And unlike me, but you've got a logical mind.

But I want us to get in a situation

where we support the climate change aspects of this,

we support the need for renewable energy,

but we don't think the marsh is the right place for it

in industrial zones,

and we need to put on the heartstrings on that one a bit.

And it's a case of when we do it,

because we don't have the detail yet.

They were very sneaky when they came around before,

they gave us lots of possibilities.

Now the farmers who are doing this

have been offered vast sums of money to do this,

and I don't blame them,

they're suffering like everybody else.

But they haven't actually signed any contracts,

I don't think, yet, because it hasn't been approved.

So it's a lot of moving parts.

So what I'm saying is, yeah, but however way we do it,

I don't want us to miss the opportunity

of going to council and getting a firm decision

to oppose these schemes for that reason.

Cllr John Wing - 1:24:05

Would timescale allow, I know there is a time limit, isn't there?

How will this, going back to the council and then coming back here again,

how will that affect sitting in the timescale a bit more risk?

FHDC Officer - 1:24:41

So, I'm just looking at the estimated stages in the process, which is in Appendix 3 of

the report.

And we're now at the point where we understand

the developers for the three schemes to be preparing

for further engagement, which is where we would expect

significantly more detail to come forward.

And it's in their interest to do that as well,

because if they don't provide that level of detail to us

and we're still in the dark,

when it gets to the submission of the application formally,

there's not much scope for change in that process,

so they need to demonstrate that they have engaged

with the local community.

So we currently have, I mean,

Sheppey Energy Park is shown

for further engagement in spring.

That was actually scheduled for this month,

but we've heard from them that that has been delayed.

We haven't been given a new timescale yet.

We understand with Southbrooke's that they're likely

to be ready to further engage with us around May time.

And we haven't had any further discussions

with the South Kent Energy Park yet,

so again, we feel that they're probably

a little bit behind the other two.

So, there is still,

it's difficult to put a timeframe on it

because pre -application can take a very long period of time

and it's in the developer's interest

to keep going with pre -app and resolve

as much as they can do with local community

before they submit the formal application.

But there are, sorry.

You're on.

Yeah.

But yeah, there is the potential I would imagine

for some form of further discussion

once we have that level of information in.

And there's obviously going to be a point when,

as officers, we want to start presenting

a more detailed case to members

so that members can take a more considered view on the proposals and see that detail

and understand that the –

I'm not sure what Andrew is saying.

Just respond to that.

Thank you.

Councillor Tony Hills - 1:27:34

Let's get carried away.

We need to know when we actually know what the full threat is,

or what they're planning to do.

and I think you're right, I think it's gonna be about

April, May, we'll find out.

We're gonna move very quickly then,

because they'll soon be going into pins, whatever that is,

and they'll be going in quite fast, so there's submission.

So we have to get it right,

but I don't think we've got the full detail yet.

I've been in contact with all of them,

and the one I know best is gonna do a lot of work

the EDF is the South Brooks.

I know they'll give us a chance to have a view about that.

But the rest I don't know so well.

But I think we've really got to nail that down

and have another meeting either here or for Council,

I don't mind which, but we can discuss this here,

which we can't do it for Council

unless we go into committee rules.

And so basically, I think we should all think about that.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:28:44

I'll leave the decisions as to what forum such discussions take place to others because

they're better placed to answer that.

I think what I can say is if this goes to public consultation with the people, we'll

be one of those members of the public as the authority, the public also, subject to it

not being commercially confidential discussions, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man for officers

to present members, well, this is what we know, this is how officers feel about it.

and then through the pre -application process,

we could feedback, as long as we can turn that around fast,

because we might not have time.

As Andrew says, when we get into formal submission,

that will be when we know what it actually looks like.

And at that point, we will have 28 days

to crack on with it.

That will be officers looking at a lot of stuff,

preparing a report, and trying desperately

to get that to a planning committee

in time to get a recommendation from planning committees

then write a letter to the Secretary of State

within those 28 days.

But you're right, we don't know exactly what's happening.

These boundaries of the report that the two chaps

in front of me have written says is likely to change.

It's also more likely to change if people engage

in the pre -application process.

And no, you and I might not be the best experts

as to where battery storage goes.

but planning offices often suggest

where things could be better,

and not only what happens is developers go,

I can't do that, it doesn't work,

but what about somewhere here?

And in that sort of back and forth,

people can try and shape the proposals,

and I'd also urge that shaping proposals

and engaging in pre -application discussions

is not necessarily tacit agreement to those proposals.

It's very easy to write a letter that says,

I don't like any of this for the following reasons,

but if it has to happen,

these things need to be looked at quite strenuously and putting that across

because that will be what the inspector is looking at, is have they listened to local people.

There are good reasons for saying no to it completely but most developers in my

experience will want to try and address the concerns as much as they possibly

can of local residents and that first stage might be a very informal

discussion of the pre -application submission. There then will be a

discussion at planning committee about whatever recommendation we would, those

officers recommend and then that turns back to your point around the planning

versus the political. That would be the format. Where those discussions take place

is a matter for other people but there are opportunities to discuss the ins and

outs. As you say, we don't know what the ins and outs are. These boundaries could all

shrink. They could all grow. Who knows? And I think that's why I urge caution about

not trying to do too much expensive work now until we know exactly what that looks like.

Councillor Tony Hills - 1:31:31

I totally agree with your summary there. You're spot on. But there's so much we don't know.

There's drainage I'm more concerned about in some ways. Water runoff, I mentioned to

you at Tenish Repots. We don't know about that and how that's going to work until the

batteries are open, they're going to be positioned. And the threat to people's homes, businesses,

is because they're next door, they burst into flames.

All these sort of problems have got to be considered.

But I think we're going to struggle

to get the experts we need to, in a time allowed.

I mean, we might have to get some freelancing.

I mean, the IDB might have to get extra manpower in.

And I think the events have to cover that cost.

But we are going to struggle on that.

But it's a battle we have to fight.

I can't, I believe this is the most serious things

I've ever heard about for the marsh.

Catherine Davison.

Cllr John Wing - 1:32:33

Yeah, thank you.

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:32:37

Yeah, I think I had a couple of things.

I think what we bring to the process

is the local knowledge, isn't it?

and the local understanding of the landscape

and the local knowledge of our residents

and the councillors.

And so that's what should inform our position

that we're putting forward in the round.

And when I was looking at the criteria

that are laid out in the report,

I think in 6 .9, two of the things it talks about

where they can kind of outweigh other things

are the irreplaceable habitats and flood risk.

So those are obviously two things that people have mentioned

this evening as being unique to the area.

So I think those are worth thinking about

in terms of our criteria that we're looking at.

I think my other question was, it's been touched on,

which is around,

was around local government reorganisation

and how that might impact the process,

but I don't know if it will or won't.

The other thing I was just thinking

in terms of the next steps,

I think it's a good idea for a report back

to go to the council from this session

with the kind of developing points that people have made,

and then obviously full council can take a view

on what that might turn into.

I think their meeting again is good.

And we have had sessions before with this committee

where we have invited people to come in

so that we can ask them questions.

So maybe that's something we could think about,

either the people who are putting these proposals forward

or some of the other stakeholders

that will need to comment

so that we can get their perspectives on it.

I know it's quite a lot of work

to pull something like that together,

but it could be really valuable for residents,

I think, as well,

because it will have everything in one place

and give an opportunity to ask those questions.

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr John Wing - 1:34:36

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Again, just picking up on the point that Councillor Davidson has made,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:34:42

just in terms of getting that feedback and the practicalities,

we do have planning every month.

As a full council, we don't tend to meet in August, normally.

That's not to say we couldn't.

So again, if you look at that and look to say,

well, maybe if we had repeated the session at the end of June, beginning of July,

that would sort of fit in with most having completed

or at least a long way through, further engagement,

and therefore a better understanding.

Because they're only, in Shepwood Energy Park,

they're only one step away from the submission

to pins anyway, and with the other two,

they're a little bit further away with that.

But it'll still be well developed,

and it'll be an opportunity for us to ask,

as Councillor Davis said, face to face,

some very probing questions on the future

and the things that they've learned

and how we can best engage and get local resident engagement

in what's gonna happen going forward.

So, maybe that's the kind of timescales

we should be thinking of in terms of coming back here

and then what we can then do to make sure we prepare

whatever the output is gonna be to go to full council

at some time in the future.

That's it, thank you.

Kazza and Martin.

Thank you.

So I completely agree with all the points

you've both raised there.

Cllr Alan Martin - 1:36:08

Just in this point on the timing,

I totally get the point that until we see the detail

of what's being proposed,

we can't fully kind of respond to that.

But I do think there are,

and I think it was in part your point,

I think there are points we could be advancing

in the meantime.

at the very least, the criteria that we believe

to be important, and particularly if there are gonna be

some resource issues, maybe there are some aspects

that we can start working on that aren't dependent

on the specific footprint or nature of a development,

but are obvious points that are gonna come up.

So maybe we could give some thought to that.

And I think a big part of the political discussion

around articulating our concerns on behalf of residents

and how that should feed into our decision making,

I don't see that aspect really needs to be formed

around the intricate details of a particular proposal.

And then the only final thought I had was,

given the need here for us to have that kind of

fine balance of the sort of technical officer view,

the role of the planning officers,

but also the political.

I wonder whether this is one of those instances

where we should have some kind of subcommittee

like we've done or, I don't know whether it's a task

and finish group or whatever,

but I quite like the thought of having a small committee

of councillors who can be on hand

to pick up some of those more,

what are the views of the residents,

what the views on the ground to feed into and sit alongside the technical view.

In the same way that we have with sort of Otterpool Park and things like that, I'd be very supportive of that.

Cllr John Wing - 1:38:16

Cllr John Wing - 1:38:18

Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:38:27

Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:38:31

I did have some questions earlier but I'll park them for the time being, thank you.

Councillor Martin, have you got anything?

Thank you very much, Chair.

Just to make it clear to the members of the public, I'm not part of this committee, but

I'm very grateful that you've asked for my comments.

Cllr Jim Martin - 1:38:48

Again, I have no doubt what the result of bringing this back to Council will be.

But I'd just like to look, because I think the timetable is absolutely critical here.

The first thing that appears to me that overview and scrutiny can call for whatever evidence

it wants.

you can get everybody, you know,

overview and scrutiny act on your own

and you'll have support in whatever you choose to do

in terms of investigating this matter.

The council have asked you to pursue this

and it will be up to you how you pursue it.

So, you know, I'd say don't hold back, you know, feel free.

I just want to clarify a couple of things, if I may, to Llewellyn.

If we, ultimately it seems to me that we will move all of this stuff, gather all of our

evidence, get all of it, and we will come to a decision point as to whether we support

the application or whether we object to the application being a consultee.

Am I correcting that?

In essence, yes.

Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:40:00

We will set out in the local impact reports

the concerns we have, the concerns we don't have,

and give over the council's view.

And that will be through a committee report

to the planning committee.

They can either endorse officer's recommendation,

reject it, or add to it.

So just as the follow on, if we have a public,

if there is a public inquiry then,

Do we have to have objective in order to give evidence?

I don't believe so.

We can position for more as time moves on.

We're setting out our initial view.

The application then goes on.

But that doesn't present anybody from turning up

and representing and registering themselves as,

I'm not sure it's called a Rule 6 party anymore,

but for those who have been in public inquiries,

of all six party, an interested party,

to attend the public inquiry and get evidence.

Sorry.

Adrian, were you gonna give me a pearl of wisdom?

Yeah, no, I was just gonna say,

we do have the opportunity to submit written representations

through the process as things may change, you know,

if new information becomes available.

And, you know, we are likely to be called

to give evidence at the hearings.

So kind of where I am in terms of the overview

and scrutiny committee looking at this,

taking on board Councillor Hill's points

about being ready and having the evidence

to examine and contradict or support

depending on what we want to do.

This is kind of almost, it's going to be

a kind of rolling programme for you, as it were.

As we move to, if you go back to Council at any stage,

I'm pretty certain I know which way council will vote.

But what you don't want to do is undermine

your opportunity to present your possible submission,

your objections, or whatever it's going to be,

without having seen all of the evidence.

So this isn't going to be something that we can kind of

polish off, as it were.

This is going to be a rolling programme as more evidence is produced to us.

But just, you know, obviously I can't...

But the council have asked over the scrutiny to scrutinise this and you will have the full

support of the council effectively in whatever you want to do in order to fulfil that obligation.

Thank you.

Does anybody else want to speak?

It's a dangly sum.

Yeah, I just was having a look at the petition

because I thought it might be helpful

to refresh our memories as we kind of try

and draw the strands together.

So we've been asked to give our observations

before deciding, which I'm assuming is full council,

whether to examine the issues raised by the petition.

So I think we're collectively saying yes,

the council should examine the issues

raised by the petition.

And then we've raised a number of kind of factors

and criteria that we think are important

to be taken into consideration.

I think the point about considering them

in a joined up way is a really important point

that we could say really clearly now,

that doesn't need to wait for further detail, does it?

So that could be something that goes clearly back

from this grouping to the meeting of full council

in the report as something that should be,

I don't know what the mechanisms for raising,

you know, what the best channel for raising these points is,

but at least they would be on the record,

whether they feed into the planning statement

or whether they're a letter, I don't know,

but that's something I guess full council could determine

or it could be given some thought ahead of full council.

So those are sort of my thoughts reflecting back

on what the petition says and what we're required to do.

Councillor Hills.

Yeah, I just, thank you Laura.

I agree what's been said.

I think Jim's very wise on this.

I just get the gut feeling that we want to get

all our ducks in a row,

we're gonna get all our evidence rights

about the total impact of these three schemes,

or possibly more, three we know about.

And I think that Luann is right, there's a lot of kite flying out there.

Unless they can get the grid connexions, a lot of these things might not go ahead.

But we can't take that risk.

So we have to prepare for the worst.

But I think there's about 70 odd schemes in the country being proposed.

So which ones will be lucky or not lucky will depend on many factors.

But we can't take the risk of not doing a proper job on this.

I think I would totally agree with what Ali has said.

I'd like to ask the meet up May or June, whenever the information is available, as soon as possible,

to allow us that month to actually get the proper job.

I appreciate there's going to be a lot of work for our officers.

I hope the wedding's not on holiday.

But it's going to be tough.

But it's in for the right reasons.

It's for our residents.

And I think no stone should be unturned

as far as that goes.

But thank you.

Councillor Davidson.

I just add to that that when we do meet,

it would be good, I think, to think about having a session

where we invite people to come and we can scrutinise.

So, to quickly summarise what we're saying is move to Council, looking at you in now,

as quickly as possible, as a matter of fact, and then come back to another committee, potentially

a subcommittee as well.

But if we can bring some officers in or experts from outside, who can actually hopefully know

and give us more information about what's going on.

And with regard to the petition as well, particularly as it's while we're sitting here tonight,

Is that anybody else want to put anything else

into recommendations when we go to the council?

I think you got the principles right.

Ewan, do you want to say anything about moving forward?

Just to say thank you to members

for a very full detailed debate here

and rest assured that we will present the detail

back to council in as much detail as possible, sorry.

and bring up all the points that you've raised to make them.

Okay, so moving on now to the end.

We are to receive a note report, OS2514,

and provide observation and feedback

to support any further consideration matters by the Council.

Okay, can I have a proposal, please?

Councillor Thomas and Councillor Alla Martin,

and a show of hands.

Okay, that's you.

Okay, well, thank you very much for an excellent meeting,

and we finish before 8 o 'clock so well done everyone.

Excellent, thank you.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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

Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 26 February 2026, 6:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Overview and Scrutiny CommitteeThursday, 26th February 2026 at 6:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:03

Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:00:25

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:30

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:37

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:44

Councillor Tony Hills - 0:00:46

Cllr John Wing - 0:00:53

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) Schemes On The Romney Marsh

Adrian Tofts - 0:01:09

FHDC Officer - 0:09:00

Cllr John Wing - 0:16:58

Cllr John Wing - 0:17:08

Councillor Tony Hills - 0:17:11

Cllr John Wing - 0:19:39

Cllr John Wing - 0:19:47

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:19:52

FHDC Officer - 0:21:28

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:06

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:10

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:54

Adrian Tofts - 0:24:49

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:25:30

Adrian Tofts - 0:25:37

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:26:08

FHDC Officer - 0:27:49

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:29:27

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:31:15

FHDC Officer - 0:31:43

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:32:00

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:32:48

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:33:28

FHDC Officer - 0:34:49

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:35:22

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:35:48

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:37:54

FHDC Officer - 0:39:10

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:40:00

Adrian Tofts - 0:40:27

Cllr John Wing - 0:40:55

Cllr Alan Martin - 0:41:03

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:46:50

Cllr Alan Martin - 0:50:38

Cllr John Wing - 0:52:02

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:52:06

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:53:54

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:56:54

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:57:47

Cllr John Wing - 0:59:19

Cllr Elaine Martin - 0:59:31

Adrian Tofts - 1:00:32

Cllr Elaine Martin - 1:00:51

Cllr John Wing - 1:01:12

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:01:18

Cllr John Wing - 1:05:27

Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:05:34

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:07:36

Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:10:11

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:10:46

Cllr John Wing - 1:11:29

Cllr Bridget Chapman - 1:11:34

FHDC Officer - 1:13:28

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:15:27

Cllr John Wing - 1:16:11

Councillor Tony Hills - 1:16:17

Mr Ewan Green - 1:22:31

Councillor Tony Hills - 1:22:56

Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 26th February 2026 at 6:00pm