Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 14th April 2026 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1
Slide 4
Slide 2
Slide 3
FHDC Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 5
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 6
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 17/03/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

6 25/1948/FH - 28-30 Sandgate Road, Folkestone, CT20 1DP

Share this agenda point

Slide 18
Slide 19
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 20
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Microphone Forty
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 64
Slide 65
Slide 66
Slide 67
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 68
Slide 69
Slide 70
Slide 71
Slide 72
Slide 73
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Slide 90
Slide 91
Slide 92
Slide 93
Slide 94
Slide 95
Slide 96
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 101
Slide 102
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 103
Slide 104
Slide 105
Slide 106
Slide 107
Slide 108
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Slide 113
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Slide 122
Slide 123
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Slide 128
Slide 129
Slide 130
Slide 131
Slide 132
Slide 133
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Slide 137
Slide 138
Slide 139
Slide 140
Slide 141
Slide 142
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 143
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 152
Slide 153
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Slide 159
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 160
Slide 161
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 162
Slide 163
Slide 164
Slide 165
Slide 166
Slide 167
Slide 168
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 176
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 181
Slide 182
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 183
Slide 184
Slide 185
Slide 186
Slide 187
Slide 188
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 200
Slide 201
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 202
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 209
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Slide 218
Slide 219
Slide 220
Slide 221
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Slide 226
Slide 227
Slide 228
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 229
Slide 230
Slide 231
Slide 232
Slide 233
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 234
Slide 235
Slide 236
Slide 237
Slide 238
Slide 239
Slide 240
Slide 241
Slide 242
Slide 243
Slide 244
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 245
Slide 246
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 253
Slide 254
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 255
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 256
Slide 257
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Slide 265
Slide 266
Slide 267
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270
Slide 271
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 272
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 273
Slide 274
Slide 275
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 276
Slide 277
Slide 278
Slide 279
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 280
Slide 281
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Slide 285
Slide 286
Slide 287
Slide 288
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 289
Slide 290
Slide 291
Slide 292
Slide 293
Slide 294
Slide 295
Slide 296
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 300
Slide 301
Slide 302
Slide 303
Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 307
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 308
FHDC Officer
Slide 309
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 310
FHDC Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 311
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 312
Slide 313
Slide 314

8 26/0052/FH - 38 Morehall Avenue, Folkestone, CT19 4EF

Share this agenda point

Slide 315
Slide 316
Slide 317
Slide 318
Slide 319
Slide 320
Slide 321
Slide 322
Slide 323
Slide 324
Slide 325
Slide 326
Microphone Forty
Slide 327
Slide 328
Slide 329
Slide 330
Slide 331
Slide 332
Slide 333
Slide 334
Slide 335
Slide 336
Slide 337
Slide 338
Slide 339
Slide 340
Slide 341
Slide 342
Slide 343
Slide 344
Slide 345
Slide 346
Slide 347
Slide 348
Slide 349
Slide 350
Slide 351
Slide 352
Slide 353
Slide 354
Slide 355
Slide 356
Slide 357
Slide 358
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 359
Slide 360
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 361
Slide 362
Slide 363
Slide 364
Slide 365
Slide 366
Slide 367
Slide 368
Slide 369
Slide 370
Slide 371
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 372
Slide 373
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 374
Slide 375
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 376
Slide 377
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 378
Slide 379
Slide 380
Slide 381
Slide 382
Slide 383
Slide 384
Slide 385
Slide 386
Slide 387
Slide 388
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 389
Slide 390
Slide 391
Slide 392
Slide 393
Slide 394
Slide 395
Slide 396
Slide 397
Slide 398
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 399
Slide 400
Slide 401
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 402
Slide 403
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 404
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 405
Slide 406
Slide 407
Slide 408
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 409
Slide 410
Slide 411
Slide 412
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 413
Slide 414
Slide 415

9 25/2213/FH - Land Adjacent 12, Southernwood Rise, Folkestone

Share this agenda point

Slide 416
Slide 417
Slide 418
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 419
Slide 420
Slide 421
Slide 422
Slide 423
Slide 424
Slide 425
Slide 426
Slide 427
Slide 428
Slide 429
Slide 430
Slide 431
Slide 432
Slide 433
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 434
Slide 435
Slide 436
Slide 437
Microphone Forty
Slide 438
Slide 439
Slide 440
Slide 441
Slide 442
Slide 443
Slide 444
Slide 445
Slide 446
Slide 447
Slide 448
Slide 449
Slide 450
Slide 451
Slide 452
Slide 453
Slide 454
Slide 455
Slide 456
Slide 457
Slide 458
Slide 459
Slide 460
Slide 461
Slide 462
Slide 463
Slide 464
Slide 465
Slide 466
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 467
Slide 468
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 469
Slide 470
Slide 471
Slide 472
Slide 473
Slide 474
Slide 475
Slide 476
Slide 477
Slide 478
Slide 479
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 480
Slide 481
Slide 482
Slide 483
Slide 484
Slide 485
Slide 486
Slide 487
Slide 488
Slide 489
Slide 490
Slide 491
Slide 492
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 493
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 494
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 495
Slide 496
Slide 497
Slide 498
Slide 499
Slide 500
Slide 501
Slide 502
Slide 503
Slide 504
Slide 505
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 506
Slide 507
Slide 508
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 509
Slide 510
Slide 511
Slide 512
Slide 513
Slide 514
Slide 515
Slide 516
Slide 517
Slide 518
Slide 519
Slide 520
Slide 521
Slide 522
Slide 523
Slide 524
Slide 525
Slide 526
Slide 527
Slide 528
Slide 529
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 530
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 531
Slide 532
Slide 533
Slide 534
Slide 535
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 536
Slide 537
Slide 538
Slide 539
Slide 540
Slide 541
Slide 542
Slide 543
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 544
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 545
Slide 546
Slide 547
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 548
Slide 549
Slide 550
Slide 551
Slide 552
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 553
Cllr Jackie Meade
FHDC Officer
Slide 554
FHDC Officer
Slide 555
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 556
Cllr Jackie Meade

7 25/2308/FH - Historic Toilet Block, Road of Remembrance, Folkestone

Share this agenda point

Slide 557
Slide 558
Slide 559
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 560
Slide 561
Slide 562
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 563
Councillor Tony Hills
Slide 564
Slide 565
Slide 566
Slide 567
Slide 568
Slide 569
Slide 570
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 571
Slide 572
Slide 573
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 574
Slide 575
Slide 576
Slide 577
Slide 578
Slide 579
Slide 580
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 581
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 582
Slide 583
Slide 584
Slide 585
Slide 586
Slide 587
Slide 588
Slide 589
Slide 590
Slide 591
Slide 592
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 593
Slide 594
Slide 595
Slide 596
Slide 597
Slide 598
Slide 599
Slide 600
Slide 601
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 602
Slide 603
Slide 604
Slide 605
Slide 606
Slide 607
Slide 608
Slide 609
Slide 610
Slide 611
Slide 612
Slide 613
Slide 614
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 615
Slide 616
Slide 617
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 618
Slide 619
Slide 620
Slide 621
Slide 622
Slide 623
Slide 624
Slide 625
Slide 626
Slide 627
Slide 628
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 629
Slide 630
Slide 631
Slide 632
Slide 633
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 634
Slide 635
Slide 636
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 637
Slide 638
Slide 639
Slide 640
Slide 641
Slide 642
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 643
Slide 644
Slide 645
Slide 646
Slide 647
Slide 648
Slide 649
Slide 650
Slide 651
Slide 652
Slide 653
Slide 654
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 655
Slide 656
Slide 657
Slide 658
Slide 659
Slide 660
Slide 661
Slide 662
Slide 663
Slide 664
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 665
Slide 666
Slide 667
Slide 668
Slide 669
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 670
Slide 671
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 672
Slide 673
Slide 674
Slide 675
Slide 676
Slide 677
Slide 678
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 679
Slide 680
Slide 681
Slide 682
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 683
Slide 684
Slide 685
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 686
Slide 687
Slide 688
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 689
Slide 690
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 691
Slide 692
Slide 693
Slide 694
Slide 695
Slide 696
Slide 697
Slide 698
Slide 699
Slide 700
Slide 701
Slide 702
Slide 703
Slide 704
Slide 705
Slide 706
Slide 707
Slide 708
Slide 709
Slide 710
Slide 711
Slide 712
Slide 713
Slide 714
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 715
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 716
Slide 717
Slide 718
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 719
Slide 720
Slide 721
Slide 722
Slide 723
Slide 724
Slide 725
Slide 726
Slide 727
Slide 728
Slide 729
Slide 730
Slide 731
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 732
Slide 733
Slide 734
Slide 735
Slide 736
Slide 737
Slide 738
Slide 739
Slide 740
Slide 741
Slide 742
Slide 743
Slide 744
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 745
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 746
Slide 747
Slide 748
Slide 749
Slide 750
Slide 751
Slide 752
Slide 753
Slide 754
Slide 755
Slide 756
Slide 757
Slide 758
Slide 759
Slide 760
Slide 761
Slide 762
Slide 763
Slide 764
Slide 765
Slide 766
Slide 767
Slide 768
Slide 769
Slide 770
Slide 771
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 772
Slide 773
Slide 774
Slide 775
Slide 776
Slide 777
Slide 778
Slide 779
Slide 780
Slide 781
Slide 782
Slide 783
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 784
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 785
Slide 786
Slide 787
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 788
Slide 789
Slide 790
Slide 791
Slide 792
Slide 793
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 794
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 795
Slide 796
Slide 797
Slide 798
Slide 799
Slide 800
Slide 801
Slide 802
Slide 803
Slide 804
Slide 805
Slide 806
Slide 807
Slide 808
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 809
Slide 810
Slide 811
Slide 812
Slide 813
Slide 814
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 815
Slide 816
Slide 817
Slide 818
Slide 819
Slide 820
Slide 821
Slide 822
Slide 823
Slide 824
Slide 825
Slide 826
Slide 827
Slide 828
Slide 829
Slide 830
Slide 831
Slide 832
Slide 833
Slide 834
Slide 835
Slide 836
Slide 837
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 838
Slide 839
Slide 840
Slide 841
Slide 842
Slide 843
Slide 844
Slide 845
Slide 846
Slide 847
Slide 848
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 849
Slide 850
Slide 851
Slide 852
Slide 853
Slide 854
Slide 855
Slide 856
Slide 857
Slide 858
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 859
Slide 860
Slide 861
Slide 862
Slide 863
Slide 864
Slide 865
Slide 866
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 867
Slide 868
Slide 869
Slide 870
Slide 871
Slide 872
Slide 873
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 874
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 875
Slide 876
Slide 877
Slide 878
Slide 879
Slide 880
Slide 881
Slide 882
Slide 883
Slide 884
Slide 885
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 886
Slide 887
Slide 888
Slide 889
Slide 890
Slide 891
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 892
Slide 893
Slide 894
Slide 895
Slide 896
Slide 897
Slide 898
Slide 899
Slide 900
Slide 901
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 902
Slide 903
Slide 904
Slide 905
Slide 906
Slide 907
Slide 908
Slide 909
Slide 910
Slide 911
Slide 912
Slide 913
Slide 914
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 915
Slide 916
Slide 917
Slide 918
Slide 919
Slide 920
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 921
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 922
Slide 923
Slide 924
Slide 925
Slide 926
Slide 927
Slide 928
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 929
Slide 930
Slide 931
Slide 932
Slide 933
Slide 934
Slide 935
Slide 936
Slide 937
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 938
Slide 939
Slide 940
Slide 941
Slide 942
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 943
Slide 944
Slide 945
Slide 946
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 947
Slide 948
Slide 949
Slide 950
Slide 951
Slide 952
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 953
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 954
Slide 955
Slide 956
Slide 957
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 958
Slide 959
Slide 960
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 961
Slide 962
Slide 963
Slide 964
Slide 965
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 966
Slide 967
Slide 968
Slide 969
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 970
Slide 971
Slide 972
Slide 973
Slide 974
Slide 975
Slide 976
Slide 977
Slide 978
Slide 979
Slide 980
Slide 981
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 982
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 983
Slide 984
Slide 985
Slide 986
Slide 987
Slide 988
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 989
Slide 990
Slide 991
Slide 992
Slide 993
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 994
Slide 995
Slide 996
Slide 997
Slide 998
Slide 999
Slide 1000
Slide 1001
Slide 1002
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1003
Slide 1004
Slide 1005
Slide 1006
Slide 1007
Slide 1008
Slide 1009
Slide 1010
Slide 1011
Slide 1012
Slide 1013
Slide 1014
Slide 1015
Slide 1016
Slide 1017
Slide 1018
Slide 1019
Slide 1020
Slide 1021
Slide 1022
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 1023
Slide 1024
Slide 1025
Slide 1026
Slide 1027
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 1028
Slide 1029
Slide 1030
Slide 1031
Slide 1032
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1033
Slide 1034
Slide 1035
Slide 1036
Slide 1037
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 1038
Slide 1039
Slide 1040
Slide 1041
Slide 1042
Slide 1043
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 1044
Slide 1045
Slide 1046
Slide 1047
Slide 1048
Slide 1049
Slide 1050
Slide 1051
Slide 1052
Slide 1053
Slide 1054
Slide 1055
Slide 1056
Slide 1057
Slide 1058
Slide 1059
Slide 1060
Slide 1061
Slide 1062
Slide 1063
Slide 1064
Slide 1065
Slide 1066
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Slide 1067
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1068
Slide 1069
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 1070
Slide 1071
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 1072
Slide 1073
Slide 1074
Slide 1075
Slide 1076
Slide 1077
Slide 1078
Slide 1079
Slide 1080
Slide 1081
Slide 1082
Slide 1083
Slide 1084
Slide 1085
Slide 1086
Slide 1087
Cllr Jackie Meade

7 25/2308/FH - Historic Toilet Block, Road of Remembrance, Folkestone

Share this agenda point

Slide 1088
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1089
Slide 1090
Slide 1091
Slide 1092
Slide 1093
Slide 1094
Slide 1095
Slide 1096
Slide 1097
Slide 1098
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1099
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1100
Slide 1101
Slide 1102
Slide 1103
Slide 1104
Slide 1105
Slide 1106
Webcast Finished
Cllr Jackie Meade

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

So members, as the chair of this committee, I would like to make a statement for the benefit of all councillors present at this meeting and for members of the public.

The applications before you tonight, and indeed any applications you consider in the future, must be considered on planning merits only.

It is essential that members adhere to this principle and ensure that their decisions

tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided during this meeting.

This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning applications

before you.

Thank you.

So we will move on.

Do we have any apologies for absence please?

1 Apologies for Absence

FHDC Officer - 0:01:15

Thank you chair.

Yes we have received apologies from Councillor Fuller and also from Councillor Hollingsby.

Councillor Hills is here as her substitute.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:22

Nice to see you Councillor Hills. Welcome. Do we have any declarations of interest please

2 Declarations of Interest

Councillors?

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:01:35

Councillor Shue. Just to say that I live fairly close to the application for Morehall Avenue, but that's just a voluntary declaration.

Thank you. Councillor Pauline Becknot?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:49

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:01:51

Yeah, just a voluntary one to say that 38 Moore Hall Avenue is within my ward.

Thank you. And?

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:01:58

And the same for me. The application is within my ward.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:02

Thank you, Councillors. Oh, and Councillor King?

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:02:10

The application in my ward, which is for the wartime toilet, which is for the wartime toilet that's at the bottom of that, the Hill of Remembrance.

Thank you Councillors. Just to remind you, you don't have to declare every time something's

in your ward. That's taken as given, but if you are living very close to it, then thank

you for declaring. So we can move on. We have before you the minutes to consider and approve

3 Minutes

as a correct record of the meeting held on the 17th of March 2026. May I sign them as

a correct record please. Thank you very much. You also have the minutes of the licencing

subcommittee held on the 13th of March 2026. May I sign these as a correct record please?

Thank you. And we also have the minutes of the licencing act subcommittee held on the

sure why they're duplicates, probably not.

But can I sign these as a correct record as well, please?

Thank you.

So we will move on this evening to the applications

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:28

and we will be going under the green paper order.

So our first application tonight is 25 -1948 -FH,

6 25/1948/FH - 28-30 Sandgate Road, Folkestone, CT20 1DP

which is 28 to 30 Sandgate Road in Folkestone.

Do we have any updates please?

Good evening, Chair, good evening members, no updates.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:03:48

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:50

And we have one speaker on this, Mr. Alastair Anderson,

who's the agent to speak on the application.

If you would like to come forward, sir,

you will have three minutes from when you start.

Thank you very much.

Microphone Forty - 0:04:16

Good evening, Chair and members, and thank you for allowing us to speak this evening.

We welcome the recommendation and concur with the justification within the committee report

as set out by the officer who recommends approval.

We consider the position of the case officer within the officer report hugely positive

in assessment, asking questions important to the policy and the relevant material considerations.

The use is for bingo and would provide a suitable and complementary use to the surrounding units.

Bingo is an established town centre use as defined within the MPPF.

The existing businesses would benefit from the increased footfall that the unit would

bring and the knock -on economic benefit generated by the users.

The unit already holds the relevant bingo licence.

In terms of the principle of development, the application is considered compliant with

Policy RL2.

The policy states that for sites within the primary shopping frontage, other uses other

than A1 or A3, which are now out of their use classes,

will be permitted where, one, they are a national planning

policy framework defined town centre use.

Bingo, Casino, and Leisure are all

listed as main town centre uses.

Therefore, this one's met.

Number two, they would not create a continuous frontage

of two or more non -A1 uses.

The two uses either side of the unit are in retail.

Therefore, that's met also.

And appropriate sui generis uses would create an active frontage

with a shock front display and positively contribute

towards providing a high quality environment

and enhance the vitality and viability of the area.

Firstly, the sewage and reuse is appropriate

as a main talent centre use,

and the application does not propose

any external changes yet,

but this could be dealt with via condition.

The applicant has offered and is happy to display

focused and centric information in the window display

for the benefit of the community.

In regard to heritage, this has been considered

by the officer and has concluded that the proposed use

would result in no demonstrable harm

to the significance or setting of the listed building,

and it's actually considered that bringing it back to life

as a unit on the high street is going to be a positive for everybody.

An acoustic test report has been prepared to consider the immunity impact.

An internal reading was recorded at 39 .1 decibels and this is described as

subjectively low. Between 30 to 50 is considered as quiet

and similar to a household level of noise.

The sound leakage level which was the noise to be heard from the surrounding

neighbours was calculated at 27 .5 which is under the normal house level.

And in accordance with local authority and EHO guidelines an additional sweep

test was made of the arcade to ascertain if there was any

acoustically weak areas, and no such sources were identified.

The proposed use is for 24 hour, which is common for such uses,

and it's considered acceptable to the officer.

So in summary, the uses of MPPF defined main town centre

use, which is located in a sustainable location,

enhance the vitality and viability of the area.

The application is policy compliant with their local plan

as a whole.

There are no material considerations

which preclude development, and this

has been thoroughly assessed by the planning

officer in the determination of this application.

use would take away a vacancy in the high street and the acoustic survey report demonstrates

that the use is a low level noise establishment and therefore would not have an adverse impact

on the neighbours or setting and is in line with the LPA and the EHA guidelines for noise.

Thank you.

Thank you very much sir.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:12

Over to you councillors, would anyone like any clarification or to make any comment?

Councillor Polybakemore.

Just a question, I think the speaker just touched on it but I didn't quite catch the detail.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:07:25

I'm not quite clear on why the shop front doesn't count as a double frontage, given that it's across numbers 28 and 30, I believe.

So yeah, not quite clear on how there's no contravention of policy there.

Thank you.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:07:48

Although it does, it is a double frontage as it spans to address points.

It is one planning unit and in application of the policy, officers have to consider that

it doesn't contravene that requirement.

That's paragraph 7 .4.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:16

I'd like to ask a question, please.

And in fact, when I had my meeting on Friday, could you just explain to the councillors what I believe it's called an active window is?

because one of the objections that came through was from the town council

saying that the windows would obviously show bright gambling

and of course the area is used very, very highly by families.

So I just wondered if yourself or maybe Rob could explain to the councillors what an active,

I believe that's the correct term, active window?

Active frontage.

Thank you, Chair. Yes.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:08:56

What we're trying to avoid is having a situation where it would be blanked out, such as with vinyl graphics,

that it is, for all intents and purposes, looks similar to, as you see on some of the frontages that are coming up on the presentation.

So you can still see into the building to a certain degree, and it is not an absolutely blank frontage.

Now, we put condition four on, which is asked for some detail of that,

and the agent has just touched on there that the applicant is willing to sort of look at

Fokston -centric information in the windows.

However, obviously that would be something that we could look at via condition four.

We're more, I think, concerned with the physical manifestations of that

so that it doesn't blank out the window display entirely

and leave essentially just a hole in the wall with a door.

So I think you can see it in, I think it's the third,

second or third slide after this one.

There's an existing use further down the high street,

which has, you can see into it.

I don't believe we've actually got any control over that,

but there is some advertising in there,

but as we've said in the report,

they would need to apply for some forms of advertising that are suspended in the window

or any other advertising on the building as well.

So that's straying slightly from what you'd asked, but yeah, in terms of an active frontage,

you'd be avoiding a blanked out frontage.

Lovely, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:10:34

Councillor Thomas, then Councillor Jones.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:10:42

So just coming back to that point about the window display, in the planning file, there

there is a shopfront window display proposal

that was put forward which was withdrawn.

So was that withdrawn because of the conversation

about the active frontage to the building?

That's one question.

And the second one is, there's no,

I know you said here that gambling's

not material condition consideration,

which you understand, but there's no future

requirement or application associated with having this as a venue for serving on sales

or off sales of alcohol.

That's not been part of any discussion that's been had.

I know it's not a material planning condition consideration, but again, there's no mention

of anything like that in here.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor.

In terms of the, sorry, I'm trying to,

Mr Robert Allan - 0:11:36

oh yes, as we progressed through the application,

it became clear that there was some confusion

as to whether there would be,

or there were physical changes proposed

or advertising proposed as part of this application.

Now, members are probably aware that advertising

comes under a separate regime anyway,

so it couldn't be part of this planning application,

and it was felt that to clarify exactly

what was being applied for

on what wasn't being applied for,

it was best to withdraw that document.

And that was a sort of indicative,

not set in stone idea anyway.

So in conversations with the agent,

they said, look, it probably isn't necessary,

it's just confusing issues,

what you're applying for is the change of use.

And that's what is up for consideration.

Because they've been quite clear

that they didn't want to apply

for any changes or advertising.

On the second point in terms of the alcohol,

obviously if it became a venue, not obviously,

but to clarify, if it became a venue that served alcohol,

there would be a licencing issue there,

and that would be dealt with under the licencing regime,

and potentially how that was served,

then that could also be something that would stray

into planning regime if it became a bar, for example,

in terms of facts and degree, how it is,

the relative proportions of that fact and degree

of how that was done.

That's not been put to me as being part of this,

this is part of the Arcade and Bingo use,

which is what members are considering tonight.

Just one thought, thank you very much for that.

I understand.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:13:21

So just on that and the fact that this is change of use

and not change of layout,

and it's not associated with changing the frontage.

The one thing I didn't understand is not clear in here is where smoking is going to be allowed

because again, is it likely that this is going to generate noise

and other things immediately outside of the building?

So again, I couldn't see anything anywhere.

Maybe I just missed it in the report and the other bits

about how smoking was gonna be managed in that venue.

Thank you.

At 7 .22,

Mr Robert Allan - 0:14:02

I don't wanna read it back to members,

but it sort of goes into the sort of parallel regimes

and sort of overlapping regimes of the planning system

and the licencing system.

So where planning looks at the land use

and design, for example, licencing addresses

the operational behaviour, safeguarding, that sort of thing.

So in terms of the smoking, that doesn't come under the planning legislation.

That's a separate issue to do with management and how that is meted by the,

or managed by the occupants and owners of this site and the licence.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:14:48

So, yeah, I understand all of that. But again, if there wasn't any provision for allowing

an area for people to smoke within the previous use of this building, and there's no changes

to the layout, how is that being accommodated? That's my question. So, if that was going

be accommodated in some way, then presumably it would have to come back

either to the officer or to the committee if there were going to be

changes proposed to accommodate smoking within, you know, immediately outside or

somewhere else within the building. Does that make sense?

Sorry.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:15:30

Are you talking about like a physical shelter, for example?

Mr Robert Allan - 0:15:40

Okay, I mean there's no physical shelter proposed.

I don't believe there has to be a provision for that.

I think in terms of if people want to step outside,

they can, I mean they would do that at the moment.

obviously it's a different use.

I'm not sure if I'm fully grasping exactly what.

I just wanted to get it on the table to say

that there isn't anything that they're gonna be doing

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:16:12

differently with this building layout -wise

that is being accommodated within the existing arrangements

in the building.

So whatever is done in the future,

If there is a requirement to require

licensable activities, as in, you know,

the sale of, on sales, off sales of alcohol,

or there's something associated with

how smoking is gonna be managed,

then they would go back, either to licencing,

or come back in if it requires a physical change

to the building.

That's all I was trying to establish, thank you.

If there's a physical change to the building,

Mr Robert Allan - 0:16:51

then we'd have to review whether that would need

paying permission.

the internal layout is actually governed by the licence

in terms of this use.

So, which, yeah, of course, you may be aware of that anyway.

So if they wanted to change that,

because the licence actually says, you know,

this is your layout, you've got to stick to it.

And if they want to change it,

then they'd have to go back through the licencing regime.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:16

That's absolutely fine.

Councillor Jones.

Thank you.

So I struggle, struggling with this bit

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:17:24

with the 24 -hour, seven -day -a -week licence,

sounds awful for residents.

I mean, I can see there's work being done

on the noise and disturbance,

but if you lived above that, if you lived opposite it,

there would be disturbance potentially

any hour of every day, every night,

when you're trying to sleep,

when you're trying to do anything.

I don't know how that's gonna benefit folks.

And I'm just really concerned for the residents here.

I mean, is this a planning issue or is this a licencing issue if we're looking at ours?

So I don't know what you can give me on that.

You know, as I've alluded to, they do overlap planning and licencing.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:18:09

The licence was in place before the planning application was submitted or as the planning

application was submitted.

And that is a 24 -hour licence.

they're not allowed to play bingo between certain hours.

And I won't, I can't recall exactly the terms of the licence.

I do apologise.

So I won't mislead members by quoting a window by which they are not allowed to do that.

But I believe it is comparable to other sites

in the district and in the town centre in terms of that.

Yeah, no, I see what number eight, Sandgate Road there.

So does number eight Sandgate Road, is it literally open 24 hours a day?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:18:49

seven days a week?

I don't have that in front of me, I'm afraid.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:18:59

I might be able to find it if there might be an interlude.

But...

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:05

Councillor Jones, I can tell you that I know one

that's further down into Frankston is open 24 -7.

And is there any condition that we can add to this

to protect residents?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:19:19

that's what I'm looking for because I'm really concerned that this, if it's going to be of a benefit to the community and folks, then it needs to work with them rather than against them.

I think in terms of adding a condition,

Mr Robert Allan - 0:19:36

you would have to be very precise about what

that condition was achieving in terms of the acoustic report

has come back and been looked at by Environmental Health who

said based upon this, there should be no immunity

issues for the residential above with all the sound installation in place.

So it becomes a problem in terms of how we impose conditions and how we seek or choose

to do so, whether or not it would be necessary or reasonable under the planning guidance

and legislation to do so.

As far as, you know, paragraph 722 says,

in terms of the management of the premises,

that then stems from the licencing.

So if there is a persistent or observable nuisance,

that then feeds back into the licencing system

and the management of the premises,

which is something that planning

will not be able to control,

but by licencing they will.

If there's something that can be amended there to do with how they have a door policy or how they sort of actively manage customers, then that falls into that licencing regime.

So, yeah, that's what I can offer there.

Yeah, that was a tricky one.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:21:17

And I've been struggling with it because it's not necessarily just the noise from the machines or whatever's going on inside.

is the people coming and going potentially all night.

I mean, I think that's really hard

for residents to cope with, but I don't know.

I'm asking you for advice on how we can help

the residents here, if this is going to come to Folkestone.

Well, good evening, members.

There is a condition recommended to be imposed

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:21:40

relating to the implementation of the measures

in the acoustic, in the final test of acoustic performance.

So that is condition three.

And in terms of general noise and disturbance,

as Mr Allen said, we've consulted our environmental health officers

who raised no objection on the basis of noise and disturbance.

I think as planning officers on that basis, we would

say that we wouldn't have grounds to refuse planning permission on the basis of noise

and disturbance.

And I think also, as Mr Allen suggested, there is an overlap between the planning and licencing

regime, so if there is significant harm arising, it could be something that could be dealt

with through the licencing regime, certainly in terms of hours of opening and other measures

employed at the site.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:22:38

Councillor Mike Blackmore.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:22:44

It's just a very minor point, Chair, but in 7 .25 about cycle storage, it says there's

no provision for cycle storage and recommends using public transport, public car parts.

There's lots of cycle storage.

There are three cycle racks almost directly opposite this property on the other side of

the precinct.

There are more at the bottom of the precinct outside the town hall and more being provided

as part of the new precinct works there.

So I just suggest we kind of,

if people were visiting this,

they would use those presumably.

The building doesn't need to provide them.

Thank you for clarifying.

I think the inference was,

Mr Robert Allan - 0:23:19

it wasn't provided specifically within the structure,

but that's very, very good point.

But it doesn't provide car parking,

and we suggest there's car parking nearby,

so it doesn't provide cycling.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:23:29

There is cycle storage nearby.

That was the point I was making, really.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:33

Thank you, Councillor Baitin, Councillor King.

I'm with Councillor Jones because this doesn't sit at all well with me.

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:23:41

We've got a lot of residents now living in the town centre in really lovely flats.

This is going to attract people all night long.

They're not going to get any rest by it.

Do we need this in Fodson?

It won't bring anyone in to do shopping or retail because there's another retail outlet going.

I just think this is a recipe for disaster and if our environmental officers say there

won't be any problem, maybe they need to be on the end of the phone on a Monday morning

when people complain about what's gone on in the town centre at night. Maybe if I can

have one of their numbers, when those calls start coming I'll lend the numbers to the

member, the residents, because we're trying to make Fokston into the town to be proud

of and to me this is just going to this will cheapen folkstone we've got one do we need

to there's one in Cheriton as well all night gambling seven 24 seven I think it's I think

it's a recipe for disaster and I certainly won't be voting for it.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:51

Thank you would any other Councillor like to speak on this Councillor Cooper.

Thank you chair.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:24:56

Can I just ask this question? What is in place here to prevent underage children going into

a place unsupervised? There is nothing there and could that be put in as a condition if

this goes through? Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:25:10

That would be dealt with under, I presume, licencing and criminal law. It's not something

that the planning system can deal with. It would be dealt with under separate legislation.

Councillor Lachwood. Thank you, Chair. It's a difficult one because

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:25:30

that unit's been empty for years and it's an eyesore and anybody going in there, for

whatever reason, must be an improvement. But I take on board comments about 24 -7 and the

usage. However, from a planning point of view, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't put

this through, but I would urge the Council to handle this very carefully from a licencing

point of view. Obviously not a subject for this evening.

Thank you. Councillor Goddard.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:26:16

Thank you, Chair. Good evening. To be honest, I wasn't going to get too involved with this.

I love a game of bingo personally.

You know I'm first running the bingo halls when I go on holiday.

And you know I do like a game of bingo so perhaps I should have declared an interest at the beginning.

But I do tend to agree with my fine colleague, Councillor Lotwood,

that you know from the planning, especially what Mr Bailey said and what Mr Adams been wrestling with all evening,

that planning wise there's not a great deal we can done.

I circled condition four because there was obviously concerns about the window displays

and I circled that at the beginning of the presentation.

But like Councillor Lott, planning wise I don't think there is a lot we can do.

Obviously they can switch the noise off the machines at night and do all sorts of things

with them.

But planning wise I don't think there is so I will move the recommendation.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:13

Do you have a seconder?

Councillor Hill. Would any other Councillor like to speak at this point?

I'm seeing nobody. Therefore we have one proposal and that is to take on the officer's recommendation to grant permission for this subject to the conditions set out, remembering that it will go separately to the licencing department.

So all those in favour, please show.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:48

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:55

Thank you. All those against? Thank you. And any abstentions?

FHDC Officer - 0:27:58

Thank you, Chair. That's six in favour, two against and two abstentions.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:03

Thank you very much. That application has passed.

FHDC Officer - 0:28:07

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:08

Three abstentions. Thank you. It's still passed. Thank you.

8 26/0052/FH - 38 Morehall Avenue, Folkestone, CT19 4EF

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:11

We move on to our second application of the evening, which is 25 -0052 -FH, which is 38

Moore Hall Avenue in Folkestone. Do we have any updates, please?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we today received additional updated marketing information from the applicant,

which sets up four further inquiries were made regarding the property between December

and the end of March this year, none of which progressed much further than an initial site

visit, if that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. We have one speaker on this, Greg Blackyer, I hope I've pronounced

that correctly, sir, who is the agent to speak on the application. If you would like to come

forward and you'll have three minutes from when you start. Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:29:09

Good evening chair and members. Yes, thank you and it is Greg Black here so

yeah it's always a surprise when someone pronounces it correctly so thank you.

Good evening chair and members. I speak today on behalf of the applicant and in

support of the officer recommendations grant planning permission for the

conversion of the vacant premises to provide a three -bedroom dwelling. The

The proposal represents a sustainable solution

to bring a redundant brownfield site back into use

and in addition to the local housing stock.

It has been marketed by a number of agencies

by a range of methods since October 2024.

It's been made available for sale and rent

and have reduced rates over this period.

It remains on the market today,

still with no confirmed interest expressed

to retain a community or even commercial tenancy.

The full marketing period has exceeded

the 12 month timeframe in accordance

with the CC2 of the Places and Policies Local Plan.

And through the marketing period,

independent agents report that the building's proven

to be unsuitable for modern community uses

due to the lack of parking, insufficient internal space,

and currently no external space.

As noted in the officer report,

the local area is well served by comparable

or better community facilities.

The loss of a single small hall and used for several years

will not materially impact local provision

or access to these facilities.

The development will provide a bungalow -style dwelling,

potentially suitable for occupiers with a preference or need for accommodation on a single level.

The existing ramped access will be retained at the front and as part of the external improvements proposed

this also includes additional planting softening the appearance from the street.

The new home will be served by three double bedrooms and an open and living kitchen dining area and a private garden space to the rear.

This will provide future residents with a high quality living environment.

The rear garden would be 21 square metres,

a fully usable private space.

While strictly not in accordance with the 10 metre depth

rule of policy HB3, the policy does allow for variations

where it reflects local character.

Smaller gardens are a feature in the local area,

including the immediate neighbouring properties.

Any perceived shortfall or inadequacy of this

is further offset by the property's proximity

to local parks, two of which are a short distance away.

There are no adverse effects from the conversion

that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing a much needed

family home in a sustainable location. The proposal rescues a vacant, underutilised site

and contributes to the local housing stock without harming the character of Morehall

Avenue and the surrounding area or access to community facilities. We respectfully request

the committee to follow the officer's recommendation and approve the change of use. Thank you for

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:50

your time and the opportunity to speak. Thank you very much. So, councillors, over to you.

Would anyone like to make comment or ask for clarification?

Councillor Mike Baitmore.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I'm very familiar with this building,

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:32:01

not least because we regularly pull Kentucky wrappers

out of the hedge while litter picking in our ward.

But it's never good to see a community space being lost,

and I appreciate concern about that.

There always seems to be a bit of a debate

about to what extent was it marketed and for how long

and at what price and all of those kind of things.

But I think the reality is, as the officer's report notes,

without parking and without significant external space,

the size that it is is not quite big enough

for a lot of community uses.

There are a number of other halls and churches

within Cheriton, within close distance of this.

I think on balance, I think taking an empty building

and providing a family home that doesn't impact

upon the neighbouring properties

is probably the right way to go.

so I'm minded to support it subject to what else I hear.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:32:55

Councillor Gouda, did you want to speak?

Thank you.

Yeah, I think this is, I think to be honest,

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:33:03

Councillor Blackmore said it all, really.

It's not worth repeating it, you know,

but I won't repeat it and move recommendation.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:13

And we just have a second from Councillor Keene.

Before we go to the vote, would any other Councillor like to speak?

Councillor Polybakemore.

Yes, just seeking a bit more information on a couple of issues.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:33:26

At 7 .29, there's confirmation that the proposal is liable for sale,

but it doesn't say how much, so I'd quite like to know the answer to that.

And also a bit of detail on that.

I know it's been referred to as a garden, but in effect,

I think what we're looking at is more of a roof terrace,

so it was just to understand a little bit more

how that outdoor space is going to work,

because as I understand it, some of the roof's

gonna be removed, but to me that's a roof terrace

rather than a garden, so yeah, just trying to understand

what that's gonna look like.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:34:20

So in terms of the sill liability, without having had a chance to look up the sill charging

schedule, the report's on site, it's chargeable at zero.

So whilst it is sill liable development, it's chargeable at zero.

So in effect, there's no sill chargeable.

In terms of the garden space,

the building single storey, I'm sure you well know,

what is proposed is demolishing a rear part of the building

but retaining boundary walls to create a garden space

from where the rear part of the building currently stands.

Not quite clear in some areas, it's referred to as a terrace

and other parts it's referred to as a garden.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:35:08

So does that mean that there will be,

that it will just be the walls remaining

at the back of the buildings?

There won't be?

Oh, okay.

In essence, yes.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

I think maybe the word courtyard

might have been a bit more useful.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:24

Would any other Councillor like to speak?

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to very briefly say, we need housing.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:35:34

So this is good.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:40

I'm not seeing any councillors want to speak.

Therefore, we have one proposer and a seconder to agree with the officer's recommendation

subject to conditions to allow this planning application.

All those in favour, please raise your hand.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:58

And I can see that's unanimous, so that has passed.

Thank you very much.

9 25/2213/FH - Land Adjacent 12, Southernwood Rise, Folkestone

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:10

So we're on to our third application this evening, which is 25 -2213 -FH, which is the

land adjacent to 12 Southern Wood Rise in Folkestone.

Do we have any updates, please?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we do.

Thank you.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:36:28

It's been pointed out to me that conditions 17 and 18

are duplicates, which is noted.

Condition 18 should actually be a condition

that requires any hard and soft landscaping works

to be carried out in accordance with approved details

prior to the occupation of any part of development

or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing.

So that secures any landscaping to be actually carried out.

Also paragraph 7 .22 refers to a proposed condition in respect of the proposed pool and sauna plant.

However, that has for some reason fallen off the report.

and that would be an acoustic assessment which having conversed with environmental health prior to the report,

the officers made recommendation based upon the submission of that.

So that's just a condition securing that and giving specifications for it and that is the only update.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:46

We have one speaker on this, which is John Wood,

who is the applicant to speak on the application.

Good evening.

Welcome.

You will have three minutes from when you start, sir.

Microphone Forty - 0:38:05

Right, so I've got a few notes here,

not quite as comprehensive as my two previous guys.

What, in essence, is very similar to the last proposal that got through and has been approved

already.

There's some small additions that I think have enhanced it and I've spent quite a lot

of time, about a year, building in those enhancements and also landscaping.

So this is a revision of a previously approved scheme and we've worked carefully with the

design team to improve it and with great restraint. I would say that of course, but I feel as

though it's with great restraint. The proposal keeps the same sitting, scale and access as

the consented scheme. And we've, in my opinion, we've improved the scheme quite a bit. The

the classical kind of look of it, how it fits into the landscape, the materiality of it,

all enhances the scheme. I just feel as though it could be a lovely addition to that part of

Folkestone in the west there. I mean I know it's particularly, I think it's going to be a

particularly special house and it will kind of sit in within its own landscape and there's a lot of

landscaping going on because I'm very concerned about landscape and the way the corridor

which runs all the way down to the saga, I don't know what that part is called, but where the saga

building is. So that corridor will remain and will attract more wildlife than it's already got

and carry on to the other parts of Folkestone.

So I've considered all those things,

and those things are kind of close to my heart.

There is no additional overlooking, no additional noise,

and no increasing impact on the neighbours.

We believe it's a thoughtful, well -considered home,

and sits quietly in the setting,

and we'd appreciate your support.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:31

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Over to you, Councillors. Any comments, any

clarifications? Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:40:40

Yes, thank you, Chair. I was looking at the Sandgate Parish Council comments in relation

to this application, and their concerns were really around land stability, bearing in mind

the steepness of the road going up there.

And one of the other things they identified

was the proximity of the pool

to the retaining wall at the back.

One of the other things they also said is

they weren't entirely happy with the structure report.

So again, I wonder if the officers could just confirm

that all those things are in order

and that I know there's a separate condition

associated with that in the report as well but it does seem to be the main

thrust of why it was brought here tonight. Thank you, Chair.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:41:35

Thank you, Councillor. Yes, obviously those concerns were noted. The Council's

Building Control team have looked at it and have recommended that the condition

is imposed which you've seen on the back of the report which requires the

of all the report relevant to the planning application again.

And the comment about it being, or concern about it being

perhaps needing to be redone because it was four years old,

that would be addressed via the condition

because obviously there would be an updated report

and that would be something that would be part

of building control monitoring anyway.

It's obviously there's this sort of overlap

with planning and ensuring that everything is, there's no impact upon the land, the property

itself or neighbours from this.

So it sort of overlaps, dovetails and it's, belt and brace is probably an overused phrase

but it does apply in this situation.

In which case I'd like to move the officer's recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:42:41

Thank you.

Councillor Cooper, you seconded.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:45

Councillor Blakemore, Mike Blakemore.

Yeah, I was gonna mention, I'm not sure we got an answer

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:42:52

to that about is it just the proximity of the sauna

and pool to Dornley Crescent, is that simply that

there will be tests carried out later to ascertain

the effect of that, I'm not sure I caught the answer

to that, and then I was just gonna say also about

the ecology on the site, and I do think, and I'm sure

the speaker's genuine in his concern about maintaining

that corridor, but it's hard to see how there won't be a negative impact when the report

notes badges have been known to use the site, reptiles present, bats likely to forage their

paths through there.

I'm struggling to see how there isn't going to be a negative impact really on wildlife

there.

I also thought it was a little bit ironic that drainage tests couldn't be carried out

due to groundwater.

It seems to suggest that possibly there is a problem with drainage, but anyway, thank

you.

Thank you for just give me a short moment to have a quick part of the biodiversity.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:43:47

Thank you for that.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:44:02

Yeah, in terms of the land stability, any built form will be covered by the requirements

of the condition.

So anything that is being built would have to be proven,

you know, they'd have to do,

get a structural engineer to do calculations

and say, you know, the loading here will be acceptable

and will not cause any sort of land slip

or change for neighbours or for the property itself.

The, in terms of ecology,

it's been through KCC Ecological Advice Service

I understand what you're saying, because obviously it's a very densely vegetated site.

You can see some of it there.

You're not going to get out of it if you fall into it.

But this will obviously change it to residential garden.

There's a construction environmental management plan which covers obviously monitoring, if

you've read it, for any wildlife that may be present on the site.

So during the construction process and ultimately the condition,

there's another condition which covers how the enhancement which is sought from national policy

is incorporated into the development.

So there are, there is a loss of I think three trees and a small group of trees on the north,

western part of the site.

There is planting proposed across the site which is also secured by by conditions and

would be come through us and KCC ecology to ensure its native species appropriate to the

site and subsequently maintained.

Councillor Shue.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:47

Thank you.

Just looking at condition 11,

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:45:52

is about the water consumption.

I'm assuming that doesn't,

that just applies to the sort of house,

not, doesn't take into account swimming pool

and sauna of 110 litres a day.

Correct.

Thank you.

Councillor Blanford.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:46:19

Thank you, Chairman. I remember the original application and Mr Woods Wright has gone back

with his designers and this has only enhanced it. This is sheer quality. I do like it and

I can't wait to see it when it's built. But it does enhance it, it is a lot better. I

think again, Sandgate Parish Council came back with those concerns the first time around,

hence why they've stayed with it and come the second time round.

But, you know, you know, hat off to Mr Wood and his design teams.

This is sheer quality.

Look forward to seeing it when it's built.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:56

Thank you. Would any other councillor like to speak?

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, chair.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:47:04

Thank you, councillors, for your comments and officers for a brilliant report.

And we need housing. So this is good.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:15

Would any other Councillor like to speak?

I am not seeing anyone indicate.

Therefore, Committee, we have a proposal in the seconder to agree with the officer's recommendations

subject to the conditions that have been laid out to allow this application.

All those in favour, please raise your hands.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:42

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:46

FHDC Officer - 0:47:49

FHDC Officer - 0:47:50

Thank you. All those against? And any abstentions? Thank you chair, that's ten in favour and

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:54

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:58

one abstention. Thank you, that application has passed. So we move on to our last application

7 25/2308/FH - Historic Toilet Block, Road of Remembrance, Folkestone

of the evening, which is 25 -2308 -FH, which is the historic toilet block on the road of

remembrance. Do we have any updates, please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:48:14

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors. There are no updates for this application.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:19

Thank you. And there are no speakers on this one, which I was quite surprised about. I

I thought that people have been quite vocal about this on social media.

I thought someone would like to speak.

However, over to you, councillors.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:36

Councillor Hills.

Councillor Tony Hills - 0:48:42

I'd just like to say, when I read this, I thought it was great.

It really is good to actually recognise our history.

And from that point of view, it's marvellous.

I would just mention passing something to do with the weather, because we are to get

more extreme weather events and I'd like to hope that a one -off of water down that road

has been properly managed, because we've had land slips before and I hope we can do a proper

job in protecting it.

But I think as a concept, it's very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hills.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:16

I think the management of the water and the landslips are slightly beyond this planning

committee, but I do take on board precisely what you say.

Councillor Jones, then Councillor Thomas.

I have real issues with this application.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:49:31

I have a lot of respect for the military.

I have military in my family and for what they've done.

But this has, we're looking at this from the wrong historical point of view.

It's not accurate.

It is not historically accurate.

I think it is insulting to the armed forces to be thinking of making a memorial out of

some Victorian toilets.

I don't think it is appropriate at all, I am afraid.

Sorry.

Absolutely entitled to your opinion.

Councillor Paul Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:50:06

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:50:10

I share Councillor Jones' concerns with respect to this.

and when I read this and the supporting information,

I couldn't get to a point where this would

enhance or even respect, as has already been said,

the history of the town and respect those brave people

who walk down that road never to come back.

I think what we have at the top of that hill

does that admirably.

And again, I think around the town there are a number of organisations who make sure that

that whole area, in terms of what they do with the poppies on the fencing and everything

else, recognises the significance.

So I really struggle with this as well.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Mike Breakmore.

Yes, I agree with Councillor Jones, Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:51:05

And I think, as many people said, it's very unlikely that the troops would have used the

toilets there when they're marching down to them. They wouldn't have been allowed to break

out of the march and use them. But aside from that, I think there are issues around road

safety. The Roseby bushes and the signage along there was designed so that people would

be able to see it from the other side of the road, whereas this is encouraging people to

cross the road. And I have a question about the seven and a half metre flagpole, which

In the report it says that's an advertising consent issue.

Is it really not the case that a 7 .5 metre flagpole requires planning permission?

Because that seems completely out of keeping in a conservation area

in proximity to heritage buildings. Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:52

Thank you. Over to you. I did question about the flagpole.

It does seem counterintuitive, members. I will concede that.

I think it might be section 336 of the country planning act

sets out that advertisement consent covers structures

required to support advertisements as well as the advertisements themselves

and flags are treated as advertisements. As an example,

if you want to erect a flagpole under I think it's 4 .6 metres high

to fly a national flag, possibly even a county flag,

then you are excluded from the need

for advertisement consent.

Advert consent is required here

because it's over 4 .6 metres in height.

And as the report sets out, it would be dealt with

under a separate application

because it's a separate legislative regime.

The same goes for the information board

and the proposed plaque across the top of the building.

Thank you.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:52:57

And can I just ask about advertisement consent?

How does one obtain advertisement consent?

Is that something that comes to officers to decide

or how is advertisement consent given?

It's an application made for local planning authority

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:53:11

in a similar way to a planning application.

You need, obviously, appropriate drawings,

application form and a fee, and the local planning authority is entitled to determine

those applications only on the basis of their impact on amenity and public safety. So those

are the two considerations. Now that can encompass a number of things, certainly in terms of

public safety, it could be highway safety, for example, and in terms of amenity, it's

visual amenity, impact on heritage assets such as conservation areas, that kind of thing.

but it would be an application made to the council which could come before planning committee

if members call it in or if there is an objection from the town council in accordance with the

council's normal scheme of delegation.

Councillor Gordon.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:54:07

Thank you. Yeah, I like this. I support Councillor Hill in basically what he says. I think any

memorial is important to recognise. My work I do for the Poppy Appeal, I think it's important

that we do recognise what's in and around the local area and I'm happy to move the recommendation.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:33

We have a reposer and a seconder. I still have some councillors wishing to speak. Councillor

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:54:45

Having spoken to one of our local historians and read another military child, if they'd

have broken rank, they'd have been court -martialed. So I don't see that this is, I agree totally

with Councillor Jones, Blakemore and everybody else, I just don't see it. And a seven -metre

in a conservation area, not really. I don't think that's appropriate at all, so I won't

Thank you.

Thank you, members. Thank you, chair.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:55:15

Just a couple of points of clarification.

And as I previously said, the flagpole does not form part of this application

that's set up in the officer report.

In terms of historical accuracy

and whether this facility would have been used by soldiers,

whilst I understand there is a degree, to put it mildly,

of discussion on this point.

In order to refuse planning permission,

we would need to establish material planning harm.

And in my view, whether or not it's historically accurate

to say that soldiers used this facility, et cetera,

in my view, we would struggle to pin a reason

for refusal on that.

I don't think it amounts to a material planning

consideration in this instance.

I hope that's useful, members.

Thank you. Councillor Cooper.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:56:17

As I take on board what Mr Bailey said, what I would like to add is that, as well as I

am concerned, there is no actual military connexion with this. There have been comments

made previously about how it would be disrespectful to the military community.

Given that I've been part of my job in the past,

I've actually been knocking on people's doors

to advise people of the children being killed

and their maimed or whatever in service,

I think a lot of people would say

that it would be disrespectful.

There is nothing there to link that particular

target to the military.

And what I'd like to know is who actually owns the land?

Is the owner of the land the person making the application?

If not, why are you considering this?

Thank you.

Well, anyone's entitled to apply for planning permission

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:57:06

on any land, so long as the landowners are notified

under the right statutory procedure.

In this instance, the applicant doesn't own the land.

I'm not, I haven't got details of who the landowner is in front of me,

but I certainly do know that Folkestone and High District Council

leases the land and so was notified.

And as the update states, our estates team have no objection.

to the proposals that would be for members tonight.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:35

Councillor Poyn, do you want to?

Yes, it's kind of been said before, but

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:57:42

I just wanted to voice my thoughts on it really,

that we have absolutely no lack of remembrance,

memorials in that area, quite rightly,

and what we've got there are all sort of dignified,

they're respectful, you know,

and I think this would just detract from all that,

Frankly, I think it is a trap for what we have already got and just shows a complete

lack of respect for those who fought for us in the past.

Thank you.

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:58:19

I am trying, through a process of elimination, and for the benefit of the thousands of people

that watch this online.

Have we, we are voting on a statue,

is that correct?

Or have I missed something?

It's, yeah, it's a silhouette of a soldier

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:58:40

and the general use of the site as a memorial, yes.

So the decision is to put a silhouette

of a World War I soldier

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:58:52

soldier next to a Victorian latrine on our road of remembrance. Thank you for that clarification.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:08

Would any other Councillor like to speak? Oh, sorry, Councillor Hsu, thank you.

I agree with a lot that has been said.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:59:17

I respect the intention of the applicant

to try to make something of this

and I am sure his intentions are very well -meaning.

I think it is interesting that there is a Victorian latrine there

Whether it is appropriate to memorialise it like this,

I am struggling with, but I am also struggling with the planning reasons to turn it down.

I guess as well, following up on what Councillor Lockwood

just asked, I get that with the silhouette,

but in terms of it being, what else does it actually mean

if it's approved?

I get that the advertising side of it

would need to be sort of considered separately,

but I understand there's some planting

that is included in this.

No?

There was some poppies,

and I thought there was some element of planting.

So what I have done for other honestly I already gave my

which we

be controlled by conditioning

adopt

a Got

But

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:01:18

Thank you.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:01:22

Basically, going on what Councillor Ock was just saying before, in respect of what Mr

Bailey said, we vote in respect of the silhouette here.

Now isn't this thing in the wrong place, basically?

Would that be a reason for a refusal, Mr Bailey?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:01:39

Well you need to establish material planning, harm and reference policies of the development

plan. In terms of it being in the wrong place, you need to be a lot clearer on that, whether

you are referring to harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, the

visual amenity of the street scene, highway safety. In terms of highway safety, I would

say, as members have heard me say so many times before, Kent highways have no objections

and it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on that basis. But if members

are entitled to take the view that this development would harm the character and appearance of

the conservation area. Although, like is set out in the report, our view is it's sufficiently

small in scale that it wouldn't, but that's a view members are entitled to take, should

they so wish, but you would need to set out precisely why that is and how that harm is

manifested.

Council Ginnard.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:02:43

Yeah, obviously it's a memorial there so it would be difficult to move it.

I think you're right, planning reasons, there's no real reason.

I think this will attract people to the area.

There's a certain group of people that go around the country looking at memorials and

this could be good for the area.

This could be, you know, there's cafes, there's restaurants all within distance and it could

that attract tourism, as well as people within the district coming to visit.

So there is a certain group of individuals that do travel around the country looking

at all sorts of memorials, and so this could be good for the local economy.

So just bear that in mind also.

So yeah, but obviously it can't be moved because it is where it is.

But like Mr. Baines strangled this several times saying that basically highways are okay,

everything's okay, why not?

And like I say, it could attract many, many visitors.

Councillor Thomas?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:03:49

Sure.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:03:54

I get the whole thing about having the outlier, the silhouette of a soldier.

I mean, so many towns have got those.

You know, we've got one in our remembrance garden

in New Romney.

You see them all over the place.

I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

It's tying this thing to something

which is not historically accurate.

The other issue I have with this is the last paragraph

on the proposed information board,

which doesn't recognise

that what those people who walked down that road

found themselves going into.

It glorifies a particular issue

about arresting 200 German soldiers

who were trying to get back to France.

That's got absolutely nothing to do

with recognising the sacrifice

that thousands and thousands of people

went down that road made, it's got absolutely nothing to do with that.

And so again, in terms of the thing itself, I object to that final paragraph quite vehemently.

And I think for me, that doesn't do anything.

And again, I'm just picking up on Councillor Goddard's point about, you know,

the things that we do when we go out.

I sell poppies in New Romney in the same way that Clive does in the Inlet.

And in none of those do we actually start pointing the finger against those people who were our previous enemies, as it were, who are now our allies.

And I think that it's completely and utterly uncalled for to put that kind of information in that site.

So from my perspective, I just really cannot sign on to that being on and being mounted on our railings or the KCC's railings going down that road.

I really object to that particular part of it.

It might not be historically accurate, but it adds nothing to sharing the memory of those

people who sacrificed their lives and other things.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:05

I just want to reiterate again, the wording on the Information Board opposite is not part

of this planning application.

That's correct.

it requires that they're consent,

so it doesn't form part of this proposal,

and would form part of a separate application potentially.

And whilst, as I previously said,

I recognise there are very strong feelings on this,

in terms of historical accuracy,

that in my view is not material planning consideration here.

And I think in terms of the planning system in general,

and I'd be careful to say,

but I'm not taking the view either way,

but I've heard members' very strong views tonight.

The planning system is not designed to be an arbiter of good or bad taste.

Members have to make a decision tonight on the basis of what is in front of them

and any material planning harm that that might give rise to.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:07

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:08

Go ahead, Councillor Joyce.

Thank you very much, Dr Caffiert.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:07:13

I do understand that, but again, I think one of the things you offered earlier on

was for that particular element to be brought back to this committee potentially.

Is that correct? In terms of the advertising side of it, just to clarify that, thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:07:28

Well, it would require advert consent, but one of the quirks of the advert consent regime

is that you don't control the content.

You look at the impact on amenity and public safety, as I set out earlier.

So, I mean, it could say literally anything, any advert can say literally anything.

If it doesn't harm amenity or public safety, then you can't refuse advert consent for it.

Thank you very much for that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:54

Well, I think we're learning some new things this evening.

Councillor Keane?

Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:08:00

It's a wall memorial and it will need maintenance.

So, and look, looking after, who's that going to fall to?

because at the moment, all of our memorials in Folkestone,

the same as in Hyde, they fall to Hyde's town council.

This will fall to Folkestone town council.

Who is gonna be looking after this site,

keeping it as it should?

Who's gonna be doing the planting?

You know, these are all things that need explaining to us

because we can't say, yes, he can go ahead and do it

and then who's going to look after it after it's agreed?

It can't just be left.

If it's going to be a more memorial, it needs maintenance.

So who is going to do the maintenance?

And this can't be left to somebody

putting in a planning application

because there's going to be a cost.

And there's nowhere in this that tells me

that when this is done and you've got your seven metre

flagpole sticking up there from another department

is gonna be looking after it.

So can I have some clarity around that please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:09:11

Well in terms of the planting, that would need to be

carried out as a requirement of the conditions

of the planning commission.

In terms of maintenance, that would be a matter between

the landowner, the leaseholder, and the party that is

is developing the memorial itself.

It's not a material planning consideration in this instance.

It would be a private agreement between those parties.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:09:40

I'm going to put my two benefits in.

My father was a soldier,

and in total agreement, I'm not sure that he'd want a toilet as a memorial.

However, I cannot see any planning law or reason that says that we can go against this.

I would like to raise the fact that if this is turned into memorial,

as much as we could try and deter people from walking across that road to go and have a closer look,

I think we will have a safety issue. I really do.

I know highways haven't come up with this, but highways are looking at traffic.

They're not looking at the human element within this, and that really concerns me.

I don't believe that we can ask, as you say, that the advertising side comes back.

I believe the size of the flagpole, et cetera, and wording would need to be looked at very, very carefully.

I do admire the fact that people want to save some Victorian architecture for whatever use it was used for.

But I too have problems that are outside of the normal planning with this.

And I think the very fact that every single one of us has spoken on this this evening shows that we want to respect those who sacrificed.

but we're just maybe not quite sure as to whether this is the way forward.

That's all I wanted to say on it.

We have one recommendation...

Sorry, did you want to speak again, Councillor King?

No? We have one recommendation.

Sorry, Councillor Lockwood?

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to have a go,

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:11:38

because this just isn't sitting right with me.

So if we're voting on permission to put a silhouette statue on that site,

I'm going to propose we object on the basis that if you're standing on the other side of the road,

you'd be able to see that soldier in one view.

And with a 90 degree turn, you'd be able to see the other established

First World War memorials at the top of the hill.

and I believe that by putting that soldier there,

you will cause harm to the existing First World War memorials

at the top of the hill by lowering the tone, as it were.

So that's my stab at some sort of objection to this.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:33

So we have a proposal to object, and I have a seconder.

Did the officers want to come back?

So, I think, just so, Office is a clear counsel,

Lockwood, your suggested reason for refusal is

harm to the setting of the existing war memorials.

And how, so in terms of establishing material planning harm,

Are you saying that it would...

I'm unclear on what material planning harm there would be in this regard.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:13:22

The visual amenity to the existing memorials,

to be able to see those and this at the same time from certain aspects,

and that will denigrate from the existing memorials.

Good point.

And by the way, I'm in favour of bringing the facility back and having that there for visitors to come and look at.

And they will come in their thousands, as Councillor Goddard said, I'm sure.

But my objection is to the silhouette of the soldier.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:14:00

So, sorry, again, are you saying it would harm the character of the conservation area

by giving rise to, taking in conjunction with the existing war memorials, it would give

rise to a cluttered appearance of harm, the character of the conservation area?

Sorry, I'm... Right, okay.

Because I don't want to be putting words into your mouth.

Also, I'm not very good at drafting objections, so it's not my skill.

So, Thomas wants to come in, so he may be able to help.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:14:36

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:37

No, I think just on that, in terms of the issues that we talked about,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:14:43

in terms of the...

In one of the objections, it talks about the fact that there was...

There's no heritage statement associated with this,

and the other bit was included in there, was on highway safety.

So condition seven talks about,

says no development shall take place until the stopping

up order has been made under the Tannen Country Planning Act

to extinguish all public highway rights over the area

of highway land required to facilitate the approved development.

So what does that actually mean?

What will that look like in the future?

Because I think that might, it'll help me to understand one

one of the things that I've got a real issue with

about highway safety and just picking up on

what's already been said about making sure that

we don't put something in place,

which is gonna result in people being run over on that road.

So could you just explain the stopping up order part?

Thank you, yeah, I can take that.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:15:40

So the stopping up order relates just to

the section of Highway Verge

where the silhouette statue would be placed.

It doesn't relate to any footpaths or any actual highway.

It's just that the highway authority have rights

over a certain sort of section of the verge there.

So a stopping up order would, in a sense,

stop highway access to that particular parcel of land.

So if I may, so I know there are rules in that

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:16:10

about things being within a metre

of the existing highway and that kind of thing.

So what would the stocking up order actually do?

Would it put a physical barrier in front of that?

Is it just an administrative arrangement

which advises people not to do that?

Again, I'm just trying to get in my mind

how we can sign off and be comfortable

with the highway safety side associated with this,

because people will cross the road to it.

Even if you say don't cross the road,

people will and I'm gonna have a look at it one day.

So I just wanna try and understand,

how much more could be done other than the stopping up order,

which would actually assist with the highway safety side.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry to be pushing that.

No, we need clarity.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:59

I think in terms of stopping up orders in general,

of course the highway doesn't end where the road ends.

It continues on and there are varying degrees of the extent of the highway

on roads throughout the district and indeed throughout Kent.

So you could get some areas where the highway does stop where the road ends

and others where it carries on for a good few yards.

So the stopping up order in essence removes any...

I mean, to some degree, it is an administrative thing,

but it essentially takes that area of verge out of the highway authorities control.

So, I mean, it's possible that they're saying, well,

As highway authority, we currently have rights over that highway verge,

stopping up order would take us out of the equation.

Not sure that's that much assistance, members, but it's not.

I don't think the highway authority is asking for that

on the basis of highway safety issue, if that's any assistance.

I understand a bit of that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:18:05

I'm not seeing any other councillors to speak, so we actually have two proposals.

We'll take the first one, which was to agree with the officers, subject to conditions,

to allow this particular application to come forward and be agreed.

All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please show your hands.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:18:33

Thank you. All those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:18:41

Thank you. Any abstentions?

So that proposal has overturned, so we go on... Oh, sorry.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:19:12

So I've been asked by the officers for us to put specific wording together on this objection

to make sure that Councillor Lockwood, who is proposing the objection, is happy with

that and we will then take a short five minute recess because the officers would like to

discuss it. I never thought this particular application would last so long. So, can we

I have some wording from those of you who are minded to object to this application, please.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:19:58

The statue's location is out of character with the surrounding historic environment

and causing harm to the conservation area character. That's my first step.

Councillor Mike Batemore? Can we add something about safety? I know

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:20:24

KCC haven't objected, but can we make road safety part of the objection as well? Because

that's something that several of us have raised about. It is inviting people to cross the

to view it more closely.

So yeah, can that be added if Councillor Locke

would agree as a further objection?

Sorry, was that a question for officers?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:20:47

Members are entitled to.

Our professional advice would be it's unlikely

to stand up to scrutiny at appeal,

but I'm sure there's a committee process

by which additional reasons can be added

to a motion and if members want to vote on that then obviously that's a matter for members.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:21:14

Councillor Cooper. Thank you chair. Can I add some word to what

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:21:20

we said earlier on irrespective of the time of the earlier, irrespective of the other

Memorial because what Councillor Lockwood was saying was where it was located, it was

lower than the area and also demeaned what was already up there. Can we add to that effect?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:21:40

I think that's almost what Councillor Lockwood was saying in his first statement.

I think we need to put something about highway safety.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:21:56

Obviously that road hasn't been open for a couple of years, but it is not safe if you're

trying to cross that road.

It's not an appropriate thing to do.

I wonder if officers can guide us and how we can appropriately talk about highway safety,

because obviously it's come up again and again.

Councillor Mike Blakemore?

I'm told that when the memorial that's installed along there, the rosemary hedge and the inscription

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:22:20

there, I think that was designed that way precisely for that reason, so it was visible

from the other side of the road and people didn't cross it.

So that was presumably something that was considered at the time when that was given

permission.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:22:39

Well, again, like I said, our advice would be Kent Highway Services have not raised objection

and it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on the basis of highway safety.

But if members do wish to vote on a refusal, to add a reason to the motion, like I said,

I'm sure there's a committee procedure that would allow that.

And I'm assuming from what members have said,

is that members are concerned that the creation of a war memorial

in this location with lack of pedestrian footway

would give rise to harm to pedestrian safety

by virtue of people crossing the road into incoming traffic or oncoming traffic.

I mean, I think that's the gist of what members were going at, but again, I'm not here to,

nor am I trying to put words into members' mouths on this matter.

Councillor Lautwood?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:23:42

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:23:46

I would agree with that, and can we add as a material, materially to that,

by saying that obviously visitor numbers are unknown,

but it is a significant memorial area.

There's a clue in the title of the road.

And could pedestrian congestion be a material issue

that KCC have not considered

as part of their recommendation?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:24:17

I am not here to speak for KCC highways and transportation, but their ring involves pedestrian

safety as well as users of the highway and vehicles. I think it is something that would

have been uppermost in their minds. Whether members agree with them or not is a different

matter.

Councillor King.

Thank you.

Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:24:43

There isn't a lot of car parking down that area,

and I know that isn't necessarily planning consideration,

but with all the thousands of people

that that's going to attract,

surely we really do need to make some parking area

because that is a big pain in the harbour area

as Councillor Lockwood knows,

and is a bone of contention as Polly Blakemore knows,

and I don't want to add to it by all the thousands of cars and busses that are going to come down there to see the latrine.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:25:25

So do we believe that we have enough wording now for the objection for you to go out and discuss?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:27:06

Apologies for the short delay.

Mr Allen is going to read out what we understand the reasons put forth by members on them.

We'll have a short recess where officers will discuss it and come back and advise members accordingly

on the basis of the agreed reasons. Over to you, Mr Allen.

Thank you.

Mr Robert Allan - 1:27:32

First reason, the proposed soldier silhouette would result in unnecessary visual clutter within the street scene

and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

And in relation to highway safety,

it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed change of use would not give rise to highway safety concerns.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:59

Sorry, I don't think that's quite complete because part of this was about the visual

amenity of the existing war memorial, which I actually think is quite an important issue

that has been raised by more than one person on the committee.

Mr Robert Allan - 1:28:23

So to add to that, so the proposed soldier

that would result in unnecessary visual clutter

within the street scene, be detrimental to the character

and appearance of the conservation area

and the setting of the existing war memorial

contrary to policy, et cetera.

So I think that's it for this presentation.

Apologies, more plural.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:28:50

I think, could we say the surrounding historic environment

rather than nearby war memorials or,

because it's the road, it's the setting of the road,

there's the proximity to the existing memorials

which would be in the sight line of this silhouette.

If you're standing looking at the silhouette and you go like that, you'll see the existing war memorials.

That's point number one, which is the reason why this is in the wrong location.

I don't object to soldier silhouettes. I don't object to this facility being restored and brought back for people to come and look at.

And the advertising will deal with separately with the flagpole and all the rest of it.

The soldier is in the wrong place.

So you'd be able to see that and the existing war memorials

and it's the whole historic setting.

The name of the road is the road of remembrance.

And if the way you remember a World War I soldier

is then standing next to a Victorian latrine,

then I'm bemused as to how that works.

So, I'm quite specific about the location of this silhouette is harmful to the surrounding

historic environment, and that's where the harm is done to the conservation area character.

Well, Councillor Lockwood, it's your motion and your suggested reasons for refusal, so

It's open to you as to the wording.

We're simply providing a suggestion based on our interpretation of what's already been said.

But if you want that adding to your motion, then of course that's your prerogative.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:30:46

Could I take a break?

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:30:47

Yes, you can.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:30:53

Councillor Thomas, can I just listen to Councillor Thomas and then we will have a five minute break.

You can discuss with your other councillors as to what your wording will be.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:31:00

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:31:00

We will come back, we will state what the wording will be for the objection,

and then the officers will go and have their discussion and debate on it.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:31:12

OK? So, Councillor Thomas, before we take a quick five -minute break.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to come back on a comment that was made earlier on with regard to road safety.

And that's to do with the width of the pavement there

and the fact that if you have people with mobility issues going up there,

if you've got women and men with pushchairs going up and down there,

we'd be encouraging people to step into the road to go around them.

And again, I just have this thing about, you know,

we shouldn't be agreeing to anything

which is going to put members of the public at risk of being run over on that road.

We've already had the horrific situation

of a poor lad being run over in the last couple of years.

So I'd hate to think that we'd approved something

which then resulted in people having to step into that road.

I know what it's like walking up and down there

in the summer when you do get a lot of people normally

and people even today will step in there

without stopping to go and have a look

at something at the side.

So I think the width of that pavement at that point

It is a critical factor associated with highway safety

with regard to where this whole thing is positioned.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:31

So, Councillors, we will take a five -minute recess.

Can you stop there? Back online.

7 25/2308/FH - Historic Toilet Block, Road of Remembrance, Folkestone

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:36

So, Councillor Lockwood, I understand that you've spoken to fellow Councillors.

Would you like to read to us the wording

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:32:46

that you would like to propose for your objection, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you for that time.

That was really helpful, just to get my head around it.

I'm not... I don't draught objections as a general rule, but...

So, I would like to object to this application on the grounds that

the proposed soldier silhouette will result in unnecessary visual clutter

within the street scene, detract from the setting of the existing war memorials and

be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Also, by virtue

of the lack of a pedestrian walkway, the proposed development will give harm to the safety of

pedestrians and all users of the highway.

Thank you. Officers did request some time. Would you still like that time?

Well, I think it's unnecessary in the circumstances, Members.

I mean, my advice as previously is that where the highway authority doesn't raise objection,

it's difficult to sustain a reason for refusal based on impacts on highway safety.

But obviously, the decision is in your hands, Members.

What I would ask for is delegation to officers to add the relevant development plan policies

and slightly tweak the wording of the reasons for refusal where necessary,

without making any substantive changes to members' reasoning.

Thank you.

Is that acceptable, Councillor Lockwood?

Yeah, that's acceptable.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:22

Is that acceptable, Councillor Cooper?

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:34:23

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:25

So, we have our second proposal of the evening,

which is to go against initial officer advice regarding this application

with the wording that has now been discussed.

and we will be giving delegation to officers

to mention any particular policies involved around this objection

and to tweak the wording so that it's in planning speak.

So all of those in favour of the opposition to this particular application,

please raise your hands.

Thank you. All those against?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:09

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:16

And I can see the objection to this application has passed. Thank you.

That is the last application of this evening. Before we go, I would just like to say that this is the last planning meeting of this particular year.

If I am not successful in coming back next year, I would like to thank the committee

for all of your support this year and everything that we've managed to do very successfully.

And I'd also like to thank the officers as well who have been very, very supportive.

So thank you, safe journeys home.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 14 April 2026, 7:00pm - Slides Tab - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting