Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 16th June 2026 at 7:30pm

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
Microphone B
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Stephen Scoffham
Cllr Jackie Meade

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Cllr Jackie Meade

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 19/05/2026 Planning and Licensing Committee

Cllr Jackie Meade

4 26/0218/FH - Sandbanks, Coast Road, Littlestone TN28 8RA

Share this agenda point

Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone Forty
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Clive Goddard
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone B
Cllr Jackie Meade

5 25/2112/FH - Former Foxwood School, 59 Seabrook Road, Hythe, CT21 5QJ

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone Forty
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone Forty
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone Forty
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Clive Goddard
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Gary Fuller
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Stephen Scoffham
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Anita Jones
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Gary Fuller
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Jackie Meade
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone B
Cllr Jackie Meade
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00

This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.

For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed,

you will need to leave the chamber.

For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting,

it is important that the microphones are used

so that viewers on the webcast

and others in the room may hear you.

Would anyone with a mobile phone

please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting?

I would like to remind members

that although we all have strong opinions

or matters under consideration,

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

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

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

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

must be considered on planning merits only.

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

tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided to you during

this meeting. This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning

applications before you, so we'll move on. Do we have any apologies for absence, please?

Microphone B - 0:01:16

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we have received apologies from Councillors Cooper and Polly Bakemore

and we have Councillor Scoffin substituting Polly Bakemore.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:24

Thank you. Welcome, Councillor Scoffin. Thank you very much.

Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:01:28

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:29

Councillors, do we have any declarations of interest for the applications this evening, please?

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:37

I am seeing none, so we will move on.

We have before you the minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2026. May I sign these as a correct record, please?

3 Minutes

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:56

Thank you very much. So we will move on to our first application this evening, which

4 26/0218/FH - Sandbanks, Coast Road, Littlestone TN28 8RA

is 26 -0218 -FH, which is Sandbanks Coast Road at Littlestone. Do we have any updates, please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:02:14

Yes, thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors. We received one further letter, which I understand

has also been emailed direct to the members this afternoon, advising that there's birds

nesting on the roof and on the scaffolding around the property. Disturbing nesting birds

is dealt with under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and falls outside the scope of this application,

which is just to amend an existing permission. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:36

Thank you very much. And we have one person to speak on this, which is Mr James Puxley,

who is the agent to speak in support of the application. If you'd like to come down to

the front, sir, you will have three minutes from when you start. Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:02:58

Good evening members.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak.

My name is James Puckste.

I'm a planning consultant for Bloomfield's charter town planners and the applicants agent

for this section 73 application.

Permission was previously sought in 2021 under reference 21 slash 0747 slash FH for the conversion

of a former care home to 19 residential flats. That application was approved under delegated

authority in December 2021. Following this approval, it became apparent that in order

to improve the quality of the accommodation provision and the overall design and appearance

of the resultant development, the proposed unit would have to be slightly amended and a

non -material amendment followed to allow for internal and external alterations. Reference 24

slash 1035 slash FH slash NMA.

This application was granted in August 2024.

The proposal before you this evening seeks permission

under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

to vary condition two and condition eight

of the approved non -material amendment application

to allow for amendments to the design

of the residential accommodation,

including slightly raising the roof height,

the addition of seven normal windows,

and installing solar panels and roof lights.

This application follows discussions

with folks in the IAF District Council

who recommend this application for approval.

The principle of residential development here

is already established,

with only matters relating to the design

and scale of the proposed alterations

and any potential impact of these alterations

on visual or residential amenity being points to consider.

Speaking to these matters,

the proposed increase to the roof light

amounts to a modest 60 centimetres

across part of the building. This intends to level the lower section of the roof

with the existing higher section whilst ensuring that the overall maximum

height of the roof remains unchanged. Providing a roof form of a consistent

height across the converted element of the development is considered to result

in an improved design. The modest increase in height is considered not to

result in adverse harm to the neighbouring immunity, a point agreed

by a planning department. We concur with the planning officer that the proposed

normal windows are appropriately scaled and designed and would sit well within the roof

slope. Furthermore, normal windows are a typical design feature found in the locality. Moreover,

the inclusion of roof lights and solar panels located on the inward facing roof slopes will

have limited visual impact in the street scene. Respectfully, we hope the members are able

to share the conclusions drawn by your planning department in recommending this application

for approval and therefore support this section 73 planning application. Thank you for your

and consideration of matters.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:05:43

Thank you very much, sir.

So, Councillors, over to you.

Do you have any questions, any queries,

any need for clarification?

Councillor Thomas, please.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:05:56

Having read the officer's report,

I've got two questions.

The first relates to the fact that

within the application description,

it talks about variation of Condition 18

from the original planning application.

Condition 18 in the original planning application

was no additional windows, doors, voids,

or other openings should be inserted, placed,

or formed at any time in the south or west facing

first floor walls or roof slopes.

And the reason was to prevent overlooking

of adjacent properties and safeguarding

the privacy of those occupiers.

That's what that was put in there for.

But this application seeks to kick down to touch

basically or modify it slightly I should say.

So the question is, that is harm to the local people

that live adjacent to this development

and was specifically identified as harm

in the original application.

So my question is, what's changed?

And the second really relates to the benefits

and the whole thing about the weighted balance.

So with this, the benefit is already claimed

in terms of the number of dwellings

that are going to be within this development.

Although some of them are changed in space,

the overall number of dwellings is not going to change.

So my sort of recognition of that is that

there's no additional benefit to this application,

only harm to privacy to the local residents.

So again, I don't know how we can approve this,

bearing in mind that we had a previous application which specifically

identified the harm to local residents on their privacy. With regard to roof

heights it will be the tallest structure along that road and it will be evident

from the from both St Andrews Road and Coast Drive. I want my bill passed

every day, Sergio loves the place, so there you go. That's all, thank you.

Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:08:00

Thank you chair. Just to address your first question, Councillor, about condition 18. That

was imposed to prevent unrestricted additions to the roof. So when the houses are built,

they would benefit from permitted development rights that allow for dorm windows, skylights,

things like that. Without that condition, the occupants would have been able to instal

them in accordance with their PD rights, which may have resulted in harm to neighbouring

The applicant has applied now, giving us planning officers the opportunity to consider the impact

of those changes, which as set out in the report we consider doesn't amount to any harm

to the immunity of neighbouring residents.

And in regards to your second point, that there's no additional benefit, the benefits

of the scheme were considered at the original application stage back in 2021 when the principle

was agreed.

That planning commission has been implemented.

What we're looking at now is just amendments to that scheme.

So we're not looking to consider benefits only whether or not the proposed changes are acceptable.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:09:01

So again, the original scheme had all of the supporting references and other things associated

with the viability of the scheme to deliver it with the original plan.

And with the original plan, it was a viable scheme to deliver 15, however many,

I've forgotten how many units now, additional units,

over and above that was in the existing structure.

So again, if it was able to be delivered previously,

why would we want to go and agree something

which is going to harm the privacy of local residents now?

That's my question, thank you.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:09:43

To pick up on, oh, good evening, Councillor,

Sorry, I forgot my usual decorum.

Condition 18 was imposed as the officer has set out

to stop unrestricted, to bring within the guise

of this authority the ability to assess

whether windows would be harmful.

The original commission in Condition 18

didn't say that new windows would be harmful.

They said they could be harmful

and they would therefore need to be assessed,

which is why we brought that into this council's control.

or otherwise we would not be here this evening.

We have as officers assessed the new window locations

and concluded that whilst there are new windows,

they don't give rise to any harm to residential amenity.

We've at no point concluded previously

that they would be harmful,

just that we would like to ensure

that there is a degree of control over them.

So I think that deals,

we haven't said there is harm ever as officers.

There could be, we've assessed it,

we've had that opportunity.

Now, Council is obviously perfectly entitled

to come to different conclusions,

and in doing so, it would have to set out

why the windows would be harmful

in respect of how much viewing they gave

and how much they don't.

That is an assessment we have made.

On the point of a previously viable scheme,

obviously schemes come in,

they are assessed as being acceptable at the time.

That doesn't ever prevent someone coming forward

with a different scheme of a change design

or a change approach for other economic decisions,

other design decisions. That is why we are here this evening to decide whether a new roof,

not the viability of the scheme, and alterations to normal windows and windows are acceptable in

design terms externally and residential amenity terms. Those are our key considerations this

evening and that's before you. So that would be a debate for members to come to as to whether they

believe the new windows could amount to either visual harm, which would be unacceptable,

and why so, and therefore whether the new windows would give rise to overlooking, which would be detrimental beyond that, which was already approved, to any neighbouring properties.

Thank you very much for that. That's very clear. Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:12:00

So can I just ask then, in terms of the objections that were identified,

So, 24 letters of objection from 20 different addresses.

They set out a number of objections.

And in the report, it actually stated that some of those

were valid because this was a Section 73 Amendment

and not a full application.

So, can you just elaborate on that just a little bit

for my understanding as well as anything else?

Thank you very much.

It's much as I explained before, Councillor,

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:12:36

this application is just seeking amendments

to the original scheme.

The original scheme has approved the principle,

the layout design, et cetera.

What we're looking at today is just the amendments before us,

so the dormer windows, the solar panels,

the changes to the roof, et cetera,

as set out in the report.

And that regard, those are the only issues we can consider.

We can't revisit the scheme in its entirety.

All we can look at and place weight on

is the changes to the approved scheme,

and that regard while the feelings of local residents

are appreciated and understood,

they're not relevant to this kind of application

because all we can look at

is the very specific amendments before us.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:20

Would any other Councillors, Councillor Hinesby?

Yes, thank you very much, Chairman.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:13:29

Well, actually that's a very clear explanation.

Thank you for those wonders.

I have read the report several times and I think it covers the sections very well under

the appraisal.

I really cannot see any reason for refusal so I would move the recommendation.

Thank you.

I had two seconders but I think Nicky came forward first.

Would you like to say anything else, Councillor Hinesby?

No, thank you.

I think the report really sets everything out and it's quite clear what we can actually

consider tonight and what we can't.

So I'm happy with that.

Thank you.

Councillor Goddard?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:10

Yeah, just to echo that, I do appreciate what Councillor Thomas obviously has brought, speaking

on behalf of his residents, et cetera, et cetera.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:14:20

But the Welling did set out quite plainly what is and what isn't and so on that basis

is happy to support this and the application.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:38

Thank you. Would any other Councillor like to speak or ask for clarification? I am seeing

none. Therefore, Committee, we have one proposal which has been proposed and the second did,

and that is to grant the application on the conditions set out below and giving delegated

authority to our Chief Planning Officer to agree and finalise the words of the conditions

and add any other conditions that he considers necessary.

So all those in favour please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:15

All those against.

Thank you.

And I don't believe that leaves any abstentions.

Thank you, that's nine in favour and two against.

Microphone B - 0:15:28

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:29

Thank you, that application has passed, thank you.

5 25/2112/FH - Former Foxwood School, 59 Seabrook Road, Hythe, CT21 5QJ

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:40

So we'll move on to our second application of the evening, which is 25 -2112 -FH, which

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:15:49

which is the former Foxwood School 59 Seabrook Road in Hoyth.

Do we have any updates, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Good evening, members.

Just one update for you tonight.

Following concern raised by a local resident,

which was set out in the update report

published at the end of last week,

relating to the proposed pedestrian access

to the north of the site at the boundary with Cliff Road,

I have suggested an additional condition is imposed

on any grant of planning commission that would secure

the access along with the details,

including surfacing, drainage, visibility space,

and a safety assessment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:34

And we have three speakers on this this evening.

Our first speaker is Paul Lomax, who is a local resident

to speak against the application.

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

Microphone Forty - 0:16:57

Chair, Members, I live on Seabrook Road, immediately south and below the application site, and

our bedroom windows look directly onto this hillside. I support housing on this allocated

sites but I do not believe the scheme generally reflects the landscape -led approach required

by policy UA17. The applicant's design access statement identifies the former school plateaus

as the most suitable locations for development and the steeper slopes and priority habitat

areas as the least suitable, yet the scheme progressively extended development into those

problem areas. In the lower terrace woodland area, the applicant promotes views towards

the coast. Given the elevated topology, it is difficult to see how those views can be

created without removing woodland screening and increasing overlooking of homes below

on Seabook Road. Although the lower terrace is an outline, the committee is being asked

to approve the development framework and parameter plan now through conditions 4, 5 and 6. If

landscape buffers and woodland are not secured at this stage, they are unlikely to be recovered

later. My own measurements suggest that southern woodland is substantially larger than the

landscape buffer before the framework is approved.

Also, in 2024, I recorded crystal clear water flowing continuously for weeks from drainage

pipes below the site at a rate of around 10 litres per minute.

This demonstrates the water moves through this hillside.

Conditions 38 and 45 rightly require that further groundwater drainage and stability

investigations are needed. But until that work is completed, it is impossible to know

how much development can safely be accommodated within the outliner and the

area and what space will be available for landscape buffers. This is why I object, but

if members are minded to improve, I ask that two safeguards are secured through the planning

conditions. First, strengthen the southern woodland and landscape buffer via the parameter

plan in conditions 4, 5 and 6. A minimum width of 15 metres should be secured along the southern

boundary. The parameter plan should not prejudice tree retention within the outline area and

the buffer should not be reduced by further layout changes, drainage works or stability

measures and footpaths should not be included within the buffer. Second, strengthen condition

38 and 45 to ensure that any drainage, groundwater or slope stability measures or limitations

identified therein can be accommodated within the approved framework. If mitigations or

changes are required, the plan and framework should be capable of accommodating it without

reducing the landscape buffer. If that is not possible, the amount of development proposed

within the outline area must be reduced accordingly. Finally, I ask members to look carefully at

Woodland Heights. It is just nine houses yet appears to account for over two -thirds of

the proposed tree and woodland removals, whilst causing significant ecological harm and requiring

extensive engineering works. That does not appear to be a landscape -led outcome. The

naming suggests the woodland is the asset, but the design treats it as the obstacle.

That is why a wider landscape buffer must be secured through planning conditions and

why the framework being approved today must leave sufficient space for any drainage and

stability measures identify through conditions 38 and 45. Thank you. Thank you

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:20:05

sir. And our second speaker is Councillor Nikki Stewart who is speaking on

behalf of Hightown Council. Good evening and you will have three

Microphone Forty - 0:20:20

minutes from when you start. Good evening. Hightown Council objected to this

development on these grounds.

One, loss of mature trees and habitats.

Whilst the scheme claims to be landscape -led,

in reality it loses a number of mature trees,

including proportion of deciduous woodland,

which is habitat of principle importance.

Altogether, 1 .2 hectares of woodland,

which is considered a material loss.

It is inappropriate to call it a derelict wooded site.

The building's a derelict, but the wildlife and trees

are abundant and thriving.

For nearly five decades, it was a school site, quiet in the evenings and weekends and uninhabited

for 12 weeks of the year, and for the last nearly 10 years, completely dark at night.

Generous estimates are that the new planting will take 15 years to recover what is being

taken away, but that is just the visual impact of the trees from afar.

Taking it away, then putting it back, still doesn't contribute to the 10 % net gain for

biodiversity, which is expected on every new build.

Please may I respectfully remind the committee of the advice from

your offices as they have stated,

KCC Ecology have raised concerns regarding the cost and

deliverability of the offsite biodiversity net gain provision,

including the potential reliance on statutory

biodiversity credits.

This is a material consideration and the local planning authority

must be satisfied that the biodiversity gain condition can

ultimately be discharged.

Two, drainage and wastewater management.

The site is within an area identified

as at risk of land slip.

All local people know this, and all local people know

about the springs that pop up all over the escarpment.

And all the residents to the south of the development

have expressed their concern about land slip,

drainage, and surface water.

High Town Council requests that slope stability

needs to be addressed at the outset.

Pre -commencement conditions or latchgate conditions must be imposed so that specific structural

and drainage details are approved by the local council's engineering team before any physical

digging or construction starts.

Three, density of buildings.

The total of 150 dwellings is an immense number and we acknowledge the very real concern of

local residents on local services and infrastructure.

It is furthermore extremely disappointing that none of these will be low -cost housing.

Whilst we recognise the requirement for housing and welcome a development on this site, the

total number of units, the lack of low -cost housing, the resulting loss of wildlife habitats,

the loss of trees, the 33 % loss in biodiversity and the pressure on local services including

water supplies and waste water removal will ultimately have a negative overall impact

on our community. Thank you for listening to our objections.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:20

Thank you very much. And our third speaker this evening is Matt Whitby, who is the architect

to speak in support of the application. Good evening, sir. And you will also have three

minutes from when you start. Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:23:35

Good evening. I'm speaking in support of the proposals on behalf of our client, Suriko

homes, who are also the developers of the nearby Formus and Saviours site, which demonstrates

their commitment and track record of seeing their projects through to completion.

The Formus Foxwood School site is a brownfield site and has sat vacant since 2016. It is

allocated for up to 150 dwellings and obtained detailed planning sent in 2022 for a different,

more apartment -led scheme.

Over the past 18 months, we have engaged with Hytown Council, had pre -application meetings

with officers and held a public engagement event at our HIVE studio.

Initial design concepts were presented at a design review panel, who commended the landscape -led

approach, detailed site analysis and retention of significant tree cover as a strong basis

for a high -quality scheme.

This hybrid application differs from the original consented scheme in the following key ways.

It is truly landscape -led, focusing on character areas which respond to the site's existing

natural features and sloping topography.

It places an emphasis on a greater mix of typologies,

incorporating a wide range of house types,

opposed to the previous scheme's apartment -dominant approach.

The new application achieves a significant reduction

in built footprint, allowing increased retention

of mature trees, wherever practical, and woodland,

together with new planting and green infrastructure,

and incorporates over approximately 170 new trees.

It has extensive communal landscape areas,

including open space, wooden trails,

and a network of pedestrian footpaths.

The proposals have been driven by sustainable principles

and include passive solar shading, PV panels,

air source heat pumps, green roofs,

EV charging, and sustainable drainage systems.

The relationship between the scheme

and surrounding properties has been carefully designed

to prevent overlooking and ensure the privacy

of external emancipators unaffected,

including the retention of tree buffers.

The scheme includes eight self -built custom plots

and an on -site children's play area.

With the exception of High Town Council,

all the other statutory consultees have had no objection

subject to appropriate conditions.

The scheme also delivers significant local benefits.

It makes a valuable contribution

towards the council's housing supply

through the delivery of 150 dwellings.

The officer's report covers in detail

the contributions that will be made by the scheme,

including a controlled pedestrian crossing point

on Seabrook Road and bus stop improvements,

and an affordable housing clawback mechanism,

all of which would be secured via section 106.

We strongly urge you to support this scheme

and follow your Office of Recommendation for approval

of this carefully designed proposal,

located within the settlement boundary

on an allocated site, and which would deliver

much needed homes within a highly sustainable location.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:25

Councillors, over to you.

Any clarifications or questions, please?

Councillor Anita Jones.

So it's a dilemma, this one for me.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:26:38

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:26:40

It's clearly a better design than the last scheme

because it has more houses and less apartments, obviously,

and that's better for families.

And it's clear the developer has planned to keep more trees

than the previous design and to think about the green spaces

and how people live there.

But there is going to be a big loss of trees.

But that's obviously inevitable when it comes to development.

But you've got to balance how many trees is acceptable to lose.

There's some things I'm pleased about.

It's nice to see there's a footpath linked to Cliff Road that would be really important to residents

who want to reach the beach and the canal from that part of Hive.

I still feel there's too many properties on the plot.

There's a lot of flats being built

on Seabrook Road at the moment,

and I'm not convinced that they're all going

to be filled successfully.

And there's a huge development on the old St. Seagal site,

which I had concerns about.

It is being built, and I'd be interested

to see how any of those sell.

But I feel that this is quite intensive.

I think it's gonna put a lot of pressure

on drainage systems and water.

I don't know how the systems along Seabrook Road

are going to cope with all that.

I know we have to take the word of the water companies

that it will be okay, but when you look at the amount

of new properties being built on that road,

I have huge concerns about that.

I have concerns about traffic in and out of the estate,

but I am pleased that they're going to be looking

at some traffic management and there will be a crossing.

So that's an improvement and that will certainly

I think they were going to improve the bus stop again.

That will be really necessary.

So there are really good transport links along there.

So really important to me that that's going to be looked at.

Big red flag for me is the lack of affordable housing.

I think that's really unacceptable.

I know land is expensive in Hith

and it is expensive to develop,

but I don't think it's acceptable to have a development of this size without some affordable housing.

Another, one more issue I'm just going to say which is bothering me,

I lived along that, that, it's the old railway embankment many, many years ago when I was a child,

and it isn't that stable. I know that other flats and that, I have big worries about the stability of the land there,

So building up on that bank and obviously that's going to be the biggest loss of trees

and biodiversity loss if they build on that bit.

Is that entirely necessary to this scheme?

So I don't know if there's questions there, but that's all my concerns.

So I'm struggling to see how I can approve this.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:29:41

I don't believe there are actually specific questions within that.

No, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

No, no, absolutely.

Councillor Thomas.

Thank you, Chair.

I've got a couple of questions.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:29:57

The first of those is in section 3 .33 of the report,

where it talks about parking,

there's 43 spaces for the apartments,

two spaces per house,

and then this is the parking which will be on street only,

and distributed, but it doesn't say how many.

So my question is how many spaces would be included on the street?

I share the concerns about no affordable housing.

We've already had presented this committee the application at Station Road in Hyde,

which is 40 dwellings with again the same clawback arrangement that's been proposed

that is being proposed for this.

And again, a question I'd asked prior to this meeting was how much a community infrastructure

levy will this attract, because I couldn't find that specifically in the papers.

It might just be me reading it properly.

But when you have a look at the previous scheme, the previous scheme CIL was £3 .7 million,

pounds and the previous scheme had ten

had had 30 % affordable housing on it, 10 %

on site and 20 % that was commuted.

So you had a viable, an economically

viable scheme there, but it's not

economically viable now. And again, it's

in the report and I've seen the viability

assessments and our own independent

review those assessments. But you know when you have a look and say we can't

have a commuted sum or an allocation of affordable housing on site, that just

doesn't stack up with me at all, it really doesn't. And again I think it's a

question of the fat hogs feeding at the trough first, to be perfectly honest with you.

And so again I really really struggle with this particular part of the

application in terms of no affordable homes and I support what the Hivetown

Council is saying in respect of that as well. So again it just seems to be

HIVE could potentially be having 190 homes with no affordable housing

allocation upfront, excepting that within the section 106 there is a clawback

arrangement identified but that's you know that's undefined and as I say I struggle with that

at Station Road and I struggle with it here as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:32:28

I just want to put some clarifications in. I think just some key points. Obviously there was a

previous scheme. Members did approve that scheme. It was a markedly different scheme. As we've set

out in the presentation and in the reports, the floor area of that scheme was significantly

larger in footprint than this scheme and that is where you get a direct correlation to

a potentially lower community infrastructure levy

contribution because community infrastructure levy

is related to floor area as a multiple based on a number.

This particular scheme, depending on how much development

is eventually realised under the full scheme

when the outline reserve matters element comes forward,

would be in the area of 2 .5 to three million pounds,

which is comparable with potentially the three point,

whatever is in the last scheme,

given that there's a significant drop in floor area.

The report deals with affordable housing

and it's not an easy balancing act for officers

and it is finally balanced,

but the development plan adopted by this council,

A, allocates this scheme for up to 150 units

and it says that it should come forward

with 22 % affordable housing,

unless it can be demonstrated, which is government guidance,

that the scheme to come forward to meet our housing need

would not be viable.

The previous developer was very confident in 2022,

given the market conditions at the time,

that they could not only sell

significantly larger properties,

but there would be such a amount of money they could make

that they felt very confident

they could contribute to some onsite

and I think something like 20 % offsite as a committed sum.

But that was different world economic conditions

and we have to be mindful of that.

Tonight I would advise members need to base their decision

as officers have based their recommendation

on the empirical evidence before us,

which is the applicant has put an open book viability report

into the public domain for scrutiny.

The council has commissioned independent viability

consultants to review that and to review the inputs.

And the conclusion we have unfortunately had to draw

is that the scheme, if we wish to see it realised,

would not be viable if it makes affordable housing

and affordable contributions.

It is the slight drawback to the community infrastructure

that reverses section 106 in that we don't have

the ability to vary and change

where we take our contributions.

That is a decision taken that still is our main mechanism

for contributions and that is how that is delivered.

So just to clarify, the previous commission,

we've granted planning commission for development on that.

And whilst the commission is no longer extant

and has expired, any external decision maker,

if we were asked to justify our position,

would look at that and say,

how rational are you being between that decision

and this decision?

We then need to make a decision,

councillors need to come to a decision

whether they think the evidence in front of them

is sufficient to warrant departing from adopted policy.

The policy is always a starting point

and then there's a balancing act that has to be carried out

by officers and then by members.

We have come to the conclusion that the development

which is necessary to achieve the aims of the local plan,

adopted local plan, doesn't demonstrate viability

and we don't believe there's a strong case

for rejecting on the lack of affordable housing.

That is an unfortunate conclusion,

but it is the conclusion we've had to reach

based on the evidence before us.

If members would come to a different conclusion,

absolutely fine, but they would have to have evidence

to the contrary.

There are two different schemes in front of us.

Well, one in front of us,

but the two very different.

Thank you very much for that explanation.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:36:31

I think we all realise that it's just,

we sat in here and had the presentation

from the developers associated with this site.

At no time did they say anything about the viability

of the scheme at that point in time.

And again, when this was presented to us,

it was on the basis of having it set up

pretty much as it is here.

So again, I just feel disappointed that we weren't appraised

of the potential for that when we had a lot more people

sat in front of us that would give GR

some more probing questions.

And again, so my other question is, sorry about this,

is so why is it so difficult to build houses in Hyde?

Is it because we're building new places

that are exceedingly difficult to build,

which is why the whole thing about land stability

has been raised to my, and this whole thing about springs,

which is raised by both the residents

by high -tech council.

But it just seems to me, you know,

we've got 190 houses now potentially,

which will have no affordable housing agreed up front,

but we'll potentially have a call back later on.

It just seems to me that if it's not viable to build them,

there will be building there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:37:47

I think, obviously, applications invariably change

between proposition.

We, you know, the applicants did at the time

say that their intention was very much a fully policy compliant scheme.

I would imagine for them things have changed as they've evolved the scheme.

One thing I can say is this site is on a hill and the planning inspector and this council decided that

as it was a brownfield site with existing buildings on it, it was a good place to put housing rather

than in the countryside. It's located well to services, it's in a good area for access to schools

and other things.

That was the tension and the balance at the time.

What makes this an unviable scheme at the moment

is not only the economics of the outside world

on how much everything has become more expensive

across the world, and we're all probably feeling that.

The key is because of addressing the land stability point,

which the residents and the town council

would like addressed, and we would like to make sure

that we don't have a building which harms stability

in the area, there will be significant engineering operations to make sure that it hangs onto

the hill.

To deal with the surface water drainage and the springs, there will have to be other infrastructure

developments which in the reports, no doubt you've read them for the viability, we'll

talk about abnormal costs.

The costs that come up which are unexpected, if it was a flat site, it wouldn't exist quite

so much.

And there is that perfect storm between adopting this site as an allocation in 2020, the world

the world has evolved and the scheme has to evolve.

What hasn't changed, unfortunately,

is the need for housing delivery in the area.

But Hive is both an attractive place to invest,

but also this particular site comes with some

heavy constraints which we have to take a decision on today

based on the information of how much

we believe it's gonna cost.

The clawback mechanism is designed

as a late -stage review, which will allow us to,

Okay, early and the late stage review,

which will allow us to look at the assumptions made

in the viability reports in terms of costs to build

and what they thought their sales value were,

and then we can compare them against actual costs to build

and actual sales value.

And then we can claw back some of that additional profit,

if there is any, towards affordable housing in height.

And that is where the mechanism comes from.

Alternatively, we could not have the claw back

and we could have discussion about whether

we just went with no affordable housing,

but it's a decision for members to make.

I understand the tension.

We do understand how disappointing it can be

to have sites coming forward in high value areas

that don't provide affordable housing,

but this isn't a case of just not wanting to do it.

This is empirically demonstrated

to be difficult to develop here.

and we need to find the houses.

Thank you very much, Senator Gine.

Can I just say, thank you very much

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:40:59

for a very comprehensive report,

because it allows us to ask you

informed questions we've asked tonight,

so thank you for that, appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councillor Mike Beggin.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I'll echo some of what's been said before.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:41:12

It is an attractive scheme,

and it is much more attractive than its predecessor,

But I do have lots of concerns about it.

Bats, badgers, reptiles, including slow -wurms,

nesting birds, deciduous woodland,

it sounds like an episode of Spring Watch before our eyes,

which is gonna be swept away by this, so that's one thing.

And the ecological survey seems to raise questions,

and I think I've said this, the previous planning thing is,

how can you really mitigate for that loss?

We talk about mitigation, but there is no way really,

if you lose that amount of woodland,

if you lose those habitats,

there is no real effective way of mitigation,

I suppose just means reducing the impact of it,

but you can't eliminate the impact of that.

So that's one thing.

But there are a lot of other concerns here

around the stability of the site and around water runoff.

And it does feel like, as we've just been saying,

it's a very, very difficult site,

and that's why the viability is such a question.

I would say it feels like pushing water uphill,

but I think that's the opposite problem

that we're gonna deal with,

is water coming down the hill.

And that was my question really,

is about the surface water,

which I know is a concern for residents there,

and I'm concerned about where all that water goes.

On page 68 of the papers,

there's reference to the proposed flow

introduced compared to the current arrangement.

The LLFA notes from the sewer map,

the company Southern Waters is constantly in response

at a surface water series present on Saxon

close to the south of the development site.

It's understood this sewer ultimately discharges

into the Royal Military Canal.

And that's obviously, is that where this water

is going to end up ultimately, going into the canal?

I didn't really understand the next bit,

and I would be grateful for some explanation

of that bit about what this means about,

in accordance with standard,

the National Standards was partly of it's been priority

to begin to connect into the surface water sewer

rather than discharging to the combined sewer.

So there's a preference for this,

but what is actually gonna happen to this water?

How can we avoid the surface water ending up where it should?

We had a presentation earlier this evening

about how the priority is to try and keep water on the site.

How is that gonna happen in this case?

Thank you.

I think it's important to note that the drainage strategy

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:43:36

is secured through a proposed planning condition

for a detailed strategy together with verification reports

which would then be subject to consultation

with the local flood authority.

The strategy that they've set out proposes subs.

It seeks to reduce runoff at the site

by approximately 50 % to the current conditions.

And the details about not discharging into the sewer,

it's all about applying the drainage hierarchy

that KCC are basically setting out to the developer

that this is what you should do with your drainage strategy

when the details come in.

But ultimately, they have not raised an objection

to this development subject to the conditions.

and we propose to secure those as we would

with any centre development.

Thank you.

So the other part I was gonna make really was about,

I don't think I've ever seen quite as many conditions

attached to an application as with this one,

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:44:41

which is on the one hand reassuring,

because we're on it and we're gonna be monitoring

that all of these things are done,

including around water runoff and biodiversity

and structural stability and all of that.

But I'm just worried that that doesn't prevent a problem

further down the road. It doesn't mean that you might not have swept away that woodland

and then find that you cannot actually effectively complete the scheme even, or that you don't

have a problem as soon as you go in and start building it and you start the piling and all

of that. So although, yeah, the conditions are good because we're going to presumably

going to enforce those and we're going to make sure that things don't happen that shouldn't,

but I'm just concerned about can we actually effectively,

it seems that there are so many risks attached to this,

can we really effectively stop all of those risks?

Thank you.

I think it's important,

well there are a lot of conditions,

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:45:36

and that is partly because it's a hybrid application

where we're trying to secure the same detail

for the full application and for the outline element as well

but I think it's also important to note

that a lot of the conditions are pre -commencement conditions

or we'll be expecting details to be submitted

with the reserve matters approval

so they can be considered early on.

But things like land stability, ecology, drainage,

they are all pre -commencement.

So until we are satisfied that that's acceptable,

then they wouldn't be able to commence the development.

Thank you very much. Councillor Lockwood.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:19

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:46:26

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just kind of following on really from what's already been said. There

are a lot of conditions and I think that reflects a lot of risks and a lot of risks on the site

will have been priced in to that viability calculation, making the site look like it's

not viable in order to provide affordable housing.

So in a way, what we're proposing here is exactly the right approach in so much as conditions

are there because there are lots of biodiversity,

there's slopes, there are streams running through the sites

and lots of trees, lots of trees are being taken away.

Couple of side points, if I may, in that.

Is it possible to reduce the number of trees

that are being taken away as a condition?

Can that be looked at so that, so just ask that question.

And secondly, some reassurance around streams.

This is not unusual.

There are streams that run from St. Eames with

on the bale through the old high street.

Mediaeval folkstonians were very clever

because they collect some of that water.

And if you go to the basement of El Cortador restaurant,

you can see the well with that water being collected

from the 13th century.

And there's one other shot that has a stream

running through the shot, and that runs,

even if it hasn't rained for three months,

that stream is running.

And these are all measures, this is how the streams

running through the old High Street in Fokusen are managed.

And that would come in the detailed planning later

as to how that's dealt with.

So I wouldn't worry too much about that.

So I think this is being dealt with properly.

I would like, if I may, to ask, can we reduce the number of trees being taken away as a

condition?

And secondly, could you give us some detail about the section 106 clawback?

Is that a fixed amount, a statutory fixed amount, or can we be a bit more aggressive

as a council and say, look, the developer's taking the risk, but if these risks are mitigated

at low cost and there is actually a whacking profit

in this site, then we want to get some council houses

out of it in a commuted space.

That would be my two questions, thank you.

I'll deal with the trees first, Councillor.

Obviously within the detailed area,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:49:09

there is a tree plan which says what's gonna come out

and as Alex has touched on and the report touched on,

significantly less tree loss is happening

in this application than the previous one.

And there is also additional tree planting going back in.

In the outline area, of course, that is an outline,

and whilst there is an indicative parameter plan

of how it could come forward,

the developer might choose in the future

to come forward with something different,

and there will be a debate at the time

about those trees and what trees are retained

and whether they're appropriate for placemaking

or other reasons, so there is a potential,

but what I can't say is we could definitely insist upon it.

What we have is a baseline at the moment.

On the clawback mechanism,

we will have to work through the exact bits.

I take your point, but there is case law and there is advice from government on how we approach it.

So we will defer to our viability consultant and negotiate with him as to what is the standard practise for what we claw back.

But you're right, potentially, if they can build it less than it costs and they can make more money because the market significantly improves,

there could be additional profits and you would expect this council to take a share of that towards affordable housing.

In my past, in my naivety, I sometimes just push for all of that profit up until we've recouped every single penny, but that doesn't stack up with case law.

So we won't be able to do that, I'm afraid. So I think what we will do as officers is if you approve the principle of a clawback, is we will then have to work with the viability consultant to work out what that is and have to negotiate the best arrangement we possibly can.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:50:54

Thank you. Councillor Linsley.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:51:03

Thank you, Chair. I think most of the questions I was thinking about have been answered,

and actually, I have to say, very comprehensively.

On the previous application, and you say it's extant now, is that right? It's expired. Yes.

So they couldn't implement that scheme.

Although if we turned it down,

they would use that against us in terms of,

well, in terms of an appeal.

Yes, so to clarify, in normal cases,

you can have a fallback position.

You're absolutely, you can really struggle.

In this particular case, I would expect from experience,

if members were to refuse it,

their planning team would say to an inspector,

what assessment have we gone through,

and where have the council applied consistency of approach?

So in determining that a bigger scheme with less trees

was okay, we would have to have exceptional grounds

for now saying a smaller scheme with more trees

is unacceptable, and we might be found to be inconsistent

and irrational in our thinking process.

So that is the process we would have to go through.

So it's not extant, it couldn't happen tomorrow anyway,

which is normally what we have to tell you,

but it would have to go through the same,

the policies are all the same, the evidence is the same,

the site has changed over time while it's remained dormant,

that's obviously been picked up through the update reports,

but we'd have to go through where is the additionality,

which would result in a different decision

and you would have to set that up.

Thank you. And I'd just like to say, why Hyde? Somebody asked why Hyde? It's a good place to build houses and it's a good place for people to live.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:52:53

And you know, you would expect that. And actually it's got very expensive and too expensive for some people to even think about moving to Hyde.

On the other hand, thinking about stability on the land, we have over the years passed many applications for sites like this

and I don't think that we've had too many difficulties. I don't know about that, I've got no evidence to show that.

Particularly in Sandgate, we have given lots of approvals to applications.

Maybe Gary will tell me different.

I am actually prepared to move the recommendation.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:53:46

We have a proposal and Councillor Goddard is seconded.

I still have some people on my list.

Would you like to say anything else, Councillor Hinesby?

That's fine.

And I move on to Councillor Goddard.

Thank you.

Obviously I've shown my colours already.

In fact I want you to see that artist's impression, but it's on.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:54:07

The artist's impressions that keep flashing past is full of trees, full of greenery, full

of hedging, you know, you name it, the trees, bushes, everything's there.

And Llewellyn nicked half of my script.

I was going to bring up the previous site about this site. This application has got more trees,

more foliage, there's more going for it. Excellent designs, you know, credit to Mr. Whitby and team.

This could be the flagship of Hive, you know, this, you know, with them having to supply

all the information before they can build like Adrian touched on already. This is why we've got

to many conditions and fair play for addicts for putting all those in.

So, you know, I think this is excellent design.

It's a lot better than the previous one.

And, you know, it speaks for itself, the trees, the foliage and the conditions.

I don't mind the money going in a pot for our council houses.

I ain't got an issue with that at all.

You know, I've been on this committee 19 years

and we've seen many applications go around the houses with developers

and come back so we can't afford now to put the houses in because you know time changed

four years ago the building game is a lot better and you know a lot different it was

now probably half of this scheme 40 % of it you won't even see the money be in the ground

you know where there's going to be so much work in the ground so no happy with this and

hopefully we'll see something go up there very shortly because it's been sort of knocking

around many many years it seems like so we're happy to support.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:41

Councillor Fuller.

Thank you, Chair.

I suppose I'd best answer Councillor Hollingsby's question first.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:55:49

Yes, we have had our fair share of schemes in Sandgate.

We've also had our fair share of landslips and floods, as well as some of which are the

result of that scheme.

Those schemes, I should say.

Also just on affordability, even the affordable housing wouldn't be affordable to most people

nowadays, unfortunately, unless you've got capital

behind you already or the bank of mum and dad,

but that's a problem we're not gonna solve in committee.

Not unless we're really hitting above our weight.

I did have a question about the condition

on biodiversity net gain.

There's a bit in the trigger points,

which seems a little bit confused to me

because obviously KCC Ecology suggested

that they were concerned about the use of credits

and the affordability and obviously,

we were already concerned about the viability of the scheme.

So I can understand why they're concerned about that.

And then they've suggested that we basically

get the money up front, so to speak,

we get that organised prior to commencement.

But in the actual trigger points,

you've got two bits there.

You've got a bit that says prior to occupation,

phased as required.

And then you've got another bit that says

off -site secured and legally agreed prior to commencement.

So I suppose my question is, which is it?

And also as a follow -up, if it's commencement,

are we clear that commencement is,

includes or is before the clearing of the first tree?

So you can just go in and clear the site and say,

well, we haven't commenced yet because we haven't dug in,

you know, we haven't put any piles in or whatever, you know.

So those are my questions.

Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:57:34

The biodiversity net gain condition is the mandatory condition that has to be applied

to all planning conditions, so that's as an informative.

Any no commencement, including cutting down trees or anything like that, could occur without

the applicants submitting their biodiversity gain plan.

Plus, there's also a requirement for them to submit a habitat maintenance and monitoring plan as well, which goes alongside that.

And that would have to be looked at by KCC.

And it would also have to be written into the section 106 agreement.

And any off -site, on -site credits would have to be agreed before anything happens.

that is what the legislation says.

So basically they're going to have to put their money where their mouth is

before they can dig up a single tree.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:37

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:58:50

One of the factors in the viability,

just I think it's covered in the report,

is biodiversity net gain and the use of credits or on -site.

And there is a potential that if they use

less off -site credits, there'll actually be less money

leaving the scheme, which will obviously then improve

the viability and relate back to the clawback mechanism.

One of the costs in this instance is the biodiversity

10 % improvement on what's already there now

because it's a better site, it's got more so.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:59:28

What you're basically saying is it would be cheaper

for them if they could find a few more trees to leave behind.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:59:35

Councillor Scotland.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:36

Yeah, I just, I've listened to the debate

Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:59:41

with great interest.

Particularly with my portfolio, I'm well aware

of the biodiversity net gain issues.

I'm well aware of the unsuitability of some sites

and the pressure of climate unpredictability in the future,

and we don't know how that's going to play out.

What I'd like to ask though is,

what grounds could we reasonably have for refusal,

given you've made the point, so I don't know about the fact

that this is an improvement, basically,

on the previous plan and it would be seen

as a rational force not to recognise that.

what grounds could we reasonably use in planning law?

The only people who could answer that question,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:00:25

Councillor, would be yourselves.

I could, once you were to suggest reasons,

we could give you advice on whether those

potentially would be defendable or otherwise,

but at this moment in time, officers believe that

subject to the careful weighing of all the issues

in the balance, this is the correct decision.

You could come to a different one,

but you'd have to set out what they might be.

That's part of my learning curve.

Councillor Jones.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:55

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:00:59

So I just wondered whether there was room

for deferring to improve based on what we've discussed

this evening and whether that's an option.

We've certainly done that with other applications before.

The Station Road, we deferred and they came back

with a better design reflecting on the concerns that we had.

So I just wonder whether we take some of the considerations

that we've discussed this evening and put it

to the developer that they are happy with the principle

of the development because we understand

that that site has had permission before,

but perhaps they could do a little bit better in some ways

and then we would be more comfortable with it.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:01:46

Members would have to propose a deferral and they would have to set out precisely what it is that needed changing.

And I mean it's very clear as to exactly what you mean and exactly why that change would need to happen so that the developer could go away and take that.

That vote would have to happen after the vote on the first motion, but it would be for whoever

is the proposer to set out what the reasons for deferral would be, and for a seconder

to agree those deferrals.

And therefore, if members then had a debate further after that, we wish to add further

or second issues to that.

Those would have to be agreed with the proposer and all the seconder, rather than an open

floor debate of what more things we could add.

But what you'd have to go through is the report

and set out clearly where the proposals need changing,

why, and what it is you would like to see.

Councillor Fuller.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:56

Just from previous experience,

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:02:59

there's also another point to be made on this, I think,

and Llewellyn will correct me,

but should we defer an application

and should it come back to a future meeting

with an appropriate list of things that need changing,

any things that we hadn't mentioned

would be broadly assumed to be acceptable.

Is that correct?

Correct, Councillor.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:03:21

You'd have to tonight specify what the issues were

and what needed addressing precisely

and what it is you were expecting the applicant to go

and think about doing.

Two things stem from that.

that the applicant could decide

that they don't wish to entertain any of that discussion

and they could potentially go straight to appeal

and this would defer to somebody else

and you will lose your influence

over the planning application.

Yes, if they then addressed your comments

or at least took it away and then brought it back

and they had done some of it,

but you wouldn't be able to then add new bits to the debate.

So I've come back to my previous advice.

If you wish to defer the application,

you would need to specify exactly what it is needs changing, in what area and why.

And just because I've listened to the debate this evening, the report deals with as far as

officer concern land stability, surface water drainage, biodiversity, and all sort of the key

matters. And you would need to set out why you believe the planning balance needs to be addressed

further.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:04:30

Before I allow Councillor Thomas to speak again, I just want to cheque my understanding

on this.

So we had an application that was, shall I say, a lot more blocky, a lot more departments,

apartments rather, that would have resulted in an awful lot more biodiversity being lost

on this site.

That was never taken forward.

So the developer has now come forward with, visually, I would say, a lot more amenable site,

but with a lot more biodiversity left on the site.

However, we have no affordable on it, which is always a big issue for me.

However, I do understand economic changes,

and we have put in place a scheme to ensure

that if the viability reports that we've been given

prove to be pessimistic, shall we say,

that we can claim some of that money back,

which can then go into Affordable Council,

however you want to put it forward.

And I'm also understanding that they cannot clear any of this site until such time as any biodiversity credits are actually put into place.

They're not allowed to touch that site and start clearing until they have arranged to make sure that there is a balance elsewhere.

I just want to cheque my understanding because this is quite important. Thank you.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:06:13

That seems like a fair summary of the debate and your understanding.

Correct.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:19

Councillor Lockwood, did you want to speak again?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Just a couple of points, really.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:06:28

I haven't said this evening yet that we need more housing, so I'll say that now.

I challenge any member to find a point of clarity to defer that is not covered in one

of those conditions.

So I would not support any kind of deferral.

Thank you.

Councillor Fuller.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:58

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:00

Sorry, Councillor Thomas then, Councillor Fuller.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:07:01

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:02

and then I think we're coming to the end of the debate.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:07:06

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Just in terms of viability and construction costs as stated in the report,

when you have a look at that, it's showing that the average cost per dwelling is £362 ,000

with an £18 ,000 contingency per dwelling.

How does that compare with other dwellings that have been constructed in the last couple of years,

immediately adjacent to this site for the Long Seabrook Road?

Because there are a number of them that have actually been through exactly the same kind of thing

that we're talking about here in terms of the stability of the site.

And the same, I'll come back to Station Road in Hyde as well,

that is probably an even more demanding site because it's up a hill

and you get it both ways, don't you?

So I just wonder whether that construction cost

has been challenged robustly, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:08:07

We have appointed an independent viability consultant

who has looked at, with a quantity surveyor I understand,

the costs put forward, both in the construction costs

and the contingencies and the abnormals.

I couldn't comment on schemes outside

I haven't seen the viability reports or things that happened at a different time and they wouldn't be material to tonight's discussion

What you have in front of you is the developer is suggesting that

The costs of this site are higher and they're looking to build to a higher quality because it's high so they've used BC is

Upper quartile costs I believe but I could be slightly out on that but they're looking for higher costs

You've then got significant abnormal costs

You've got the implications of biodiversity in your game,

which hits every site these days,

but it depends on what you can do on site

and what you can't do on site.

And then you've got the contributions model

that we have and the economic climate we sit in.

What we've asked is the consultant to look at the costs now

in today's money and the market conditions in today's money

and to look at whether he thinks the sales values

per square metre or per property are reasonable assumptions

based on where the market may be today and where it might not, and where their conclusion

is that based on all those figures, the scheme can't support that.

Now, there might be changes in efficiencies in development costs.

They might also go completely the other way, but that's where the clawback mechanism is

our fail safe, to make sure that if there are efficiencies and we can get a better outcome,

then we can call back something for this district

and for Hith.

But as far as I have evidence in front of me,

someone has checked those costs and the build costs

and said they stack up from their experience

looking at the market.

But I couldn't comment on what the costs were

in relation to Station Road or any other site

in the district because who knows what technologies

they're using and are they building the same products

to the same floor area and have they got the same,

underground water constraints, it's difficult to tell.

You have to go on the evidence for the sites.

And I do fully appreciate the tension

that members will find tonight

in coming to a conclusion on this one.

It isn't a slam dunk in terms of,

there's 100 % affordable housing, so let's crack on.

There are some challenges and we don't shy away from that.

I think we'd have to balance the harms and the goods.

Councillor Follon.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:37

Thank you.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:10:39

Just a quick question on the previous application.

would that have had the same biodiversity net gain condition?

I didn't think it would have.

So actually this condition is relatively new

and would have affected the viability of the site.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:54

And the last one this evening,

because she's just put her hand up, Councillor Shoop.

Thank you.

I want to echo Councillor Lockwood's words.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:11:03

However, I would stress we need more affordable homes.

I agree with every single word that Councillor Mead said about this application and appreciate

the viability report, etc.

Having that claw back is the best we are going to get from this.

That is why I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:36

So, Councillors, we have one proposal that has been seconded in front of you, and that

is to agree with the officer's recommendation regarding this application, including the

myriad of conditions that there are with this particular application.

All those in favour, please show.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:04

Thank you. All those against?

And any abstentions?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:12

Microphone B - 1:12:15

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:20

Thank you very much, Councillors, for a very good debate. That application has passed.

That is the last application of the evening.

So thank you very much and until next time.

Thank you.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 16 June 2026, 7:30pm - Slides Tab - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting