Interactive webcast player

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 21st July 2026 at 7:00pm

 

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.

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Microphone B
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  7. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  8. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  11. Llywelyn Lloyd
  12. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Cllr Clive Goddard
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Cllr Paul Thomas
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  23. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  24. Llywelyn Lloyd
  25. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  26. Cllr Tony Cooper
  27. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  28. Cllr Tony Cooper
  29. Llywelyn Lloyd
  30. Cllr Jackie Meade
  31. Cllr Tony Cooper
  32. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  33. Llywelyn Lloyd
  34. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  35. Cllr Jackie Meade
  36. Cllr Clive Goddard
  37. Cllr Jackie Meade
  38. Cllr Gary Fuller
  39. Cllr Jackie Meade
  40. Cllr Paul Thomas
  41. Cllr Jackie Meade
  42. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  43. Cllr Jackie Meade
  44. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  45. Cllr Jackie Meade
  46. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  47. Cllr Jackie Meade
  48. Cllr Stephen Scoffham
  49. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  50. Cllr Jackie Meade
  51. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  52. Cllr Jackie Meade
  53. Llywelyn Lloyd
  54. Cllr Clive Goddard
  55. Cllr Jackie Meade
  56. Cllr Jackie Meade
  57. Cllr Jackie Meade
  58. Microphone B
  59. Cllr Jackie Meade
  60. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:05
Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licencing Committee.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones
are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode, as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration,
it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
So members, as Chair of the 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, so we will move on.
And I would just like to make a statement of clarification about this evening's meeting.
We are a consortee regarding the solar farm.
We are not voting on the solar farm.
We are discussing whether the report that the officers have put forward to us contains
everything that we believe it should do to go back as a consortee.
So I want to make sure that everyone is aware of that this evening.
We will have some speakers, or at least one speaker,
and as you know Tony, you're an old hand at this one,
you will have three minutes. After that
we will have debate around the chamber
so that you can ask for any clarifications.
When we finish the debate I will give every councillor
five minutes to sum up what
they want to say about the report in order that the planning team can actually gather any extra
information that we may like put into the report or indeed have anything taken out.
So I just wanted to make it absolutely clear. We are consortees this evening. So

1 Apologies for Absence

do we have any apologies for absence, please? Thank you chair.
Microphone B - 0:02:38
Yes, we've received apologies from Councillor Keene and also from Councillor Jones and we have Councillor Scoffin here as a substitute. Welcome Councillor Scoffin.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:45
Do we have any declarations of interest please councillors?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:53
I am seeing none in the room and there's no minutes to be signed

3 26/1119/FH/NSIP - South Brooks Solar Farm, Lydd

tonight so we will go straight
onto the matter this evening which is 26 -1119 -FH -NSIP
which is South Brooks Solar Farm in Lidd
Do we have any updates please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:03:16
Thank you chair. I do have a verbal update in response to some questions raised by members
following publication of the report. So I'll just go through those. I have two questions
on best and most versatile land. The first question is how has that been assessed and
where did the data come from? So an agricultural land classification report has been included
in the list of documents submitted for formal consultation by the applicants. The report's
based upon mapping data, excavation of soil pits, and analysis of 406 soil auger borings,
which have been taken over 812 hectares of land between October 2025 and March 2026 to
assess the soil profile. The report sets out that it is a predictive technical note and
that further data is required before the agricultural grades can be finalised, including further
at AUGA surveys and that work is ongoing.
We would expect the final Agricultural Land Classification Report to contain details of
the methodology to demonstrate that the report's been undertaken by an appropriately qualified
person and conforms with DEFRA requirements.
We are aware that the approach to the methodology, according to the consultation, has followed
discussions with Natural England who would also review the report and the impact on BMV
land as a statutory consultancy.
The second question on BMV is should we expect to see details of land use, e .g. arable, sheep
farming, grassland, etc., so we can understand the impact on food production and the potential
for loss of farming jobs?
It was hidden away a little bit, but it was in the consultation.
It was in the biodiversity chapter of the consultation information.
Within that, there is a table and plans that show existing land uses for almost 1 ,000 hectares
of the site.
The land use is predominantly the farming of cereal crops, which is just over 600 hectares,
and non -cereal crops stroke temporary grassland, which accounts for 300 hectares of the land.
and the remaining land was essentially field margins, scrub, access tracks, woodland and other grassland.
In terms of impact on farming jobs, that has specifically been raised by the Council's Economic Development Officer
and is highlighted in paragraph 7 .67 of the report as a matter that the environmental statement must address.
The next category of questions related to landscape and visual impacts.
The question is how has the local knowledge from residents and organisations such as whom
been used to fully understand the impact of the visual impact of the development.
So members are probably aware that the process requires local residents and organisations
to respond directly to the applicant rather than via the council.
So there hasn't been any form of formal consultation process that the council undertakes externally.
as part of this process. Officers have carried out extensive site visits and the
Council has also employed a landscape consultant to provide advice on the
information provided to date. The applicant will need to provide a full
landscape and visual impact assessment as part of the formal submission of the
application and officers expect to engage with the applicant over the scope
and content of this in the coming months. That will form a key document in establishing
the level of landscape and visual harm arising from the development and the extent to which
harm can be mitigated. When we discuss the assessment with the applicants,
officers are very happy to consider any points made by whom or local residents regarding
visual impacts, for example, key local viewpoints or well -used paths in the footpath network.
But we would suggest that whom and others make direct representation to the applicant now
and to the government with their specific concerns because that's the process that needs to be undertaken.
And then the second question is how will the above be fed back to the developers?
So again, residents and organisations should respond to the applicant directly as part of the consultation process.
Again, there'll be ongoing discussions between the council and the applicant regarding landscape and visual impacts.
which can include any local feedback received. But our final view, or the Council's final view,
will be submitted in the what are called the relevant representations and local impact report,
which the Council submits at pre -examination stage. But at this particular stage in the process,
at the pre -application stage, at the moment, we're highlighting that landscape and visual impact
needs to be considered and thoroughly assessed in the DCO application. And then the final topics
relate to statutory consortees, particularly KCC.
The question is, what is the status of the KCC
position statement on solar generation,
and how does this fit in with our response to the developer?
So Kent County Council have set out a position statement
recently on solar generation.
However, the cabinet paper, the KCC cabinet paper itself,
states that the position statement is non -statutory
and carries no development plan status.
So it's not relevant or material to how we as a council
assess, carry out an assessment
or respond to the consultation.
Kent County Council themselves are also called
a host authority as we are.
And they are able to submit their own representations
in the same way that we are doing to this process.
So they're obviously perfectly able to highlight that position statement as part of that process.
And then the last question was, does KCC have a solar generation policy that we need to
be aware of and include in our response?
And they do not have an adopted specific solar generation policy in their local plan, which
only covers minerals and waste anyway.
So thank you members.
That's it.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:46
Thank you very much. We will move on to our first and only speaker,
which is Councillor Tony Hill's Romney Marsh ward member to speak on the consultation.
Good evening, Tony, and you will have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you, Chair, also a lead resident, I might add.
Microphone Forty - 0:10:05
Thanks for allowing me to speak to you this evening.
I felt I had to voice the concerns of my community.
I know that it will be down to the Secretary of State to decide the outcome, but in being
consulted I hope we can make clear the potential environmental vandalism that is planned.
The Robby Marsh has been over a thousand years in the making, the gift from the sea.
If it is compromised, it could be lost forever.
We are facing the serious threat of climate change with the increasing challenge of managing
water flows. This scheme and others that have been in the planning are a threat to the very
survival of the Romney Marsh as we know it. Folks in the High and District Council produced
an Ex report, which covers lots of the concerns under discussion, but in my opinion we are
playing with fire, or in this case water. The risk, the compromising of delicate balance
of managing the flows in our unique environment of Romley Marsh.
To finish, I have not met one resident that supports this scheme, but I have met many
who don't.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:25
So Councillors, over to you and reminding that the first part of this evening will be
any clarifications or any points that you want to raise
at the beginning of the meeting.
So Councillors, would anyone like clarification or to speak?
Councillor Hiersby.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:45
Yes, I'll start.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:11:51
Can I first of all say an excellent report.
And I think a lot of the issues that Councillor Hills
was talking about or is talking about or is aware of
are actually included in that.
And I was actually very pleased to see
that in a number of cases,
you've talked about need to be clarified
or need to be mitigated
or need to come up with further information.
I've got a couple of points I wanted to ask.
You've talked about, or it's talked about in the report,
that this is a preliminary.
and then we can also make comments
for the actual application.
But I also, and maybe it's my misunderstanding,
that we can't be so specific then.
We've got to outline our concerns now
rather than at the stage of the pre -application.
I just wanted confirmation that that's so.
And then a couple of other things.
You talked about host authorities,
rather as a host authority, I'm assuming.
Have we had any contact with them?
Like you say, they would obviously be making
their own contribution, but I just wondered
whether there'd been any dialogue with them in that respect.
And then, I was looking at the 60 years
rather than the 40 years.
I mean, we do look at 40 years, I mean, in previous applications or in previous ones
that I've been aware of, it's been talked about 40 years rather than 60 years, because
obviously that's another 20 years of not having the agricultural land available for crops,
etc.
And then I was looking at the number of staff that might be available, involved in the actual development of it.
And it's four years. Well that's a long time for traffic to be coming in on a regular basis.
four years of disruption that people on the marsh have got to cope with.
So I'll be interested in any comments on that.
I've got down here biodiversity. I'm not quite sure what I mean.
I mean, I know what I mean by that, but I'm not sure what the question is.
But the other thing I've written down was visibility and screening,
because I think it's going to be visible,
there's no doubt about that.
And it talks about a certain amount of screening,
but not much, but I do think, I do believe,
maybe I've read it wrong, that you have asked
for certain parts of it to be actually moved back
so it's not quite so near the roadways.
Air quality, again, I think you've raised that,
I talked about that, that was fine.
Battery storage, that was another issue
I just wanted to raise because I know
from the battery storage site at Braybourne,
just adjacent to my ward,
that there were a lot of concerns about fire risk.
And it's mentioned in there,
but I just wonder whether, I mean,
It is quite a serious issue in terms of fire risk.
Yeah, and of course, local plan.
It's not in our local plan.
Will it be part, I mean,
I know that we've only just started our local plan,
but that's an interesting point really,
in terms of whether, what weight might be put on that,
on any, I don't know, idea that it might be included
in the local plan.
But I think that's all I've got at the moment.
But I would just like to say that I thought
the report was excellent and really did raise the issues
that concerned lots of residents.
Thank you.
I'll go to the officers.
Yeah, thank you, Councillor.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:16:31
Hopefully I've written down the points you made, but let me know if I've missed any.
So I think your first question was about the kind of status of the Council's response at
this moment in time.
I mean, it's a pre -app stage and we're providing feedback on the material that we have in front
which by its nature is preliminary because there's lots of work still
ongoing and they're not ready to make their application and there's a lot of
further survey work and assessments that need to carry out but there's also
scope within this stage of the process for amendments to be sought and
impacts to be raised that give the applicant the opportunity to review those and
consider whether there's the potential to make changes there or not. So I think
the response obviously highlights in part concerns raised about the fact that
we can't come to a decision on particular topics at this moment in time
because we simply don't have the evidence in front of us. But it also
raises concerns where we've identified at this point that there are some
fundamental areas that we can understand the significance of
the effects even at this preliminary stage. We do get the opportunity,
this is a consultation response, but our formal response to the
to the application once it's submitted under the development consent order
process takes place at what's called the pre -examination stage and there's
normally a series of opportunities there for the council to make written
representations. The two most important are what's called the local impact
report where we set out an analysis of the key impacts and then what's also
called relevant representations, which is where we really do then start to nail down
into the extent to which we have objections to the proposals.
So yeah, hopefully that explains that part.
Host authority, I think the question there was about, rather wasn't it?
We have been in contact with Rother, but they've not been back in contact with us.
It might possibly be because there's obviously only a very small parcel of land that's within Rother's authority itself.
It might be for other reasons, but we have tried to make contact and we'll continue to try and contact them
and see if we can set up some form of discussion with them.
The lifespan of the proposal, as you've picked up,
it's 60 years rather than 40.
40 is the typical timescale that's specified
in the national policy statement advice,
but there have been proposals that have been dealt with
elsewhere in the country that have 60 -year lifespans and it seems that
inspectors still consider them to be temporary in the context that eventually
the land use will return to its current condition and the key question then is
to what degree is the difference between 40 and 60 significant in terms of
effects and impacts. You raised the point about the construction period being up to
four years. We have highlighted that in the report as a potential impact. And again, we
would expect further assessment and analysis and various management plans to come forward
to set out how that can be controlled in a way that mitigates and manages the impacts
as best as that can be.
Visibility and screening, yes, the report does highlight some obvious areas at the moment
where the solar panels are particularly prominent, but we really need the Landscape and Visual
impact assessment to come forward before we can start to make sort of very
detailed comments on that and that's a process that we will be engaging with
the applicant over the coming months and using our landscape consultant as well.
And then I've got here, wait to local plan. Yeah the point you've made is very
interesting and it's a point that we've made in the report as well about how we
deal with this in the local plan process. As you'll see in the report, I think it's under the cumulative impact section,
the points that we're making are that we're currently going through local plan review, but given that this development will be for 60 years,
there's going to be multiple local plan reviews in that period of time.
And New Romney in particular is a strategic settlement in our settlement hierarchy.
And there is a question mark as to what degree the solar farm may or may not influence where development might take place in the future around New Romney.
So that's a question as well that we've raised that we consider needs to be considered further by the applicant.
Hopefully those were all the points but let me know if I've missed any.
Just on the battery storage.
Oh battery storage.
Yeah.
So, I mean obviously the question about battery safety and so forth, it's quite a technical
scientific matter.
There is a guidance note from the fire service, I think it's the, what's it called, the National
Fire Chief's guidance note on battery storage.
We would certainly expect the applicant to be consulting with Kent Fire Service over the battery storage
and the safety requirements that would need to be embedded into that.
Whether that relates to the distance of any storage facility from sensitive receptors
or the ability to have measures on hand or what's built into the storage facility to
minimise fire risk and what else for example access to water.
I mean you wouldn't try and put a battery fire out with water but what you do as I understand
and it is that you use the water to contain the fire and stop it spreading to other containers.
So we would, obviously we're aware that that's an issue, but it's quite a specialised matter
and we would fully expect Kent Fire Service to be involved in commenting on that particular
element of the scheme.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much for that comprehensive answer. Thank you.
Councillor Conley, you've got more.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:24:41
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:42
Thank you, Chair, and again, thank you for the really clear report, which hits the mark really well.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:24:49
I've got two or three points. Firstly, and I'd be interested to know what others think about this,
There was an issue about traffic movements, which I know is ultimately for Kent High KCC
highways to respond to, but I just wondered if it's possible to beef up our response a
little bit.
Because from what I understand, it looks like that peak construction, the traffic volumes
are likely to increase by about 30%, and in particular, the B2075 is going to see an increase
in HDV traffic of more than 87 % at peak construction.
And we make a response to that at paragraph 7 .50.
And yeah, as I said, I just wonder if we can add
a little bit more weight to that.
Cause look at looking, cause there may also be
the cumulative impact you consider
with the potential construction of three solar sites
using the same road network.
Secondly, given the impact from the local community,
is there scope to push for a more generous community benefit fund
rather than, I think what they're offering at the moment is the fairly standard one?
Obviously, we're biassed because we're here,
but I think from what I understand at this stage,
the impact on the marsh is potentially greater maybe than some of the other sites.
and I think there is an argument for building that benefit fund up.
And finally, just on a practical level, really,
the report makes mention of the jobs that are going to be available
during that construction phase.
Can we voice an opinion for there to be,
for those to get some kind of reassurance
that those will be made available locally, first of all?
I mean, I understand there are only jobs for the construction phase,
but at least that, if we could voice that preference
that they get offered locally first.
Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:27:02
Thank you, Councillor Blakemore.
I think there's a couple of points on traffic impacts.
Obviously, yes, there will be an impact
during that construction period,
and I think we've made it quite clear
that we need to see far more information about that.
drawing too much of a conclusion about what that impact might be without having county
councillors, the sort of final arbiter is going to be crucial. We can obviously highlight
that we have serious concerns that there'll be a peak impact, which over the lifetime
of the project would not cause a long -term issue, which I think is what we've concluded
at paragraph 7 .53 at the moment, but we can certainly highlight that slightly more.
Turning to the community benefits package,
we can certainly flag that at the moment
we would like to see whether more can be done around this.
The council did in a previous meeting
highlight the need for the council
to produce a local benefits policy on the matter.
And we can certainly make sure that that encompasses
that as part of any response, I would have thought.
And the jobs, as with many of these things,
we could implore that the jobs are as local as possible and try to see what we can get
the applicant to, and this is why this is the right forum for this debate, to put these
as ideas to the applicant to see if they can address, and we can certainly implore that
those are local jobs for as long as that construction.
We couldn't insist, I don't believe.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:28:32
I'd just add, the applicant has come forward with an employment skills strategy, an outline
employment skills strategy, which will need much further work and we'll continue to liaise
with our economic development team about that and work on that and try and build that up
as much as we can as part of the process.
Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:54
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:29:00
My speech blast or whatever you want to call it will come in part B but I will just going back to the traffic impact assessment point, first point, access points.
all of them are terrible, in one word, terrible.
Anybody who lives in the area will know those access points and that is just accidents,
death, etc, etc, waiting to happen.
That's all I'll say about that in a moment.
And then going on to the working hours is even more terrible.
7 to 7, Monday to Friday.
Yeah, we might think we're all in the country, but you know, I wouldn't be able to work on
those hours in my building site.
So can we look at those please?
I'll just tick off a couple of other pieces, but my fine leader to my right has already
picked those up and 60 years have already been spoke about.
So like I say, I won't be an anticipation for plan B or part B of the meeting, can you?
Thank you, Councillor Goddard. Would any other Councillor wish to speak at this point?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:30:10
Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:30:15
I'd first of all just like to thank Andrew for a very comprehensive response to the questions I asked ahead of the meeting.
Again, I think it just picks out a couple of things that I think just needed to be lifted up and clarified
with regard to our position and that of where County Council sit in this as well.
So thank you very much for doing that.
And again, I think for the rest of it, I'll hear what everybody else says
and I'll reserve my right to speak later on.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:30:54
Councillor Scofford.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:31:00
I'm not quite clear in my mind about the distinction between Part A and Part B of the meeting,
but I wonder whether the report or submission might make more
of the uncertainties around climate change and particularly flood risk.
We simply, I'm not an expert on this area and the reports are no doubt extensive,
but Council Hill makes the point very clearly that we can, the marsh itself is at risk.
and if you're thinking 60 years ahead,
you're looking towards the end of the century,
the latest figures from NASA suggest
that we could certainly expect a two foot rise in sea level.
We don't quite know how that's going to actually play out,
and I wonder whether the assessments that we're getting
are historically, are not really taking into account
the uncertainties which lie ahead.
Scorm Duretti illustrated how a freak storm
in a small area can cause enormous damage
and that's just a foreshock of the increasing violence
of the weather that's going to come ahead.
This isn't to say that you can't build,
this would apply to any areas,
but the marsh is particularly exposed
and therefore that point might be emphasised
a little bit more strongly I think in our submission
and the uncertainties of a climate that is changing
and very, very difficult to know how we cope with that.
So that was one thing.
The other one, again, perhaps I can raise it now,
is we've said quite a lot about the cumulative effect
of more than one application,
and there is this business around the country
of clustering of applications,
The question really is whether we can do anything about that.
Is there a larger question?
Is there an opportunity, for example, for us to call for a national strategy,
a national spatial strategy for solar farm and energy,
which will be take account of the fact that it doesn't make great sense
to put your solar farms on high -grade agricultural land if there are alternatives.
It doesn't make great sense to build your solar farms on a low -lying site which is potentially
more vulnerable than others to flooding.
So that point about a national strategy and the need for a national strategy is an open
question, but is that an appropriate response at this stage and is that something that we
can raise at a ministerial level because it's clearly a national issue?
And as I say, I don't think it makes sense to deal with these applications individually.
And we've got this uncertainty at the moment.
We're looking at South Brook.
So are the other two applications going to come in?
We don't know, but we have to assume that they are.
And that clustering is not beneficial for local people.
Then who's that energy for?
Is that excessive amount of energy going to be generated on the marsh?
Does that make sense in national terms,
when it might not be close enough to the centres
or population that are going to need it, et cetera?
So I just raise that as an open question.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:34:22
Yes, just to clarify, this part of the meeting
is precisely to ask questions, ask for clarifications.
And then once we've heard everyone speak,
you'll be given five minutes to sum up about the report.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:34:36
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:34:37
Lovely. Can I go to the officers regarding especially cumulative, because I know that's
quite a hot topic.
I'll do my best. Thank you, Councillor Scaffron, for your comments and very interesting points.
I think we can definitely look at trying to find some ways to emphasis the uncertainty
to climate change and draw to the applicant's attention the need to address the long -term
potential for flood changes in the area. I think that's crucial.
On the national strategy, I know where in the report
talks to this, there is a meeting tomorrow for council
to discuss exactly that point, and officer's advice
at that point has been that's probably a question
for the council to do to ministerial,
rather than at this stage in the process.
What I can say from my rudimentary knowledge
of this process is that NESSO, who are sort of
the overarching body for the regulatory for all
of this longer term, as I understand it,
will be the people who have to green light these projects.
So whether they get planning permission or otherwise,
doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever get allowed
to be constructed because ultimately,
your point around having the right energy
in the right place, if you have too much in one place,
it's not gonna be able to go anywhere.
So it might be that there are three on the horizon,
but will three ever be strategically allowed
at a regulatory level outside of our control
would be a matter for the national body to take into account.
Thank you for that advice.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 0:36:01
And we can raise it tomorrow, but it's a chance to signal it.
And I appreciate the point you're making that although they might be in the,
all these applications are in the pipeline, we don't know how they're going to play out.
Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, it was, Councillor Scoffin made my point,
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:36:25
but I was just gonna add that obviously this,
the big picture here is energy security
from the point of view of the government
in terms of homegrown power and all the rest of it,
but is there any consideration for food security
and the loss of this land for growing food?
And I couldn't see any mention of that.
I don't know if that's applicable at this level,
Just a bit of clarification on that.
And then secondly, obviously,
we're discussing this report tonight,
and then there'll be another phase of this later
where we find more information we finalise.
Is there any chance that that phase
will come at a point where highways, planning,
and all of the rest of it is one council,
and we don't have in this discussion about what's KCC and what's us, we've actually got
to the point where all of that is decided by one council.
Thank you, Council Lockwood.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:37:31
The food security aspect is covered, I think, comprehensively by the agricultural land classification
and that's the purpose of having that and protecting the best and most versatile use
of land.
It's also covered in the socio -economic chapter of the officer's advice to members this evening.
To the wider point around would it be a singular authority taking those combined viewpoints,
no, I don't believe so, because if we follow the current timetable for the government reorganisation,
we'll be in place by the first quarter of 2028, at which point this will be in front
of an inspector, no doubt, and being considered formally.
so that all of the information that our responses will have had to have been in by then.
However, at that point, the KCC officers will have already made their points around
some of those technical pieces as well. Thank you.
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:38:29
First, I've got the points there. The first point I'm going to make is this.
You've slightly accidentally pulled my, the officer, and I've accidentally pulled it, as you say.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:38:38
The point being is this, if we go back to the developer
on the questions that we've asked already
and the information within the report,
and then in three or six or nine months time,
we get another solar farm coming forward,
how relevant is that information?
Is it not gonna be able to date
on what assurances can we be given?
I mean, I'm thinking, for example,
if it's gonna take four years to do,
and next to 400 vehicles on the road, et cetera,
if that's gonna be impacted by a future application,
how relevant is this information that we need to get back?
That is a good point, something that we need to chase,
because we need to be reassured that on that point,
because what we're doing, as I say,
in 609 or 12 months time,
I've got another application coming behind us.
And that then will put everything else back up the front.
And another point I'd like to make is this.
earlier on we said we started a meeting
about the local council and everyone else being consulted.
Have we actually made any contact with them?
And then the Council has got a website where it says on its page
we've got these solar farms coming forward.
Can we actually make an attempt or an effort to contact local Paris Councils?
Because there may well be a Paris Council or someone involved with those organisations
who may have a little bit more knowledge than all of us here.
And it may well be worth talking to that.
Another point I'd like to make is, during your consultation with these developers, can
you be assured of where these are going and do we have underground maps of where the pipes
end up with answers?
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:40:23
Thank you, Councillor.
So in terms of your first point on cumulative impacts, the report addresses the fact that
not only do we have this scheme, but we also have the Shepway Energy Park and the South
Kent Energy Park, as well as decommissioning of the Dungeness Power Station.
and we've also highlighted the potential for cumulative impacts affecting the local plan
process as well. So that point's been made to the developer. They're aware in themselves
as part of their preliminary report, they've identified the need to deal certainly with
the cumulative impacts of the other solar farms and Dungeness Power Station.
If a further scheme came forward in a couple of years time,
for example, after this had been through the process,
it would be a matter for that developer to go through the same thing
and carry out a cumulative impact assessment in during which they would have
to deal with the impact of this scheme and other schemes as well.
So that would be covered.
In terms of making contact with local parish councils,
I mean, the process is very clear that we need to,
that consulses need to respond directly to the applicant
as part of the pre -app stage and directly to the planning
Inspectorate as part of the examination stage because otherwise it's not clear
to people where stuff's going and so we're not the determining authority, we're a
consulty so everything gets directed to the organisations that are
determining it. But I fully appreciate what you're saying that parish councils
may have some local information which would be useful to share and I think
that's something that we'd be willing to consider if parish councils have
particular points that they wanted to make to us. You know we can consider how
that sort of aligns and fits in with some of the work that we've been doing
and the responses that we've been making on the scheme. In terms of can we be
I think the last question was can we be assured about where the underground
pipes are going is that right? Yep so again that information isn't firmly
set out at the moment at this stage. They have mapped out corridors where the pipelines
will go but at the moment those are quite wide corridors. They need to do a lot more
work to establish whether there are particular routes there that are more sensitive than
others to try and minimise impacts and that work will certainly come forward and I'm sure
or not least will be reviewed robustly
by the likes of Natural England,
the Kent County Council Ecology team
and other specialist ecologists that will assess that.
Thank you.
Thank you, but can I just emphasise the point
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:43:55
that in respect, if we're about to make a submission,
for example, in 6912,
to understand.
See the finding of the inspectors.
If anything comes forward, we want to ensure, and I think we ought to ensure, that any information
or submission that we make to the finding of the inspectors should be as accurate as
we can make it.
Because what we are going to be doing is making a submission which could well be out of date
or not relevant to the circumstances.
Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:44:25
Just to reassure you, Councillor Cooper, when this Chamber in the future comes to make any
further representations, it will be based on the information that we are submitted
and we can seek that information. The applicant will then have to tell the
inspector what it is they've submitted at all the right times and the
application will then be determined on the same information, so we will do our
utmost. And the one other point I just would like to highlight for those here
tonight is, in this process the reason the parish councils need to approach the
applicants and then eventually the Secretary of State separately, is they
will have an equal voice in this.
And it will be for them to appear, if they choose to,
as a party to give evidence and to discuss those points.
This chamber won't be able to defend the views
of another organisation if they're not our views.
It's very clear that to be heard properly,
we can take it into account, obviously,
and at this point in time, frame it,
which is what we tried to do.
But when we get into the more formal stages of this,
it is really important, and now,
that parish councils and local residents
and local residents groups don't just rely
on the local council having done its bit,
they need to also make their representations
at individuals because they will have
the same voice in the process.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:43
I'm not seeing any other hands up.
I'd just like to make a few points myself.
Councillor Goddard, thank you for bringing up
the working hours because that was something that I feel that we need to look at more.
Simply because there will be lorries travelling down some of these roads from six o 'clock
onwards possibly waiting outside the site for opening hours at seven o 'clock and that
does concern me.
I think we need to look at their traffic plan or at least raise it as a concern.
We've discussed cumulative effects.
The trenches in the SSSI, I know they're not set in stone yet,
but again, I'd like us to possibly put some extra weight on the fact that if you start digging into a SSSI site,
as much as you try and put that land back the way it was,
it's almost impossible.
I would just like a little bit more weight on that
if possible.
The boundaries where the solar farm are going to be
coming up towards residential areas,
I actually looked at the height, 4 .5 metres,
you know, possibly I think it's about 30 metres from a town boundary.
To put that into perspective, that's the height of an adult giraffe.
I had to look it up because I wasn't quite sure what 4 .5 metres looked like.
I am concerned that structures of this height will be so close to boundaries
and whether we can ask for either more screening around the boundary site
or indeed push these screens back further away from the actual town boundaries that it's going to be.
I look forward to the economic effect report to come out.
I was actually really worried when I read that part of the report, so thank you very much for raising it,
about how there is the knock -on impact from the loss of farming,
which I think needs to be taken into consideration,
but also from the loss of tourism, and that obviously ties in with the visual amenity.
I would really like to thank the officers.
I think this is an absolutely excellent report.
Listening to the questions and the clarifications,
I don't think they've missed much in here.
And I think it's a really good representation
of our concerns going forward.
But I will stop there.
There's no need to come back to me on this.
So what I will do now, you don't have to take five minutes.
but you will be timed for five minutes
and I'm gonna go round the room in a snake light
and I'll start with Councillor Cooper
if you'd just like to sum up about the report please.
I'd just like to reiterate what Warren just said.
Thank you.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:49:14
Thank you Councillor Cooper.
Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you Chair.
I was rather hoping to go last,
but I'm going second.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:49:23
And I made my points, but I think towards,
in the recommendations, it says that the decision is made
on the basis that basically it goes ahead
unless there's serious health risks or,
I can't remember the exact wording,
but it just feels a bit fait accompli.
And yes, we should, as a body, as a consultee,
aggressively put forward our residents' concerns,
technical questions, you know, issues around the pipes
and historic drainage, flooding, all of these,
you know, really, these are risks to life.
And so could be showstoppers, ultimately.
But we can't at this point consider the cumulative effects,
as I understand it.
The mention in the report of cumulative effect is
this developer is talking to the other developers
about clashes of transport and so on and whatever.
But not 25 % of developers,
Romney Marsh being covered in solar panels.
Is there anyone talking about that
in terms of cumulative effect?
So yeah, I think we've done what we can.
As a council, I commend the offices
for the work they've put in.
Take Councillor Shub's point about if this is going ahead,
then, and I think the proposal was a pound per megawatt
It comes back to community.
If we could write this better, then I can say it,
something to the order of we don't get out of bed
for less than 10 pounds a megawatt.
And try and get, if it is gonna go ahead,
then we get what we can for the community,
lessen the effects, get the barriers, screening,
get lower ones at the edges of the, whatever we can.
Do what we can, and thank you to the officers
for what you've done so far.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:51:52
Obviously at some point we'll wait for a motion, but what I would just say to Councillor Lockwood
on paragraph 8 .3 I believe is of the report which I think is your reference to a sort
of a fait accompli.
That was not the intention of officers to be very clear.
What we're suggesting is there is a government position and then there is the thorough examination
of the impacts.
What I could suggest, we haven't done it for very good reasons because it's pre -application
rather than any kind of formal consultation or anything,
is we could change the recommendation at the top
to include this council would like to issue
a holding objection subject to the comments
being addressed in this committee report,
which covers the items that members have raised.
Because that then sets out that,
because that's what the report already does,
which is, you know, there's a lot more work for you to do
and we're not happy, but it probably just puts
the very clear statement of intent upfront.
I was watching the nodding of heads and I think that was definitely a very good suggestion.
Thank you.
Councillor Hinsby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:53:00
Sure, if I can add very much, I have to say, I would just mention again the battery storage.
I don't think anybody else has mentioned that in terms of a fire risk.
I think we need to make the most of that.
cumulative has been raised and talked about,
and that is an issue.
Obviously the agricultural land,
and actually part of it, as I said, I think previously,
moved into the SSI and the site's special interest in that.
So I think there is lots of issues in respect to that.
It's very close and actually encroaches on it.
the 60 years instead of 40 years,
the fact that it will be developed over a four year period,
all those kinds of things.
But I think I've mentioned all that,
so I can't really see that I need to go all over that again.
But I'd be happy to move the recommendation.
Thank you, Councillor Hornsby.
Do I have a seconder?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:01
Councillor Mike Blakemore.
And I'll move on to Councillor Goddard
if you'd like to sum up.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:54:08
Thank you. Let me start by saying I'm not against solar. Parcel D I could quite accept.
These people want Parcel A, B, C, D and E. This has got Chaney Court written all over
it where every parish, every town, every district, every county was against and it went to the
fine Mr John Prescott and he overruled a lot of us and it went there. Unfortunately this
is what's going to happen again. It's taken away from our fine planning team, our fine
committee etc, etc for the government to decide. So yeah, obviously in my mind you probably
think I don't like it, which you're right, I don't like it. Like Councillor Hill said,
not one resident wants it, look at farmland. You know, it's farmland, grade A farmland
that's going to be vandalised, in the words of Tony Hills, I quite like that word, vandalised
by not just pass away but B, C, D and E.
Look at it.
D, acceptable, the rest unacceptable.
And I'll just speak to this about it really.
Again, dump it on the marsh.
Good old Romney marsh, dump it on the marsh,
simple as that.
Same with Cheney Court, like I touched on.
Same with the solar farm we had to prove a couple of weeks ago,
a couple of months ago.
I congratulate Andy Berman for becoming Prime Minister, he wants to relocate everything
up the north, take the panels with him, take them up north.
The people of Marsh, the people of Marsh do not want this.
The farmers, you know.
But Councillor Goddard, can we keep to the report?
Unfortunately I can't, I am struggling and I do apologise.
You know, it's just what it is I'm afraid and I do apologise for not sticking to the
root hole, but I'm saying what a lot of people want to say out there and it's just not acceptable.
It's too big, too much and it will wreck the marsh.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:18
Councillor Fuller.
Thank you, Chair.
It's a tough act to follow.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:56:28
Firstly, a really good report, great deal of detail, well thought out concerns and suggestions
for ways that the application needs to be developed.
As a starting point, I think it is important to mention that the reason that we are trying
to, or the reason that projects like this exist is because of 30 years of inaction on
climate change. And we are reaching different points and there have been two and a half
of the sea level.
The effects of all of those things, the obvious effects, aren't the only effects.
This is where it becomes relevant to this scheme.
Because, yes, things like Amok collapse and weight breaking off could raise the sea levels
and flood the marsh, as it were.
So in a we do nothing scenario, obviously there are mitigations that we could put in
place.
But the other effects on the marsh and indeed that are relevant to this scheme are the effects
of climate change could also result in the collapse of our system of food and our supply
chains and so on.
And where this particular,
the land on which this particular solar farm
is to be placed,
could potentially be one of the last bits of land we have
that's viable for food production.
And we've got a UK national security report
that says that we need to significantly increase
our UK food system and supply chain resilience
because we import food.
Councillor Fuller, I'm going to say the same.
Can we keep to the report, please?
The reason I'm saying this is because I believe that these are the things that we should add
to the report to beef it up.
We should be making reference to that report and saying, yes, we agree that we need more
renewable energy sources, but our own national security agencies are saying we also need
to do something about the dearth of sort of
farming opportunities we've got.
And that if we build on this particular area,
we are destroying our ability to address that.
So I do think that while it's an excellent report
and while it raises value concerns,
I do think we need to go a bit harder on the wording
and include some of these admittedly worst -case scenarios
on climate change, but worst -case scenarios
that are becoming more and more likely,
the more that the inaction continues.
And obviously, like Clive, it's not that I'm anti -solar.
I'm very much the opposite.
But as you mentioned, we need to consider
this particular report and this particular plan,
as it were, this particular sort of location,
and I think we could strengthen our feedback
if we do bring in that aspect in more detail.
So that's what I would suggest.
I'd be more than happy for officers to word that,
as it were, more suitably than I have,
but that would be my suggestion.
Thank you, Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:32
Councillor Thomas.
Start the clock.
So a couple of things.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:00:40
Just in terms of the development itself,
of section 4 .2 of the report does identify the fact
that following the first consultation,
you know, half of parcel D, all of parcel F
and some of parcel C have now been removed.
And it's logical to assume that that will be further refined
as they get to a point where they understand
exactly how much land is needed going forward.
So again, I think, you know, if there's any positive,
especially any positive, I can pull out
with the whole affair, actually.
Just in terms of food production, we'll come back to that,
and there's a point that's in the report.
So the impact on food production, 60 % of the land,
600 hectares is for crops.
And I think it's absolutely shocking that that is the amount
of land for direct food production that we're gonna lose,
potentially, if this scheme goes forward.
It's just not acceptable.
Coming back on to cumulative impacts,
I was really impressed with the report in section 772,
where it pulls together the fact
that we've got the two other NSAPs potentially,
Martins Farm and the decommissioning
of two nuclear stations.
So what we have to remember is that dungeon SA
is currently going through a 10 year project
for boiler removal.
It's a massive piece of work with a huge amount
of transport requirement for that.
Dungeon SB will finish de -fueling in 2030,
and it then goes into either a 40 or 100 year
decommissioning period depending on what process.
So when you look at that and you look at how much traffic
is gonna be on those roads, it's unbelievable.
Again, I support what Clive was saying earlier on.
You know, we do have to make sure that they understand
that if we're gonna have trucks on this road 12 hours a day,
they need to understand exactly what impact that will have.
And when you have a look at the A259,
and you have a look at the Lid Strait,
they're two of the most dangerous roads in Kent.
There'd be more fatalities on Lid Strait,
that section road, than I think anywhere else in Kent.
And they're proposing taking turnings off there
and off the 259.
It really needs a real good coat of looking at.
And I think it's time for KCC Highways,
for the first time ever, to actually step up
and do something positive about getting this together
and then putting this together in as forcefully a way
as possible that allows officers and others then
to look at how any kind of transport plan
and construction management plan would be consulted on
at some time in the future.
So again, I think cumulative impact
is a massive part of that.
Coming back to one other piece,
which is to do with drainage.
following the member briefing we had in here,
I actually facilitated the meeting
with the EDF developers, hydrologists,
and the corporation, Romney Marsh,
Steven Fernable, the bailiff,
was very accommodating, as was Colin Walker,
who gave access to the hydrologists,
to the ancient maps, going back to 1462,
to get an idea of how things have changed
so that they can then make sure they have that
as part of what they're doing when they're considering
the impact of changes to the drainage system,
because that will tell them how field boundaries changed
and how things have changed before they come to the point
to make changes that they want to make.
And I think that's ever so important,
because we've talked in here on multiple occasions
about the negative impact of this work
on the drainage of Romney Marsh.
And as Tony Hill has already said,
it's really, really important that we get that
firmly in everybody's sights to make sure
that the government understand that this potentially
could have a significant impact
on the drainage of Romney Marsh.
And then just coming back to the traffic management,
I'll mention Hammond's corner,
because nobody else has mentioned it so far.
And I have to give credit to Tony Hills.
He did some fantastic work as our KCC Councillor.
But the design sorted out for that,
but it's never been funded.
We have got Dungeness putting trucks down the road, coming along Hammond's Corner, and
we have got this development coming along and doing exactly the same thing.
It is one of the most dangerous junctions in Kent.
So again, if we can get an improvement there, that would be a massive community benefit.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:05:15
Councillor Siew.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:05:21
I would echo and endorse a lot of what is being said already.
It is a great report, really highlights where the gaps are and what missing information
we still need, particularly around the suggestions for looking at the visual impact.
I'd endorse Councillor Polly Blakemore's suggestion about bettering the offer on the
community fund.
And yeah, I think the report does acknowledge
and it's been sort of stressed,
we need to acknowledge the fragility of the marsh
and the sensitivities around this.
A lot's been said about the cumulative impact
and endorse everything that's been said about that.
I think it really does highlight the real need to look at this in a strategic way.
What Councillor Fuller said about the impact, the lack of action on climate change and where we are now.
But again, that really points to the need for a strategic look at the potential consequences
of these schemes, the benefits and the pros and cons, obviously.
So yeah, I think the report, I'm very happy to support it.
I think it just really highlights what we still need to know.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Sune.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:12
Councillor Whitelaw.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:07:14
Yeah, most of what I would say has been said already.
It is an excellent report.
It raises many, many concerns which I share.
I think tonight it's more been about points of emphasis
rather than changing any of that.
I'm particularly concerned about climate change,
like others, and thank you to Council Fuller
for making the case so passionately.
But we mustn't use climate change as a reason
to push through schemes which are of the wrong scale
or in the wrong place.
And so energy we need, this committee has approved
solar on the marsh previously.
But this scheme has a lot of problems with it,
a lot of issues around how climate change
will potentially affect this scheme,
but also how this scheme will potentially also make
the impact of climate change worse for the delicate
environment of the marsh and the delicate ecology
of the marsh as well.
On visual impacts, particular concern,
and you, Councillor Mead, mentioned about the height
of the panels, which is one thing, the giraffe,
which we can see from the marsh when we look up to Portland.
But also the substations, which I think I'm right
at saying 15 metres, I think, and if they go ahead
with those in one of the places that suggested
very, very close to New Romney.
And then also, I'm very pleased to see
the economic impact looked at,
not just on farming, but on tourism.
And I think that's really, really important.
And then finally, I think the construction impact.
And you're absolutely right to highlight
the construction traffic, but those hours
of operation potentially as well,
and the impact of other things like, as Councillor Thomas mentions, of decommissioning at Dungeness
alongside potentially this scheme and other schemes being built at the same time.
So communicative impact is, you can't avoid that as a consideration here if we have these
other schemes coming forward as well, even though that might be another discussion for
another day.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Blackmore.
Councillor Polly Blackmore.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:09:21
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:09:24
I pretty much raised my points earlier,
but just to reiterate, I think we do beef up
our traffic management response,
particularly in the light of what Councillor Thomas
reiterated about the so many big projects going on
at the same time around that small local road network.
But yeah, the main point I want to raise is just that if,
and it's a big if, if this is going to go ahead,
let's get the best community fund we possibly can.
Thank you, Councillor Blackmoore.
Councillor Scofford.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:01
I guess it's my turn.
Yes, I'll try and be concise.
Cllr Stephen Scoffham - 1:10:05
Just to say I recognise the need for new sources of energy,
I think that's absolutely essential.
And solar panels and solar farms are definitely part of that.
I think the question is very clear,
but we need the right solar in the right place.
And one of the key points, I think,
Councillor Thomas mentioned this,
is particularly about scale.
This is a very big development,
and if it was not so big,
it would be less of a problem for us all, I think.
And that's something which we've recognised
in passing, this committee has passed a permission
for a solar farm, a small solar farm in the marsh.
So scale is an important issue.
The question of who is this for, who is the benefit, who are the beneficiaries?
And I can't help thinking that the main driver for this isn't the...
Inevitably, we live in this particular economic system,
but the main benefit is commercial gain rather than the benefit of local people.
And the opposition and the concern amongst local community is well reflected in this report.
I think it's an excellent report, as we've all said.
I've raised my concerns about excessive clustering.
I've raised the question about the loss of farmland.
And I'm fully endorsed and have spoken about climate change and freak weather
and the way that that is a problem, not just in the marsh,
but because the marsh is low -lying and vulnerable,
it might make it particularly unsuitable.
So that need for a national strategy shines through.
But scale, I think, is key.
I welcome the paragraph 4 .2, which is all about the reduction in the scale of the panels
and the 25 % increase in biodiversity.
And I strongly support the, and I think we can push harder for the community benefits policy.
So really, my final thought is to say to the officers,
let's get the best possible deal that we can from this development.
we know the direction of travel that we want to go in and
We fully endorse and support
The direction of travel so far
So let's go a little bit further if we can get a better deal for everybody and that better deal would
Include the considerations which everybody's raised around the room this evening
Thank you, I'd like to thank sorry council Hines me. No, I was just going to say that I obviously move the recommendation
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:12:42
but obviously subject to a number of points that have been made.
Bear with me, Councillor Hollingsby. We're already on it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:50
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:12:53
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:54
I just wanted to thank Councillors.
You've obviously studied this report very, very carefully.
I'd like to thank officers again because I think they've probably raised about 90 to 98 %
of the concerns that we have regarding this.
However, some new concerns or weighted opinions have been raised this evening.
So before we go to the vote, our officer would like to reiterate
the main concerns that they have taken notes on to be included within the report.
And then yourself, Councillor Honsby, and yourself,
Councillor Baitmore, will then have to agree
that you're happy for those to be put into the report as the proposal of the seconder,
and then we can vote on it.
I hope that's clear.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillors, and that's a very helpful and informative discussion this evening.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:13:54
I just feel that the purpose is of record to make sure that when we go away and fiddle
with this report and then send it off to the applicants that we cover all the points.
So I've got a list of additional points which members have raised, which I concluded.
These include the heights of the panels and substations,
the working hours and taking into account deliveries
and general traffic movements in the area.
Impacts on access points, the Lid Straight,
the N259 and Harwood's Corner,
and the impacts of traffic there on,
and the dangerous nature of it all.
The greater level of community benefit,
uncertainties about climate change
and sort of the other points that were raised
by Councillor Fuller, and who are the beneficiaries,
commercial gain over the Romany Marsh and I suppose that ties into the point
about this council not being in principle objecting to solar panels but
it picks up the point about the right scale and the right location rather than
know against it. Councillor Goddard probably would likely to not include that.
Sorry you've missed my point about taking it to Manchester.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:15:00
So, you know what?
Nice try, Councillor Goddard.
Nice try.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:15:06
So, you throw me now, Councillor Goddard.
Those are all the additional points
that I think members have asked.
I think there are some other points
around emphasising certain points in our reports
around local jobs, impacts on SSSI,
tourism and appropriate jobs, fire risk, loss of food production,
negative impacts on drainage on the marsh and traffic impacts locally.
A lot of these points that were raised tonight as needing emphasis are covered in the report.
And I think there are probably additional points in there.
I think one of the crucial ones is that point around cumulative impact is not simply about
large tracts of land cumulatively having solar panels in them.
is the cumulative impact around the Dungeness
decommissioning plant and all that,
which obviously, as Andrea has already explained
this evening, will be taken into account by
highways, when we look at background committed traffic
and that would be Kent Highways responsibility
to pick up on that.
There's certainly points that we can emphasise
in our report that need further investigating
by the applicants in response.
So hopefully that's covered anything.
If anything is missing in this list,
Thankfully the report recommends that officers can tweak little bits here and there.
I think the only other bit that we'd add is that to the recommendation we've hired holding objection
subject to the following being fully addressed in any planning application.
Thank you.
So, Councillor Hollingsby, are you happy to accept that within your proposal?
I'm getting a nod from both. Lovely.
So, I'm going to read this in full, so we're absolutely certain on what we're voting on.
So we're voting that the committee endorses the concerns, requirements and recommended
points of response set out in this report and authorises offices to submit them as the
council's formal response to the applicant's statutory pre -application consultation for
Southbrooke's Solar Farm, a nationally significant infrastructure project with delegated authority
to the Chief Planning Officer to make minor factual formatting and typographical amendments
prior to submission and to include the points raised and discussed this evening.
So all those in favour, please raise your hand.
Thank you. All those against?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:17:42
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:17:46
And I believe that there were no abstentions.
Microphone B - 1:17:49
Thank you, chairs. That's nine in favour and one against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:17:52
Thank you very much. So we have agreed the report and it's over to the offices to amend on the other parts.
Thank you very much for your debate this evening.
Thank you for the public for being quiet and attentive this evening.
It's very much appreciated and safe journey home.