Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 8th September 2026 at 7:00pm

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1
Slide 2
Microphone A
Cllr Jackie Meade

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Printed minutes 11082026 1900 Planning and Licensing Committee

Cllr Jackie Meade

4 Y18/0156/SH - Land adjoining Sewage Treatment Works, Station Approach, Littlestone

Share this agenda point

Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Microphone Forty
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Slide 65
Slide 66
Slide 67
Slide 68
Slide 69
Slide 70
Slide 71
Slide 72
Slide 73
Slide 74
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Microphone Forty
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 90
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 91
Slide 92
Slide 93
Slide 94
Slide 95
Slide 96
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Slide 101
Slide 102
Slide 103
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 104
Slide 105
Slide 106
Slide 107
Slide 108
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Slide 113
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Slide 122
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 123
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 128
Slide 129
Slide 130
Slide 131
Slide 132
Slide 133
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 137
Slide 138
Slide 139
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 140
Slide 141
Slide 142
Slide 143
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Slide 152
Slide 153
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Slide 159
Slide 160
Slide 161
Slide 162
Slide 163
Slide 164
Slide 165
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 166
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 167
Slide 168
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Slide 176
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Slide 181
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 182
Slide 183
Slide 184
Slide 185
Slide 186
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 187

5 26/0371/FH - 3 New Inn Cottages, High Street, Elham, Canterbury, CT4 6TD

Share this agenda point

Slide 188
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Slide 200
Slide 201
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Microphone Forty
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Slide 209
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Slide 218
Slide 219
Slide 220
Slide 221
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Slide 226
Slide 227
Slide 228
Slide 229
Slide 230
Slide 231
Slide 232
Slide 233
Slide 234
Slide 235
Slide 236
Slide 237
Slide 238
Slide 239
Slide 240
Slide 241
Slide 242
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 243
Slide 244
Slide 245
Microphone Forty
Cllr Jackie Meade
Microphone Forty
Slide 246
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Slide 253
Slide 254
Slide 255
Slide 256
Slide 257
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Slide 265
Slide 266
Slide 267
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270
Slide 271
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 272
Slide 273
Slide 274
Slide 275
Microphone Forty
Slide 276
Slide 277
Slide 278
Slide 279
Slide 280
Slide 281
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Slide 285
Slide 286
Slide 287
Slide 288
Slide 289
Slide 290
Slide 291
Slide 292
Slide 293
Slide 294
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 295
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 296
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Slide 300
Slide 301
Slide 302
Slide 303
Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Slide 307
Slide 308
Slide 309
Slide 310
Slide 311
Slide 312
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 313
Slide 314
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 315
Slide 316
Slide 317
Slide 318
Slide 319
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 320
Slide 321
Slide 322
Slide 323
Slide 324
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 325
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 326
Microphone A
Slide 327
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 328
Slide 329
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 330
Slide 331
Slide 332
Slide 333
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 334
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

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.

and I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on

matters under consideration, it is important to treat members,

officers and public speakers with respect. So members, as chair of this

committee, I'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

related to the planning applications before you.

So we will move on.

Do we have any apologies for absence, please?

1 Apologies for Absence

Microphone A - 0:01:16

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we've received apologies from Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:20

Thank you very much.

2 Declarations of Interest

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

I am not seeing any declarations.

3 Minutes

So, Councillors, before you, you have the minutes of the meeting held on the 11th of August.

Am I authorised to approve as a correct record, please?

4 Y18/0156/SH - Land adjoining Sewage Treatment Works, Station Approach, Littlestone

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:47

Thank you very much. So we will move on to our first application this evening, which is Y180156 -SH,

and that is the land adjoining the sewage treatment works, Station Approach, Littlestone.

and before I ask if there is any update,

because this was a deferred decision,

two of the councillors here will not be allowed

to vote on it because they weren't on the original committee

and that will be Councillor Jones and Councillor Lockwood.

However, you are allowed to ask any questions

or ask for any clarification.

I hope that makes sense.

So do we have any updates please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:02:33

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, members.

Yes, I do have an update. The report refers on page 21 to the planning policy for traveller

sites, PPTS. This national policy document has now been superseded by the revised national

planning policy framework which was published midway through August. Members should therefore

disregard reference to it in the body of the report. The provisions of the PPTS have though

been carried over into the MPPF, specifically policy S5, which relates to development outside

settlements, and states that development outside settlements which would address an evidenced

unmet need for gypsy travel or travelling show people accommodation is acceptable provided

it meets the criteria in MPPF policy H**** Policy H** states that the development plan

and should identify sites for travelling show people,

taking into account their need for mixed -use yards

with both residential accommodation

and space for storage of equipment.

H*** states that proposals for gipsies, travellers

and travelling show people should provide a settled base

while recognising the extent to which traditional lifestyles

whereby some travellers live and work from the same location,

thereby omitting many travel to work journeys,

can contribute to sustainability,

and may also mean that locations not well related

to existing settlements may be appropriate.

They should enable access to frequently used services

such as education, welfare and health services.

When considering proposals for traveller sites,

including for the purposes of considering unmet need,

Local planning authorities should take into account the existing level of local provision

and unmet need for additional sites and other personal circumstances which may be relevant.

There is further omission in the report, Policy H* 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework,

which in broad terms states that substantial wage should be given to the benefits of providing

homes that will meet evidence need for those homes. And in terms of need, as the report

sets out, the Council's 2018 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment identified the need

for two additional travelling show people plots within the district. Whilst the Local

Plan sets out that these two additional plots could be provided on the existing site in

As the report sets out in paragraph 7 .10 on page 52 of the agenda, that's in the appendix

to the report before members tonight, that site is not considered acceptable, bearing

in mind that the suggestion would be that it would be used for two separate families

together with all their equipment.

It is just not feasible and it would be at the opposite end of the district.

So to conclude the update, as a result of the falling away of the planning policy for

traveller sites, Condition 2 on page 30 of the agenda needs to be amended to refer to

Annex B of the National Planning Policy Framework, which is where the definition of travelling

show persons now resides. Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:06:15

Thank you. And we have two speakers this evening. Speakers, you will have three minutes to address

the committee, please. So the first speaker this evening is Councillor Coe, on behalf

of New Romney Town Council. If you'd like to come forward, sir. And you will have three

Microphone Forty - 0:06:43

minutes from when you start. New Romney Town Council remains concerned that

this development has operated without planning permission since 2017 and

represents a significant departure from the use originally approved for the land.

We are also concerned about how the proposed restrictions would be enforced

in practise. The officers assessment depends heavily on the site remaining

remaining winter quarters for travelling show people,

with only intermittent summer occupation,

no permanent residential structures,

and the residential caravans confined

to the northwestern part of the site.

These limitations are essential,

because noise and odour risks are expected

to be greater during the summer.

The town council therefore asked the committee

to consider whether the proposed conditions

are sufficiently precise, measurable, and enforceable,

and what action would follow if the site evolved into year -round residential occupation or a materially more intensive use.

Without a clear monitoring and enforcement framework, the development could become a use that has not been properly assessed and may be unsuitable in this location.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:53

Our second speaker is Julie Harrison, speaking on behalf of the applicant.

If you'd like to come forward.

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

Microphone Forty - 0:08:16

Good evening, Chairman and Councillors.

Thank you for permitting me to speak in support of our application.

I appeal to the committee to support this application in line with the officer's recommendations

to grant with conditions.

Although this is a retrospective application, since purchasing the land in 2016, we have

carried out the surveys, tests that have all been requested.

The route we use with our vehicles was suggested in consultation with KCC.

In planning terms, a need has been established and this was considered and identified in

early 2017.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:08

Thank you very much.

So, Councillors, over to you.

Does anyone need any clarification?

Want to ask any questions?

Councillor Horningsby.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:09:17

Yes, can I just cheque first of all,

the change in policies that you gave us,

you're happy with your recommendation.

I think that's the first thing I wanted to clarify.

Sorry, yes, we are, yes.

And then, sorry, and then the second thing was,

in terms of what the first speaker said.

And I know we have to decide every plan and application

on its own merits.

The gentleman was talking about future use,

and that's something I don't think we can consider.

It's not part of this planning application.

I just wanted clarification on those two points, thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:10:19

Well, in terms of the layout of the site, I draw members' attention to Condition 3

and page 30 of the report, which sets out that the Sherman Waggons and Torrid caravan

should be moved to the north -west corner of the site in accordance with the drawing, which

is on the overhead projectors, but also reproduced in the report.

Now having visited the site in the past day or so, it didn't appear to me that that layout

was being adhered to yet, but of course planning permission hasn't been granted yet, so there's

requirement for them to do so until two months have passed since planning permission has

been granted. But we consider that that condition is enforceable and a breach of it could be

met by a breach of condition notice which would require the disposition of uses shown

on the layout drawing to take place within the site. In terms of the wider use of the

site, it is an operational travelling show person site. Condition 2 on page 30, as I

refer to in my update, restricts the occupation of the site to travelling show people and

their families as defined as amended by my update within the NPPF. Therefore, it could

only be occupied by travelling show people.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:56

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:12:01

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:12:19

Excuse me, there's been a lot of to and fro over the odour assessment and sniff test,

which has taken some time.

Also getting appropriate notification of potential owners of the access has taken some time.

It's unfortunate and I think it's been frustrating both for officers and for the applicant and

clearly for local residents, town council members that it's taken this long.

but we are satisfied that it has now reached a position where we are confident in our recommendation.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:12:54

May I also ask if it is well possible, what additional conditions or what conditions that could be strengthened in any way?

Any ideas or any suggestions?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:13:05

Well, I think we are confident that the conditions in the report, as set out towards the end of the agenda item,

and sufficiently robust and meet the tests identified

in the MPPF planning conditions.

Thank you.

And can I also ask, given that this is supposed to be

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:13:22

for the six month winter layoff,

and men officers actually mentioned the report,

actually went to the site, and it was actually used

during the summer, what is the stop that intermittent usage

to become nearly permanent before action is taken?

Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:13:44

Well, I think as a report sets out at present, it's for intermittent residential use over

the summer. Now, in terms of conditioning it, I think it would be difficult to apply

or to impose a condition that could potentially require the site to be used for intermittent

use, because it would be difficult to define that. But I think in terms of the identified

need for Travelling Show People sites within the district, as I set out in my

update and as the report sets out, there is a need for two Travelling Show People plots.

Now that is not dependent on the time of year they could be occupied.

The issue in terms of occupation during the summer here was primarily in terms

of the results of the odour assessment and sniff test and the noise assessment,

which initially the party that carried out the initial assessment

was working on the basis that the site wouldn't be occupied at all over the summer.

Now it's since been revised and has been reviewed by our Environmental Health Officer,

as has the noise assessment, and hence why the requirement for the caravans

to be in the north -western part of the site has been imposed as a condition,

because that is the area of the site identified by the odour assessment

and the SNF test and the noise assessment as being acceptable for residential occupation.

So from an officer point of view, it was never about any other material planning harmonising

from residential use during the summer.

It was the issue of the odour assessment, but as I said, that's been addressed and appraised

by environmental health.

Thank you.

Councillor Poyn -Lamore.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:15:31

Thank you, Chair.

We have an unmet need for accommodation for show people.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:15:38

And according to policy, we're required to approve

development to address this, unless the adverse effects

outweigh the benefits.

So we can know from the report that Southern Water

has a very cautious approach, but that is to be expected.

And they're not a statutory consultee, as we know.

The applicants have lived on the site since 2017,

have made no complaints about odour in those nine years,

and there's no real reason to expect that to change now.

As far as I can see, we have no public objections.

And with those conditions in place that we've heard

to address the positioning of the accommodation

and the foul drainage arrangements.

So on that basis, I'm happy to move the recommendation.

Thank you, Councillor Bakemore.

Councillor Hysbitt.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:27

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:31

Thank you. Would any other councillors like to ask for clarification or questions?

I'm not seeing any. So committee, we have a proposer and a seconder to accept the officer's

recommendation to grant this application. All those in favour, please show.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:56

Thank you. All those against? All those abstaining? Thank you. I can see quite clearly that that

has actually passed. Thank you, committee.

5 26/0371/FH - 3 New Inn Cottages, High Street, Elham, Canterbury, CT4 6TD

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:11

So we move on to our second application of the evening, which is 26 -0371 -FH3, New in Cottages,

High Street, Eltham, Canterbury. Do we have any updates, please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:17:30

Thank you, Chair. Just a quick update. Earlier today we received a last -minute query from

the ward Councillor, following his discussions

with Elam Parish Council, and regarding whether the roof

of the outbuilding overhangs the neighbouring fence.

Committee should be assured that the case officer

has carefully reviewed the submitted drawings

together with the observations and measurements

recorded during her site visit.

And so the roof does not overhang the neighbouring fence

or the northern boundary with number two new in cottages.

It does however project by approximately 0 .14 metres

beyond the application site boundary into the communal shared access along the southern

side and eastern rear of the site. Notice was therefore served on the relevant neighbouring

properties and certificate B was completed and form part of the submission. Thank you,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:18

Chair. Thank you very much and we have three speakers

on this this evening. Our first speaker is Roger Smith, who is a local resident. Would

Would you like to come forward, sir?

Good evening.

And you will have three minutes from when you start. Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:18:39

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak.

We are immediate neighbours of three new inkottages and would ask you to consider one simple question

this evening.

If this building did not already exist, would you consider it acceptable to prove it in

this position

at this scale and with this impact

on the people living immediately beside it?

We believe the answer is no.

Our objection is not to our neighbour

having a garden building.

It is to this particular building,

in this particular position, at this considerable scale,

and with new windows directly overlooking our home

when none previously existed.

What previously existed was a modest,

lightweight garden shed.

What now stands there is something entirely different

in size, appearance, character and likely use.

We were informed that the structure was to be an art studio.

Hand and heart and to the best of our knowledge,

this building is nothing more than a storage unit

and has never been used for its intended purpose.

We were therefore asked members to judge

what has actually been built and its actual impact,

rather than the label attached to it.

The sheer size of the building is significant.

It's footprint occupies a very substantial proportion of the applicants rear garden.

These are not particularly long gardens, so this is not a modest outbuilding, sitting

directly discreetly at the far end of a large plot.

It dominates a considerable portion of the available garden space.

Our gardens run directly and parallel to one another, and the building begins only a matter

of metres from the rear of our house.

It has also been built so tightly against the boundary that parts of the roof structure appear to project beyond the applicant's own plot.

Whether or not that raises separate boundary issues, it demonstrates just how intensely this substantial structure has been inserted into the site.

For us, the impact has been enormous.

We originally moved to Elam for its old English charm, character, and views over the surrounding valley.

This is not an objection because we have lost a pleasant view.

The building scale, mass and proximity makes it visually dominant and overbearing

and has affected our own mental wellbeing as we can no longer sit and relax in our own garden.

Because the building has already been constructed, these effects are not theoretical.

We have lived with them, we are living with them, we know what the impact is.

And that brings us to the most important point, the fact that this application is retrospective,

should give the building no advantage whatsoever.

Please imagine the site as it was before construction and ask yourself whether presented with these

plans at that time, you'd have approved a building of this scale, occupying this proportion

of the garden, this close to the neighbouring house and boundary.

There is a degree of delays in overlooking dominance and impact over residential amenity.

Your three minutes is up, sir. Please finish your last sentence.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:54

And our next speaker is Councillor James Butcher, who is the ward member.

Good evening.

Microphone Forty - 0:22:05

And you will also have three minutes from when you start.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:22:06

Microphone Forty - 0:22:08

Thank you, Chair. Members of the committee will see that Elam Parish Council objected

to this application and I'm speaking to support their objection as they're not able to be

here this evening. And just to add that in my experience the Parish Council are thoughtful

and thorough in the way they appraise applications and consider their response. So for the Parish

Council a key consideration is whether the scale and design of the structure are appropriate to its sensitive and historic setting

Lying as it does within both the eelum conservation area and the curtilage of a listed building

paragraph 7 .7 of the report describes the outbuilding as quote modest in scale with its

location as quote the far end of the garden

However, as we heard in the officers update, the edge of the building's roof is up against

the boundary between the two cottages and overhangs onto the shared access to the east

and south of the garden.

From the scale drawing on page 69 of the pack, the outbuilding appears to occupy about a

third of the garden.

Both these facts suggest that the size of the outbuilding makes it both a tight fit

for the space available and that it would be reasonable to question, as the Parish Council

do, whether that is indeed modest in scale. Consistency between planning decisions is

a recognised material consideration. And while I understand this cannot be explored at this

evening's meeting, the Parish Council believe that the recommendation to approve this application

is not consistent with other decisions and that had an application been made before construction,

planning officers may well have required a reduction in scale as they have elsewhere in the parish.

The parish council are concerned about the potential for incremental enlargement of outbuildings over time

to result in more intensive, cramped development, potentially eroding the character of rear garden spaces

within the Elam conservation area. Thank you, chair. Thank you, members.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:19

Thank you very much.

And our third speaker is Patricia Ewell, who is the applicant.

Would you like to come forward?

Good evening.

And you will have three minutes from when you start.

Microphone Forty - 0:24:38

Good evening.

Firstly, I'd like to thank the planning officer for the recommendation that the retrospective planning commission be granted.

I truly regret this meeting is necessary at all and admit my mistake in believing my garden building did not require planning commission

Several neighbours have outbuildings that as far as I'm aware do not have consent and I assume this would be a permitted development

I would point out that I have replaced an

Environmentally unfriendly plastic shed with a much more sympathetic cedar clad structure designed by myself

which I feel fits more appropriately

into the conservation area landscape.

It cannot be seen from the road

and is not overlooked at the rear.

I also regret my neighbor's objection to the building,

but have tried to ameliorate the situation

by fitting blinds to the window and doors

in an effort to preserve their privacy,

and have offered to mount trailer's panels

on top of the dividing fence,

which would almost completely obscure

any view of the building.

But to date, this offer has not been accepted.

The suggestion that the building has a clear potential for regular occupation is quite unacceptable.

It has no water supply or heating installed and the space tapers into a not very usable area at the rear.

There never was or will be any intention to use it for anything other than creating art and storing the necessary materials involved.

In light of the above observations, I would respectfully request that retrospective planning permission be granted.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:14

Thank you very much.

Councillor Hinsby.

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:26:22

Can I first of all just get confirmation that a retrospective application has to be considered

as though it wasn't a retrospective application.

I just want, is that the case?

Can I just ask?

That is correct, Councillor Haynes.

Right, OK. I just wanted to clarify that first.

I've given this a lot of thought and I've had an email about this, which I've declared.

And I have to say that I really cannot see any material reason for actually turning it down.

I understand the neighbours, I do understand

and I would suggest perhaps if they are that concerned

that they take up the offer of higher trellis.

But I personally think it looks quite nice.

I actually went up and had a look peering over.

And to be honest, I really think that it's

an acceptable building and agree with the conclusion

of the officer in paragraph 8 .1.

And therefore I move the recommendation.

Do you have a seconder?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:47

Councillor Goddard, would any other Councillor like to speak?

Councillor Goddard.

Thank you.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:27:55

Yeah, I think it fits in there pretty nicely.

I think Councillor Hollingsby said that 8 .1 sums it up nicely.

I think that's a fine paragraph explaining the conclusion of the report, the reports,

you know, an excellent report, explaining the sensitivities of the application.

So happy to support.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:21

Would any other Councillor like to make a statement or ask for clarification or anything?

I'm not seeing any.

So we have one proposal, one seconder to agree with the officer's recommendation to grant this subject to the conditions laid out.

All those in favour please raise your hand.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:46

Thank you. All those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:51

All those in abstention.

Microphone A - 0:28:56

Thank you chair, that's 18 in favour, zero against and three abstentions.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:29:01

Thank you, that application has passed.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:29:15

So councillors, we come to our next piece of business, which is actually to exclude

the public. I'm sorry everyone will have to leave. So we're excluding the public for the

following item of business on the grounds that it is likely to disclose exempt information

as defined in paragraph six of part one of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Can I have a proposer, Councillor Feller? Happy to propose.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:29:48

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:29:48

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:29:58

and Councillor Keating to second. All those in favour please. Thank you Councillors.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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.

Interactive webcast player