Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 27 October 2026, 7:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 27th October 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.

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

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.

to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.

Through declarations of interest, do we have any to declare?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

For 230588 and for 261354, both those applicants are knowing to me,

so I'd like to make a voluntary declaration.

Thank you.

And Councillor Hills?

Thank you, Chair.

Same as Councillor Lueb.

Unfortunately, I've...

not 34 ,000, but I know most.

I know a couple of the applicants here.

I have put it in the register of interest,

but I just think I've been lobbing it,

not lobbing it in a hard way,

but I'm gonna declare it anyway as involuntary, okay?

Thank you.

So moving on to item three of our,

oh, sorry, I didn't see your hand there.

Councillor Walker.

Thank you, Chair, just to give a voluntary declaration

I know Councillor Haywood, she's speaking on the mobile van in Liming, and I have a

professional relationship with a member of her family.

Thank you.

Are there any more before we move on?

Okay.

So moving on to item three, minutes.

So we're considering and approving as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

the 6th of October, 2026.

Are we all happy with those minutes?

Agreed.

Thank you.

So I will sign those minutes as a correct record.

So we have a number of applications and a number

of speakers this evening.

So we're going to start with our first application, which

is 230588FH Willow Springs Lid Road, Old Romney, TN 299SG.

And again, some of you have no updates on this.

So we are looking at the change of use of land

to extend current gypsy and traveler's site

to provide for a further seven static mobile homes.

And our first speaker this evening is Councillor Wimble,

who is award member to speak about the application.

Councillor Wimble, please.

Thank you, Chair.

This application deserves a fair assessment of its merits.

In the fact that the reason for the recommendation

for a refusal goes against the same planning permissions

that this very council previously gave permission for the travellers site back in 2018.

It was one thing stopping the Secretary of State from signing off the district plan,

so I would like to know why it now does not fit the planning ideals.

Same site, same applicant, same planning authority.

Officers accept the principle of extending the established authorised travellers site.

That is a significant starting point.

Seven additional static mobile homes are proposed.

Council's accommodation assessment dates back from 2018

and the report acknowledges the current local legislation

dictates that this will need to look for additional sites

over the next five years.

It also makes it clear that the assessment requirement

is a minimum rather than a maximum.

We should therefore be careful about assuming

that previous provisions are settled,

has settled the question of need.

There's also positive findings.

The report identifies no neighbouring representations

against the development.

In fact, the local feelings think

the current site is exemplar.

Natural England, the country archeology,

also raised no objections within the respective remits.

KCC highways have no objections,

and those findings deserve proper weight.

However, I recognise the central difficulty, flooding.

The Environment Agency objects,

and officers identify the proposed extension

as being within flood zone three.

Although we must take that seriously,

the site's the same site that this vague council

found it safe to pass for five other plots in the same field on the same level. The sea

defences will be maintained due to the nuclear sites at Dungeness. The person putting the

application forward has agreed to raise each static home one metre above level of the base

and even if there were to be a breach in seawall the site would probably take around 20 hours

to flood allowing plenty of time to evacuate. I would not ask the committee to approve accommodation

that's not being demonstrated to be safe.

Finally, if you turn the site down with its datum

above average on Romney Marsh,

you'll set a precedent for all other housing applications

on the marsh.

Regardless of the site being designated a traveller site,

a settled home provides a foundation

for everyday family life, attending school,

assessing healthcare, and maintaining community ties.

My position is very clear.

I support this application.

I want to see a safe, acceptable scheme delivered.

Thank you.

And we have another speaker, Jesse Penfold, to speak.

So if you'd like to come down.

And you have three minutes.

Thank you for letting me speak.

I appreciate that the officers have recommended refusal

following the Environment AC's objection.

And I understand the importance of flood risk

when determining planning applications.

However, I respectfully ask members to consider this the specific facts of this case and the wider planning balance

This proposal is not for a new traveller site in an isolated or unsuitable location

It is an extension to an existing established

managed traveller site

The site is already occupied already functioning and already forms part of the traveller community in this area

I would also ask members to consider the significant lack of alternative sites available to traveller

families.

This is a genuine need for additional authorised accommodation and very limited opportunities

for families to live lawfully and securely within the district.

The submitted flood warning and evacuation strategy explains that there are no recorded

instance of historic flooding affecting the site or the immediate

surrounding areas. It also explains that the site benefits from substantial

coastal flooding from substantial coastal flood defences and that the

concern relates to a future breach scenario rather than flooding under

normal defended conditions. The report further confirms that even under the

breach scenario assessed, floodwater would take more than 20 hours to reach the site,

allowing significant warning time for evacuation. A detailed flood warning and evacuation strategy

has been prepared and a safe assembly and refuge area is identified in the northern

part of the site within flood zone 1. I'm not asking members to ignore the Environment

Agency's concerns, rather I ask members to weigh those concerns against the benefits

of the proposal, the absence of alternative sites,

the need for authorised traveller accommodation,

and the fact that this development would extend

an existing lawful site, rather than to create a new one.

The planning system requires a balanced judgement.

In this case, I believe the benefits to traveller families

and the lack of realistic alternatives

are compelling considerations that justify support

for this application. I therefore respectfully ask members to depart from the officer's

recommendation and grant planning permission. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. So members, over to you. Councillor Goddard.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Yeah, I called this committee because I couldn't quite believe

it was up for refusal, like my fine colleague, Councillor Wimble, just said. Back in 2018,

Mr Penfold worked with the District Council then to have a traveller site on the marsh.

So our plan could go forward. I know I appreciate many of you here today wasn't here in 2018.

So like we say this is an established site. The place they're saying that's in the flood risk is virtually a caravan length away from where their existing ones are.

I find it hard to believe that from here to Mr. Barcove there, it's going to flood, but

his one's on.

So I can't quite get my head around that, but it is an existing site.

I don't think seven in there is over -intensive.

You've heard the applicants willing to obviously raise them even more to get over the flooding.

So I was a little bit gobsmacked because eight years ago it was allowed for those that existed caravans

and now they want to extend, there's all sorts of hurdles, like this goes back to 2023.

So obviously I've been in the pipeline for a year.

So it would be interesting what other members say but obviously I think I'll put my colours on the flagpole or whatever the saying is.

and I quite like this, the site's there, it's clean, it's tidy and yeah, it's an interesting

way I would say.

Thank you.

Councillor Hills.

Thank you, Chair.

Like Councillor Goddard, I've known this site since day one and I must say the site's always

been incredibly well maintained, clean and what they did exactly what we asked them to

do.

They set back the gates from the road to stop any danger when you come out at 259, which is a fast road.

They looked at way down, Hammond's Corner is one of the biggest black spots in Kent.

But actually, the site itself is very well managed by the applicant.

Now, when it comes to flood risk, a large chunk of the marsh is at flood zone 3.

And I don't think people realise that if this site was to flood, you've already lost lead.

And you've lost lead airports.

And quite a few other villages on the way through.

And the one safe place to be in this scenario is on the 259.

The old reward is built on the spoil from the re -channel.

And that means it's high up.

It's a perfect escape route to actually have the benefit

of being a few hundred yards from safety.

I mean, as Charles has already said,

if this was the flood, it would be a slow flood.

I disagree, we do not have adequate sea defences

at Galloway's and Denjmarsh.

The beach is stripped of shingle

and it's actually been flattened by storm Guaretti.

That's another matter, I shan't go on for hours.

But at the end of the day, we are open,

and that needs to be addressed.

But even if it was to happen this winter,

I can't see it reaching that at this stage,

but if it did, they're actually quite safe.

I support this application because I couldn't see why not.

Thank you.

Councillor Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I'd like to echo what Councillor Goddard

and Councillor Hills have already said.

When you have a look at the site, it looks very professional when you come along the main road,

when you have a look at what's been done in terms of screening the site and how it's developed over the years.

The screen from the road, it's very, very good.

You can see from that, just that photograph there.

I think sometimes people have preconceived ideas about gypsy and tarrabler sites predominantly

because of the things they see on social media and in the news about those sites that,

and they tend to be local authority sites

that do tend to be abused,

and this is the opposite end of the scale.

I mean, it really is a very well -maintained site.

When you have a look at the objections,

this was objected to by Brentwood Parish Council,

who were a neighbouring parish,

they're not even the parish in which this is in,

they didn't object.

There were four letters sent out.

There were no objections from the neighbours.

I accept what has been put in the officer's report,

and in fact, ahead of the meeting,

I did send out a number of questions which I intend to ask now.

So with regard to site flooding, what would constitute an appropriate site layout and design

that would avoid the risk of flooding and how does this relate to the existing site approvals

of Y190958, which is the previous application?

Secondly, would the proposed landscape changes in the application provide sufficient mitigation

for the harmful visual impact identified in the report,

which is the other aspect of the officer's recommendations

for refusal.

How does the proposed surface water drainage align

with that approved already

under the previous application Y19 -0958?

And as I already said, there were four neighbours,

and you can see from the drawings and from the photographs,

they are very close.

none of them have actually objected to this application.

So again, I support what both Councillor Goddard

and Councillor Hills, and in fact, I'll go as far as to say

I'd like to recommend that we approve this application.

Subject to the responses to my questions from Councillors.

Thank you, Chair.

So is that a proposal?

Yes.

That is a proposal, yeah.

And Councillor Hills to second.

Councillor Keene.

Sorry, can I, can I, my questions be answered first of all, is that okay?

Sorry, yes, yes, we'll have those first, sorry.

Yeah, thank you.

I'll start with the flooding one first.

So the Y19 one, the four existing mobile homes were put on the higher piece of land, the

idea being that they were the one, that's the safest location within the site towards

towards the top end.

The flood risk assessment does confirm that

that's where they should be in flood zone one,

and avoid the lower piece of land,

which is where the application now proposes them.

So, according to, if you look at the EA's modelling on site,

the higher part of the piece of land is safe

where we approve the caravans,

the lower piece of land is not,

which is why it's the way around that it is,

and that's why the environment agency

have maintained an objection.

Do you want to come back on that point

before we move on to the others?

If I may, so again, I think we've heard from the applicants

albeit verbally that he would be prepared

to mitigate that by raising the land level.

So I just wonder whether that would be,

if that could be conditioned as part of any approval

for this application.

because again that answers my question about what would constitute an

appropriate site layout and design. Thank you.

Okay so yes you could specify that mobile homes are to be raised off the land by X number of metres.

The problem, the issue that we have is that we don't have a flood risk assessment that assesses this proposal.

The flood risk assessment submitted was in support of the earlier Y19 one.

So we don't have anything that confirms that that,

I don't have anything before me that tells me that's safe,

and I can't therefore sit here and tell you

that would be safe.

Because we don't have that, yeah,

we simply don't have that document.

Depending on the extent of land raising,

it might be done with other professions.

Okay, obviously we've got an issue with,

depends on how much you have to raise the land by,

that might constitute an engineering work

in its own right.

which might need planning permission as well.

I don't know how what the applicant has in mind compares

to the what's there at the moment.

If you look at the drawings,

then you'll see there are a little bit raised up anyway.

But I don't have anything that tells me that doing

that the site would be safe in a flood risk.

In terms of landscaping, I mean, additional landscaping would help,

whether or not it would completely screen out the impact

I think it still would look quite commercial,

but that's something that members will need

to consider in their decision.

In terms of surface water drainage,

KCC is the local flood authority have asked

for additional information.

I can't recall the details of the last one

or whether we had details submitted

under the last application, but nevertheless,

we haven't had any information to confirm

that there is an acceptable solution at the moment,

hence the reason for on Trainers' Ground as well.

Are you happy with that?

Have you got any more questions just before we move on?

No, just again, just following on from that.

I come back to what the neighbours,

the neighbours are happy with this.

The parish council are happy with this.

It's a neighbouring council who've actually objected to it.

So again, I'd just say it can't be beyond the wit of man to be able to provide screening,

which would provide that additional mitigation if it's required to address the officer's

comments about harmful visual impact.

That's all.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Nick Laquine.

Councillor Keene.

I think this is brilliant.

I've driven past this on a number of times.

That's yours.

I've given the past a number of times and I actually thought it was a holiday village.

It's beautiful, it's well kept.

The bit that really sticks in my throat is as a council, as a planning council, we allowed

somebody to build on the beach.

Nothing was worried.

We built flats on the beach in the harbour wall.

But today when these people want to put homes for travellers in an area that is safe and

hasn't flooded for years from what I understand.

So why are we making such a fuss and why was this refused?

I think it's a lovely site.

I drive past it quite often.

I think it's a credit to the traveller community.

And I think rather than stop them doing what,

bringing families together, we should be saying,

yeah, this is fine.

Everything that's been said is just, it's nothing.

We built high rise buildings on the beach,

but we can't put trailers on a site

and I think that's really poor.

Thank you, Councillor Hills.

Thank you, Chair.

Something was told to me the other day

that the EA are prepared to give a go ahead on the sites,

but for a certain amount of time, 10 years or more.

The actual flood maps are changing regularly.

as the climate change aspect gets worse.

Obviously, the map gets worse,

but I've discovered there's two maps

on the government website,

one for planning and one for flooding.

They're both flood risk maps,

but one is not the same as the other.

Now I get very suspicious about this.

How come they can build houses,

now I know they're in Cockney Lane or whatever,

in the future.

It's same flood zone three.

I can't see what the risk is

to these people down there.

Because I've already said,

you've just lost the Robony Marsh.

So in other words, I think we'd be more than happy.

And so to go ahead with this,

I mean, they could have won't have a flood emergency plan

of their own to put into operation

if something was to happen,

and the environment agency can give them flood warnings.

And as Councillor's already said,

it'll be quite a long way, a long time before it gets there.

So I really think we're dancing ahead of a pin on this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Blakemore, did you have your hand up? No, sorry. Councillor Gabbard.

Yeah and also just the thought I forgot to say it fits, they're exactly the same height as the

existing ones as well. So I know they're saying that that land's slightly lower, hence with the

flood. But like Councillor Hill said, the sea were coming at Galloway's, so anybody knows Galloway's

obviously in mind the Denjmar speech and the point that Dunjaness that is several

miles away from this and the re -wall that runs alongside it is the safest

place to be you know if it's going to flood or camp out on the re -wall the A259

it's not Lid Row as it says in the report you know it's what we call

Brenzett Strait but yes so and it falls in this city of sanctuary so that the

council passed a couple of weeks ago so yeah it could be the first thing that

that fits in this city of sanctuary that everybody's supported.

Thank you.

So, oh, Councillor Walker.

Just to say that I also know this site, it's an exemplary site.

What they've done with road safety, coming onto that road, is extremely good.

They seem to have a care to get everything right.

And having heard a lot of local knowledge from the Robberley Marsh Councils, my colleagues,

I'm really inclined to support this application.

Thank you.

Councillor Shub.

Thank you.

I have a lot of sympathy with the proposal.

It's been very interesting to listen to the councillors who know the site well and the area.

I guess my problem or concern is that

with on the evidence before us,

what we've been given to consider,

yeah, the flood risk assessment as we're presented with it

is troubling and I was interested to hear your questions

about whether there is some potential to make it safer,

but yeah, on the evidence that we're presented with,

I'm struggling to be able to support it

just on those safety grounds,

because it is, if it were to flood to that extent,

and as we mentioned, climate change,

Things are just getting worse and unpredictable,

so that's why I am struggling,

but I'm listening to what other people have to say.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else who would like to speak on this?

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, Chair.

I think my views on new homes are widely known

in this committee,

and therefore we should have a very strong reason

not to build new homes for people.

And in this case, reading the report,

I came here thinking yes, if there's a flood risk

we should definitely take that on board.

But listening to the local knowledge

and hearing the speakers, I think I've changed my mind.

And I don't see the logic in saying

that some of these units, the existing units,

are safe to live in, and the new ones

wouldn't be safe to live in.

I mean, so if we refuse this application,

surely we should then go on and say

the other units aren't safe, by logic.

So I'll support this.

Thank you, Councillor Polly Blakemore.

Yeah, I came with the same,

yeah, the same nervousness about the flood risk,

but yeah, it's very interesting listening

to the local knowledge.

And if it's really true that lid would be underwater

before Willow Springs, well, that certainly

is food for thought.

So I'm, yeah, considering which way to go on this one,

having listened to the local councillors talking about,

yeah, how well kept this site is, and yeah,

and the fact that if flooding was to occur,

there would be bigger problems before it got to this site.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak?

Councillor King.

They've got 20, if that does flood, if it floods, they've got 20 hours.

Those are mobile units.

And anybody that knows the traveller knows they're the most resourceful people that you'll ever meet.

They will get those caravans out of there, I can assure you.

I've worked with travellers all my working life and I can tell you if that becomes a

risk, those planners will be moved.

So I think we should just go ahead and get this put through.

Before we take this to the vote, we're going to just hear from our Planning Officer.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, members.

So before members go to the vote on this application, just for the sake of clarity and for the minutes,

because we have to record reasons why committee is potentially going against the officer recommendation

here. And on applications where members are looking to refuse an application, obviously it's very

straightforward, but when members are looking to approve an application contrary to officer

recommendation, it needs to be clarified before the vote. So my understanding is that members

clearly aren't disputing that the site lies in an area at risk of flooding. Obviously the

The information submitted by the applicants confirms that, the comments of the EEA confirm that.

My understanding from the discussion tonight is that if members do vote in favour of approving this application,

it would be on the basis that they do not consider flood risk a compelling reason to refuse planning permission,

and also they do not consider that visual impact

or drainage are compelling reasons

to refuse planning permission.

So, Mr. Campbell, just comment on the remaining reasons

for refusal, but before members do go to the vote on this,

Just for the purposes of potentially issuing decision to grant planning permission,

I'm assuming that imposing appropriate conditions would be delegated to officers today,

but we need that obviously confirming by members. Thank you.

Yes, just to follow on with what Mr Bailey said,

You'd also need to look at the drainage reason for refusal

and also the insufficient information

on biodiversity habitats and protected species as well.

So you'd need to be comfortable,

or you'd need to come to the same conclusion

that that's not a reason to refuse either.

We'll see with the details in the report.

I am assuming from the discussion that has been had tonight that members are satisfied

that the reasons for refusal set out in the report, they don't consider it sufficient

to warrant refusal of planning permission. In the case of ecology and biodiversity, members

obviously have a number of options here. We could seek further information from the applicant

on the basis that members have signalled a desire to grant planning permission and that

authority could be delegated to officers to permit subjects for information coming in.

In the alternative, and I wouldn't advocate this course of action, members could conclude that

the impact on protected species and biodiversity was not sufficient to warrant the refusal of

planning permission. But then, of course, members, the council does have a legal duty when it comes to

protected species. So I would urge caution in that regard and I would

encourage if members are looking to vote to grant planning permission for this

scheme to delegate that authority to officers subject to information on

protected species being submitted and KCC Ecology having no objection to it.

So, oh, Councillor Hills. Thank you, Chair. I mean I understand what you're saying but I

I don't want a planning situation to be held up

when you're trying to find a protected species down there,

which we're not aware of,

and nor is that really, I don't think, or the IDP.

It's pasture at the moment.

As far as I know, it will have no effect.

I mean, obviously, if it was, it would be a concern,

but we don't want the conditions to go on the planet

and if you were to approve it,

to hold it up to the degree

until we wait, say, a year to two years

before anything was to be coughed up

by natural England or whoever.

Which I think is a small point.

Just to make, people don't understand Dungeness

and the marsh.

Water flows downhill.

Dungeness is six metres above sea level.

The average marsh height is three metres.

And the lowest and most placed at risk is height.

Down the canal, it's zero metres at sea level.

So water flows downhill, I don't think this is a concern.

Councillor Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Rob, for making it clear to us

the kind of things which need to be included

in any conditions which have to be met,

that those conditions would have to be met

subject to work starting on site, for example.

I mean, you know, that's sort of standard wording, isn't it?

Again, you know, if this was a planning application

where permission was to be granted,

we would normally say delegated authority

given to the chief planning officer

to do all the things that you've said

with regard to the flooding and the condition,

which would demonstrate that an appropriate site layout

and design would meet the flooding requirements.

and the same with the ecology and biodiversity net gain.

So again, I think, you know, with that in mind

and having those conditions there,

I think it gives the applicant an understanding

of what is needed to move forward.

This has already been made clear tonight.

The applicant has already said that he'd be prepared

to raise the level of the land to mitigate the flood risk.

And again, if you look at the sites,

there is ample room on that site that is not currently going to be developed when arguably the ecological and the biodiversity net gains could be identified,

providing there are no identified protected species.

So again, I think, you know, I'm comfortable with that in terms of, you know, my proposal to recommend approval for that.

would be on the basis that the conditions adequately addressed all of

the mitigations associated with those aspects of the planning application that

are in the officers report which were part of the refusal. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Councillor Blakemore.

If the proposal is to raise the caravans higher to mitigate the flood

Does that not increase the visual impact, which is one of the objections already?

So do we also need to have a condition that says that the visual impact of dealing with

the flood problem is also mitigated, so the screening needs to be effective for those

caravans if they're to be raised a metre higher?

Thank you.

In terms of land raising, my understanding, and from what Councillor Thomas just said,

I think I may have misunderstood, but my understanding was that the motion was to approve the application,

not including any land raising.

Now, as Mr Campbell said, land raising may well require planning permission in its own right,

and it's not necessarily something that could be dealt with by condition.

And I would encourage members to, in effect, make a decision based on the scheme that's before them tonight.

If members are satisfied that, if the committee is satisfied that flood risk isn't initially

sufficient to warrant refuse in the planning commission, then I think that's sufficient.

And in the alternative, given that these are static caravans, I guess one alternative would

be to just simply raise the height of the caravans rather than raising the height of

the land.

It might make more sense for the applicants.

it certainly might make more sense from a planning point of view and it would certainly

be less complicated. You are entirely correct, Councillor Blakemore, where I have dealt with

sites at my previous authority in flood risk areas where permission was granted on appeal,

temporary permission I would add, for caravans that had to be raised above ground level by

X number of metres. Now in this case, I think Mr. Campbell has said that we don't know what

that finished floor level should be because we don't have an up -to -date site -specific

flood risk assessment. So in effect, we'd almost be flying blind in terms of the overall

height that they would need to be increased by. But like I said, my initial understanding

was that the motion on the floor was to just grant planning permission for the scheme that

is before members. And just for the sake of clarity in terms of protected species, Mr.

has just advised me, and I suspect this would be the case, that KCC Ecology have advised

that the need for protected species surveys and information have to be, that has to be

done prior to the determination of the application, hence why I suggested delegated authority

to the Chief Planning Officer to approve subjects of that information coming in and KCC Ecology

being satisfied with it.

So we have a proposal,

which I think

would you like to

explain your proposal so we know what we're

potentially agreeing to, Councillor Thomas?

Yes, thank you.

Again, just in terms of my questions, my questions were

initially

focused around

So, an appropriate site layout and design that would mitigate the risk

of the mobile homes being compromised in a flood event, which again, as we've heard,

and as Rob has already said, could be by raising the level of the mobile homes themselves rather

than the rest of the land, which seems entirely appropriate.

I think to me the issue now really is around how the ecology side of this is dealt with them

with regard to us being compliant with the protected species side of things.

So again, if officers are happy that that is conditioned in a way that provides that

and then provides KCC Ecology with what they need to satisfy their requirements,

which would be surveys of the existing sites,

then I think that would appear to be an adequate way forward.

Thank you.

Apologies to come back in, members, and apologies, Chair.

In terms of the protected species information, KCC Ecology have advised that that needs to be submitted

and appraised by them before a decision is issued.

So their recommendation, their firm recommendation is that it shouldn't be the subject of conditions in the first instance.

It should be submitted prior to a decision being issued.

In terms of the height of the caravans, we could impose, I think, a condition requiring further details to be submitted.

But that would mean issuing a decision on the basis of the siting of caravans where

we and members wouldn't necessarily know what their visual impact would be because at this

stage we don't know how high they are going to have to be raised off the land.

So if members are satisfied that regardless, almost regardless of the height of the caravans,

there's gonna be no harmful visual impact.

And I would caution against that because we don't,

yeah, it could be one metre, it could be five metres.

If members are satisfied that in all circumstances

that would be acceptable, then potentially we could issue

an approval with a condition to that effect.

My understanding, and this is why I misunderstood the notion

that my understanding from the debate was,

the majority of members were satisfied

that that was potentially unnecessary because they considered that the flood

risk had been overstated by the Environment Agency on this site. But I

mean that was my understanding from the debate. Obviously it's your

motion and members will vote on it as they see fit.

Thank you. Councillor Hills.

I'm sorry, Chairman, I did try and keep myself short,

but it is logical to say that you wouldn't have to raise

them up any higher than the existing caravans,

which means you wouldn't have any sightline problems,

because if the original caravans aren't at flood risk,

and you raise it to the same height,

the rest wouldn't be at flood risk.

I can't see the problem.

Councillor Thomas.

Just looking back at the Environment Agency's comments, there is a CPO comment in 5 .1 which

says it should be noted that these comments were submitted before the current version

of the MPPF was adopted, given that the FRA as noted above is dated August 2019, which

is what I think you alluded to earlier on.

It's produced before the current proposal conceived and for a different scheme.

So is that what we're saying in terms of how the flood risk for this site is to be assessed

because there is this discrepancy between what we currently have now in terms of MPPF

against what was assessed against the different scheme in 2019?

Thank you.

Well, in terms of the changes to the MPPF, in my view, I don't think that material here.

I think the key issue here is that the site -specific

flood risk assessment that was submitted

with the application, this application,

was the one that was submitted with the application

in 2019, which showed the area where the caravans are now,

not risk of flooding, and the area where the caravans

are proposed to be sited here, at risk of flooding.

Now, I think we don't have information

that sets what the safe finished floor levels of the caravan should be in this

location. I mean, the suggestion from Councillor Hills is noted and

members might want to give consideration to that. That could form the basis of a

planning condition that sets out of the finished floor levels of the caravans to

be sighted should be no lower than the finished floor levels of the existing

caravans. I have to say from a planning officer's point of view, I would

say that's not a terribly satisfactory solution, but it is a solution. So members may wish

to, or Councillor Thomas may wish to give consideration to recommending imposing such

a condition as part of his motion. But like I said, I think that almost a more important

issue here is the issue of protected species and as I've said, KCC Ecology require that

information up front. And I've just been reminded by Mr. McArdle that if we determine the application

without that information up front, we are at risk of being judicially reviewed potentially

by Natural England or any other interested party on the basis that we would be acting

contrary to the relevant legislation in terms of protected species.

I just wonder whether you want to take a moment just to formulate what you want as your final

motion that you're proposing.

Can we take a five minute as well,

so that we are absolutely clear about what you're proposing,

and it gives you a chance just to put those potential conditions in.

So if we could just take five minutes.

Just, if I may, Chair, just on that point with the ecology.

If that's the case, that KCC Ecology, which they do say and hear,

that it shouldn't be determined prior

to the information being submitted,

then arguably this shouldn't have been brought

to us this evening anyway.

Because if the information's not available,

then it couldn't be determined one way or the other.

So it just seems to me a bit of a moot point in that respect,

you know, so I do struggle with that, that we're being asked

to make a decision about something which, you know,

we have incomplete information and arguably something which on that basis shouldn't have

been brought to us anyway.

So I'd like to propose we have five minutes in the members room and we just discuss this

with officers and the way forward, thank you.

Okay, so we'll just adjourn for five minutes.

I'm back. So we're going to go back to the Willow Springs discussion and Councillor Paul

Thomas is going to outline his proposal for us.

Can you put your microphone on please?

Yes, sorry. Yes, so following discussions with the planning officers and with members,

is there are two things which we have to condition.

One of those is associated with mitigating the flood risk,

and so that would be a condition associated with

the new site to be raised to the same level

as the existing site.

But then, and then for the new site,

visual impact that the officers will condition what is required in terms of

screening to allow the the race sites to be not impose a visual impact but

overriding those is the fact that until the ecology assessment has been

completed that the application cannot be determined until we've actually got the

ecology report in and that's been assessed by officers. So that in essence is where we are with it. Thank you.

We're just going to clarify.

So for the sake of clarity, members, my understanding of Councillor Thomas's motion is that authorities delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to grant permission

subject to submission of information relating to protected species and KCC

ecology, raising no objection to it, to a condition requiring the finished floor

levels of the caravans proposed here to be set no lower than the existing

caravans at the site and for landscaping conditions to be imposed

amongst other conditions that would soften the appearance of the caravans.

I hope that's correct, Councillor Tom Stump,

does that provide clarity for members?

It does indeed, and we did say that the issues raised within the report

regarding the surface water drainage would also be included in there as well.

Thank you.

Thank you. So that's a proposal.

Councillor Hill, are you happy to second that still?

And so we are looking to approve,

not what the officers have said,

but we are to approve the application

and those in favour of supporting that.

Thank you, and that's unanimous.

Thank you, so we're going to move on

to our second application of the evening,

25 0525 FH Station Road car park, the sidings, Liming, CT18 8HS. And this is regarding a mobile

catering van. And we have one speaker on this to speak. So it's Councillor Heywood on behalf of

Liming Parish Council. When you're ready, you will have three minutes to speak on the application.

I start, could I just say that I learned today that none of the 11 businesses which are around

that corner, it's that sharp corner if you know Limmage, in the middle of Limmage,

that none of those businesses that I spoke to today have been notified of

this application. That wasn't part of my three minutes. Okay, whenever you're ready.

Okay, the burger van in the car park. Good evening. I'm Gillian Heywood, speaking on

on behalf of the Limage Parish Council.

We object to the sighting of a near permanent mobile

coting van in the only car park for the village.

A car park which serves all the local shops and businesses.

There are yellow lines on the main road through the area,

so the car park is vital for all our businesses,

including the restaurant and takeaway that stays open

till 11 o 'clock at night, and the library which serves

the whole of this large rural area and stays open until five o 'clock or later

if there's any special events. And the primary school. The road outside the

school has yellow lines so many parents can't park there and they prefer to park

in this car park and walk to collect the children. The site is often full up until

at least four o 'clock or later. Lastly, I just mentioned the overall spill from

the sidings, the residential housing opposite the entrance to the car park, where some of

the markings in the car park are dedicated to some of the people who live in the sidings.

So our car park is often full and cars sit blocking access, hoping for a space.

All this means that the car park can be full until five o 'clock or later.

A takeaway hot food van might be an attraction

to some who live near or drive.

The busses in each direction, Folkestone and Canterbury,

are one just before five o 'clock,

and then the last bus at seven o 'clock.

So I don't think a two hour wait to collect a burger

is going to be anything many people would be doing often.

This van will take up to at least four spaces,

as the last space has to be kept clear.

It is the only access to the ladies' loo.

The application states that the van will be in place until 5pm.

It will be in place at 3pm.

It will need to manoeuvre into place and then be chopped up because of the slope of the ground.

It's quite steep there.

And how will they gain access if there are cars there already?

All those car spaces were full this afternoon

from three o 'clock until half past five.

Or will they decide to not move away at night

and so be there permanently?

That is certainly not what the application

or the planning officer says.

After six p .m., this is a quiet residential area

of the village.

Cars moving, voices, let alone smells,

noise and dropped litter are not what the village needs. The van may take away

its own waste but it can't be responsible for the inevitable street

litter. All this up till 10 .15 at night. The council is not against the mobile

catering vans visiting. Indeed we have one here regularly but this application

is better noise and waste management in place and more limited period, possibly

Can we finish with your last sentence, please?

So, for this reason of parking loss and harm to the community,

Liming Parish Council asks that you refuse the application.

Thank you.

So, members, Councillor Mike Lickmore.

Thank you, Chair.

I was going to ask about some of the things which the Speaker's just touched on.

The loss of parking, so although the van will need to be in position at three o 'clock, will it not be the case that those spaces will need to be kept free essentially for the whole day?

Because if someone's parked there previously and they're still there at three o 'clock, the van wouldn't be able to gain access.

I was also going to ask about how busy the car park is, because I think that's an important bit of context,

as whether we're robbing the village of an essential asset

or whether it's a little used car park is really important.

And again, from the speaker, it sounds like it is very well used.

So those are my questions.

I mean, there's good mitigation about them taking the rubbish away with them.

But again, as the speaker says, we do know from takeaways

and from mobile because they do create a lot of litter.

Not much we can do about that.

Yeah, those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you.

I mean in terms of highways, we have consulted KCC.

Highways, they haven't raised any objections

on highway or parking grounds.

They commented that there are parking restrictions

on the station road.

And they're saying that,

so any overstilled car parking is unlikely to result

in highway safety issues.

So the technical consultee hasn't raised any concern

on those grounds.

Those are technical issues though.

It doesn't answer that question about

will those parking spaces be out of action

for the whole day?

I assume they must be.

And also, it doesn't create any highway issues,

but it creates issues for villagers

who've nowhere to park.

I mean, yes, the proposal is to put a van

in those four spaces, which yes, we'll take those out,

which I think has been acknowledged in the report.

Sorry, the report says that we need it from three o 'clock,

but my point was if someone's parked there at 2 .55

and they're not moving, then what is the van gonna do?

I don't think anybody knows,

so we'll move on to any more questions.

Councillor Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Yeah, just go to the consultation, 32 letters, 23 objections,

and with the later one, 21 objections,

no letters to support.

So my question really is around how this is gonna function

because within the planning application,

with the officer's report, it says the vehicle,

the diesel engine within the vehicle will be turned off.

There are no diesel or petrol generators to be allowed

and that this thing is gonna run on,

the main power source will be batteries.

It's gonna sell hot food, including burgers,

fish and chips and kebabs.

When you have a look at existing vans of this type,

they normally have a generator running by the side of them

that powers all that equipment.

When you're talking about heating food up

and keeping it hot, that takes a lot of energy, doesn't it?

I just wonder whether they actually have

a little battery van behind it to power it all.

It just seems to me that there's, as it's described,

I'm not sure how that can work.

I know it's conditioned to say that

You can't have those other things, but I think from a technical point of view, I'm not sure

that running off batteries is viable.

That's my view of the world anyway.

Thank you.

I don't think that was a question necessarily, was it?

No, that's fine.

Councillor Fuller.

Yeah, I was just going to move the officer's recommendation, to be honest.

While I appreciate that people might not like the smell of food, it smells a lot better

than petrol cars. I can see that it's not, I was a little concerned

initially that it was going to be on the charging spaces but it's not and

every picture I've seen of that car park, admittedly only picture, is shown.

It is quite empty so yeah I'm happy to move the recommendation.

Councillor Keene, did you want to speak on this?

Thank you.

Councillor Walker.

This is really a question more of an answer to Councillor Blakemore.

I do visit living not frequently, but I've just actually given up trying to get into

that car park.

There are times when I try it is actually full.

So the pictures aren't, but the times when it is empty,

but when I try it is full.

I do have concerns about the loss of parking for this.

Councillor Polly Blakemore.

Yeah, I just had a question

sort of on the residential amenity section,

because it talks about there's acknowledgement

that obviously the van's gonna come and go.

So that's the one vehicle movement.

Presumably, if there was a takeaway van there,

there'd be quite a lot of other comings and goings as well,

because not everybody was going to walk there, presumably.

Presumably there were people who drive there.

And although there may be parking at that time of night,

yeah, it does have an impact on residential immunity

if there's more comings and goings than just the van.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to make a comment?

ask a question. We have one proposal which is to go with the officer's recommendation

and that is to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the

report and obviously delegating authority to chief planning officer to agree and finalise

the wording of the conditions or add any other conditions that are deemed necessary. So unless

we have another proposal. All those in favour? And those against? Any abstentions? I think

that was everybody, wasn't it? Thank you, Chair. Yes, that's seven in favour and four

against.

Okay, so that has passed.

Moving on to the third application this evening, 260319FH, Way of the Wind, Dungeness Road,

Dungeness, Romney Marsh, TN 299NES.

And this is an application for a replacement dwelling.

and we have Councillor Wimble, his award member,

to speak on the application.

Thank you, Chair.

I strongly support this application

for the replacement dwelling of Way of the Wind.

Dungeness is special.

It's a landscape, heritage, and distinctive buildings

deserve protection, but protecting its character

requires us to consider what is actually there

and assess the proposal fairly against the settings.

Between the entrance of the estate and this property,

there are already 13 two -storey properties

similar to this one.

Height must therefore be assessed

in its actual surroundings.

The presence of an upper floor cannot by itself

establish the building is alien to Dungeness.

The question is whether this particular design

responds appropriately to its location.

In my judgement, looking around at all the other buildings, it certainly does.

Its design draws on the traditional fisherman's cottages that are part of Dunginess's identity.

The connexion deserves substantial weight.

Here is an applicant proposing a home that acknowledges the architectural traditions

of this place.

Members should also consider the consultation responses.

Lid Town Council raises no objections neither do KCC,

archaeology, Kent Highways, KCC, ecology,

Natural England, Affinity Water,

the Environment Protection Officer,

or the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

Those responses concern different responsibilities

and any requirements or recommendation conditions

must be respected.

Nevertheless, the absence of the objection

across those bodies is significant.

It deserves proper consideration.

I also have to raise the question of consistency.

This is the same planning committee that proved Mr Doodle's replacement house at Dunginess

with its distinctive metal exterior and incorporating his artwork, something that is alien to the

rest of the properties on the estate.

That decision does not automatically determine this application.

Every proposal must be considered on its own merits.

but it does raise a perfectly reasonable question.

If such an individual architectural treatment

can be accommodated within Dungeness,

why should a house drawing on traditional fishermen's

cottages be considered incompatible with its landscape?

Members should be clear,

a convincing explanation of that distinction.

Dungeness contains a variety of buildings.

Its character should be assessed

through careful consideration of scale,

form, materials and settings.

The general statement that something does not fit

is insufficient without explaining the particular harm.

I believe this proposal represents its location,

represents the established local tradition

and should be supported.

I urge members to give proper weight

to the surroundings of this two -storey property,

the traditional design and consultation responses,

and the grant planning permission

subject to the appropriate conditions

for this local fishing family

that have been members of the Dungeness Estate

for many generations.

Thank you.

So members, Councillor Goddard.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, again, when I saw this, I was a bit shocked and surprised to see this here tonight.

Again, I'll agree with Councillor Wimble twice in an evening.

This should not be here at all personally.

The 12th century was mentioned earlier and that's probably how long the Thomases have

been there.

This isn't somebody coming down from London and you know, ripping a place down and building

it.

I know that's got not too much to do with the application but getting onto the application,

like Councillor Wimble said, for 13 I counted 15 of a similar size and a scale.

is probably the only place in the district that hasn't got a street scene, Dungeness.

Because they're all in their own elite surroundings, their own elite.

Every architect wants to go better than the last architect and build something bigger and better.

And so there's, you know, it's a massive competition there of architects and agents

trying to build that excellent design, building, etc.

Like Mr. Doodles, you know, mentioned, you know, we did go for that.

and look at that, that was probably more our keeping than Tottenham beat Chelsea.

So, you know, it shouldn't.

There's nothing more than this at all. It fits on the footprint.

It's an excellent design. Just as you come in by the Lifeboat station,

there's a building there, very similar in height, in colour.

Opposite that, the smoke -ery, same height, same colour.

So, you know, I was gobsmacked to see this here just because of the so -called mess of it.

Like Councillor Wimble said, so many people are saying, not against this, he touched on

Littown Council, archaeologically, highways, natural England even, no objection coming

up and writing, affinity, water, environment protection, they go on and on and on.

So, like Councillor Thomas in the previous application, I'm going to be minded to go

for approval against the officer's recommendations.

Is that a proposal?

Yes.

Councillor Mike Blakemore.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I was also a bit surprised because, as other members have said, there's quite

a variety of buildings down there.

I wasn't for one a fan of Mr. Doodle's application,

but the committee did agree that one,

and there are many buildings, quite big buildings around.

I think this one, the plastic cladding is possibly

the thing that's very out of keeping with other buildings,

but on the issue of the bulk, just one question I had,

which was, so the ground floor footprint of this building

is 100 .08 square metres, approximately 37 square metres

bigger than the previous one.

So how is it fitting on the existing concrete base without disturbing the shingle is my question

Chairman, I thought it was a bit obvious because it's upstairs now.

There is a single storey.

Sorry, we'll just wait for this question to be answered.

Yep.

We'll just wait for the officers to answer it, please.

Thank you.

They're just looking through their papers.

Yes, I apologise for the delay.

It's being built on the existing concrete drive, so it's going on concrete rather than

on Shingle.

There is obviously more floor space on the upper floors,

but the ground floor expansion is not on Shingle.

So there's concrete base that isn't currently built on

at the moment that this will occupy.

Thank you.

Okay, Councillor Paul Thomas.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Just in terms of the Office of Recommendation,

I think one of the things that we see with this

that's in the report, which is different to

some of the others that we dealt with down there.

If you look in 2 .3, it does say it's covered by,

it's an Article 4 direction that is in the Ramsar.

And just in terms of the reasons for refusal, it isn't just about the height, it is about the form,

the bulk, the scale, the design, and the use of materials, which was alluded to a moment ago.

So again, I think it isn't just the fact that it's, you know, taller by 1 .4 metres,

which is what it says in here, than the existing building.

There are other factors which relate to its location on this character area.

So again, I think, you know, there's maybe some work to be done to address those issues,

whether they could be done through conditional.

I'm not quite sure.

But it isn't just about the height of it.

there are other factors in there which influence

the officer's recommendations, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hills.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I went past there today,

I'm going past there every day actually,

walking the dog, and I must say,

the mixture of buildings you have up there nowadays,

we have some very strange buildings.

One made of rubber, I believe,

and Spyun Cop, it's got a dirty great tower

stuck on the side of it, which goes back to,

I think at Baw Hall.

So it have a lot of buildings there,

which are very one -off.

But traditionally, as I understand it,

Fisherman's Cottages had a net room upstairs,

like a one and a half, right,

and a ladder to access that going down

the sides of the building.

I see no problem with this whatsoever,

because at the moment we have lots of these buildings

going in to be converted to A and B and B's,

because it's so popular a place to come and stay.

But I can't like me see the problem with this.

Now materials are a different matter.

And I'd be happy to approve this with a condition

that suitable materials must be used.

And that's my way around it.

I mean, most of the historical buildings were black

in some form or another.

So I'd be quite happy to give that bit away if you like.

And if, and I'd be happy to second the proposal

from Councillor Goddard to get this through because I think this really is

quite fine. I've got no problem at all. Thank you.

Councillor Goddard would you be happy to add a condition?

Not really I don't think so because again I think you know obviously it's the plastic plating

but obviously it's made, it could be cement,

or stone, the colour black is obviously used,

I would say the entrance of Dungeness.

So that's black, the smoke is black,

so I don't feel I've not really got a problem with the black.

So I'm quite happy with it,

obviously happy to support the application as it is.

Councillor Hill's, does that mean you've got an alternative proposal?

No, I'm more than happy to go up with that because I think black is the colour for Dungeness,

but the actual material, I'm not going to have a heartburn over it, but I just want to get this through really.

And if it gets through as Councillor Goddard proposes, because I do value his opinions, occasionally,

I think this is worthy to go ahead so I will go along with my council a friend

here and agree or second his proposal do we have any other comments or proposals

Councillor Walker just a comment really that when I heard about this proposal I

was quite concerned because um dungeon s has had an increasing amount of

in congruence buildings going up

and it's sort of ruining the character somewhat.

But having heard the local councillors again,

speaking about this and the people with the local knowledge,

I'm beginning to change my mind side.

So I'm sort of slightly mulling things over.

Thank you.

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I've got, I share Councillor Blakemore's concerns

about the material and I'm not a huge fan

and a plastic cladding.

And I see from the drawing on page 62

that there's one elevation where it says plastic

and then next to it, it says stained timber.

So that looks to me like it's a mix of materials.

I think the other properties down there,

notwithstanding the aluminium and rubber

and whatever weird stuff that's happened there in the past,

are mostly, I mean if you look at Prospect Cottage

is black stained timber, which seems to be sort of a theme.

But again, I don't think we as a committee can say

that's how the properties down there should be

given the wide variety.

But I do, I'm just not a fan of plastic cladding.

And so I would feel a bit more comfortable

if we could say this is fine, but not with plastic cladding.

I don't even know if we can do that.

Well, you can propose an alternative proposal.

Obviously, we have to take them in the order in which they've been proposed.

Apologies, members.

I realise that I think you're probably hearing from me far too much tonight as it is.

My understanding, Councillor Goddard's proposal is to grant planning permission with conditions

delegated to officers but excluding a condition relating to approval of materials so that

that would be as purpose submitted details.

Is that my understanding?

Well, obviously like Councillor Hill said, obviously I'd like to see this get through

because of, you know, enhancements in the area.

Now, you know, if it's going to, if that's the only way of getting it approved through

this wee small piece of plastic issue and possibly having the timber replacing the very

small bit of plastic, then obviously I'll be happy to do that.

Because I wouldn't like to see it get rejected and obviously it won't ever come back to us

again after the 31st anyway.

I wouldn't like to see it get rejected because of a couple of pieces of plastic.

So if that's the only way I'm going to triumph, then I'm sure the applicant will be happy to look at timber or any other sensible cement board etc.

So, okay.

Sorry, members, I don't want to get involved in any debate, but the issue of the materials

condition really is a matter for members to determine.

It's not something I'm suggesting, but I mean, if members are looking to approve it, my recommendation

would be that plastic coated matter is not a material that we would normally consider

acceptable here.

but again that's a matter for members as per the first application that was before members tonight,

just for the sake of clarity and so that the minutes will reflect members reasons

potentially for granting planning permission for this.

My understanding is that members are satisfied that the design and scale

of the proposed replacement drilling is acceptable and satisfied

but it wouldn't have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area or the conservation area.

Thank you. Yeah miss Quill. That's exactly what I've got written down here

Councillor Hills

If I have to confess, I'm a member of the town council

their planning committee

Recently and we did pass this unanimously

as local knowledge

We have no problem with it, but I'll be happy to go along

I mean, what my Councillor Friend says,

and if it, just to help get it through,

I'll be happy to dedicate to officers.

If we needed to have a little bit more of a dicke

about the materials, it's just to get the actual plans

through first, that helps.

But I'll second that, he agrees to.

Well, as I said, members, this isn't a matter for officers,

this is a matter for members.

and a matter for Councillor Goddard,

who's proposing the motion,

as to whether the materials condition is on or off.

Yeah, I think I just said that, didn't I?

I said we'll put it on to replace

a very small piece of plastic, perhaps,

with the timber and...

Okay, so we have a proposal from Councillor Goddard to approve the application, but we

want to have the correct materials.

I think you put it in a better way.

Conditions delegated to officers.

and that will include materials.

And Councillor Hills is happy to second that.

All in favour?

Against?

And abstentions?

Thank you.

Thank you chairs, that's 10 in favour and one abstention.

Thank you.

So we're going to move on to our fourth application of the evening.

This is 261093FH, land adjoining Goodwill Barn, Ashford Road, New Romney, TN2888TH.

And we have two updates before we hear from the speakers.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors.

KCC Ecology have responded and confirmed they have no objection subject to standard conditions

in regards to precautionary working methods, lighting design and ecological enhancements

on the site. We've received three further letters of objection from members who've already commented.

Most of the issues raised are already covered in the report and some are not material planning

considerations but the following additional summarised points have been raised. It says

concern over pedestrian safety due to conflict of movement on the rights of way, overbearing

impacts on existing dwellings, safety concerns in regards to vehicles on the private access track

in close proximity to adjacent homes and gardens, an assessment as to how the site will meet

BNG requirements, questioning of the siting of the touring caravans, questioning the accuracy

of the submitted drawings and questioning officers' assessment of the site and the proposals.

Officers consider the assessment set out within the report to account for all of these points

that have been raised and do not consider them to amount to reason for refusal.

Members will be aware that one of the objectors has sent a list of 14 questions direct to

committee and officers consider these questions are all answered within the report. Finally,

to draw members' attention to an error on the report at paragraph 7 .7 on page 87,

the Council does actually have a policy that restricts the loss of best and most versatile

agricultural land, which is policy HW3 in the local plan. However, its requirements don't

change officers' assessment of the proposals as set out in the report and we remain of the opinion

that the development of the site would not result in the unacceptable loss of

of best and most versatile agricultural land.

Thank you, Chair.

In the past few days,

several councillors have raised with me

the issue of need for and provision of pitches

within the district.

And I thought it would prove useful to members

to set out policy basis in the MPPF,

the council's current position,

and expand on the detail in the report in this regard.

Policy S5 of the MPPF provides that gypsie and traveller sites outside of settlements,

as this one is, should only be approved where, amongst other things, they would address evidenced

unmet need for pitches. The MPPF doesn't helpfully specify what evidence should be

considered appropriate in this regard.

The Council formally assesses the need for gypsie and traveller sites and pitches through

its Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment or GTAA.

Our GTAA was published in 2018,

formed part of the evidence base for the now adopted local plan

and identified a need within the district for five pitches up to 2037.

As part of the local plan, as members will recall from the item earlier tonight,

the Council allocated a site now known as Willow Springs to address this need

Planning permission was granted for five pitches on that site.

As members will note from the report and the debate elsewhere on this agenda,

it is now occupied.

Planning permission was also set out in the report for this item,

granted for an additional pitch at an existing site in Brenzit.

So in total, six pitches have been granted permission

since the publication of the GTAA in 2018,

addressing the need identified in that document.

However, as set out in the report, the Council's GTAA is now approaching nine years, nine years old.

Whilst there is no guidance in England on how often GTAA should be reviewed,

in Wales as a result of the Housing Act, they are required to be reviewed at least every five years.

In England, on appeal, planning inspectors give significantly less weight to GTAAs of

the same age as ours as an accurate assessment of current need.

As such, whilst the GTAA is the only formal assessment available to the Council of unmet

need or any need, rather, within the District, in officers' view, members should exercise

caution in relying on it as an accurate and up -to -date assessment of unmet need within

the district today. Whether there is any unmet need in the district at present is unclear.

There are however signs that may indicate unmet need. For example, this application

– we have another current application elsewhere within the district in the national landscape

– and we have of late seen the number of unauthorised gypsum traveller sites start

to appear around the district. This could be evidence of unmet need. Equally, it could

the evidence of demand for pitches within the district, as there's no formal assessment

that's been taking place. It's currently somewhat nebulous. However, in my opinion, and in officers'

opinion, there is insufficient formal evidence to demonstrate conclusively that there is

no unmet need for pitches, in the same way that there's no formal evidence to demonstrate

that there is unmet need. But a cautious approach is warranted in our view, given the age of

the GTA and the evidence on the ground.

Members will need to take a view on this,

but my opinion is that there is likely to be a level of unmet need

for pitches within the district, and I'd therefore advise members

that whilst there is no objective formal evidence of need

or unmet need being addressed within the district,

that there is limited conflict with policy S5 of the MPPF and I would not recommend refusal

on the basis that need within the district has been fully addressed.

Policy H*** of the MPPF states that when considering proposals for traveller sites, including for

the purpose of considering need under policy S5, local planning authorities should take

account the existing level of local provision as well as the need for additional sites and

other personal circumstances which may be relevant.

Pitch provision, in my view in the context of this policy, relates to the supply of available

sites within the district rather than simply the number of occupied sites. The MPPF requires

councils, local planning authorities, to maintain a rolling five -year supply of available sites

calculated by taking account of any unmet need.

So therefore, if one accepts that the GTAA may be inaccurate due to its age,

and that there may be some unmet need,

there will be a corresponding requirement for a five -year supply of pitches,

although the extent of need as I set out previously is currently unclear.

As a planning authority, we cannot demonstrate a five -year supply of pitches.

We don't have any available alternative sites that could count towards supply.

And if there is unmet need within the district, as I said,

we do not therefore have a five year rolling supply of available pitches.

In accordance with policy H**** the absence of any available alternative

pitches within the district weighs in favour of the proposal.

Turning to the personal circumstances of the applicants, which H*** requires the decision -maker

to have regard to, they do not currently reside at the site and are in accommodation which

has allowed them and their children access to local services, including education at

a local school. The refusal of this application would not, in officers' view, result in the

being homeless or having to resort to a roadside existence, and they have not sought to argue

this in the application particulars.

As such, officers are not of the view that the application details, should members consider

the proposal unacceptable in any material way, would necessitate the grant of temporary

planning permission, having regard to need, supply and personal circumstances.

In conclusion, whilst the proposal clearly does not satisfy the requirement in Policy

S5 to address an evidenced unmet traveller accommodation need, only limited weight should

be attached in officers' view to that conflict, given the age of the Council's evidence

base and the absence of a current assessment. The proposal otherwise accords with the locational

considerations in policy H*** and is acceptable in officers' view in landscape, highway, amenity

and environmental terms. The provision of gypsum traveller accommodation here, as set

out in the report for the previous item, would assist in addressing any unmet need for pitches

and this weighs in favour of approval. On balance, therefore, and having regard to the

that officers consider the proposal to be otherwise acceptable,

the application is recommended for approval.

Thank you, members.

Thank you. Now we have three speakers.

We've got Kim Gowing, who's a local resident,

to speak against the application.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

My husband and I have lived at Goodwill barn for 13 years, right beside this proposed site.

Our concerns go beyond our property to safety, suitability, and impact.

Everyone deserves somewhere safe to live, but is this the right site, and does the evidence

justify approval. We ask you to consider, do you have enough evidence today to decide

with confidence? Four questions remain unanswered. One, flood risk. This entire site is in flood

zone 3A. National planning policy classifies permanent residential mobile homes as highly

vulnerable development, which should be refused. Yet, the officer's report neither explains

the conflict with policy F6 and Annex F, nor justifies departing from them. How can the

committee approve this without establishing if it complies with national flood policy?

Number two, access and safety. The officer's report describes an existing shared residential

access. Beyond the first five -bar gate, 67 metres of track lies within the application's

red -lined boundary and doesn't serve existing homes. Historically used for agricultural

traffic, it passes approximately two metres from Hope Barn. This introduces regular residential

traffic alongside that home. Where is the assessment of the impact on privacy, disturbance

and safety? Beyond the second gate, the access is un -surfaced grassland. Where is the evidence

showing how two large mobile homes will be delivered, heavy construction vehicles and

concrete lorries will manoeuvre and emergency vehicles will safely access the site and return

and turn.

Three, drainage.

There's no site -specific solution for foul and surface water or a confirmed wastewater

discharge route.

How can the committee approve without knowing whether drainage is even feasible?

And finally, residential amenity, our home.

One of our outdoor sitting areas is 5 .5 metres from the site.

Our bedroom window is 6 .7 metres from the entrance, and our elevated upstairs lounge

directly overlooks the site.

Screening has been removed, while revised plans raise concerns about vehicle movements,

touring caravans, lighting, and privacy.

Yet the officer's report concludes there would be no unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity.

How was that conclusion reached?

We ask that you apply the same standard of evidence and scrutiny required of any permanent residential development.

If you cannot justify the conflict with national flood policy, please refuse this application.

If essential evidence is missing, please defer your decision until it is provided.

The Committee must establish that the development is acceptable in principle and not rely on conditions to resolve fundamental uncertainties.

Thank you.

Thank you and our second speaker is Councillor Wimber,

ward member, to speak on the application.

Thank you, Chair. I'm pleased to speak in support

of the application at the land adjoining Goodwill Barn

and I welcome members to be minded to approve it.

The Stevens family are a respected local tradesman

with long -standing connexions to New Romney and Romney Marsh.

Over decades, they've served our community through their work

and their contributions to local life.

Many residents know them personally

and know the value of that contribution.

That background gives this application

a meaningful local context.

We're considering a family seeking a settled home

within the community to which they've contributed

for many years.

The proposal is clearly defined.

Two mobile homes, a day room, the relocation of a stable and associated hard standings.

In my view, this rural location is a fitting setting for their family, subject to necessary

planning safeguards.

A settled family base provides stability, security and the ability to plan for the future.

It also allows people to maintain their working relationships, supporting their relatives

and continue participating within the community they live in.

Those are worthwhile benefits that deserve recognition.

Of course, this committee must determine the application

and its planning merits.

The family's good reputation does not remove the need

to consider access, drainage, landscaping,

neighbouring amenity, and any other relevant matters.

I support the application conditions

to ensure that the development remains

within the scope of the permission

and that NNSE safeguards are secured.

but fairness also requires us to recognise a reasonable opportunity to provide a suitable

accommodation. The countryside is a place where people live, work and raise families.

Sensitive rural developments can support that continued way of life while respecting its

surroundings. I believe this proposal offers that opportunity. I am therefore happy that

members are minded to accept the application. It is encouraging to see a constructive approach

towards the local family seeking permission through the proper planning procedures. The

Stephen's family have spent decades contributing to our community.

This proposal would give them a settled base for which to continue doing so.

I also ask members to support the application and grant the planning permission subject

to the appropriate conditions.

Thank you.

And our third speaker is Mr George Stevens to speak on the application on behalf of the

applicant.

Thank you for letting me speak.

I would like to give a brief statement on the behalf of me and my family.

We aim to keep the heritage and the traditions alive for the next generations of our children,

but we feel it is the best for them to be settled.

This is the reason we are aiming to make this parcel of land to become our forever home.

A few reasons being our children go to the schools

in Brooklyn, which takes us 10 minutes.

We run two local family business,

being landscaping and construction,

which both employ local people.

We also employ many local subcontractors

that work alongside our company.

I see the question of the drainage.

We will be installing a Clearwater Bio Air System,

and obviously that will be instructed

by an engineer and a professional team.

The movement of any mobiles coming in and out will also be done by a professional team

in a safe manner.

I also saw a comment regarding emergency services and fire engine.

The common state, how would a fire engine get into our property?

As you can clearly see from all plans, there is no height restriction that goes into our

parcel of land.

Three of the existing properties at the moment of Oak Farm actually live underneath an archway,

which stands around 2 metres.

This is not to exact measurements.

When the average fire engine is 3 .5 metres high.

So I can, so I'm not experienced in this field, but I would say that the fire emergency services

would have to use our driveway if God forbid anything happened to these neighbouring properties.

I also see an objection regarding the change, the different change in the day room.

I saw a comment regarding the day room

when we reduced the size.

Regarding further issues and objections

with regarding to the back doors.

Can I add that the back door of the day room hasn't changed,

it's also been located in the same place

in both applications.

Therefore, we amend the size of the day room.

We will also be installing a fence

coming from the back gate of Hope Farm

up until the located car spaces on the planning permission.

So nobody will be coming out from the day room

directly into the right -of -way.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

So members over to you.

Councillor Goddard. Thank you. Well the hat trick's on. Obviously

Councillor Wimble was mentioned a lot that I was going to say.

Obviously the flooding issues only floods zone three and it's

one five if that's correct obviously the recommendation is what we touched on

earlier with the ecological stuff from KCC so it's good to see that's in

there as well so that ticks a massive box I think you said it all at the

beginning Mr. Bailey on the reasons to grant permission they were all there you

noted and they've been touched on by Councillor Wimberland and Mr. Stevens so

happy to move the recommendation. Thank you and Councillor Keene to second and

would anybody else like to speak on this? Councillor Hills. Thank you chair.

Sorry to be a discordant note again. I am a bit concerned about the access and that

going down there.

I really think it's a long way to go.

I think it impacts on the other users.

So I'm very concerned about that.

Now, first on three, I don't worry about,

I'm gonna explain why,

because you won't be around when that happens.

But I am worried about this.

And also, I've got four parishes in my ward.

And St. Mary in the Marsh is one,

and they've opposed this.

And I feel I should also support them.

So I will be opposing this.

Councillor Tonnes.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Just picking up on what's been said by Councillor Hills.

This was called in by Councillor Cooper

because the local parish had actually raised concerns

over the flooding issue,

which again is something that we've heard speak about this evening.

They're also concerned about surface water issues associated with this as well.

Again, listening to the and reading the stuff that we've been sent by the neighbours,

the flood risk seems to be a key part of that.

And I had prior to the meeting sent in a couple of questions to the officers.

So I'd just like to read those out.

So the EA position on flooding appears to be at odds with that specified

for the other Gypsy Traveller site we dealt with tonight as they're both in flood zone three.

The latest EA letter withdraws that objection but qualifies

that by saying it should have a 10 -year review.

So my question is why is that not included in the planning conditions?

That's what the paperwork here says.

The planning application states that no work on site has been carried out.

But as you can see from here, there has been work carried out and in fact the site has been occupied through the summer to a certain extent.

Utilities have been installed on site and as neighbours have already identified, that has been the subject of enforcement issues as well.

So the things that I have concerns about, access and safety,

Council Hills has already raised, drainage is within here.

But again, just in terms of the consultations and for us

to be entirely consistent, KCC Ecology says comments are weighted.

So again, I just asked the question

about how can we determine an application where the position

of ECA of KCC Ecology isn't known.

We sailed around this buoy with the previous application

and I think we need to be entirely consistent

in our approach to applications such as this.

And so my recommendation would be to defer this application,

subject to having the KCC Ecology report and also

to address the other issue I raised

with regard to the environment agency.

Although they haven't raised objections,

they've recommended consideration

of a 10 -year temporary permission.

So again, that's not included in any of the conditions

that I've read here.

I realise that there is, again, some discrepancy

between the Romyar -Shehri Internal Drainage Board position,

but that is not a planning consideration that we can address tonight. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, excuse me, sorry. Thank you, Chair. I'll come back on those points in order,

Councillor Thomas. With regard to the EA's position, so their lack of objection arises from

the flood risk assessment, setting out that the site would be safe for the foreseeable, and from

the Council's strategic flood risk assessment, which shows that the site would be safe up until

21 -15. So the real world scenario is that while the site is within flood zone 3, it

is not at risk of flooding. The EA have suggested that officers consider a 10 -year temporary

commission. They haven't put that as a proviso of their support of the application. They've

suggested that so that the site can be reviewed when fresh modelling is carried out in the

the date of such modelling is not known.

The EA haven't however substantiated any concern

that the site would be at risk of flooding

when that modelling is carried out.

And without any evidence of an actual real world risk

of flooding, we can't justify placing a temporary permission

on the site for that reason.

So as set out in the report,

this site is not considered to be,

whilst in flood zone three is not considered

to be at risk of flooding nor sufficiently at risk

to require a temporary permission.

You mentioned work carried out on sites.

There may have been some preliminary operations,

but nothing requiring planning permission was evident

when I visited the site about a month ago.

Finally, the KCC Ecology, it wasn't my update.

They have responded to KCC Ecology.

They've got no objection subject to standard conditions,

so they're happy with the application

and the information put forward.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Are you still proposing a deferral?

Yeah, I am actually, yeah.

Again, I'd just like to challenge that.

The environment agency letter says that,

it says, despite the vulnerability classification

of proposed developments, as highly vulnerable

and therefore incompatible with flood zone three,

according to the MPPF policy,

we are removing our objection in principle

due to the modelling scenario showing that this site remains

outside of the flood extents in the defendant's scenario,

even with climate change allowances applied.

Instead, we ask the temporary permission of 10 years

be applied to the residential aspect of the application,

in this instance, the proposed two mobile homes,

as they are more at risk than the proposed day room.

That's what the environment agency letter says,

and that's why I challenge that in terms of

why isn't that laid out as a condition,

or as we have done with the previous application, say what is the mitigation that can be used

in terms of an adequate design that would mitigate the effect of the flood risk?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Me again, I'm afraid, members.

So the situation with this site, as Mr McArdle said, is materially different to Willow Springs,

the initial application that members considered. In this case, the site is the subject of a

site -specific flood risk assessment, which the EA has agreed demonstrates that the site

will remain dry in the event of a flood event. So their recommendation for a 10 -year temporary

permission is on the basis that potentially in future modelling may demonstrate that the

of risk here will change and we've gone back to them and said, have you got any evidence

or any information that you can provide us with that will demonstrate that this is likely

to be the case? And they've been unable to produce any. So in terms of decision making

broadly in the planning system, decision makers have to determine applications on the basis

are the best available evidence at the time they are making that decision. So, in officers

view, there is no or there is insufficient justification for granting temporary planning

permission. The EA that have requested it have been unable to provide that justification

and they have said that they would not object if permanent permission were to be granted.

and just obviously members will be mindful of the need to be consistent here.

Earlier this evening this committee has delegated authority to officers to grant

permission for seven caravans in an area where it hasn't been demonstrated that

the caravans wouldn't be safe from flooding and this is a smaller site

where the EA is satisfied that they're not at risk of flooding. So members

members need to be mindful of the importance being consistent in reaching their decisions.

Thank you.

So if I may, the thing is we're asked to make decisions on what we're presented with

and what you've just said now is not included in any of the officer's reports, is it,

other than within the summary.

There isn't, there is a, so the letter which we've got in here which I referred

to is the most recent evidence in respect of that unless I've got that wrong

in which case I apologise.

My second concern was to do with screening requirements,

specifically the preservation of residential amenity.

So again, within the application, there doesn't seem to be anything which puts the onus

on the applicant to put in screening which protects the existing residential amenity

in terms of privacy with the existing dwellings,

which is the point that was raised by the residents.

It shouldn't be up to the residents who've been living there for years to have to go

and erect screening with on their properties to screen them

from whatever's happening on that particular site.

So again, I think however we condition that,

you know, that should be conditioned in a way

which puts the onus on the applicant

to provide that screening

and that protection of residential amenity and privacy.

That's my position.

And again, if I may, just in terms of lighting,

there doesn't seem to be anything specifically

that I saw in the report that talks about,

it talks about soft lighting,

but nothing that directly, again, is conditioned

that protects the existing residential amenity

from lighting impact from the developed site.

Thank you.

I'm going to come back on that.

Very briefly, Chairman.

Yeah, thank you.

Within KCC Ecology's comments, as per my update,

they have requested a condition securing details

of lighting design, the landscaping conditions.

We can look at screening, certainly.

Councillor Mike Lintmore.

Thank you, Chair. I was going to make similar points as to Councillor Hills and Councillor Thomas on access and safety.

I do think that that long track and also the proximity to neighbours, both of the track going past the neighbours house but also the proximity to the other neighbours.

And as I understand it, screening has been removed by the applicant, so trees which we

might otherwise sought to have preserved as part of this are already gone.

So whatever screening is provided, new planting is going to take time to establish itself.

I think that's a great shame.

So I have concerns about the loss of amenity for neighbours and the access and safety.

Councillor, Polly Blakemore.

Yeah, what bothers me about this proposal

is the fact that we're looking at a lot of bulk

in terms of the mobile homes and in particular,

the day room, which if I'm not mistaken,

is over 90 metres squared,

which is a big structure to have in the middle of the,

middle of the countryside basically,

and with the nearby public right of way.

So, and we don't have that at the moment.

I understand it could be conditioned,

but we don't have any detail at the moment

on the planned boundary treatments.

So yeah, this gives me a bit of a problem

in terms of voting for this.

And I have, yeah, I just have real concerns

that the development would be harmful in that location.

But I'm listening to the debate and yeah,

I'm still considering, but yeah, that to me is an issue.

Councillor Goddard.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman.

Apologies, Mr. MacCaldin touched on the ecology,

your update at the beginning I missed that as well obviously one or two of us did

that has come through now and that's okay is that correct so the proposal

would be planning mission granted the comments from KCC have been accepted

and no findings so that that's good then so it's not like we keep referring back

to the previous application obviously we've got every application on their

and like Mr. Bailey said at the beginning you know I struggle okay the access yes

but that can be overcome the GTAA nine years out of date you know nine

years ago we were meant to build 30 ,000 houses I think now we've got to build 60 ,000

houses so if you refer that to how many caravans you know that could be

double, etc, etc. So with the ecology, we're not waiting for that, so that takes out the equation.

I can't see a lot else, Lady Chairman, of rejecting this, like I said at the beginning of my speech.

Obviously it says about finalise the wording and conditions that have come into your

screening as normal with an application with screening details and conditions anyway,

So that would be covered there.

So yeah, I can't think too many reasons to refuse this.

Councillor Walker.

I do have some sympathy with the applicant and also with the existing residents.

I just wondered if this should be approved.

Is there any thought be given to the mitigation of noise disturbance and such like?

I know we obviously can't build something in complete silence, but there will be a lot

of disturbance.

if there's anything being done about mitigating that.

So I think in terms of the impact on residential amenity

members from vehicle movements,

this is in effect two households.

So in officers' view, the level of vehicle movements

to and from the site are unlikely to be so significant

as to give rise to significant harm to the amenity of existing residents.

So, in that regard, officers consider the proposal acceptable.

Councillor Walker.

Sorry, the question wasn't really about when it's established

and cars going to and from the new dwelling,

but during construction itself.

We could consider applying the standard hours of work condition to limit the potential for noise and disturbance during construction.

Thank you. So would anybody else like to...

Councillor Thomas.

There was one other thing which was raised by Councillor Cooper, I believe.

And that is that this is out with the St. Mary -in -the -Marsh neighbourhood plan as well.

and we don't appear to have addressed that

within the submission.

But just like to say, as I said with the first submission,

I'm not against gypsy and traveller accommodation,

far from it, as I made my position very, very clear

on the first application.

Again, I think the difference between the two

is the neighbours, so we have to be completely fair

with the neighbours and making sure

that whatever we approve doesn't detract

from their residential amenity.

And I'm sure nobody around here would want that to happen.

So again, that's my main concern is that whatever we do

and whatever we approve, that residential amenity

for the existing properties is maintained as it was prior

to this site being developed.

Thank you.

So, Councillor Thomas, did you still have a proposal to defer

or have you withdrawn that?

Yeah, I still have proposal to defer to you.

And do you have a seconder for that?

Councillor Hills.

You would need to set out your reasons for deferral so that, so we can get those, that

information.

Yeah, I thought we'd deal with that in the order in which the proposals were put forward.

Councillor Thomas, we'd rather have your reasons for deferral so that we are very clear when

we're voting for either Councillor Goddard's proposal or yours, obviously in that order,

what people are going to be voting for.

So if you could give us your reasons, that would be really helpful.

Okay.

As laid out by the residents, I think, making sure that the... and as laid out by the Council,

that the flood risk and drainage arrangements for the site,

including wastewater treatment, are adequate

because the details within the submission are vague.

The protection of residential amenity

and the identification of access and safety to the site,

they'd be the three things that I would recommend

on the referral.

So we're going to first go with Councillor Goddard's proposal, which is to accept the

recommendation.

There was a condition, wasn't there?

Was there a condition you put on there?

No.

It was touched on, it would be the usual conditions.

The usual conditions, that's fine.

The chief planning officer will sort out all of those.

That was proposed by Councillor Goddard and seconded by Councillor Keane.

Those in favour of going with that recommendation?

No's against.

So you're first and first.

So I'm guessing that's past.

Are there any abstentions?

No.

That was everybody.

So we need to vote again.

Do we?

Did you not?

OK.

So those in favour?

And those against?

OK.

And those abstaining.

So that's five in favour, five against and one abstention.

So you have the casting point.

Well, I can't change my mind, can I?

So.

You may pass it, Chairwoman.

Thank you.

So that's passed.

Very well.

Thank you.

So moving on to our fifth application of the evening.

Can I just ask members, do you need a minute or two?

So literally, can we just have three minutes

and then we'll resume. So we're just going to adjourn very quickly.

So I'm going to welcome you back again.

And we're going to move on to item five, which is 261354 FH

Romley, Heidhamton Church Railway, St Mary's Bay Station, Jefferson Lane, St Mary's Bay

and we're looking at the erection of a lattice mask 20 metres high with associated fencing,

and we're going to hear the update. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Yes, there's an update from a member of the public that no longer wishes to

speak on the application but would like their objection noted. On the basis, the proposal was

an eyesore blocking their view of old Littlestone airfield sites and the old Saxon shoreline.

It's a wrong location next to domestic housing.

There's no access for construction traffic to the proposed site

other than Nesbitt Road, which is a private road,

with each house owning the road.

They'd be very reluctant to allow any construction traffic

or personnel to cross their land.

They're in favour of the masts in general, but not in this location,

and feel it'd be better on Jefferson Lane

in land next to the Army cadet force buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you, and we have one speaker, Mr Sonny Spencer.

the applicant to speak in support of the application. Thank you, you have three minutes.

Thank you for hearing me today. I'll just try and sort of answer a few points that were raised at

the parish council meeting, as well as some points raised by residents. It's not a 5G mast or a

cellular data or otherwise known as CBRS. We use low power radio waves, completely different

equipment and completely different power requirements compared to the big

telecom companies. This is low power for wireless broadband connectivity as well

as connectivity for the Bromley Hive and Dimchurch Railway which is still a low

power radio waves. There's no ground mounted apparatus as such like with a

mobile providers they require big cooling systems, big server racks. All we

require is a small box which I think was on one of them images that has a backup

battery in it and a small power supply. We're a local company that has now been

going three years. Since our last application that went committee for a

37 metre master new Romney we now employed not only myself and my sister

but we employ another three members of staff. My mum who now does all the

bookwork for it and a fully qualified engineer and an apprentice engineer. So

we are taking on local people and when I mean local we all literally live in the

area we for us folks doing this this far this was a journey getting here

Romney maha and in church I have agreed for the location and have no issues to

it I believe they've now put a supported comment on the application there were

some comments regarding how close it would be to the railway there's a lot

other things that are closer to the railway line compared to where this would be. We have explored

other masts, we've nearly or we tried to get hold of the mast that's in the cadet field. Unfortunately

3G UK Limited still own that and I believe that is now going to be turned into a 5G plus mast,

I'm not really sure what that means and there is a 5G mast in the field down Jefferson Lane even

further we can't co -locate because their equipment is so powerful our equipment

just won't realistically work next to it. The reason why we have asked for a 20

metre height in our mast is a lot of the trees are sort of 12 to 15 metres in the

area and where our equipment is so low power it does require a direct line of

sight going through trees and buildings it's just not going to happen. I can

appreciate everyone's probably got full signal on their phones in here that's

because the transmitters that they're selling a date

that people use are a lot more high power

compared to what we use.

If we put a receiver in someone's house,

you wouldn't get signal.

We offer packages from 20 pound per month.

No contracts as such.

It's like 30 -day rolling contracts.

There was comments about residents

not maybe understanding what it's going to be.

Elderly residents are some of our biggest customers.

And unlike big telecom companies,

if someone's having trouble connecting their TV

to their internet at a later date, we actually go out and, you know, we resolve that. We don't say

that's, you know, we're not just someone on the other end of a phone. There's lots more to say,

but I think I've run out of time. Thank you. Thank you for staying with us this evening to

tell us all about that. Members, so Councillor Paul Thomas. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Broadband

coverage on Romy Marsh is pretty rubbish actually,

someone who has a pretty awful download speed at the moment.

When you have a look at the application itself

and when you have a look at the officer's report,

65 letters sent out, 17 objections, 14 of support.

So again, I think it meets an identified need,

it has the support of Romy Hardin Dimchow railway

and I'd like to move the officer's recommendation

to approve this application, thank you.

Councillor Fuller.

I'll be the second.

Would anybody else like to speak on this?

Councillor Hills.

Thank you, Chair.

At my parish council meeting, St Mary's Bay, there's a lot of concern over this.

Very worried.

And a lot of it I don't think is just valid because it's all about the visual aspects

of it and I personally don't think it's that unpleasant or that painful.

So just on balance, I will support this,

but it's a fairly close call locally.

It's a lot of, it's a Marmite situation.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

So we have one proposal to accept

the officer's recommendation.

So Councillor Thomas proposed,

Councillor Fuller to second.

All in favour?

And that's unanimous.

Thank you.

So, moving on to our last plan of the evening.

It's 261453 FH Volker, 4866 Sandgate Road,

Folkestone CT21DW.

So we're looking at alterations, refurbishment,

and repairs to Volker two, including the creation

of three new entrances to the front and five new entrances

with associated ramps and stairs to the rear.

The installation of a new shopfront and canopy,

replacement windows and doors, vents, roof lanterns

and skylights, and the replacement

of rooftop plant associated screening and ancillary works.

So I don't think we have any updates on this, do we?

Members, over to you.

Councillor Goddard.

Councillor Thomas? Second. Would anybody else like to speak on this?

I know, I know. There's no comments at all. Councillor Blakemore? I was just going to say I

really welcome this. I think it's a fantastic to see Volker being restored

and with a sensitivity to its heritage and those historical features.

The repair first kind of policy is great but also to make it fit for purpose for

it's new for the future that lies ahead of it.

So I'm very pleased to support this.

Thank you.

Councillor Lockwood.

Thank you.

I'm gonna take this opportunity to say something

that I hope other landlords on the high street

will listen to.

That there's a lesson here in creating,

breaking up these big units into smaller units.

And when we saw the Oriental buffet closed

on the corner of Rondeview Street two or three years ago,

it sat empty for two years until the owner

of that broke it up into six small units which were let within weeks.

So, I wholly approve this and I appeal to owners

of nearby large units to consider the same.

Thank you.

Councillor Walker.

I want to say a few things about what Councillor Lockwood has said,

but also noting that folks at our Council's comments

that they're very pleased this is happening.

So let's move to the vote, shall we? All in favour? Wonderful, that's unanimous. Thank you everybody,

it's been a long evening but I hope you enjoy the rest of whatever is left of the evening.

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

Planning and Licensing CommitteeTuesday, 27th October 2026 at 7:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 27th October 2026 at 7:00pm