Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 7 November 2023, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 7th November 2023 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Mrs Sue Lewis
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone A
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Microphone Forty
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  9. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  10. Cllr Jackie Meade
  11. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  12. Microphone A
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  15. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  16. Cllr Clive Goddard
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Microphone D
  19. Cllr Gary Fuller
  20. Microphone A
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  23. Microphone A
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Microphone A
  26. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  27. Cllr Gary Fuller
  28. Microphone A
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Robert Allan
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Paul Thomas
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone E
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Microphone E
  7. Cllr Gary Fuller
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  10. Microphone E
  11. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  12. Microphone E
  13. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  14. Microphone E
  15. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  16. Cllr Jackie Meade
  17. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  18. Cllr Tony Cooper
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Clive Goddard
  21. Cllr Gary Fuller
  22. Cllr Jackie Meade
  23. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  24. Microphone E
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
  26. Cllr John Wing
  27. Microphone E
  28. Cllr John Wing
  29. Microphone E
  30. Cllr Paul Thomas
  31. Microphone E
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
  33. Cllr Jackie Meade
  34. Cllr Gary Fuller
  35. Cllr Clive Goddard
  36. Microphone D
  37. Cllr Tony Cooper
  38. Cllr Gary Fuller
  39. Cllr Jackie Meade
  40. Cllr Clive Goddard
  41. Microphone E
  42. Cllr John Wing
  43. Microphone D
  44. Cllr John Wing
  45. Microphone D
  46. Cllr Tony Cooper
  47. Cllr Tony Cooper
  48. Microphone D
  49. Cllr Tony Cooper
  50. Cllr John Wing
  51. Microphone D
  52. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  53. Microphone E
  54. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  55. Cllr Jackie Meade
  56. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  57. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  58. Cllr Jackie Meade
  59. Cllr Tony Cooper
  60. Microphone E
  61. Cllr Tony Cooper
  62. Microphone E
  63. Cllr Tony Cooper
  64. Microphone D
  65. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  66. Cllr Jackie Meade
  67. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  68. Cllr Jackie Meade
  69. Cllr Jackie Meade
  70. Microphone C
  71. Cllr Jackie Meade
  72. Cllr Paul Thomas
  73. Microphone C
  74. Microphone D
  75. Cllr Paul Thomas
  76. Cllr Jackie Meade
  77. Cllr Clive Goddard
  78. Cllr Jackie Meade
  79. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:02
welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee. This meeting will be broadcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or films, you will need to leave the Chamber for members officers and others speaking at the meeting. It is important that the microphones are used, so viewers on the webcast and others in the room. May hey, you, would anyone with a mobile phone, please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting. I would like to remind Members that, although we have strong opinions on matters under consideration, it is important to treat members officers and public speakers with respect
members. As the Chair of this Committee, I would like to make a statement for the benefit of all Councillors, present at this meeting and for members of the public, the applications before you tonight, and indeed any applications you consider in the future must be considered on planning merits only. It is essential that Members adhere to this principle and ensure that their decisions tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided to you during this meeting. This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning applications before you, so we'll move on, do we have any apologies, please?

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest

Mrs Sue Lewis - 0:01:15
yes, Chair, we've had one apology from Councillor Jones and Councillor wingers here as a substitute, welcome Councillor, when do we have any
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:24
declarations of interest, please?
I am seeing no declarations of interest, so we'll move on.

3 Minutes

you help before you the minutes of 3rd of October 2023 May, I sign them, as approved, please.
thank you.

4 21/1777/FH - White Cottage, Bossingham Road, Stelling Minnis, CT4 6AQ

so with that we'll move on to our first application this evening, which is 21 dash 1 7 7 7 dash F H, which is the White Cottage, do we have any updates, please?
Microphone A - 0:01:57
thank you Chair, there are no specific updates for Members with regards to this proposal since the publishing of the agenda, however, additional comments have been received from natural England and Southern Water following the re consultation exercise in respect of land ownership, but their comments remain as those within the main body of the report and are unchanged. Thank you so we go on to our
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:22
first speaker, we have Councillor R hobble to speak on behalf of Stirling Mews, Parish Council if you'd like to come forward, please, sir, and you have three minutes from when you start. Thank you very much.
Microphone Forty - 0:02:42
Good evening. Everybody, I'm speaking on behalf of studying with his parish council, which I am chairman have been for quite a few years, and we made a majority decision in rejecting 6 0 the application on two major serious points. As far as we are concerned, one was no settlement boundary and not being sustainable reference. David Campbell, of first-class District Council planning application Y 19 0 6 3 1, with a point 7 5 acre plot 300 metres from this application on the same side of the road, this application, the current cabinet, is far too condensed on such a tiny plot, with a mass house and design too much for the proposed site. The major issue is the legality of the car parking shown on this site. The plan shows parking with two access points for the new house and a new access point for the existing house, which is part of the application
which has no current legal permitted access point the only legal access point is via the current to be demolished garage there is no legal parking access across minus own land, so it cannot be presumed that this will be granted a substantial fee circa 45,000 pounds per vehicle access point is currently the norm for the village, so therefore, if you have two access points is double
this site is covered under the STA for legal easement agreement arrangement. It has to be paid for by any new application. We therefore request, so this application therefore deferred until all legal requirements are proven and complied with. Finally, when was the designation of no settlement boundary definition not so strict, sustainable area changed by post and highest district council within the last two to three years? Note Local illegal easements are needed for additional residential parking as pets as, as we know as of today, has not yet been granted and cannot be presumed
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:05:09
thank you, so if you could turn the Michael, thank you very much, we have our next speaker, which is Susanna Cynllun, who's the agents to speak on behalf of the applicant you have three minutes from when you start please.
Microphone Forty - 0:05:34
OK, firstly, I welcome your planning officer's recommendation for approval and I am grateful for the constructive way your officers have worked to find solutions on this long running proposal as planning consultant on this project, I'm going to briefly address the planning issues which I believe originally resulted in this application being called to Committee back in 2021, hopefully we can provide you with a comfort that all planning issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of your officers, which is why the application has a recommendation for approval.
myself and the applicant attended the Parish Council meeting on the 15th of September 2021 and, whilst our presentation was well received, the Parish Council at that time submitted comments only in relation to the O and O MBE and setting and the relationship to the existing building. The applicant has worked hard to overcome these concerns and the application was amended in November 2021 to reduce the bulk immediately adjacent to White Cottage and to provide spacious parking. Your officer was satisfied that the amendment had addressed the points made by the Parish Council, and this is reflected in the positive recommendation before you this evening in relation to the comments raised about the A and B. Your officer concludes that this small scale development is considered appropriate for its location and would not result in an unacceptable impact on the landscapes and visual amenity of the Kent downs.
as such, although this application was referred to Committee in response to Parish Council's original comments, we hope that you can see that we have positively addressed their initial concerns in the intervening two years, no subsequent object objection was received from Parish Council, and we have trusted that their view that their concerns were now addressed.
the applicant has taken two years to reach the applications taken two years to reach you, largely because of the need to provide a legally secure way of achieving nitrate neutrality on this site to protect the Stodmarsh catchment area.
we've had a constructive relationship with your officers throughout this process, and your legal departments and natural England have now confirmed that the unilateral undertaking will provide a secure way to deal with the waste by transferring all the foul sewage to Dam Bridge wastewater treatment plant.
prior to last month, Planning Committee, the sterling menaced Commons lawyer submitted last minute comments regarding the application red line to note that it should have included a strip over which legal access is now formally being sought.
the applicant was surprised that this was not raised in the previous two years, but nevertheless we wish to reassure you that the red line has been amended, notices have been served and the legal rights are being sought via the correct channels. Rights of access are a separate matter to planning issues and should not prevent a positive decision this evening, as we are confident that we will resolve this legally with the landowner of its owners via appropriate channels. As such, we trust that Members will be pleased to support this application and we commend their planning officers for their constructive and professional way in which they have sought to approach decisions on this proposed development in a positive and creative way as directed by the NP. Thank you
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:43
thank you very much and right on time build on.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:48
so, councillors over to you, would anyone like to ask any questions Councillor Blackburn?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:08:54
I was just interested in the scale of the building it mentions at 7.00
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:08:56
and a half metres high and how that compares with the neighbouring property.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:08
sorry, Councillor Mitchell, what's the actual question?
what's the height of the neighboring building?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:09:16
Microphone A - 0:09:22
OK, sorry, I was waiting for the Street View to be put on the screen there.
it should provide a comparable change in height.
the proposed dwelling, as you say correctly, 7 metres, my understanding is that the original building at White Cottage is around 6 metres, but I'll just clarify that for you, if I can come back.
Councillor Hornsby.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:50
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:09:55
yes, thank you, Chairman, I have every sympathy with the Parish Council, but I have to say, in terms of parking.
it meets the standards and I don't think that there is an issue there with regard to crossing the minus, as then the agent has said it that is actually outside of the planning permission between the landlord or the the owner and the developer, that is something that it's I suppose it would be referred to as a civil matter and not a planning consideration so I'm I'm struggling to find any other reasons for actually turning this down, but I will listen to what other people have to say.
Councillor, Polly Bateman.
thank you Chair, so it's notable that the although there are concerns
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:10:48
from the Parish Council are about the A&E setting is I I just find it notable at the and no comments have been received to that effect from the A&E unit and also from natural England as we've had an update this evening note, they don't appear to have concerns either. So like Councillor Hollings be I'm struggling to find the reasons not to approve.
Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:11:17
yes, Lord Mayor, following colleagues on struggling so happy to move the recommendation,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:22
we have a seconder, which is Councillor Kane, I just like to ask one question, just to clarify, for me, the first speakers spoke about the boundary definition, can we just confirm that this is actually within the settlement boundary?
Microphone D - 0:11:40
thank you Chair, good evening members sterling minutes has no settlement boundary as set out in the adopted Core Strategy, however, in the settlement hierarchy, which is the the main policy for.
categorising settlements within the district and apologies I'm just trying to scroll to the appropriate part on my laptop.
Stirling, Minister is referred to as a secondary village, and its role in the settlement hierarchy is to continue to provide crucial rural facilities to visitors and the Rome residents and workforce in line with local needs and in line with the environment and the settlements row as a relatively small country settlement and in terms of how the
development Management Team approaches applications for four new dwellings in in such settlements we'd previously sought to argue that development he was unacceptable in principle rather.
out fashion planning view work, which is when within the settlement boundary, is acceptable when you're outside it, it's not acceptable and if there's no settlement boundary is completely unacceptable, but that isn't the view that B M P P F advocates now and it isn't the role that the Core Strategy and the Local Plan sets out secondary settlements and indeed in terms of relevant decisions made by this Authority and the Planning Inspectorate, we had an appeal in 2020
for a site just round the corner from this one, where the Inspector took the view that development in Stirling minutes is not unacceptable as a matter of principle, but you have to have regard to normal material planning considerations and also I believe it was last year.
this committee, obviously different members, but this committee resolved to grant planning permission for a dwelling in very close proximity to this, having regard to the policies of the Development Plan which don't preclude residential development in the settlement, there is a bit worthy but I hope I hope that assist,
thank you, Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:14:04
thank you Chair just one thing Pam in the report is states that natural England haven't objected, but there's an in the actual documents for that planning application, there's an e-mail from them on the 25th of October saying they haven't actually received enough information to make a decision yet and that they may need to object if they don't receive that information so have they not objected or they have they not responded?
Microphone A - 0:14:34
and thank you and Councillor Fuller, and just to clarify them with the proposal to tanker away the waist outside of the Stodmarsh area, where the applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that that does happen, it's concluded that there wouldn't be an issue in terms of nutrient neutrality on the rivers tower, we did seek the advice from natural England as to whether they would be comfortable with that approach and they have come back and confirmed that they would be.
based on hearsay and has not been uploaded yet, but they've come back.
I should, if it is, it should be on their apologies, if it's not, I will double check and make sure that it is available on there, but to confirm they have they have advised they have no problem with it being tankered away.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:26
Councillor Hensby yes, sorry, there was one point I just wanted well
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:15:30
just on that really because I think it's the first application that we've had with regard to the the nutrients being taken off site, and I just wondered if this is something and I know it's probably not relevant to this planning application is is this something that might be used in the future?
and I am just interested in that because obviously you know I represent the rural wards and it is an issue in our area, and I've just done, I'll just be interested to know if this is a way forward.
we do know that other authorities are taking this approach and such as
Microphone A - 0:16:05
Canterbury, for example.
obviously, it could well be an option for sites similar to this, but each site is dealt with on their own merit, so it would come down to that really specifically.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:20
Microphone A - 0:16:22
I see no other hands, so we have one proposal, which was, could I just ROI sorry, that's the height of the building for Councillor Blakemore's apologies for the delay, with the problem with our plans there and to confirm is 6.5 metres.
thank you so many properties and lead to higher than the know half a metre half a metre you want me to apologise yet 1 metre high.
thank you, Councillor, Fuller, just very quickly on that one is that
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:16:48
height the height of the roof line or the height of the chimneys,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:16:50
because I noticed the chimneys actually make it on to the ridge line.
Microphone A - 0:16:57
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:00
so we have one proposal which was proposed by Councillor Goddard and seconded by Councillor Kane, and that is to accept the officer's recommendation, can I see all those in favour, please.
I think we can safely say that that is unanimous, thank you very much.

5 22/1595/FH - Mount Hill Cottage, Chapel Lane, Rhodes Minnis, CT4 6YB

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:25
so we move on to the next application, which is 22 stroke 1 5 9 5 stroke F H, which is Melt Hill contention Chapel Lane roads minutes do we have any updates, please?
Mr Robert Allan - 0:17:41
thank you, Chair, no updates.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:49
thank you, and we have no speakers on this one, so straight out to you Councillors, would anyone like to make a comment or need any questions answered?
Councillor Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:18:05
I would like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation of approval of this application.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:10
we have.
we have proposed by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Cooper.
all those in favour, please raise your hands.
and that's unanimous, thank you very much.

6 23/1641/FH - Highview School, Moat Farm Road, Folkestone, CT19 5DJ

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:29
onto our next application, which is 23 stroke 1 6 4 1 stroke F H, which is Highview School Moat, Farm Road in Folkestone, do we have any updates, please?
Microphone E - 0:18:42
yes, Chair, I have a couple of verbal updates.
firstly, if I can draw Members' attention to paragraph 7.8 and 7.9 of the report under the heading Local Finance Finance considerations, can I just say there are contradictory statements in these two paragraphs about sale and I just wanted to confirm that CIL is payable on the remaining 78% of the market housing.
I've also got a statement from the applicant which I'd like to read out, he says this application is seeking to vary the unilateral legal agreement from 100% affordable housing to that of the Council's affordable housing policy at 22%. This is to achieve best value for the Council as a landowner and to ensure viability and scheme deliverability. The council, as landowner, has explored many options relating to the site, none of which are viable to bring forward at the tie at this time, with 100% affordable housing, the Council is currently seeking a delivery partner to bring forward the development and to achieve the Council's statutory best value best value duty. It is necessary to vary the unilateral legal agreement to attract the best officers from the muck. The best offers from the market. It's unfortunate that the council doesn't believe it can deliver a 100 per 100% affordable scheme at High View, but this variation will still meet the Council's affordable housing policy and should ensure that the scheme comes forward in the planned period, delivering much-needed homes for the district, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:20:13
thank you, Councillor Fuller, I don't think this will come as a
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:20:18
surprise to anyone, but I'd like to propose that we defer this item.
I note the comment by the Council as a landowner the council makes decisions, and the Cabinet was meant to make a decision on whether or not we were going to do anything about this in terms of selling it, burying it, whatever the there hasn't been a report given to Cabinet to make a decision as yet.
now the decision may well end up being that it needs to come before this committee, but Cabinet hasn't made that decision and thus the Council has that made that decision, so personally I don't see how the Council, as applicant, can have applied because no decisions have been made.
so I'd like to propose we defer this so that it has time to go back to Cabinet and then can come back before this committee when a decision actually has been made.
hopefully I have to say.
thank you, don't have a seconder.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:15
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:20
Councillor Cooper, do any of the officers have any information on what was agreed at Cabinet.
Microphone E - 0:21:26
thank you Chair, I think what Members need to consider is whether or not the correct process has been followed in terms of the the application, before you and in terms of whether or not it is acceptable in policy terms, which it is, and therefore there is no planning justification for deferring it this is that would be a matter for the applicant, what's before you is acceptable in planning terms, and that's what you should consider, thank you.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:21:54
can I just come back to it, so certainly count, I'm sorry, if I decided that I was the Council and that I was going to apply for funding, sorry, Councillor, Fine, could you do me a favour, could you
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:22:02
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:22:03
try one of the other microphones, thank you choose, Rebecca
yeah, so if I decided that I was going to be the applicant, as it were, I
I was going to claim to be the Council as applicant, that would be perfectly fine, and I'd have to have the right to to assert that I am the Council, because at the moment it's being asserted that the council has made an application, the council hasn't made a decision, so how can it have made an application? Therefore, how can we have followed procedure from planning point of view?
this is that planning committee looked at the Planning Committee,
Microphone E - 0:22:39
makes the decision, it would be then for the Council to make a decision on on that on the our decision, this or in your decision this evening, so it went with it's not the Council making a decision this evening it's the Planning Committee.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:22:56
but again, an applicant has to make an application for something to come before this committee, I'm saying that no one and anyone that's made their application did not have the right to, therefore, how can we make a planning decision?
Microphone E - 0:23:09
it's a matter for the applicant, not for the planning committee, literally not the applicant, and that's my problem.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:23:14
they effectively were claiming to be the applicant, we we, the owners of the land haven't made a decision to a boy and officers made the decision, but we, the Council, the owners of the land haven't made a decision.
Microphone E - 0:23:29
once the once the Committee this evening makes the decision on the application, it was then to go back to the Council as the wider decision and they could make they could take a different decision, but this is you're looking at this in planning terms and to see whether or not the affordable housing is is acceptable in terms of policy and it is and therefore its it would go back to the Cabinet all with Councillors decision.
decision maker to and as the applicant to make the decision that they might choose to take a different decision, but the the application before you is about the affordable housing and it's policy compliant.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:24:10
again, my concern is that the application should not be before us, because no one has the right to make the application.
and so I can't in all honesty make a decision on something that I don't believe we have the right to make a decision. Your points taken
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:26
Councillor 4, Councillor Hollingsworth and Councillor Cooper and I
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:24:30
would totally disagree with that. I think we have that right to make that decision, it would then go back to the Cabinet or Council and they would know what they would be able to do if they make a different decision. They make a different decision, but if they know that the Planning Committee has agreed the reduction in affordable housing to 22%, that gives them a better
a better view of what can or will work can't be achieved, and I would totally agree with the officer on that, and I think it's something we should, we should actually discuss and vote on today, Councillor Cooper,
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:25:07
thank you, I mean excellent loss.
the Council is move this, and initially we salute 100%, No alibis soon, it's not, is it, it's not right, and therefore we should reduce that to 22%, I think the points that Councillor Fuller was making is quite invalid.
I personally cannot see how all of a sudden, without the Council or whatever it decided, that distinct comes up before us, these things don't just come up before us like that someone makes a decision, and if that decision is not in respect of the Council agenda day, I will not be supporting this, I'm afraid to say because what the Council got or is decided it's gonna provide
affordable housing now, if the Council can afford affordable housing, why not?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:04
Councillor Goddard, then Councillor Hollybank Moore, thank you,
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:26:08
Chairman Woodham 3.3 on page 48.
any marmalade you know, I mean, it's tunes, it went to Cabinet in February 23, which resolved that officers should explore the potential side of the site with the benefit of planning permission is irrelevant, so it's been a cabinet then obviously previous administration, but it mentions cabinet soldiers,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:26:32
can I come back on that quickly so, Councillor year, so the the the actual minutes of that say that the officers will bring back a report following a marketing exercise for further decisions?
now marketing exercise is not the same as changing planning permission in.
Councillor Butler.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:52
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:26:58
thank you, Chair at 7.00.6, there's a statement that original originally approval was not dependent on the scheme being 100% affordable, but I don't really know how do we know that it's a factor in the decision making of the committee at the time, so I don't think you can categorically say the fact that it was,
that the decision was taken on the basis that that scheme would
I don't think it's the facts that the approve wasn't dependent on it being 100% affordable, because you can't ignore that when and when the decision was made.
the other point I was going to ask sorry
while I'm here
we seem to be talking over 22% to 100% of models being carried out on anything in between, why have we gone from one extreme to the other, can we not consider 30% 50%, for example?
Microphone E - 0:27:57
and when the application was originally before Planning Committee, the applicant had put it forward as 100%.
had it come forward at that stage, at 22%, we would still have recommended for approval, because that is policy compliant yeah, I understand that, but you would have recommended it for approval budgets, it was down to the committee members who made the decision and I can't believe that their decision wasn't coloured by the fact that it was being.
modelled as being 100% affordable. That's my point, I can't answer for for what the committee's decision was, but it was, it would have been what I can say is from an Officer point of view it would have been policy compliant and there would have been very little or no policy justification to refuse it because what it was, it was more yeah, it was less than 100%
Councillor Wink,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:48
voucher
Cllr John Wing - 0:28:52
of income gagged in sight and the way I looked at this is almost like a brand new application as if the 22% was originally come to this committee. It was for 22%. Okay, well, I don't think this application works. You just told us CIL is no applicable, is accurate. It says in the paperwork that the NHS Trust are some extra money and it says because it's not applicable because CIL isn't applicable on this
application. It wasn't applicable on the original application because
Microphone E - 0:29:28
you don't pay still unaffordable housing, but now, with the, if it goes down to 22%, then CIL will be applicable on the remaining 78% market housing, in which case some of that will go to some of it will go to KCC and some of it will go to have contribution, but that isn't the misspent application we can vote on if what this application actually says is just going from 100% to 22% and in the rest of it
Cllr John Wing - 0:29:53
goes through the actual application and there's other things as well. I'm not happy about, I think this is completely what we're saying is, this is completely changing the application. If this goes through, it needs to come back to this committee with 22% I mean by voting through mental health is excellent if the thought of a house in the eco side of it, but it speaks also about Watts who mentioned it now about the wheelchair accessible housing, it doesn't say where it was in the affordable way or the unaffordable but it did matter before it was over 100% affordable.
as other things as well, I mean it just doesn't work for me, if this is going to take this, as a new application is a new application.
this considerations within the
the application which wasn't massive because it was 100% but was not 100%, and also another thing it disdain him about parks and amenities, it says normally in an application, local parks and amenity there'd be contribution from the developer because there'd be used in parks more but it says in this application that's not applicable because the council is developer.
survey on the parks, so we're doing it anyway, but that's gone now yes not unfinished, so I think this should be deferred and the application re written so it fixed from the 22%, and that's what my thought is, thank you.
Microphone E - 0:31:46
I think Councillor wing is referring to in the previous planning application it, there was a reference to open space and play space, and it's not provided it's it says, though that.
it's where it's not provided wholly on site, there's an opportunity for a commuted sum to be provided to be used elsewhere in the locality to address the needs of the development and, in most cases the developers are third party and they will in effect transfer the responsibility of providing and maintaining that space to the Council in this case the Council already owns the land and is the developer and is also responsible authority for open space and play areas within the district.
and had therefore been no need to transfer the authority from one party to the other, so it is not about necessary in that case, to secure CA to secure that current Con contribution, however, there was open space secured within the layout and the area would benefit from significant public realm improvements so it was considered that including the the improvements to the public footpath.
so it was concluded that there was no requirement in that step in that case to to go further than that, thank you, Councillor Thomas, thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:33:04
can I just ask about section 5 on consultation responses, it says no consultation requirement, so how does that fit in with what we would do normally for consulting on something like this, and at least to get the view of Folkestone Town Council for example or or other contributors who might want to want to have a say in terms of what was being done with this particular application there seems to be not aligned with what we would normally do.
it's because this isn't a planning application, this is an application
Microphone E - 0:33:33
and there is a different part of the legislation to amend the unilateral undertaking and there is no requirement to do any formal consultation on that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:47
I see no other hands up, so we have one proposal which is seconded and that is to defer this at this current time.
for the various reasons that have been suggested that this should be looked at as separate as a separate application.
and that maybe some of the information doesn't pertain to what we have in front of us, so those in favour for a D sorry
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:34:31
Councillor Fuller, I'm gonna come back to you because they're asking
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:34:37
for reasons for deferment, OK so effectively and actually apologies, so while I'm thinking about it, I've got about 80 there and that was unfair.
the reason I'm thinking about it is effectively to give.
time for the applicant satisfied to console Cabinet and decide whether or not they wish to continue with the application, so in terms of the planning officers effectively or they need to do, hopefully, is wait until somebody turns around and says No covenants met now you can get on with it.
hopefully, that might clear things up.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:35:17
well, I appreciate your your position, Councillor Fareham, but
Microphone D - 0:35:19
unfortunately the limited scope of consideration on this particular matter kind of.
I would suggest that that would not be a valid reason to defer consideration of the matter tonight. I think, whilst clearly Members have concerns about internal processes and procedures and what's going on within the council, that isn't a matter that is before members tonight, and it's not something that we or other Members ought to be deferring the application on because, to my mind, apart from anything else, it sets something of the precedent for the Committee to defer consideration of any application in relation to a wider corporate objective of the Council, regardless of whether or not the Council is applicant or not, there needs to be legitimate planning grounds for deferring it. What I could suggest to members, as perhaps
you might see it as a compromise is that members make a decision on the matter tonight.
and officers hold off issuing decision until the internal issues are sorted out and whether that means eventually issuing the decision or the applications withdrawn, or its amended and brought back to this committee that, to my mind, would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with it from a planning point of view.
as you are the proposer Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:36:55
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:36:57
I think the answer is, I'm not happy with it, but I see the logic in it, so I'm I'm happy to to withdraw my deferral on that basis, I have
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:10
two other people wishing all three other people wishing to speak Councillor Goddard first thing, Councillor wing, please thank you.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:37:14
I was going to point out turning the clock back six months ago.
when it was a different administration and when I was sitting in the Chair, if I
try to sort of, say, not the guy from 100%, affordable homes to 22%, every colour of that rainbow already being slighted.
first point, second point question for you, so is there any viability to back this new proposal?
no, there isn't a viability case because there is policy compliant, so
Microphone E - 0:37:44
they wouldn't need to submit a viability case.
Cllr John Wing - 0:37:53
Councillor, when a question for Mr. Bailey, the statement you just made.
would it be possible when we miss application goes back to wherever it's go into, if we decided to send it back, they say there may be a possibility, was changing parts of the documentation, so it fits in with the new developer you get what I mean we there'd be possibility of changing the original certain lines in any clarification.
Microphone D - 0:38:18
I'm possible, but I think if, if members resolved to defer the application, then then that would be a possibility, Members' resolution is either too.
approval ref Well approval, refuse, then it kind of becomes redundant, because you wouldn't in theory need additional information, what I'm suggesting is that as officers, if members make a resolution to approve the application that we reflect on the matter until,
there has been a adequate opportunity for the internal issues that clearly members are concerned about have had a.
had a chance be resolved, so I don't think at this stage if Members were say boo to resolve to approve it, then there wouldn't be any opportunity to look at amended details, could we defer it today with a
Cllr John Wing - 0:39:17
note saying we would it would be approved if we met these alterations were made or the leaching application obtained to say it fits in better with the new developer.
well, you can certainly delegate authority to officers to approve it,
Microphone D - 0:39:33
subject to that, I think if you bear with me, I'll just consult with my colleague.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:39:41
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:40:08
Microphone D - 0:40:15
apologies, Members, I stand corrected as this isn't a planning application, there isn't an opportunity to revisit the detail of the scheme. I think perhaps the the the way to look at it. The way I would look at this matter is is this in in effect, it's exactly the same application coming in with 22%, affordable housing, which complies in all respects with with the policies of the Development Plan. So that the question really and I I think this is perhaps what you're getting at Councillor wing, is whether this committee would have made the same decision if it came in with 22% originally, and I have to say from it's it's clear from a Committee report on the details of the application and indeed the paragraph that Councillor Blakemore referred to that as officers, we would have made the same recommendation if, if the application had originally come in with 22% instead of 100%
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:18
one more point that we are protecting when you look the same, would it have been different because the cats, not the developer?
Cllr John Wing - 0:41:23
that's my point when he splints lemonade, presumably so I'll be soft, there'd be a completely different developer, weren't there it would be an outside developer, it won't be the council that obeys in here which doesn't fit for purpose.
Microphone D - 0:41:42
if yes, if the Council says it often chooses not to develop it, it would be a different person building out the planning permission, but they would be bound by the terms of that planning permission, including the the the drawings and supporting documents, unless of course they apply to amend them in which case,
we would have the opportunity to consider any amendments that they're proposing.
Councillor Polly Blake Northern Councillor HinesBuy, thank you, Chair,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:42:12
I say you say that the new developer would be bound by the terms of this planning permission, but thus echoing what Councillor wing was saying.
in the original planning application, there was a commitment to that out of one of the four bed houses and two of the one bed flats would be wheelchair compliant, will there be a wheelchair accessible 4 bed house and 2 wheelchair accessible 2 bed flats as part of the 22% affordable quota because that's not clear in the application in the report we've had to read for tonight,
I understand that there is.
Microphone E - 0:42:49
the requirement to provide wheelchair accessible dwellings.
but I think this, regardless of whether or not there affordable or not, I'm not absolutely sure about that, but I think that's the case because in the original application of course they would all have been
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:43:02
affordable and I think that's the point for now we don't know whether these are gonna be how many of these are going to be affordable and how many aren't I just don't think as Councillor Wing says I just don't think we have the information we need.
Councillor M Murphy.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:14
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:43:17
wheelchair, you won't be surprised that I'm going to move the recommendations with, because I would I think it does it allows, then the Cabinet or the Council, or whoever is going to make a decision.
to to to make a decision based on the fact that that it has been reduced and they can decide not to go ahead with it, they can decide to go ahead with it.
so I, I think it's a sensible decision to move the recommendation, whether I've got a seconder or not, I don't know, do we have a secondary?
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:43:50
Councillor Shipp, Councillor Cooper, I think the problem you've got,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:53
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:43:54
it is this, there's nothing in planning law that refers this matter back to the Council, and what the concerns are basically in respect of what Councillor Hornsby has just said, the people that are concerned that if the Committee actually gave approval there would be nothing there to stop anyone amend that or whatever if, for example, it was decided.
at some stage in the future, for example
example that it would be sold up what is to stop a potential future developer, coming back to the council, asking permission to amend the application so that there is no affordable housing, and there is no a Housing Justice Grant by Councillor Polly Blakenhall agenda date is deeply concerned here, so can we want the lack of any referral mechanism under planning law back to the Council be adjusted viable ground for the Bill?
Microphone E - 0:44:50
I think, in response to that, if, if it is to be sold on and an applicant wanted to reduce the affordable housing to to nothing, then we would be asking them to.
to produce viability to that effect, and it would would come back to Planning Committee on that basis, but you know we are all on, our stance is always at its 22% in the first instance, so you know that would be a different application and we'd have to look at it under the circumstances of that particular case.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:45:22
thank you enough to I'm coming back to my question, given the lack of a mechanism, would that be inappropriate ground ball goodwill?
Microphone E - 0:45:37
can you just clarify what you mean by a lack of mechanisms, sorry, all
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:45:42
due respect, what's happened is we've just been given a report and the report makes reference to an applicant, the applicant is the Council.
none of the members of the Planning Committee will also move to the Council as far as I can gather and can see it from this evening, and actually aware of making the decision to make. This application should be for 100% down to 23% tool. So given there's no apparent mechanism there to bring this up, would it not be appropriate, on the basis of a lack of a market mechanism itself, to defer the matter? So the cabinet and inappropriate people can actually consider the matter and then, if it comes back to the Committee on that basis, after it had been consulted so much better what I'm concerned about basically is this if we approve this matter and it goes ahead and it's subsequently found out for whatever reason that may well be, I don't know, but if if, for example, it's something to be found out, that's it could have been done better. I can't see no reason why we can't do it right. The first time
Microphone D - 0:46:52
well, I, I think, as I alluded to before and any deferral here really needs to be on on planning grounds but, as I said, by way of a suggested way forward.
if Members do resolve to to go with the officer recommendation and prove this.
we can hold off issuing a decision on the basis that the issues surrounding how we've got or how the application has been submitted, and why we've got to where we've got to outside the planning department, so basically a matter, and, I would say, for the applicant of our result and then if it's determined that,
the Council has a wider corporate body.
doesn't actually want to pursue 22% on site and wants something different or wants to withdraw the application, then there's the opportunity to do that before a decision is is issued.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:47:54
10 minutes I would be quite happy, subject to secondary, to to have that due to go along with that proposal, I think it's a sensible way forward.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:02
fine, we seem to actually finally have some agreement here, sod, we have a proposal with.
slight additional information that the information, or rather the decision will be held until it has come back to Cabinet, and the applicant has discussed fully and made the decision forward, is that agreeable in wording for you?
but I think it's time from which White Papers.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:48:31
so Councillor Mike sorry not wishing to prolong this any longer, but the issues that the other Councillor Blake was made and Councillor Wing have made about wheelchair access and things like that is there scope for those things to be amended?
because otherwise we have no means of saying what will happen to those things if, if we agree to this application tonight, we can certainly raise that with the applicant.
so we have one motion before us.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:02
proposed by Councillor Hornsby seconded by Councillor Shoop, and that is to go with the Councillors recommendation subject to it being held in stasis, shall we say?
until it's gone back to the Cabinet and various processes have gone through, so can I say all those in favour, please
and again, virtually unanimous, thank you very much and thank you for a good debate on that.

7 23/1362/FH/CON - Land rear Varne Boat Club, Coast Drive, Greatstone, TN28 8NR

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:33
so councillors we move on to the last one, which is 23 dash 1 3 6 2 dash if ancient dash c o n, which is the land we're Von Bow boat club, coach driver grindstone do we have some updates, please thank you
Microphone C - 0:49:53
Chair we do have a few updates in Councillors, sorry, good evening everyone we do have a few updates, we have condition 14, which is a surface water drainage. The applicant has now provided evidence that Southern Water has now approved as the proposed sewer diversion condition 15 the finished floor levels. The Environment Agency has also provided comments stating that they have no objection to the approval of condition 15 and officers therefore recommend condition 15, as approved, and finally condition 16, the culvert the Environment Agency has provided comment stating why they have tried to confirm the location of the culvert from existing records. They have concluded that they needed to do a new survey to accurately identify the culvert line. BA have inherent agency have stated that they will undertake this as soon as possible and is in response to this, the applicant has submitted a topographical survey which they have provided to the Environment Agency to assist in further survey work, while the officers had hoped that this matter could be resolved by the Planning Committee date. It is proposed that, in line with the covenant officer's recommendation, that the delegated authority be given to the Chief Planning Officer to approve condition 16 once additional survey work is concluded by the Environment Agency, and a final satisfactory response has been received. Thank you.
thank you very much, Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:20
thank you very much, Chairman.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:51:25
yeah, I've got a few concerns in in relation to this, and specifically that this, as it says in the
site location is adjacent is adjacent to the access way for the Arnold lifeboat station, it looks down the there's nothing in here that I can see not not in the construction management plan either that absolutely guarantees that 24 7 3 65 the access to their facility is is completely unrestricted.
there's some comments from Highways about not allowing vehicles to park on coast on the coast rag which is fine and that the vehicle access point is 5 and a bit metres past, but one of the things I want to have complete assurance for is that there are going to be no construction vehicles parked either within the van both club area within the on all I spaces which have needed 3 65 Daisy 24 7 and I just feel the construction management plan is a little bit weak in the area and I'd like to see that bolstered up to the point where we're not coming back and as a Town Council were not involved in.
getting various off authorities involved in in trying to resolve issues as they come up through construction, so that's that's one thing that I'm I'm I'm really quite hot on, the second is that if you'd have been down there on the weekend, this whole area was completely flooded, it's actually downstream of the of the outlets which is immediately across the road.
and again, I note that the surface water drainage, which is conditioned 14 is being offered for approval because there is a sustainable scheme has been provided, but there's no details, their scheme included in the additional paperwork with with the application, so if I'm going to have some comments on on on both of those I'd appreciate, thank you Madam Chairman.
Microphone C - 0:53:26
thank you sorry, first comment about the access for the R for the R and N I, the access for that says he is outside of the red line at this particular application site, also the construction management plan that Kent Highways have commented on.
was amended to ensure that there was always somebody on site to make sure that everything could be properly controlled, there's only construction works during certain parts of the day, the gates always have to be open so that nothing stops onto the road and it's quite clear that the parking and all of the construction vehicles will be within the site area itself, so there's no concerns the access would be blocked at anytime.
in terms of the surface water drainage which were approved, we are proposing is approved a lot of that original detail was part of the outline application and the reserved matters application which included a Flood Risk Assessment where the general principles of how this would work and looking at micro, gendered calculations and the type of ground and population all of those things and what was inappropriate method was considered by the Environment Agency at both of those points of the application and they agreed the general along with Kent County Council I think who who agreed the General,
general details, but wanted specifics to be provided, and that is a square, some of the other conditions of come from as well from the Environment Agency, which was to do with the finished floor levels, the location of the culvert to make sure that no development was within 8 metres of it.
and
it is considered that it is appropriate this development would connect to the existing combined sewer, there would be sustainable urban drainage, there'd be.
the the
bare paving, I think, could be.
permeable, so there'd be no runoff onto the highway, which is all which was considered at the original application stage, so you know it is, it is considered appropriate, it has been looked at by the technical consultees at 3.00 times along the way and they're happy that the the design of the drainage will actually work.
and it is also in accordance with
the you know, all all new developments must either exceed or meet the existing runoff rates, so you know it's been designed so that it will definitely not make things worse, but then also takes account of climate change as well, so hopefully there would be an improvement.
thank you very much for that, I I noted the the constructive, it's not just not a member of the considerable constructors' scheme which gives.
certainly local councils, the opportunity to appeal to them directly if they are, you know, if they're working outside the construction management plan.
and we certainly have to do that in your own. It's just the CMCs, a bit of a toothless tiger, really, isn't it in in respect of there? So again I I'm I just want to make absolutely certain that we, whatever we're doing with respect to this site when it comes to the connection of utilities, electricity, gas, water, the whole lot at no time can the are, I lifeboat station be at risk or taken out of commission, so I want to see something somewhere which gives the absolute certainty that we're not going to lose that important service for the area. Thank you
I think that's
now that that is quite tricky, in a way the you know this is a public highway, they've got their existing access, there could be other works that need to happen, like the Environment Agency, maintaining their own assets that effectively could do all of those things and restrict access or the national grid doing works or the Southern Water doing works.
so there's you know, we can't control that, from a planning point of view, we can control it through the construction management plan, which requires the developer to operate in a certain way, and with that we expect their contractors to also behave in a certain way.
and I think that the the information that's submitted does do that to the best of our ability.
thank you. Can I am I'll I'll leave it here, I'll leave it at that after this election, I would like to see a statement in there which says somewhere on within the construction management plan, that at no time will they compromise the operation of the lifeboat station is quite it. It's a relatively simple statement to put it in there. In my opinion, and again I think it gives people the opportunity, whoever is working on the site, whether this is an initial site or initial surface developers, the drillers and all the rest of it when they come in, they know and they often don't talk to each other, that's a fact. So again I want to make absolutely certain that there is no compromise of that important facility. Thank you
I think, given that this particular application is already recommended to approved conditions, but on one of the conditions, it is asked that it's basically deferred back to the Chief Planning Officer to make the final decision, which is to do with the position of the culvert we could.
at the same time, post committee go back to the applicant and ask them to basically agree to the discharge of that condition, subject to them, coming back with a satisfactory response that says exactly that in a statement.
and add that to the C. M. P.
Microphone D - 0:59:26
I don't know if I can just interject now, but I think that it's possible, I think what I understand is that heads know what what it is that you want, but of course when it's a different matter getting him writing in and it needs to be more precise because,
you know you could interpret your your statement as leniently or always aggressively, as you want from a planning enforcement point of view, so I mean what I would suggest is perhaps
either, if you could be more specific now and I think there might be difficult, given the you know, given the constraints of the Planning Committee meeting, or whether it might be appropriate for members to to.
ask us to secure those improvements and to make it clear, in a covering letter to the applicant that that is what we expect to see on the site. So we, I'm listening to Sir Alex and though it seems like a very significant number of measures that are proposed in order to try and maintain access to the to the lifeboat station. We we can't Zanuck said we can't we can't police parking on the highway, we we would struggle to do that from an enforcement point of view, but I think the measures that are in place we could look to toughen them up and certainly make it clear if Members resolve to do so, make it clear to the applicant that we would expect
them to maintain access to the lifeboat station at all times.
I think, tied in with that Rob, if I may, to make sure that the communication between the developer and that facility is absolutely
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:01:12
crystal clear in terms of what they're proposing to do and that they give them a schedule, so they understand all times what is likely to be happening and I think that's thus doable it just needs a little bit of effort and I think your covering letter idea would would actually secure that as well, thank you.
thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:01:33
I would also like to support a covering letter with this because it's absolutely vital that at all times and that the the life boat people can actually get out to save the noise and they need the access, so a strong supporting letter would be appreciated, I think on this so we have one motion before us and that is to accept the recommendations for the approval of the conditions.
subject to delegated authority on number dumped at on 16, I believe it was and include a strongly worded covering letter sorry, Councillor Goddard, just one thing I was trying to ask Paul, but he's obviously
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:02:17
concentrating on his question.
no non-retail council, I can't see him on the consultees because I usually look at the Town Council's.
OK, everybody else does accept the Town Council.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:42
so nearly there we are nearly there, so can I see everyone in favour with the delegation and the covering letter, sorry.
and all second.
OK everybody in favour, with the delegation and the letter.
thank you, that's unanimous, that brings us to the end of this planning session, thank you so much for the debate this evening, I think it was very helpful and very enlightening.