Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 20th February 2024 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

In order to view this webcast, please do the following:

Download Flash Player.

You can download it free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ (opens in a new window)

Please note: you will probably need to restart your browser after the installation of the plugin is finished.

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Slide 1
Cllr Jackie Meade
Mrs Sue Lewis

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Final Minutes

4 Minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee

Share this agenda point

Final Minutes

5 23/1008/FH - Grafton Cottage, Sandgate Esplanade, Sandgate, CT20 3DP

Share this agenda point

Slide 4
Slide 5
Microphone A
Slide 6
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Microphone Forty
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 43
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 57
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 65
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 66
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 67
Slide 68
Slide 69
Slide 70
Slide 71
Slide 72
Slide 73
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Slide 90
Slide 91
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 92
Slide 93
Slide 94
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 95
Slide 96
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Slide 101
Slide 102
Slide 103
Slide 104
Slide 105
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 106
Slide 107
Slide 108
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Microphone A
Slide 113
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 122
Slide 123
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Slide 128
Slide 129
Slide 130
Slide 131
Slide 132
Slide 133
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 137
Cllr Belinda Walker
Slide 138
Slide 139
Slide 140
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 141
Slide 142
Slide 143
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Slide 152
Slide 153
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Slide 159
Slide 160
Slide 161
Slide 162
Slide 163
Slide 164
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 165
Slide 166
Slide 167
Slide 168
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Slide 176
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 181
Slide 182
Slide 183
Slide 184
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 185
Slide 186
Slide 187
Slide 188
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Slide 200
Slide 201
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Slide 209
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 218
Slide 219
Slide 220
Slide 221
Microphone A
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 226
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 227
Slide 228
Slide 229
Slide 230
Slide 231
Slide 232
Slide 233
Slide 234
Slide 235
Slide 236
Slide 237
Slide 238
Slide 239
Slide 240
Slide 241
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 242
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 243
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 244
Slide 245
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 246
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Slide 253
Slide 254
Slide 255
Slide 256
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 257
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 265
Slide 266
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 267
Cllr Jackie Meade
Mrs Sue Lewis
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270
Slide 271
Slide 272
Slide 273
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 274
Slide 275
Slide 276
Slide 277
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 278
Slide 279
Slide 280
Slide 281
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 285
Slide 286
Slide 287
Slide 288
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 289
Slide 290
Slide 291
Slide 292
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 293
Slide 294
Slide 295
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 296
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Slide 300
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 301
Slide 302
Slide 303
Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Slide 307
Slide 308
Slide 309
Slide 310
Slide 311
Slide 312
Slide 313
Slide 314
Slide 315
Slide 316
Slide 317
Slide 318
Slide 319
Slide 320
Slide 321
Slide 322
Slide 323
Slide 324
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 325
Slide 326
Slide 327
Slide 328
Slide 329
Slide 330
Slide 331
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 332
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 333
Slide 334
Slide 335
Slide 336
Slide 337
Slide 338
Slide 339
Slide 340
Slide 341
Slide 342
Slide 343
Slide 344
Slide 345
Slide 346
Slide 347
Slide 348
Slide 349
Slide 350
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 351
Slide 352
Slide 353
Slide 354
Slide 355
Slide 356
Slide 357
Slide 358
Slide 359
Slide 360
Slide 361
Slide 362
Slide 363
Slide 364
Slide 365
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 366
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 367
Slide 368
Slide 369
Slide 370
Slide 371
Slide 372
Slide 373
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 374
Slide 375
Slide 376
Slide 377
Slide 378
Slide 379
Slide 380
Slide 381
Slide 382
Slide 383
Slide 384
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 385
Slide 386
Slide 387
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 388
Slide 389
Slide 390
Slide 391
Slide 392
Slide 393
Slide 394
Slide 395
Slide 396
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 397
Slide 398
Slide 399
Slide 400
Slide 401
Slide 402
Slide 403
Slide 404
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 405
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 406
Mrs Sue Lewis
Slide 407
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 408
Slide 409
Slide 410
Slide 411
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 412
Slide 413
Mrs Sue Lewis
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 414
Slide 415
Slide 416
Slide 417
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 418
Slide 419
Slide 420
Slide 421
Slide 422
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 423

8 22/1077/FH - Cheriton Parc House, Cheriton High Street, Folkestone, CT18 8AN

Share this agenda point

Slide 424
Slide 425
Slide 426
Microphone B
Slide 427
Slide 428
Slide 429
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 430
Slide 431
Slide 432
Slide 433
Microphone Forty
Slide 434
Slide 435
Slide 436
Slide 437
Slide 438
Slide 439
Slide 440
Slide 441
Slide 442
Slide 443
Slide 444
Slide 445
Slide 446
Slide 447
Slide 448
Slide 449
Slide 450
Slide 451
Slide 452
Slide 453
Slide 454
Slide 455
Slide 456
Slide 457
Slide 458
Slide 459
Slide 460
Slide 461
Slide 462
Slide 463
Slide 464
Slide 465
Slide 466
Slide 467
Slide 468
Slide 469
Slide 470
Slide 471
Slide 472
Slide 473
Slide 474
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 475
Slide 476
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 477
Slide 478
Slide 479
Slide 480
Slide 481
Slide 482
Slide 483
Slide 484
Slide 485
Slide 486
Slide 487
Slide 488
Slide 489
Slide 490
Slide 491
Slide 492
Slide 493
Slide 494
Microphone B
Slide 495
Slide 496
Slide 497
Slide 498
Slide 499
Slide 500
Slide 501
Slide 502
Slide 503
Slide 504
Slide 505
Slide 506
Slide 507
Slide 508
Slide 509
Slide 510
Slide 511
Slide 512
Slide 513
Slide 514
Slide 515
Slide 516
Slide 517
Slide 518
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 519
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 520
Slide 521
Slide 522
Slide 523
Slide 524
Slide 525
Slide 526
Slide 527
Slide 528
Slide 529
Slide 530
Slide 531
Slide 532
Slide 533
Slide 534
Slide 535
Slide 536
Slide 537
Slide 538
Slide 539
Slide 540
Slide 541
Slide 542
Slide 543
Slide 544
Slide 545
Slide 546
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 547
Slide 548
Slide 549
Slide 550
Slide 551
Slide 552
Slide 553
Slide 554
Slide 555
Slide 556
Slide 557
Slide 558
Slide 559
Slide 560
Slide 561
Slide 562
Slide 563
Slide 564
Slide 565
Slide 566
Slide 567
Slide 568
Slide 569
Slide 570
Slide 571
Slide 572
Slide 573
Slide 574
Slide 575
Slide 576
Slide 577
Slide 578
Slide 579
Slide 580
Slide 581
Slide 582
Slide 583
Slide 584
Slide 585
Slide 586
Slide 587
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 588
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 589
Slide 590
Slide 591
Slide 592
Slide 593
Slide 594
Slide 595
Slide 596
Slide 597
Slide 598
Slide 599
Slide 600
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 601
Slide 602
Slide 603
Slide 604
Slide 605
Slide 606
Slide 607
Slide 608
Slide 609
Slide 610
Slide 611
Slide 612
Slide 613
Slide 614
Slide 615
Slide 616
Slide 617
Slide 618
Slide 619
Slide 620
Slide 621
Slide 622
Slide 623
Slide 624
Slide 625
Slide 626
Slide 627
Slide 628
Slide 629
Slide 630
Slide 631
Slide 632
Slide 633
Slide 634
Slide 635
Slide 636
Slide 637
Slide 638
Slide 639
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 640
Slide 641
Slide 642
Slide 643
Slide 644
Slide 645
Slide 646
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 647
Slide 648
Slide 649
Slide 650
Slide 651
Slide 652
Slide 653
Slide 654
Slide 655
Slide 656
Slide 657
Slide 658
Slide 659
Slide 660
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 661
Slide 662
Slide 663
Slide 664
Slide 665
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 666
Slide 667
Slide 668
Slide 669
Slide 670
Slide 671
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 672
Slide 673
Slide 674
Slide 675
Slide 676
Slide 677
Slide 678
Slide 679
Slide 680
Slide 681
Slide 682
Slide 683
Slide 684
Slide 685
Slide 686
Slide 687
Slide 688
Slide 689
Slide 690
Slide 691
Slide 692
Slide 693
Slide 694
Slide 695
Slide 696
Slide 697
Slide 698
Slide 699
Slide 700
Slide 701
Slide 702
Slide 703
Slide 704
Slide 705
Slide 706
Slide 707
Slide 708
Slide 709
Slide 710
Slide 711
Slide 712
Slide 713
Slide 714
Slide 715
Slide 716
Slide 717
Slide 718
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 719
Slide 720
Slide 721
Slide 722
Slide 723
Slide 724
Slide 725
Slide 726
Slide 727
Slide 728
Slide 729
Slide 730
Slide 731
Slide 732
Slide 733
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 734
Slide 735
Slide 736
Slide 737
Slide 738
Slide 739
Slide 740
Slide 741
Slide 742
Slide 743
Slide 744
Slide 745
Slide 746
Slide 747
Slide 748
Slide 749
Slide 750
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 751
Slide 752
Slide 753
Slide 754
Slide 755
Slide 756
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 757
Slide 758
Slide 759
Slide 760
Slide 761
Slide 762
Slide 763
Slide 764
Slide 765
Slide 766
Slide 767
Slide 768
Slide 769
Slide 770
Slide 771
Slide 772
Slide 773
Slide 774
Slide 775
Slide 776
Slide 777
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 778
Slide 779
Slide 780
Slide 781
Slide 782
Slide 783
Slide 784
Slide 785
Slide 786
Slide 787
Slide 788
Slide 789
Slide 790
Slide 791
Slide 792
Slide 793
Slide 794
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 795
Slide 796
Slide 797
Slide 798
Slide 799
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 800
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 801
Slide 802
Slide 803
Slide 804
Slide 805
Slide 806
Slide 807
Slide 808
Slide 809
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 810
Slide 811
Slide 812
Slide 813
Slide 814
Slide 815
Slide 816
Slide 817
Slide 818
Slide 819
Slide 820
Slide 821
Slide 822
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 823
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 824
Cllr Belinda Walker
Slide 825
Slide 826
Slide 827
Slide 828
Slide 829
Slide 830
Slide 831
Slide 832
Slide 833
Slide 834
Microphone B
Slide 835
Slide 836
Slide 837
Slide 838
Slide 839
Slide 840
Slide 841
Slide 842
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 843
Slide 844
Slide 845
Slide 846
Slide 847
Slide 848
Slide 849
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 850
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 851
Slide 852
Slide 853
Slide 854
Slide 855
Slide 856
Slide 857
Slide 858
Microphone B
Slide 859
Slide 860
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 861
Slide 862
Slide 863
Slide 864
Slide 865
Slide 866
Slide 867
Slide 868
Slide 869
Slide 870
Slide 871
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 872
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 873
Slide 874
Slide 875
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 876
Slide 877
Slide 878

7 22/0862/FH - 5 Marine Avenue, Dymchurch, TN29 0TR

Share this agenda point

Slide 879
David Campbell
Slide 880
Slide 881
Slide 882
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 883
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 884
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 885
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 886
Slide 887
Slide 888
Slide 889
Slide 890
Slide 891
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 892
Slide 893
Slide 894
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 895
Slide 896
Slide 897
Slide 898
David Campbell
Slide 899
Slide 900
Slide 901
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 902
Slide 903
Slide 904
Cllr Jackie Meade
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 905
Slide 906
Slide 907
Slide 908
Slide 909
Slide 910
Slide 911
Slide 912
Slide 913
Slide 914
David Campbell
Slide 915
Slide 916
Slide 917
Slide 918
Slide 919
Slide 920
Slide 921
Slide 922
Slide 923
Slide 924
Slide 925
Slide 926
Slide 927
Slide 928
Slide 929
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 930
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 931
Slide 932
Slide 933
Slide 934
Slide 935
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 936
Slide 937
Mrs Sue Lewis
Slide 938
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 939
Slide 940
Slide 941
Slide 942
Slide 943
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 944
Slide 945
Slide 946
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 947
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 948
Slide 949
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 950
Slide 951
Slide 952

9 23/1001/FH - Block E, Hurricane Way, Hawkinge, Folkestone, CT18 7SS

Share this agenda point

Slide 953
Slide 954
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 955
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 956
Slide 957
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 958
Slide 959
Slide 960
Slide 961
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 962
Slide 963
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 964
Slide 965
Slide 966
Slide 967
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 968
Slide 969
Slide 970
Slide 971
Slide 972
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 973
Slide 974
Slide 975
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 976
Slide 977
Slide 978
Slide 979

10 Appeal Decisions Received

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:05

good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee. This meeting will be webcast live to the internet and 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 that viewers on the webcast and others in the room. I hear you would anyone with a mobile phone, please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting

I would like to remind Members that, although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration, it is important to treat members officers and public speakers with respect.

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest

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, thank you are we do we have any apologies for absence, please,

Mrs Sue Lewis - 0:01:25

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:30

we've had one apology, Councillor Fuller, thank you very much. Do we have any declarations of interests, please?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:36

I'm saying none, and just for your information we have one application that has been withdrawn this evening.

and that's 23 Janisch 1 6 5 7 dash f h, which is 25 Din Church Road, St Mary's Bay, so that so that has been withdrawn this evening, thank you.

3 Minutes

so, moving on before you have the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th of January 2024, my I sign them as a correct record, please.

4 Minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee

thank you very much before you, you also have the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee, my held on the 22 of January, my I sign them as a correct record, please, thank you very much, so we'll move on to our first application this evening.

I can find it here.

5 23/1008/FH - Grafton Cottage, Sandgate Esplanade, Sandgate, CT20 3DP

which is application 23 dash 1 0 0 8 dash F H, Ms Kyle's, do we have any updates, please?

Microphone A - 0:02:50

Good evening, Chair Councillors, no updates on this one, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:56

thank you very much, we have one person to speak on this this evening.

Mr. Joyce, if you'd like to come forward, you will have three minutes from the moment that you start, thank you very much.

thank you Chair.

Microphone Forty - 0:03:15

councillors thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicant who works abroad and regrets he can't be here tonight to address you personally.

these applicants made a huge commitment, taking on a prominent listed building in the Sandgate conservation area right on the seafront.

the officer's report draws attention to the condition of the building and at a site meeting that we attended, her attention was drawn to the condition of the timber frame around the window openings, where there are very obvious signs of water, ingress and white walls undoubtedly causing harm to the heritage asset.

the applicant has gone to great pains to employ a specialist joinery firm at a cost of over 90,000 pounds and they have great deal of experience of sensitive replacement of period windows in listed buildings, replicating the construction of traditional timber sashes in quality timber that match the existing windows as closely as possible the experts in the use of very slim double glazing units.

12 millimetres thick.

it is relevant to note it's unlikely the windows are original in the 200 year plus life of this building, apart from a disastrous fire, work will have been carried out to these windows, including replacements and the joinery sections referred to vary in size and they're not all the slim 16 millimetres referred to in the report.

that and subsequent repairs build-up of putty and paint mean that some of them are a great deal thicker than that.

this proposal would unify the building again and seen from the street, the 6 millimetres we're talking about a quarter of an inch.

differences in glazing bar size would be unnoticeable.

there has been no objection from the Sandgate Parish, Council, the Sandgate Society or any resident, this must be seen as a positive enhancement of the conservation area comparison with Regency Cottage next door is erroneous, as this House has subtly different proportions to graft and cottage when seen from the esplanade, these changes will not be discernible. Finally, and most importantly, we must consider the need to reduce the carbon footprint of this building in this very exposed position. Energy losses extreme and, as this Council has signed up to be carbon neutral by 2030 sensitive proposals such as this should be welcomed, despite the guidance that is provided by such bodies as historic England. I trust you will support this application to grant consent.

and help the applicant to make the changes that will allow him to give this listed building a sustainable future and to preserve it for future generations.

thank you for listening.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:05:54

thank you very much, Mr. Joyce, over to you Councillors, would anyone like to raise a statement, Councillor Goddard, thank you, Madam

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:06:02

Chairman, good evening, good evening officers.

or totally echo Councillor Joyce's comments, multi codicil, because

the reasons Mr. George just read out by suffering install more script.

but I would just echo the

now the souls of the 12 millimetres.

what will go in there all timber the energy loss, obviously, when it needs to be with more going head on?

obviously carbon 0 by 2020 something so yeah.

I think this is a plus city area and again I was shocked and surprised, not nothing from saying Guide Parish Council saying geek society, the same guy this case, it's saying, guy, parish council do voice their opinions in a very strong way so,

I do support this and it'll be interesting what my other colleagues think also.

thank you, Councillor Goddard nice, to see that you're up to date with carbon 0.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:07

Councillor Thomas, thank you, Chair yeah, I support Councillor Goddard

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:07:14

and Rogers views with regard to this particular application.

I think the comments have been made in terms of making this building, you know more energy efficient in terms of the visibility is already stated from from a streetscene point of view, it's not discernible.

and it also helps to protect fabric of the building, as has already been said,

so I'd like to propose that we actually approve its planning application this evening, Chair, thank you, thank you, we have a

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:46

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:07:47

proposal to have a secondary plinth, our second that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:51

certainly.

Ms Lo.

thank you, Chair and good evening Councillors, I just want to touch on

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:07:58

a couple of points and I understand the debate that's happened so far, the building is already in a poor state of repair and that isn't improved by double glazing that's improved by fixing the broken windows so that the replacing that's quite crucial the fact that you couldn't see it from a distance is not really a reason to approve it because otherwise we would approve everything and we don't listed buildings like this which is Georgian, not sort of the typical Victorian we might see are a finite resource in this country and in this district

and, as highlighted by the Speaker, quite well, we need to preserve our heritage.

in doing this, we're not preserving the heritage, the officers' report has finally as carefully balanced the advantages of double glazing versus single glazing, but actually the majority of heat loss is lost through poor.

now the windows sit within the frame, as opposed and draft exclusion windows need to be drafting fitted to stop the transfer of hot air out of the buildings. The majority of the problems are compensation and there are other options to secure the thermal efficiency of this building, such as advised by historic England and our own conservation officer, which is secondary glazing and a listed building which would protect the fine joinery of this building and still achieve the thermal efficiency improvements that the applicants are seeking without damage to the fine heritage of this building. So I think when weighing this up, it is not simply a matter of double glazing versus single glazing. We're talking about fine detailing which would otherwise not be preserved for future generations. To appreciate won't be a point of reference for how things are done and we that would be lost

as the report says, we're not at all at odds with the principle of replacing the windows, but we are seeking that they are either replaced with finer details to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of this building, which is unique in this district, which is why it's listed and there are other wines achieving that and achieving the other sustainability objectives as highlighted tonight in your debate.

to start before we are making decisions this evening, I bear that carefully in mind.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:10:08

thank you, Mr. Lloyd, we have one proposal from Councillor Thomas.

yes, I'm going to say, from Councillor Thomas seconded by Councillor Kane, I believe Councillor Cooper was the next to speak and then

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:10:25

Councillor Blackmore, thank you for that, yeah, I would be in support of the proposer and seconder in respect of I think we should be seen to be doing something for the intelligence of the buildings within the area.

I feel it will if we refuse this and we just let it go on as it is, it could well get worse.

so I would personally be myself think it we can help preserve it, irrespective how to fix the glasses or whatever it would be an improvement on what is already exist in their, obviously the applicant could in due course see individual grants available make applications for them to improve thermal efficiency et cetera, et cetera, but if you've already spent a lot of money on it at the moment, I think there should be supported in respect of actually being not condemned but congratulated from China to something pretty community.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:11:21

thank you, Councillor, Pauline McNeill yeah, a couple of questions say I see that this is called in due to the applicant's practical circumstances, but I I can't quite see how they that fits in with the context of the report in front of us here, I'm not sure that's been clarified and the the other question I have is

why they ha haven't why the applicant hasn't come up with historically accurate replacements is such a thing were possible, but why why is that not happened, why on earth, why is historic England's guidance not being followed?

Ms Coconino.

Microphone A - 0:11:59

hi yes, Councillor Bateman, I understand as far as I'm aware that it was called in, I think, due to its be refused once before and it was, it was altered slightly that the whole detailing was was permitted and I believe it came down to the cost of the windows.

to, I think they'd be pursuing further windows and as to whether or not sorry as to whether or not more suitable windows are available, we haven't had any information from the applicant to suggest that no further or better replacements are available on the market.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:12:45

Councillor shoe, thank you yeah, I think obviously we've got the the Heritage consultant recommending refusal here and yeah reading the report, the lack of any sort of alternative or, sir, you know.

there was no indication in the report that every op sort of opportunity for every possibility had been looked into and yeah, I think it is.

with a heritage asset like that yeah, though there is gonna be a cost, but I I think yeah, I would be inclined to to support the Re the the officers recommendation for refusal, I would welcome the applicant.

at least.

looking into you know, possible alternatives, because from what what I've heard yeah, this could be detrimental.

do something that is quite a unique and special in the region, so, yeah, I I would find it difficult to support pulsing, you know, approving this.

thank you, Councillor Walker.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:05

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:14:06

yeah, I think the principle of saving energies is an excellent one, but I'm just wondering how much would be saved by if it were to go ahead and his windows were to be presented, as the applicant would like whether it would be a significant saving or not.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:14:27

thank you Chair, and thank you Councillor Walker and Shoop, I think it's just picking up on something Councillor Cooper raised, this would solve a problem but actually replacing the windows, which causes a legal imperative on the owner of the building to do but also repair the existing problem of deteriorating windows and watering just by replacing with a like for like timber a fine detailing that could also then be addressed to the thermal efficiency of secondary glazing. Obviously there is no information as to why it has to be double glazing and in fact historic England guidance says that actually the benefits do not outweigh the harm in terms of the harm solicitor building that lost heritage.

the question for Councillor.

thank you very much.

in terms of how much it would save, the guidance is.

about 18% of heat loss from a building is lost through its windows, but a lot of that is not through the glass, it is through the sort of how well those units are sealed, and how will the air, I've got, I've got timber glazing myself and majority of I can feel the cold air rushing round the fact that I don't have any draft exclusions on them?

it's worse than double glazing in PVC windows wins out, because not only is it quiet, so it doesn't have a condensation problem, it then has the thermal efficiency of closing and sealing the building and making it airtight, which is where the greatest energy efficient can be closed, which is where secondary glazing would address that problem, so I think the building can be repaired with like-for-like windows and that would address doing that.

and it would be incumbent Councillors, frequently raised it with the authority as two members of the public as to why we're not protecting our heritage and making people put back what is already there and make sure we're looking after it, I think we're identifying yes, there are some minor benefits to double-glazing they're not outweighing the harm to the listed building replacement windows on a like-for-like basis could come forward with secondary glazing to achieve the same end.

thank you, Councillor King.

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:16:30

Ms Lloyd, I heard what you said about other repairs that needed to be done on the building before you know for a second, but after I seconded is the building does is the building in need of of match repair would would wield the windows.

fix that problem or other other things that need to be done before this gentleman even thinks about repair repairing windows with the main building has got to be preserved the windows afterwards.

but I don't understand what else is wrong with that building, can you

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:17:07

explain our figures, as set out in the report is that the applicant's contention is that the windows are in such a poor state of repair, they allowing water ingress into the building, so if we replace the windows even with like for like windows the water ingress would cease.

which means that there wouldn't be an aggressive water into the property further until deteriorating condition, so one doesn't need to replace it with double glazed, thick or heavy amongst. You could just replace the windows and achieve the same waterproofing to the building. There are other benefits for double glazing, but we don't feel that the double-glazing is not the matter at hand here, it is the joinery details and how fine they are compared to what's being proposed, and the harm of losing otherwise important solicitors

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:17:55

feature. Just briefly, then, is there a way of having a double glazed window with the features that we've really got? Can you have the wood and the detail and the double glazing, or is that way out of price range? Would that be a massive increase, because 920,000 a lot anyway,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:18:14

my planning point of view, we should disregard all reference to how much it might cost or otherwise is not relevant to the discussion to this evening, I understand it's relevant to the applicant and I fully appreciate that and there is a cost to owning a listed building, but this is a discussion tonight how much the windows may or may not cost is not relevant to whether the windows and the joinery is acceptable, there are ways of achieving the thermal efficiency through secondary glazing, as advised by historic England and as highlighted by our own conservation officer,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:53

OK, we have one proposal that's come full 0 sorry was Holland's B.

Councillor Blakemore in front of me is also indicating what I've been

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:19:06

trying to catch your attention said Richard.

should we say No, actually, I've I find this a very difficult application and I'm I'm still trying to weigh up and I'm not sure which side I'm I'm going down on, I completely understand the applicant's position and what Councillor Joyce has said, and I think that's very relevant. However, listening to Llewelyn and the importance of such a building, I'm I'm sort of toying with the idea that perhaps we ought to go back to the applicant to do for her. Perhaps I don't know whether we could defer it and have a further conversation on how this could be achieved without actually

deteriorate, while not deteriorating, without taking away without taking away perhaps some of the really material age considerations.

so I'm still waiting to hear what other people say, so it's not often that I'm I'm on the fence, but I am very much on the fence at this stage.

thank you, Councillor Mike Blakenall, thank you, yeah, I was going to

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:20:24

suggest perhaps we differed as well, because it does feel like a conversation with the applicant about how they can, because of course we want to support making the building more energy efficient that's not in question.

but you could make that argument about any listed building really when it comes to do you install double glazing to make it more efficient, and as Lily Allen says these are appraised as a prized heritage asset and we have to preserve them, but it doesn't have to be an either or and I think there must be a way in which we can preserve a heritage asset make it more energy efficient as well and and preserve the upkeep of the building for the future as well, so I agree with Councillor Holdings be that can we defer and have a conversation with the applicant about how we can reconcile those things.

thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:08

sitting here, I also believe there might be a way forward, could you advise whether conversations have been had, with the applicant as to whether he would look at putting the heritage windows in with the secondary double glazing?

Microphone A - 0:21:30

sorry, Councillor members, a question have I asked and has there been a conversation right okay neither hasn't specifically with the applicant I have been liaising with the agent, who is also the manufacturer of the windows, so I mean I can can certainly if he wants to defer and go back and have that conversation.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:52

thank you. So we have all sorry, Councillor, gorgeous, sorry Cheryl,

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:21:56

just pick up on a couple of points with the secondary double glazed, nothingness more wildcat these days, isn't it, because it's condensation, it's it's old fashioned, it's it, it's you know, it's not good salmon or bass you know this, this energy lost, nothing is important oil Llewelyn point at 18% goes where the wind is obviously I know you're saying it's not important the figure of the sun, but you're not going to spend no integrated on windows and not doing the rest of the building to make sure it's watertight and insulated in a quiet way.

hence, why I feel that this is the lively to go.

without asking the secondary double glazing, because logos are just think nets, less old hat and all sorts of problems with them, condensation, et cetera, et cetera, so you know, I do do stay in by what's what is proposed, obviously we're not discussing.

the the House is not discussing windows where, regardless of what the condition houses in that's not on the agenda tonight, but it might come back to us later on where he's spending a lot of money on windows, the House might come back up later on for other sort of insulation works, ward works, etc etc but I think we've got to stick with Windows rather than address the condition in the house.

thank you, Councillor Goddard and Councillor Blackmoor, did you want

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:17

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:23:21

to propose to defer this, yes, please don't have a seconder, I have a seconder.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:23

the first proposal that came forward was to go against how swiftly

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:34

sorry, Councillor Thomas, presented this gap.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:23:38

yeah, thank you Chair.

one of the things that influenced me when I was looking at this was the fairly extensive planning history associated with this building, and there had been significant alterations to the streetscene associated with this over a number of years, and we've allowed that to go ahead, including the detached garage and various other things, and now we're talking about the thickness of a window bar, so to me it seems in Congress that we've allowed

significant changes to the building, but now we're almost dying in a ditch associated with the width of a glazing bar, so for me it didn't seem quite right in terms of the streetscene it's already been altered significantly over the years, so for me I'm I'm still in support of the current application thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:24:33

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:38

so the first price we had this evening was to go against the officers' recommendation and and now the alterations to the building, and that came forward from Councillor Thomas and was seconded by Councillor Goddard everyone in favour of going against the officers' recommendation, can you please show now,

4 Year.

those against.

and any abstentions.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:25:16

sorry I.

AC yeah,

sorry, I am.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:24

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:25:27

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:29

right, let's let's let let's start, let's start from New York, do you want me to explain?

Mrs Sue Lewis - 0:25:31

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:01

OK, we will rethink that vote, but before we go forward we need to know.

from the Committee and the Councillors as to why you believe it is the right thing to go against the officers' recommendation on this, please.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:26:23

thank you, Chair Councillors, just be clear in overturning officer recommendation, which is definitely within your gift, it is whereas we've set out reasons why this is harmful, it is now incumbent under yourselves to set out why it would not be harmful and why it would be acceptable and you would then need, as part of any recommendation to provide delegated authority to officers to agree any conditions going forward of which you currently don't have, but the first thing to do is to address the policy reasons as to why this is acceptable and would not be harmful before making the decision.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:27:01

yeah, thank you, well, you know the bicyclists opposite, your ha one believe it wouldn't harm.

HA 1, which is your money, your reasons against the

PPA LP policy HD-One reprovision of the M P P F, thank you, Councillor Goddard, but I'm I need you to set out why it wouldn't be harmful at

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:27:20

the moment we've explained why it would be harmful, it is incumbent on. The council is making a decision to set out why it would be why it would not be harmful. What is it about the design and appearance of these proposals

which would not be harmful.

Councillor Thomas

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:43

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:27:56

thank you the proposed windows, by virtue of their design and detail, and would not cause any substantial harm and significance to the designated heritage asset and would not lose any public benefit, it would not raise any public issues or concerns as slight by the Town Parish Council, the Parish Councils,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:28:23

thank you, Councillor, I understand that that's obviously an inversion of the reason for refusal.

if I can take your attention to the committee report.

which sets out from the beginning why we believe the development, the material considerations and what has informed our decision, and we will afford particular attention to.

paragraph 5.1 the heritage consultant.

the Council's conservation officer has identified that proposed window frames, which are, in his opinion, thicker than that on the existing.

with alternative, overload details which do not match that of the original property and do not match the period for which they come from.

would result in a coarsening of the joinery details, detracting from the building and would be further highlighted, what the officers have then go on to say is, of course, that what's being proposed is not in keeping with the development, would be a loss of important features.

which otherwise are not replicated easily.

which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building.

and

I think those are quite crucial points and so it accepts that you do not believe it's harmful, but I think what we need to understand is because, whilst there is no such thing as precedent,

there is rational and consistent decision-making, and what we'd need to understand is why this is different from every other application, as Council has made on replacement windows in listed buildings, and it might be.

sorry, my apologies, it might be that there are other matters in favour which outweigh the harm to the listed building you might consider that it's actually.

the energy efficiency benefits or the benefits to that of the building outweigh the harm officers have set, while they don't believe that weighs the harm, but you may conclude that they do.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:30:31

yeah, I'll just write that down about the energy efficiency I've been banging on about it, and obviously I forgot about it, I was trying to be a bit too technical, but basically these are gonna be of high quality design, you know in a high quality area so they're not going to be.

any.

B and Q Whips' style windows, are they're gonna be one of the highest quality the energy out out does that, rather than a single pint glass to 12 millimetre glass?

so.

this is going to be of a high quality design for the border area.

which outweighs.

Councillor Thomas

yeah, thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:31:08

Councillor Thomas can use the other more, it could find sorry.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:12

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:31:14

the one thing I I was going to pick out again from from 5.1 the the last part of the sentence, says that that this would detract from the character of the building and would for the hut would be further highlighted with a comparison with the original joinery the adjoining house,

but we've heard tonight that there are already differences between this and the adjoining house anyway, so I'm still not quite sure whether the relevance of that part of of that statement and whether what we've been in we've been told tonight is is true, because we've not been able to see both of them side by side other than in the form of a picture. There are no drawings in the pack that had been presented to us to allow us to make that that comparison, so that's the other thing that I would. I would say that from here it's difficult to say whether the two would be would look substantially different from the street as well. The the other point in Isa, the cautioning of the detail of the joinery. It is the issue we're talking about really is that it's the thickness of the of the timber in a particular part of the window, as opposed to how it how it actually looks and

again, I I'd support what Councillor Goddard is saying in terms of the the the ongoing her benefit from from an energy point of view, but again I think that last sentence I can't see and we've not been presented with anything which says that the comparison between the joiner of the adjoining house and this House are going to be adversely affected, thank you.

thank you, Councillor Thomas, I think it's an important things there,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:32:49

which I'll just highlights one property urged caution. The conservation officer has viewed the details on house, and his view is that the neighbouring property has, whilst not identical windows but windows which are period correct and are of an equally lightweight structure which, of course, if we went to a course of the detail, there would be a stark revelation. You have just acknowledged that you don't know what the ones next door look like, although an expert who has been to see them believes that they would be a stark comparison, so I would not be basically recommendation on the fact that you don't know what is next door, because people who have been to see it believed that there would be a stark contrast between the two. It's quite crucial that we base the information on what's in front of us and that part of that is the Council's conservation officers. Professional opinion on what's before us

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:34:08

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:34:11

so we're going to retake 0 sorry, Councillor Cooper, thank you Chair, can I ask the Chief Planning Officer in respect of paragraph 7 17, there is a questionnaire that I've got it says, for example, overall there would be no object to the principle of replacement windows subject to this obligation or there would need to be more historically sympathetic to the building that would be installed within.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:34:46

there's no conflicts, what we're saying, and we've been consistent in this new windows to weather types, this house would be acceptable because we have to preserve the listed building, we are in principle as the conservation officer with replacement windows and, as highlighted by the Speaker tonight and,

but Councillor Thomas from the previous planning applications, listed buildings to evolve. To a point, however, we need to be careful with those and to make sure that they are appropriate for this property, and they have the advice and replication of what's going in into the building. In our opinion, what is being proposed does not have the finesse or quality of the windows which are currently in the building so they could replace them with buildings of lighter frameworks rather than heavier frame. That is what our conservation officer saying and what we're suggesting, as always, historic England in their official guidance would suggest you do

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:35:45

thank you, Chair, for thanking me to move on Mr Rowley for that question, can I ask, can I ask a follow-up, please, and a column puts this as part of this whole process and in bearing in mind what you've just said there in respect of what you just said would it have not been easy before this came before the committee for that conversation to have taken place?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:36:04

just to confirm we have sought better details from the applicant, the applicant has not wished to propose them, as Ms Claw has highlighted, we haven't then got back and said, would you consider using more appropriate details with secondary glazing? We haven't had that conversation, which I believe is part of the deferral discussions, but we have gone and set these windows, and I believe our conservation officer has produced sketches for the manufacturer to say this bit needs to be smaller, this bit needs to be different, the form is different and we've been quite precise in that and we've gone back and spoken to the manufacturer. What is driving the window frame sizes is largely the double glazing unit which is being put into the windows

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:49

so we have a first proposal, which is to go against the officers' recommendation and, I believe, the main reason that we have at the moment.

is because of the increase of heat and energy that could be saved by a double glazing unit as opposed to the single in the secondary, are you happy with that, Councillor Goddard, lowly all those in favours are going against the officers' recommendation and to allow the application everyone for please.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:29

thank you, everyone against.

abstentions.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:37

Mrs Sue Lewis - 0:37:40

that vote was for three against five abstentions 2 so they so that

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:48

proposal falls, so we go on to the next one, and that is to defer the decision so that we have a chance to speak further with the applicants, to see whether they will really look at the design of the windows so all those in favour please,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:10

those against.

abstentions.

Mrs Sue Lewis - 0:38:17

thank you that is carried.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:19

so if we can pass that back to the officers and we look forward to hearing from you in due course.

8 22/1077/FH - Cheriton Parc House, Cheriton High Street, Folkestone, CT18 8AN

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:38:32

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:50

so the Council is onto the next application, which is 22 dash 1 0 7 7 dash F H, which is Cheriton Park House in Cheriton, High Street Folkestone, Mrs Payne, do we have any updates, please?

Microphone B - 0:39:07

just one update, chair and members are advised that, following the publishing of the agenda, a further comment has been received objecting to the proposed development.

concerns have been raised with regards to the financial set-up of the company, which you will note is not a material planning consideration, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:23

thank you very much, we have one speaker on this and that's Mr Guy Holloway, if you could come forward pleaser.

and you're speaking in support of the application, and your three minutes will start when you start, thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:39:44

members, this this project started quite a while ago as a result of the pandemic.

saga, like many companies started working from home.

sorry, but just didn't come back actually.

and they found that they were working very efficiently from home and that suited their business, and so this building for them.

was surplus to requirements.

they then started at 18 month advertising to see whether somebody else would like to occupy the building as office use.

but that nobody came forward, and so we set about working with Saghir to look at alternative uses.

and

in residential seemed to be the most appropriate reuse we really like.

rather than demolishing a perfectly good building, the best way to sustainably, is to try and reuse that existing building to do something really sensitive.

so we're designing it in such a way that

the building could be converted looking at the facade, making that aesthetically pleasing and coming up with a really good, meanwhile use of the building and sustainable way.

also, there's quite a large car park associated with it, so looking at putting 36 new homes there, and some flats and the flats kind of emulate the existing building, but we wanted to create a landscape area and we wanted to put that being the most meanwhile space so that was surrounding the flats and to really enhance the landscape around that.

and in in order to, because it's quite a sustainable location.

we didn't want to compromise the landscape space, so there's been a slight working with officers like compromise on the number of visitor spaces.

by by 10 and so, but we wanted to make sure we had adequate landscape space.

the 36 houses are quite interesting, quite unique.

we are working with a genuine sector leader or modular construction.

which means that these houses are 127 times more efficient in terms of embodied carbon, so if I put that into English.

there's 36 houses here, that's the equivalent of 1.3 traditionally built houses.

so a lot of wastage when you build houses on site, so these are kind of built off-site, so it's quite interesting for us as architects.

working in terms of this sort of new methods of construction, and they're also 45%, more efficient.

than a traditional house, in terms of their ongoing running costs as well, sorry, Mr Holloway, your three minutes is OK, OK, shall send something on.

we would be really grateful if you officers would.

if Members would support the officers recommendation, we think it's a

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:11

really good reuse of this particular site, thank you very much, thank you, Mr Holloway.

Over to Councillors, who would like to ask the first question or raise an issue, or thank you Councillor Hollingsworth.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:43:23

well, I'm I'm really quite pleased to see this come forward, it's a, it's a site that hasn't done very much for a number of years and I think it's an excellent scheme, there are one or two questions I'd like to I mean I was a bit concerned when I read it about the parking facilities and the fact of having to liaise with Kent County Council and I suppose Folkestone and Hythe District Council in terms of the the parking restrictions outside of the site and I wonder whether officer would like to just comment on that.

it seems to me quite unusual.

I don't remember a scheme like that before, so I would be quite interested in that.

and the other point I wanted to raise is and I can't find it now, just but when I was reading it it was talking about affordable housing in one block and I'm I'm a little bit concerned about that being in one block we've tried in the past to spread affordable housing across the site.

but I mean, I've gone through the list on 7.1 of all the different aspects of this application and and I've felt everything else was was very fair, but I just wanted clarification on those two issues, please.

Microphone B - 0:44:54

Mrs. Payne, and thank you Chair and Councillor Hollingbery if I could pick up on your first question, which was regards to the parking spaces you are correct, the proposal is essentially 10 parking spaces short, that's only because of the tandem parking that's being proposed on site, actually, when you look at the development as a whole, is ample parking spaces, we've accepted the tandem parking in this case there was any of or any additional parking would harm the the visual appearance of the scheme overall.

but there are plenty of spaces on site for it not to cause any harm highway issues, the introduction of parking restrictions ii, the double yellow lines which are being proposed from around the site right up to the entrance of the

the hotel and have been introduced to prevent any parking on the road that would otherwise cause a highway issue from residents of the dwelling, but we wouldn't dwellings, sorry, we wouldn't expect that to be the case, it really is just a belt and braces.

approach in that respect, but we haven't had any concerns with regards to the highway safety from Kent Highways, and we feel that the balances are exactly right for this for this development.

with regard to the affordable units.

you are correct, initially we've had the application in for it, and while it was proposed that the purpose-built flats would be entirely affordable, conversations have been had since then, however.

we will still be aiming, and the development will still aim to achieve 22% affordable, which will be secured via Section 1 0 6, but they would be pepper-potted through development are unlikely to be all in one in one block, as was initially proposed.

thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:52

thank you, Councillor Mike Blakenall.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:46:57

yeah yeah, reducing buildings definitely to be welcomed.

turning office blocks into housing, not always so, but this does seem to be a very high quality development, and that's to be welcomed.

my question was around around CIL and S 1 0 6, so it refers in here to request from KCC for funding for community learning, special educational needs, child services, library services, adult care waste being requested that these matters are addressed through CIL contributions, therefore not reasonable or necessary to assist they form part of the S. 1 0 6 agreement, however it also states this is 0 rated for CIL so that presumably beings there will be no funding going to those things from Essex, that's my first question.

following on my theme, that's 1 0 6, I'm interested in how we decide where that S 1 0 6 money goes to.

quite a lot of it is going from this, which I should welcome as a ward Councillor for Cheriton and at a great supporter of charities parks.

for each household 460 pounds going to charity rack and another 645 pounds going to the rest of Folkestone's parks and open spaces, but only about 900 pounds going to GPs from each household and none to hospital services or any of those other things that I've mentioned one of the objections that's raised with this development, the objection raised by right by a neighbour and when we frequently hear and it's one that's been in the press in relation to this and elsewhere is about the strain that a development of this size places on local infrastructure including health services or perhaps particularly health services.

I'm not against money going to parks and open spaces and you might say Well they don't get their funding from elsewhere as the NHS does or should to definitely to a greater level than it does, but nevertheless parks and open spaces do receive money from council tax, they must receive money from CIL whether that's via town councils or I gather there's 300,000 pounds of CIL money allocated to go to the strategic parks in the district, so where does the proportionality come in allocating that amount of S. 1 0 6 to parks and open spaces unless to GP services?

Mr. Lloyd,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:49:15

thank you Chair, and thank you, Councillor Rayment, if we deal with CIL first CIL, obviously covers collecting contributions from development for strategic infrastructure, to facilitate developments set out in the Local Plan, it is normally there to cover provision of infrastructure such as roads, and the other things that Kent County Council might need contributions towards Kent County Council put markers down in their requests for things so that where things are CIL,

contributions dear colleagues, within Kent County Council know they've asked for a proportion of that CIL money to be them, and then there's a discussion for Kent County Council to have internally, this authority provides Kent County Council the 30% stake of CIL where it is collected. That's an aside, as you rightly pointed out, this site is still 0 rated because when we do, when we set the CIL up we have to determine where development is likely to be viable.

and where contributions would mitigate against that development coming forward and still tries to avoid a viability argument in most cases.

so this scheme would be CIL 0 rated, so the contributions that would normally be secured via CIL.

would not be secured. Section 1 and 6 the different beast altogether, and is normally for the securing of funding to mitigate on-sites or for things directly related to it. Education is one of those things which we took out of CIL as part of the CIL review earlier late last year, purposefully to the Kent county council, knew where Section 1 or 6 money was going. We have to identify projects for Section 1 0 6 money to be spent. If we can't identify a project, we can't ask for it because it can only be used for mitigating a need. The contributions within the section 1 in our report in table 1 are direct contributions to the requirements of planning policy, the planning policies which cover money towards strategic, open space and commuted sums for the maintenance of play within them. It's a policy requirement and there's a formula that works set out and it is consistent across the entire district, and what we've then said is well within the parks where are we going to allocate that to strategic projects within our play spaces strategy, the money requested by self-care them, the proportion of my sort of GP practices

you are quite right. GP practices and healthcare is also covered by central taxation, which normally provides most of the self-care and CCG Clinical Care. Commissioning Group have requested that as a proportionate contribution from this development based on the likely occupants and the likely demand that it would place on GP services, it is incumbent on the person requesting the contribution in this case the CCG, to demonstrates how much it is they're seeking and the underpinnings for why and where that might go, and if they can't do that, we cannot ask for it because they have to evidence to it. So there was a background paper by the CCG as to why they've arrived at 74,000 pounds. That is a gap funding, probably as opposed to the predominant funding which will come from general taxation. So there's that there is an underpinning in the local plan and within other requests for contributions which sets out what those formulas are. We've asked for 74,000 pounds and the thing because that's what the CCG so does, that is the impact on this particular from this development. Similarly, we've asked for the money towards play spaces, because that's what the identified evidenced need would be.

Councillor Bateman,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:43

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:52:47

did you want to come back, so we know that there is a lot to take in there?

it seems to me that I mean, obviously, the health service needs to ask what the how for health service needs to ask for, but I wonder whether that's it's a little bit easier for us to identify the need for public open spaces and parks than it is for the health service because it's it's asked that's giving it to us if you know what I mean.

so it's kind of.

I wonder I wonder how easy it is for the NHS to to access those funds CA relative to how easy it is for us to allocate it to two things that we deliver ourselves and also I would struggle with this again I'm not against parks and open spaces believe me, but there's a very direct correlation between a number of people moving into an area and the demand on GP services at all schools less of a direct correlation between open spaces and parks which essentially aren't going to change dramatically to cope with that extra demand.

as you say, there's a lot in there and probably a debate for outside

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:53:48

this Chamber and infection, but what I would say is most parks are pollarded by the Districts, through council tax and any any money that constant government and of course, as we all know there isn't a lot of that kicking around at the moment.

healthcare provision schools are provided through from generally from to other taxation.

contributions from developers are not there to cover the entirety of the cost, they are there to cover a and elements of the gap proportionate to the impact, and they have to be able to identify what that would be, so actually they will know what the general population this would be because they'll have metrics they will know what the direct impact on local GP services is likely to be.

and they will have to evidence what the cost of providing that, either through capital receipt to a GP, to expand their services or to invest in other sort of capital receipts what that would be, and that's how they'd evidenced it in the same way we have with open spaces but of course we're not getting money from central government or other taxation from things to pay for parks.

yes, it's very easy to identify the need is in healthcare from number of units, it's also very easy to demonstrate what we've done it, what the impact on play spaces and open space creation, and Owen replaced people to enjoy and spend time

wow and impact of a houses on that and that has been worked out. How much space do you need, how many climbing frames do you need, and how much does it cost to keep preparing those over a 10 year period? Do you need, as a consequence of a house, multiple houses? So it's all and I'm happy to share that outside this meeting, but I can reassure you that the money that we were suggested in here has been evidenced by the planning policy that we have or by the people asking for their contributions. Now there is nothing to say that the Kent CCG couldn't make a request of CIL, on top of section 1 Essex. There's nothing to say they couldn't go to other grant funding for education, but they that's how they have demonstrated what their need is from these 86 units, based on what they understand the occupancy rates are likely to be. Can I just quickly touch on the arrests on the affordable housing

and I think hopefully we will pick apart from has quite rightly said, and that'd be a requirement for section 1 6, just worth highlighting just to address the concern about affordable in one unit is sometimes at risk, registered social landlords or ourselves plans love an acronym,

would prefer them in individual buildings where they can make sure the management is taking place properly and there is a growing concern across the country as to the ability of ourselves to fund social housing and affordable housing.

where it is pepper-potted, especially when it's on small scale. So I think there is a debate for us to have, but it is not also always necessarily a bad thing that affordable housing is provided in one location as long as it's within a overall mixed development, and I think we want what we don't want is monoculture environments, where it's only private housing or only affordable housing what we want to make sure, as we have affordable housing in schemes with private housing and if we can get the bottom as much as possible brilliant. But there is a balance, sometimes in terms of the market forces with registered social landlords as well, which we have to be mindful of

thank you. That was very interesting, actually, Councillor Thomas

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:07

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:57:08

yeah, thank you Chair I, I support this application. I think it's it's an excellent use of the land available, excellent use of the building. Many of the questions I had have already been answered. Thank you very much and there was one which was in which is in section 5.1 which says Cheriton Park is protected for business use and a class B 1 A, and I just wondered whether it is that correct or not.

so again it was just how do we, how do we answer that I've got no other questions apart from that, thank you.

I think the crucial thing with this site is we have policies which

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:57:42

protect employment and it's incumbent on the applicant to market things to work out if the market is there to take it, because if nobody does and they can demonstrate that it is no longer necessary that you can make a decision on the Officer report has seemed to explain that rationale in the latter sections at section,

he looks for it quickly.

section, A of the first bit, whether the principle of development is in here. One section paragraph 7.2 onwards is talking about that principle of loss of employment, space and the marketing that's going forward. So there is that balancing act of yes, we want to make sure we can maintain an appropriate stock of employment floorspace across the district, but there is an element of market forces involved and there's then a balancing act for yourselves and us, as the planning authority is, do we wait for more for the employment market to change, or do we see a benefit in releasing this employment land

for residential based on the evidence before us and we've come down on the latter in this case,

yeah, thank you, thank you very much for for answering, and I I was

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:58:53

just trying to understand where must be, when I actually meant and again so that that actually links directly with what Guy Holloway has already said this evening in terms of saga, business models changed in terms of people not going into offices, they're working from home and therefore the demand for that isn't isn't where it was, so I fully understand that now sort of making that link is has answered my question. Thank you very much

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:59:20

just to clarify B 1 A is the old use class for offices, it's largely the the will of the government introduced e now, which pretty much covers everything from that was B and C and a whole host of things, but in this northern culture our policy was written before the government changed their mind on what we should call these things so B 1 A,

is office accommodation, which is what the current use of the buildings?

Councillor pollinate mill.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:48

yeah, thank you Chair, I have a question about.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:59:51

vehicle movements to from within the site.

looking at the metric generation table on page 69, the vehicle movements are described as being unchanged, but if you look at the evening peak, it looks like the trips have risen fairly significantly, with 32 more movements cited in the evening peak.

and I was also glad to hear Councillor Mrs. Hodgson talking about the parking and that the parking restrictions on Cheriton high streets are seen as a belt and braces, because I would question whether the Council's parking enforcement team would have the capacity to patrol regularly.

at at the far end of Cheriton.

and there's one final thing on parking, I think there's a tightening up needed in condition 22 for the parking at the site entrance and on within the site.

because, as I understand it, there's a low loss of parking spaces on the southern end of the site and not so much not near the entrance, and there's a danger that traffic will park there and a large vehicles such as refuse trucks and so on will be obstructed.

thank you for your thank you, Councillor Blake, more to deal with those points in turn, they obviously will be a change of traffic movements, this was once an office which probably I suspect at some point and probably had more incoming and outgoing traffic than is currently reported. I think what we are changing is just 32 cars in the peak.

the short period coming in potentially at a worst-case scenario.

God, rather than going going out and Kent Highway Services, are happy that that wouldn't be too detrimental to the highway functioning or the junction at Junction 12 worth understanding that obviously those junctions were upgraded for both the Shorncliffe developments and actually this development in the past, I believe had some involvement in upgrading highway infrastructure locally and the roads are designed to cater both for the

site, which is now a lorry park, so were the West, which is also identified for employment, which will no longer come forward in quite the intensity, so there's a lessening of employment movements from there.

and we've got a hotel next door, so it wants to be a change in the, we don't think it's detrimental change, which is why we set it out at the paragraph.

the Parking Services Manager has been consulted on the double yellow lines. It was very important to us that we double-checked with him before imposing such a condition that he would be happy with that, and he has confirmed that he would be and has confirmed that, which is why we've gotten with that and we're more than happy to take a look at condition 22 double-check, I mean the roads themselves within the scheme would not be adoptable highway, they would be managed privately, which would obviously allow the owners of the site to manage and ensure that enforcement was taken forward within the site appropriately. I think, crucially, with 10 parking spaces shy of a proposed maximum

and there is a tension, sometimes improper in place-making, terms of where do we put, where do we see that balance in terms of people living in a lot of hardstanding, and how do we integrate the needs of the CA versus the needs of it being a pleasant environment to live with and whilst we have got 10 less I think because we can stop them parking on the main road?

the only place they can park inappropriately, which might cause discomfort for most residents, would be within the status of the site itself, and hopefully that wouldn't happen because everybody has almost got two parking spaces, the vast majority of the parking is allocated to residents in any event,

OK.

Councillor King.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:03:48

Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:03:49

I'm I'm rather concerned about the build-up of traffic in that area. Morning, noon and night I use that road quite a lot to go down to Cheriton House and I can't think of a time when I've actually just driven down there the light that that junction is very dangerous, there are children walking along those paths. I just think that the areas been overdeveloped and also down there and I can't picture from there where it is, whereas the Jubilee trains that the people of this town paid for for the Queen's Jubilee,

because no, a number of councillors gave grant money to that and local residents gave money to for those trees, I think that's a smack in the face for the people of this town.

you know.

I'm sorry, I think we've argued for develop that area, it's beginning to be dangerous, I've seen accidents there and there's flooding there, and I just think so we're gonna put some more houses at the end of it just to make it that little bit more difficult for people to move round Cheriton.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:05:01

accounts or the Trees Officer to the the trees were part of a planting scheme on, but I think crucially for this committee and I think I can understand understand the feeling the trees were planted on private land, with no control imposed by this Council or

section 1 of 6, so we cannot retain the trees in that sense because they were planted under a previous scheme because they were done so privately. There may have been grant money given to it. They may have been very good intentions behind it, but obviously everything happens at a point in time. I think crucial in set out in the committee report is those trees are proposed to be relocated within the existing site and there are conditions within the permission and we can boost those which we must be thinking about this afternoon to ensure that where those can't be replaced or where, after a period of time and the normal maintenance period is five years, those trees die. They are replaced with a tree of the same species or inappropriate species at the same site, which actually we're not losing any trees alongside that actually is a net increase in trees across the whole site as a result of the development. So I do understand the point, but I think, crucially, for planning authority the trees are not worthy in and of themselves, but a tree preservation order but they are being retained, we can ensure they retained, but we can't control them because they're not on public land,

Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:06:27

has spoken about the overdevelopment of that area and the traffic and children going to school and walking through petrol fumes, and what have you because at the time today they go to school, there's a hell of a lot more traffic on the road,

and that is a dangerous junction, and I can't believe we're gonna put the more houses in it just to make it a little bit more difficult to move around the area, there's one way in really and two ways out that both get really clogged up.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:06:59

I think crucially, I understand the point.

Ken Highway Services have not objected, on the grounds of it, being harmful to highway safety.

the site to the west of this is allocated for more employment use and offices that's not now coming forward, but that that was a significant uplift in employment floorspace, which would have had traffic associated with it.

there is obviously also a new crossing point proposed across Cheriton High Street.

in refusing an application on highway safety grounds, Members would have to be convinced and have evidence to demonstrate it. The proposal would result in a significant harm to highway safety and at the moment instruct the applicant's Transport Assessment demonstrates that there wouldn't be the case and Kent Highway Services raise no objection on traffic flows in terms of volumes or highway safety, there are footpaths to the area which can be used by people. The site links up quite nicely with the adjacent housing scheme in the longer term.

we don't believe that it's overdevelopment of the site, it's in an urban area, in a place where sustainable development can come forward, it's either at this point in time it's an existing employment site which, if it was a market, would have significant traffic going to and from it versus the housing scheme which will have some peak traffic.

based on previous working models, not based probably on people's tendency now to work at home, my advice would be that I don't believe we could substantiate a reason for refusal on highway safety on on the grounds, as suggested.

thank you, Councillor Goddard.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:08:43

thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:08:47

yeah, I'm I'm glad about the tree issue and I'm sure you will go back a long way supporting trees.

and Lord salting is an extra 66.

trees being planted, with the office being transferred as 149 trees, which is excellent for the area.

agree with we've obviously Councillor Kane, but difficult because of a KCC, no objection.

obviously, a quality design for Mr Holloway, bringing the the older building into in into flexion, and the important thing I think is 51 and two bedroom flats, there is there's a site not too far away for me, at the Royal Vic that had the same one and two bedrooms and I just flew out the door basically.

now people are calling out for an accessories apartments, not flats apartments, and so I think that's very positive and obviously remaining there you know we have another 36 three and four bedroom which again equally equally is a big shortage of four bedroom properties in in in the district but but 50 1 and 2 bedroom apartments is a big big yes for that area lock us, I think the design would fit in nicely there and enhance the area and you know it's all pluses in my mind.

so we are very happy to support this.

thank you, Councillor Cooper.

yes, thank you.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:10:13

I think to take on board the point about it being an employment practices Executive changed, and I mean I'm and be happy to support that provided, of course, the affordable housing element is not removed and the affordable housing is actually provided.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:35

thank you, Councillor Harris, may I believe you wanted to come back, thank you, and I was just mentioned one thing about the NHS request

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:10:42

for payments because it happens, they always seem to ask for for some, but it doesn't always go and I'm sure Llewellyn will agree with me or disagree with me if you like.

that it doesn't always go directly to that surgery, then certainly in that area.

and that's proved a number of times in certainly in Sellindge, where money's been requested under the 1 0 6 S 1 0 6 and it's gone to the NHS but not necessarily gone directly to the to the surgery.

and I'd like to move the recommendation Chairman.

would you like to come back on that?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:11:29

thank you, Chair just.

just to touch on the NHS points of table 1.

which is on page 107 of your pack, details, the NHS services contributions.

and we'll be doing this a bit more often so that members are clear as to where section 1 or 6 is going and what it's designed for, and it will state here that it is going towards the refurbishment or reconfiguration and extension of a general practice or the healthcare provision which covers the development of this area so serving this area.

that money would obviously be paid to the local authority to be held, and if the NHS couldn't demonstrate it was being spent within a reasonable time period on those facilities in that area, the money would be returned to develop a because ultimately there wouldn't be a mitigation that needs to take place. It wouldn't couldn't be deployed to services outside of the development area because it would be highly unlikely that the people would be using a Dr that far away. I hope that sort of reassures

Councillor Holtby's proposed I'd like to.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:34

Councillor Walker,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:39

Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:12:40

in most of my questions have been answered. Well, I just have a couple outstanding. It mentioned the Environmental Health Officer, talking about the railway noise impact assessments, accepting that I'm not sure what that was that that is about, because I thought more of a problem would have been motorway noise. I know you can hear the motorway from that start that end of Cheriton, I'd wonder if any of the plant and we're dead in that noise. Second point I had, I noticed that the within the gift of this Council, and I wonder if the developer would consider asking Stagecoach when they do their new plan for their buses. Just ask the Tesco bus to move up a little bit to pick people up from the new estate, nor to set them to chair. It would also stop the charts, stop the need for short bus hot shorter journeys taking the car out, which must be a wind situation

Microphone B - 1:13:35

thank you, Chair, and the railway noise says specifically was or are documents submitted in support of the application which the Environmental Health Officer sought to comment on, he hasn't raised issue with motorway noise either.

it specifically raised, because the the the railway runs directly behind the southern section of the site that it wouldn't cause noise disturbance to neighbours.

there was no envisaged or expected impact of the motorway in that regard, either

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:14:14

I don't think it's within the gift of this authority at this moment in time, to make a request of the developer, Kent County Council would normally make requests on behalf of Stagecoach as to where they wanted contributions towards bus services, be it needs stops or towards providing a service.

it is possibly an option for Members of the Council more broadly to take it up with the Joint Transport Board or Kent County Council, but outside as part of this committee, unfortunately, I wouldn't suggest it's understand the points, but I think it would be a commercial decision run by Stagecoach and Kent County Council.

thank you and Councillor Thomas, who will be the last council

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:51

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:14:52

statement that I'll take on this one this week, thank you, I'm happy to second the proposal.

but the the other question of what is 0 7 7 1 to section 7 1 2 of the report talks about the new pedestrian crossing and says that this could be recovered from section 1 0 6

If you look at the table and item 6 on the table, it's got provide crossing point across Cheriton High Street and says this would be to be completed before first occupation, but in the cost it's got not applicable, it's got any against it, so I just wonder if you just explain to you in one part, we said we could recover it from there, and here we said it's not applicable, it's just a question, so thank you

Microphone B - 1:15:33

the crossing is being sought as part of the 1 0 6, but it would be provided by the developer and no money would be needed to secure that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:15:45

we have a proposal to go with the officers recommendation.

I would like to make a slight change, if I may, because if these are discussed, various things I know Councillor Pauline Blackmoor would like the condition number 22 strengthened, and I personally would like the condition around the trees boosted, so that should the moved trees die within the first five years they are replaced like for like I hope that the committee are happy with that that's what I have gauged.

from the conversation we've had this evening.

so can I see all those in favour of the officers recommendation Brexit?

those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:38

that is carried, thank you.

7 22/0862/FH - 5 Marine Avenue, Dymchurch, TN29 0TR

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:45

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:53

so, councillors, we move on to the next application, which is 22 dash 08 6 2 dash F H, which is fine soy 5 Marine Avenue do you have any updates, please?

David Campbell - 1:17:09

yes, I could even check at evening members we have one update, there has been an additional objection received from an existing objector on overlooking grounds, we believe that the issues are covered in the report, there is also a correction to paragraph 7 31, which should say that the Inspector did not find the scheme.

so he did find the scheme acceptable on overlooking grounds with the previous application, it was the Council that refused it.

on that basis, yes, just as those two points, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:17:43

thank you very much, we don't have any speakers on this this evening.

so to Kansas, Councillor Goddard.

thank you, Madam Chairman, good evening Mr came home, but Mr. Campbell

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:17:55

was the overlooking issues being addressed, happy to move the recommendation.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:18:04

do we have a seconder on seconder Councillor Thomas, with any other

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:18:06

councillor, wanting to speak on this particular item? Councillor Cooper? Yes, thank you. This is an area of a flood risk and less than

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:18:14

20 yards away from other properties. There has been another building which is referred to in the report and what I would like to Councillor would have liked to do before we move to a vote. Can I ask that we go and do a site visit, because I do think it's important that we get this in context, and so there has been a lot of planning. History here has also been the appeals planning inspectors out, and I think personally it would be beneficial for the Committee to actually see what it is like on the ground, if at all possible, please

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:19:05

we're just checking on the rules on that one, so please bear with us with any other Councillor I'd like to ask any questions or comments on this particular item, Councillor Polly Blake more than Councillor Mike Morgan.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:19:20

thank you Chair, and it was on the same subject early on the on the flood risk issue, so given that it's in or the proposed site is in Flood Zone 3 region, I wondered if we shouldn't look be looking at options to have some soft landscaping at the front rather than expanse of hardstanding for four parked cars as currently proposed because although I can see the argument in a rural location that that parking is required, it would appear that given the circumstances and given that flood risk some accommodation for soft landscaping would be preferable.

David Campbell - 1:20:00

yes, we can certainly pick that up with the with with the applicant, I mean, the site is largely outstanding at the moment to the front to the front of it, but we could

perhaps note, by virtue by way of an informative that the committee would like to see as part of a landscaping scheme, some soft landscaping at the front of the property, obviously that wouldn't be able to interfere with the parking spaces but if there is an opportunity to achieve that then I'm sure that's something we could pick up by that Lancaster landscaping condition.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:20:31

I was going to make a similar point, which is just one example of how well we think alike, but don't discuss it beforehand.

now I wonder whether, with the the issues about hardstandings, weather and I think this came up in the previous application actually about permeability of these services, and whether that's something that we should be suggesting more often rather than just thinking it's gonna be a concrete hardstanding, there are other solutions available that could be used that allow the water to drain away better.

thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:21:01

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:21:07

on the suggestion of a site visits, the Constitution covers this and I haven't had chance to go through it in detail, but from a quick scan. There's a couple of points. First of all, Members should only agree to a site visit if they believe that it is of significant value to doing so and a substantial benefit to doing so, and we would have to carry out in accordance a number of procedures. I think crucially, if Members thought a Site visit was necessary, it would be along the similar lines of seeking to go back and talk to an applicant about their proposals, as you would have to defer decisions, defer a decision to take and undertake a site visit and then come and bring it back to the next available Committee after that, so which have a delay this proposal, but Members would have to vote on deferral in the first place to undertake a site visit, or so we'd have to hear the first

motion first.

and then we'd have to hear the second one, I think, crucially, it might be worthwhile officers touching on the flooding matters, because clearly that is a matter of concern, and I understand that's been unlocked because other members have discussed it at previous.

applications in close proximity to this one, and it was previously been discussed both at this site on appeal and at the neighboring site on appeal, so it might be worthwhile just touching on some of the key points, and I look to my colleague Mr. Campbell to take you through that.

David Campbell - 1:22:29

yeah, thank you, I think that the first point just to bear in mind, is that this the previous application went to appeal and was considered by the Inspector he focused on the Council's sequential test, so while this is in a floodplain large parts of the Romney Marsh character area are also in a in a floodplain zones 2 and 3,

for the purposes of flooding in the Council, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, the character areas are split into the district, is split into three areas we've got the the urban areas of Posen and High, they've got the area in B and you've got the the Romney Marsh so peak the character area that we're looking at here is just the Romney Marsh the reason why we do that is because,

we do want some investment into the housing stock of the Romney Marsh area

so we think that's important.

so the Inspector with him did comment on that last time round, the applicants have done a an additional piece of work on this sequential test which had found out that therein have established that there aren't that many alternative sites he didn't go through and carry out what's known as the exceptions test on that occasion because he concluded it failed the

a sequential test, but the Environment Agency have not objected to this application and they believe with flood resilient measures which the applicant has proposed in his flood risk assessment, this could be made safe, they've also pointed out that the existing building does have bedrooms on the ground floor, whereas this proposal would see the more elevated to first floor level which would be a benefit there is of course,

two houses rather than one the other points us to point out, on the the other, when up close appeal is that the Inspector did consider the Council's sequential test and exceptions test processes when he considered that appeal and found that.

he did he didn't take any issue with how how we did that, so in terms of the exceptions tests, I'm not sure.

what we could say was different about this current application, and then there was Donna Whiteway, it would be unacceptable, but the Inspector found will look close to be to be acceptable, the applicant, as part of the sequential test, also looked at whether there'd be any differences between this site and the others but again didn't identify any any material differences so on that basis we do think it's acceptable on those grounds.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:25:03

Councillor Goode, Kingsmoor, recommendation

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:25:07

it is is, this has been going on 22 22 a couple of years, obviously so it has been backwards and forwards with the planners and the applicant.

excellent and the light softness or garage, so you know it's it's been crossed eyes dot T's lot, sorry, we got two controversial properties on either side that have been sorted so hence my

proposal for is to get fully aware of everything that's been.

cost and died, thank you, thank you, so we have a proposal to accept

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:25:39

the officer's recommendation, and I would like to add again thanking from what the Committee has said, that we would like an informative regarding the soft landscaping at the front should this proposal for we will then discuss going on to the declaration and the site visit.

Mrs Sue Lewis - 1:25:59

didn't actually have a proposal seconder for that that one Councillor Cooper didn't propose it, so if you I don't know, if he's Councillor

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:26:09

prepared, would you like to propose that, can I propose that we go for a site visit on the basis of, among other things, there was an objection by Tim Chase Parish Council,

as mentioned in the report about overlooking, given the second property and well away way, and in addition, the these, the so-called mitigation measures that are being placed and the roof.

the height of the building is at least one metre higher than subsequent properties, but I do feel, irrespective of the building, has been mentioned in respect of Willow Way, that if Members actually conduct the site visit, they will form their own opinion from what they see. So what you're actually saying, Councillor Cooper, is you would like this deferred yes, in order for a sound decision being taken, do you have a seconder, please?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:26:57

Councillor Walker, so we're going to the first proposal, which is to accept the officer's recommendation with the informative on the soft landscaping, so all those in favour.

those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:20

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:25

the application is carried, thank you.

9 23/1001/FH - Block E, Hurricane Way, Hawkinge, Folkestone, CT18 7SS

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:33

so councillors were on to the last application for the evening, which is 23 dashed 1 0 0 1 dash F H, which has blocked a hurricane White Hawkinge in Folkestone who struggled do we have any updates, please?

Mr Robert Allan - 1:27:48

thank you, Chair, no updates.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:54

and we also have no speakers on this one, so it's over to your Councillors, Councillor Thomas.

thank you Chair broke up.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:28:01

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:28:05

yeah, thank you Chair. Well, the officers have gone away and done exactly what we asked them to do. In September we've been provided with a comprehensive marketing report, so I'd like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation of approval of this application.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:28:24

Thank you. Thank you and Councillor Caine has just seconded with anyone else like to speak before we go to the vote, Councillor Blackmore, thank you Chair. It was just a question rarely and because

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:28:34

I completely agree with Councillor Thomas on the job that we asked to be done has been done, but I was interested to see that.

there was an issue of contaminated land, which wasn't raised at the September 5th committee meeting, but seems to be part of this appraisal, and I'm wondering why that has come in at this stage and having not been mentioned sooner.

Mr Robert Allan - 1:28:58

thank you, Chair, we received comments from the contaminated land consultant that just said is as a precautionary measure, whereas the change in circumstance ii is potential, obviously if it's it goes with recommendation 4.

receptors are humans moving into the site, then we precautionary approaches is preferable, so they need to have that condition imposed.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:29:28

if no other Councillor would like to speak, we have one proposal that is to accept the planning officer's recommendation, can I see all those in favour, please.

that is carried unanimously, thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:29:43

and then the last item, which is due to noting, basically is part of the information that we're trying to share with the Committee, so that you have a wider view on things, would you like to just introduce it, Mr Lloyd?

10 Appeal Decisions Received

thank you, Chair could even go home once again, meeting Councillors, this is a simple sort of summary of the key decisions that have happened in the last month or so, where we've had them through,

we had the Pemberton Court decision.

some of the that, I think, the crucial one is the which I draw your attention to his little stone in this outstanding application 39 Victoria Road West.

in that particular case, it wasn't allocated sites.

where Members had granted an outline planning application for up to 80 dwellings, it came in as a reserved matters, application for 80 dwellings and members resolved to refuse the application.

officers at the time advised members against it suggested areas where we would suggest they do not refuse it and suggest why we did, unfortunately, we lost the appeal.

but because of the decision that was taken and the reasons for refusal, we were able to at least give a good account of ourselves as to why we thought there was some harm, which avoided costs, which of course is quite crucial and it comes back to I think it was on a previous agenda where we talked about potentially the development of a takeaway restaurants at junction 12 were in a different circumstance.

we appeal the cost, what went against us and the applicant was given a costs award because we couldn't justify our reasons for refusal, so a crucial one, and I think there's some interesting discussions in the I think ultimately I won't want to dwell on this too much, the inspector does make comments on the committee discussion that took place at that time and I'd draw your attention to that. I'd have a read of that obviously,

the majority of this committee is now different, but the transcript of the Committee was passed to the Inspector as part of the Council's unreasonable behaviour and the expected as the whilst he didn't grant the costs because officers could justify the reason for refusal while at least demonstrate harm. He did find concern with the behaviour of the committee members and the discussion that took place. Crucially, Members arriving at a decision before there'd been any discussion of the harm and things being done in the reverse order, so I think there's some lessons for us all there going forward and then I think this is an important one for yourselves of we've taken an appeal enforcement notice, which was appealed against to traveller and gypsy sites and the Inspector has found in favour that enforcement notice has been upheld and working with the portfolio holder for enforcement. We move into clean no sites up and get them back into their previous date in due course.

happy to take any questions, do we have any questions Councillors?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:40

I'm saying no, can I take this report has noted them please.

thank you, that is the end of from today's licensing and planning committee, thank you very much very detailed, conversation and very

Webcast Finished - 1:33:01

detailed decisions, so thank you very much safe journey home and stable.

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 20 February 2024, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting