Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 16th April 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
Mr Alex Baker
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 19/03/2024 Planning and Licensing Committee

Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 2

4 23/2005/FH - 119 Downs Road, Folkestone, CT19 5PT

Share this agenda point

Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 20
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 21
Slide 22
Microphone Forty
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Microphone Forty
Slide 65
Slide 66
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 86
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Microphone Forty
Slide 90
Slide 91
Slide 92
Slide 93
Slide 94
Slide 95
Slide 96
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Slide 101
Slide 102
Slide 103
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 104
Slide 105
Slide 106
Slide 107
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 108
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Slide 113
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Slide 122
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 123
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Slide 128
Slide 129
Slide 130
Slide 131
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 132
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 133
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Slide 137
Slide 138
Slide 139
Slide 140
Slide 141
Slide 142
Slide 143
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 152
Slide 153
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 159
Slide 160
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 161
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 162
Slide 163
Slide 164
Slide 165
Slide 166
Slide 167
Cllr Jackie Meade
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 168
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Slide 176
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Slide 181
Slide 182
Slide 183
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 184
Cllr Belinda Walker
Slide 185
Slide 186
Slide 187
Slide 188
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 197
Slide 198
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 199
Slide 200
Slide 201
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Slide 209
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Slide 218
Slide 219
Slide 220
Slide 221
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Slide 226
Slide 227
Slide 228
Slide 229
Slide 230
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Polly Blakemore
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
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 242
Slide 243
Slide 244
Slide 245
Slide 246
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Slide 253
Slide 254
Slide 255
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 256
Slide 257
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Slide 265
Slide 266
Slide 267
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270
Slide 271
Slide 272
Slide 273
Slide 274
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 275
Slide 276
Slide 277
Slide 278
Slide 279
Slide 280
Slide 281
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Slide 285
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 286
Slide 287
Slide 288
Ms Jemma West
Slide 289
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 290
Slide 291
Slide 292
Slide 293
Slide 294
Slide 295
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 296
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Slide 300
Slide 301
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 302
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 303

5 23/0719/FH - Plot H Mountfield Road, Land rear Plot 15, Collins Road, New Romney

Share this agenda point

6 23/1326/FH - Land at Hurricane Way, Hawkinge, CT18 7SS

Share this agenda point

Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Slide 307
Slide 308
Microphone Forty
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
Slide 325
Slide 326
Slide 327
Slide 328
Slide 329
Slide 330
Slide 331
Slide 332
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
Slide 351
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 352
Slide 353
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 354
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 355
Slide 356
Slide 357
Slide 358
Slide 359
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 360
Slide 361
Slide 362
Slide 363
Slide 364
Slide 365
Slide 366
Slide 367
Slide 368
Slide 369
Slide 370
Slide 371
Slide 372
Slide 373
Slide 374
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 375
Slide 376
Slide 377
Slide 378
Slide 379
Slide 380
Slide 381
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 382
Slide 383
Slide 384
Slide 385
Slide 386
Slide 387
Slide 388
Slide 389
Slide 390
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 391
Slide 392
Slide 393
Slide 394
Slide 395
Slide 396
Slide 397
Slide 398
Slide 399
Slide 400
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 401
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 402
Slide 403
Slide 404
Slide 405
Slide 406
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 407
Slide 408
Slide 409
Slide 410
Slide 411
Slide 412
Slide 413
Slide 414
Slide 415
Slide 416
Slide 417
Slide 418
Slide 419
Slide 420
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 421
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Slide 422
Slide 423
Slide 424
Slide 425
Slide 426
Slide 427
Slide 428
Slide 429
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 430
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 431
Slide 432
Slide 433
Slide 434
Slide 435
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 436
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 437
Slide 438
Slide 439
Slide 440
Slide 441
Slide 442
Slide 443
Slide 444
Slide 445
Slide 446
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 447
Slide 448
Cllr Belinda Walker
Slide 449
Slide 450
Slide 451
Slide 452
Slide 453
Slide 454
Slide 455
Slide 456
Slide 457
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 458
Slide 459
Slide 460
Slide 461
Slide 462
Slide 463
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 464
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 465
Slide 466
Slide 467
Slide 468
Slide 469
Slide 470
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 471
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 472
Slide 473
Slide 474
Slide 475
Slide 476
Slide 477
Slide 478
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 479
Slide 480
Slide 481
Slide 482
Slide 483
Slide 484
Slide 485
Slide 486
Slide 487
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 488
Slide 489
Slide 490
Slide 491
Slide 492
Slide 493
Slide 494
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 495
Slide 496
Slide 497
Slide 498
Slide 499
Slide 500
Slide 501
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 502
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 503
Slide 504
Slide 505
Slide 506
Slide 507
Slide 508
Slide 509
Slide 510
Slide 511
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 512
Slide 513
Slide 514
Mr Robert Allan
Cllr Jackie Meade
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 515
Slide 516
Mr Robert Allan
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 517
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 518
Slide 519
Slide 520
Slide 521
Slide 522
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 523
Slide 524
Slide 525
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 526
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 527
Slide 528
Slide 529
Slide 530
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 531
Slide 532
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 533
Slide 534
Slide 535
Slide 536
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 537
Slide 538
Slide 539
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 540
Slide 541
Slide 542
Slide 543
Slide 544
Slide 545
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 546
Slide 547
Cllr Jackie Meade
Mr Alex Baker
Slide 548
Slide 549
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 550
Slide 551
Slide 552
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 553
Slide 554
Slide 555

8 Y19/1378/FH - Elham Methodist Church, High Street, Elham, CT4 6TA

Share this agenda point

Slide 556
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 557
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 558
Slide 559
Slide 560
Microphone Forty
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
Slide 588
Slide 589
Slide 590
Slide 591
Slide 592
Slide 593
Slide 594
Slide 595
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 596
Slide 597
Cllr Anita Jones
Slide 598
Slide 599
Slide 600
Slide 601
Slide 602
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
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
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 627
Slide 628
Slide 629
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 630
Slide 631
Slide 632
Slide 633
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 634
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 635
Slide 636
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 637
Slide 638
Slide 639
Slide 640
Slide 641
Slide 642
Slide 643
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 644
Slide 645
Slide 646
Slide 647
Slide 648
Slide 649
Slide 650
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 651
Slide 652
Slide 653
Slide 654
Slide 655
Slide 656
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 657
Slide 658
Slide 659
Slide 660
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 661
Slide 662
Slide 663
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 664

5 23/0719/FH - Plot H Mountfield Road, Land rear Plot 15, Collins Road, New Romney

Share this agenda point

Slide 665
Slide 666
Slide 667
Slide 668
Slide 669
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 670
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 671
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 672
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 673
Slide 674
Slide 675
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 676
Slide 677
Slide 678
Slide 679
Slide 680
Slide 681
Slide 682
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 683
Slide 684
Slide 685
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 686
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 687
Slide 688
Slide 689
Slide 690
Slide 691
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 692
Slide 693
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 694
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 695
Slide 696

7 24/0101/FH - 126 Dover Road, Folkestone,CT20 1NN

Share this agenda point

Slide 697
Slide 698
Slide 699
Slide 700
Mr Robert Allan
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
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
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 733
Slide 734
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 735
Slide 736
Slide 737
Slide 738
Slide 739
Slide 740
Slide 741
Slide 742
Slide 743
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 744
Slide 745
Cllr Belinda Walker
Slide 746
Slide 747
Slide 748
Slide 749
Slide 750
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 751
Slide 752
Slide 753
Slide 754
Slide 755
Slide 756
Slide 757
Slide 758
Slide 759
Slide 760
Slide 761
Slide 762
Slide 763
Slide 764
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 765
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 766
Slide 767
Slide 768
Slide 769
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 770
Slide 771
Slide 772
Slide 773
Slide 774
Slide 775
Slide 776
Slide 777
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 778
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 779
Slide 780
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 781
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 782
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 783
Slide 784
Slide 785
Slide 786
Slide 787
Slide 788
Slide 789
Slide 790
Slide 791
Slide 792
Cllr Jackie Meade
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 793
Slide 794
Slide 795
Slide 796
Slide 797
Slide 798
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 799
Slide 800
Slide 801
Slide 802
Slide 803
Slide 804
Slide 805
Slide 806
Slide 807
Slide 808
Slide 809
Slide 810
Slide 811
Slide 812
Slide 813
Slide 814
Slide 815
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 816
Slide 817
Slide 818
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 819
Slide 820
Slide 821
Mr Alex Baker
Slide 822
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 823
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 824
Slide 825
Slide 826
Slide 827
Slide 828
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.

1 Apologies for Absence

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:05

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee this evening, this meeting will be webcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the Chamber for members officers and other speaking at the meeting. It is important that the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room, my head, you, would anyone with a mobile phone, please switch it to silent as it can be very 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 some members of Chair of this Committee. I'd 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 planning applications before you, so we'll move on, do we have any apologies for absence? Please?

Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:30

Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:33

thank you, Chair, we've received apologies from Councillor Fuller.

Thank you Councillors, do we have any declarations of interest on the applications tonight please?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:41

I'm looking around and I seemed on thank you.

1 a) Supplementary information

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:46

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:54

You have in your pack the minutes of the meeting held on the 19th of March 2024 Monday, I signed them as a correct record, please.

4 23/2005/FH - 119 Downs Road, Folkestone, CT19 5PT

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:04

thank you. So we go on to our first application this evening, which is 23 dash to 0 0 5 dash F H 1 1 9 Down's Road in Folkestone. Do we have

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:02:18

any updates, please? We do have updates. Chair Members are advised that an additional letter has been received following finalising the agenda for this evening. The letter raises concerns regarding wildlife on site flooding or surface water drainage, and overlooking and impact on name neighbours, and Members are advised that full consideration of all concerns, including these matters raised, are set out within the officer's report is noted that concerns have also been raised with regards to the levelling of the rear garden and outbuilding. These matters are not subject of this current planning application before us and therefore are not for consideration this evening.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:58

thank you very much and we have three speakers on this this evening, each speaker will have three minutes and I will indicate to you at the end of three minutes to please finish your sentence, so can we have the first speaker please, which is Gary Constable who is a local resident to speak against the application if you'd like to come forward pleaser,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:30

thank you, and your three minutes will start when you do.

So I hold on those that complete your Mike isn't on.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:38

Microphone Forty - 0:03:47

I represent the residents of 1 1 5 1 1 7 1 2 1 1 2 3 Downs Road.

This is a high risk surface water flood area Mr Tancred from Ken Council has raised the need for more training the planners, and it says, should consider more than just the flood zone when assessing flood risk, can the committee confirmed the necessary training has taken place on this application? Southern Water are also concerned with the flooding and drainage,

Have the drainage of foundation and putin's plans been seen both Building control Shepway District Council's surface of flood risk assessment state. Any potential flow paths through the site are not obstructed, such as I could cause the water to bond with the raising of the garden. The house sits in a hollow with no runoff area, the drainage plans are essential. There was a refusal of a two storey side, extension at 37 Down, Drag Dolphin drought and objection was the house. Foundations and waterproofing on the boundary will be structurally compromised. Any damage will not manifest itself until the extension is complete, which would make it nearly impossible to rectify without major works on to be undertaken.

The officer has made a fundamental error in siting of the property on the original plans they stayed the gardens run in a south-easterly direction, a bearing of 135 degrees, the actual Baron is 240 degrees. Is the committee content with the officer making an error of over 25%? There are no hip to gable extensions on buildings in the area, with the side elevations coming close to one to one and the extra height of the roof line. On the rear extension and the hipped gable extension. This would severely reduce the light through the side elevation window and caused severe overshadowing as the sun would be behind this proposal, a significant percentage of time all year round. As 1 1 9 noise south south-east of 1 to 1, the 25 degree rule from the side elevation window has been ignored. Will the Committee complete a light survey under the right to light and BA 2 0 9

the officers states it is 1.1 5 metres from the conservatory edge to the centre of the rear elevation kitchen window at 12.59, it's 1 metre this puts the 45 degree rule into disrepute into dispute on the boundary between 1 2 1 1 1 9

This role has also been disregarded on the site between 1 1 7 and 1 1 9. Is this allowed the Juliet balcony would result in the loss of privacy in what should be the most private part of the garden? We have already lost a privacy at the bottom of the garden due to the two storey building there. The decking area to the rear of the extension would overlook the gardens of 1 1 7 and 1 1 5. Their garden levels are much lower. Now that's 1 1 9 has been raised. If this proposal is to be passed, please issue an article forward to stop the health changing from C3 to C4 use. Everyone agrees it should be a family home. Thank you. Thank you very much

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:05

And our next speaker is the ward councillor Councillor Adrian Lockwood, if you care to come forward, you will have three minutes from Aniston.

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:07:17

Thank you, thank you Chair, and thank you to all the team for putting this together.

I was just going to say that the proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale and location within the site, and therefore its prominence in the street scene, would amount to a cramped, incongruous and discordant development, harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and to the visual amenities of the street scene.

This is contrary to places and policies Local Plan HB 1 and HB 8, by virtue of no other side extensions on this street, extended hip to gable and beyond the original boundary line.

This would set a precedent for this street.

And we've seen we've had mention of a refusal last week of a similar extension on dolphins Road, for that reason, this would amount to an overbearing structure which would give rise to significant harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of adjacent dwellings, contrary to policies HB 1 and HB 8 of the adopted places and policies local plan.

2020, and I I, I will admit, to having stolen most of these words from a previous application on the same street which was refused so written by people in this team, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:03

And our third and final speaker is Mr Ryan Miles.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:08

For the agent to speak in support of the application, if you'd like to come forward, sir.

That the homeowner to speak from the application you have three minutes through many starts.

hello, I'm on on the high murmur of 1 1 North Downs Road. I've come

Microphone Forty - 0:09:26

here today to speak on behalf of the person who has done my application because I felt it would be better for myself to come over and talk about a property. There's been a lot of complaints, mainly about it not been a family home. Today I've brought my son, who's going to live there myself with me, my partner and eventually it might be. 1 am

She is now suffering with dementia stage three and as a big noise diagnosed with Parkinson's, so eventually this House is going to be familiar more family, no one else a lot to just raise that there is houses on the same road we've hit to Gable one of them being for Down's Road, the property opposite my property number 82 has a double storey side, extension wrapped round, numbers 78 50 and 70

79 also had the same, the vertical cladding as had been approved, and more property has also been approved on number 1 5 5 Townes Road for vertical cladding.

Of intersect from, thank you, thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:10:37

So, councillors over to you, do you have any questions on any issues or any ideas that you'd like to raise at this point, please?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:10:54

Councillor Goddard, thank you Chair good evening, obviously a couple

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:10:59

of conflicting stores, obviously the applicant says for nigh to 78 50 79, obviously we got Georgia on every on Iran merits rather tableside, it's not done well, I personally think this looks better with this no stall than the old slow,

I respect the comments from the Niven Councillor Lockwood.

but lack of say, or you know, the the applicants said, it's gonna be a family home, there's been whispers of Airbnb, B&B and all sorts of issues down there, but of Hassall think it does look better, you are obviously I'll think is the wet wound

but lots of bearing in mind we can't really speak about lies because you know not, so, have you got to judge everything on him, no merits somebody else mentioned dolphin float.

Sorry, but outside personally, I'll think it's it's it's it will look better with with the double hit there, obviously applicants work with a team named neighbour either teams pulses, and I can't see too many issues.

Thank you, Councillor Goddard, causing me to close.

we have a president, we have a seconder.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:12:11

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:12:14

Councillor Landsbanki wished to speak, yes, I too think it's well. A lot of this work could go ahead without this application, so it just seems to me a sensible way of of amending it to suit, perhaps the the applicant at this particular time. You know there's there's lots of comments made about other properties and about comments taken from a previous application that, as we all know and plan in each application, has to be taken and considered on its own merits and so wish, and it shouldn't be set as a precedent either, so I'm happy to. Secondly, on the application

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:12:58

Councillor Collins, we thank you, Councillor Kane, I've got a number

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:12:59

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:13:01

of questions, there is already an extension at the bottom of the garden that backs onto the allotments am I correct in fact, when I looked at the aerial picture of this yesterday, it's all concrete wages that the rainwater go, it's going to sit there and go down onto the allotments.

It's on the boundary of the allotment we've got a double storey extension at the bottom.

If we need extra space, surely that can be used for extra family space, we don't need to have the whole of everybody else's house a shadow by this month, everybody's got to live in that pod and they've got to live there happily and they'll just fail it is it's overbearing when there's already a double storey extension at the bottom how many more extensions to this property need?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:13:56

The applicant already has planning permission for a side and rear extension, this application is amalgamating and making a minor changes to what has already been approved and combining the two different applications. The outbuilding to the rear of the application site is not subject to this application and has already got planning. Permission is not something that we can consider as part of this proposal in combination absolutely, but we also have to bear in mind that if we are to turn this went down, if Members are minded to refuse tonight they have a fallback position and have planning permission already for a sigh and hip to gable extension and the rear extension as well.

Councillor Thomas

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:39

Thank you Chair.

one of the

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:14:45

comments that we've had tonight is about overlooking in in the report, in section 7 of the report, it talks about proposal, harm of residential amenity that there are conditions, I believe, which are actually.

mitigation against some of the overlooking is that correct.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:15:10

you are correct condition 4, requests that the side and rear extension first floor windows on the side, north-western elevation be fitted with obscure glazing.

Councillor Michael.

Thank you Chair.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:25

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:15:26

so yes, planning permission was granted for the hipped gable extension, but that's been extended by about a metre. I don't consider that to be a minor amendment to it. I think this is too large an extension, it is overbearing, I think I'd also like some got, there's been lots of comments about the 45 degree angle and whether this has been observed or not, and I wonder where, if we could have some clarification on some of the points that one of the speakers raised, please, thank you. Certainly, are we able to clarify? Yes, I can

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:58

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:16:00

clarify, and I'll do my best, I'll take each property at a turn, and so under 7 point

1 0 of the officer's report, it is acknowledged that the development falls within the 45 degree angle and with the closest window from which the measurement was taken.

Forms of glazing the front door of a non habitable room and therefore it was concluded that the impact in terms of shadowing would not be to the detriment of neighbours' amenity Beth 1 1 7, stands Road 4 1 2 1 Downs Road is acknowledged that the extensions before within the 45 degree angle set out within Policy HB 8,

It states that the garden runs north-east to south-west and that the pitch of the proposed rear roof would slope away from this neighbour, which would lessen the visual impact and allowing light to spill over the roof, the space separation of 2.4 metres would be retained between the proposed development and the rear facing habitable kitchen room of this neighbour and as a result it was considering concluded that would not give rise to unneighbourly forms of development in terms of overbearing or overshadowing.

Thank you.

Councillor Brenda, Walker

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:20

I had three questions with police notes when reduced to one thanks to

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:17:24

Councillor Thomson, Councillor Blakemore, who asked part of the question, but the other thing is regarding the first speakers who spoke about some water, perhaps ponding just wondered if that's being taken into consideration.

Especially given the heavy rainfall we're having and will continue to have.

thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:17:45

under other matters of the officers report, it does state under 7.20 matters relating to flood risk and surface water drainage, and clarified that the that you know this, this is a minor householder development to enlarge an existing property.

As a result, the applicant is not required to submit a Flood Risk Assessment or mitigation plan, the design and construction would be covered as part of any building control regulations procedure, the PR, the procedure includes the provision of satisfactory surface water drainage arrangements, so there was no requirement to apply a planning condition in this regard.

Thank you, Councillor Tony Cooper.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:26

thank you Chair, because actually question we've heard Councillor Lock

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:18:33

would dare say they will distribute in breach of policy HD 1 and HD 8, in what way is this development not in breach of those two policies, please?

I think the report sets out why we consider the the development, not

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:18:50

the country, to to those two policies I mean if, if you have specific concerns with any particular criteria of the two policies, be it better to respond on that, but the the report looks at the impact on visual amenity that's and the impact on residential amenity and concludes,

and particularly with regard to the the previously approved development at the site that this wouldn't be significantly harmful over and above that, and if it might assist members, we do have the plans, the elevations from the previously approved schemes on site to hand if we stop the presentation and we can we can put those up on screen and we can show,

Show you, Members, for, for the sake of clarity, what the changes between the the the development, the subject of the lawful development certificate, the first approved planning, application and the current application, so our policy on vitamin pain, who can take two and the plan before you is the current scheme and I'm sorry it's quite small.

it's it's all on one plan that's specific.

attention to the front elevation, which is the bottom second in and the side elevation, which is the bottom third in from the left-hand side, OK.

these are the this is the LDC panel, fill the screen, you will note that the dashed line here depicts what can be done under permitted development in terms of hip to gable, and then we've got the side elevation, which shows what was granted under the Planning application in 2023 the double gable feature and a slightly lower ridge height to the rear.

And then this application is this story, this plan and shows what they've got planning permission for under the 2023 planning permission, which again shows what can be achieved under permitted development rights, that shows the rear extension, with the double gable feature and a lower ridge height, but to confirm if I can just go back to the current plan once more,

that the ridge height difference is only 0.4 1 metres, so it's less than half a metre higher under this current scheme, and has previously been approved.

I hope that provides some clarity.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:40

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:21:41

Thank you, Councillor Polly Blakenhall, thank you Chair, I wonder if what we have here is that the sheer impact of the cumulative effects of these different elements of extension, so I accept that the side and rear extension have already got planning but of course now we have the addition of the of the front extension and the increase in size of the hip to gable extension by 1 metre, I think this all has an impact on the domination of the street scene added to which the timber cladding I know I know it's not the only property in Down's Road.

Which would have timber cladding, but I think it all has an impact on that streetscene domination.

Thank you, we then, Councillor Thomas yeah, thank you Chair.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:22:28

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:22:32

It couldn't, but she could. I just ask any officers report on 7.2 3 and again it was mentioned by one of the neighbours about issuing an article 4 direction. Could you just give us a little bit more information about that about it, because it says here that conditions restrictions on developments to only be used where necessary, understand that relevant to the development and reasonable, and it says the request fails to meet these criteria. So could you just elaborate that on on a little bit more, because that seems to be one of the things which is dominating the discussion about Is this gonna be a family home, is gonna be HMO at some time in the future, so if we could just have some some more on that place, thank you

I think it's important I just a little bit of information, any

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:23:13

property, any domestic property can become an HMO for six or less without the need for planning, permission, six or less persons, I should clarify that anything larger than that would need planning permission in its own right, therefore putting a condition on something that would require planning permission anyway.

Isn't considered reasonable and they can't change the property to a C4 use without the need for planning permission, so we would consider that, should that happen.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:23:46

Just just to the for the sake of of privacy members, in terms of change you used to see, for that is the use of any dwelling as an HMO for between three to six residents, in that that's a permitted change from a dwelling, anything above that is a sui generis use.

And you'll note there's an item elsewhere on the agenda tonight for for an HMO for seven units, I think the issue here with an article 4 direction is that, if we, if we to words, do so here, without any real,

evidence of that's the intention of the applicant, I think we'd be doing it on every single dwelling, where we grant planning permission for a domestic extension, and in my experience I know you know I readily accept that, but this isn't always the case but where where someone is is proposing significant outlay financially in in terms of build costs, it's unlikely then that they would convert the property to what essentially is.

accommodation are at the lower end, which doesn't generate as much rent, so I think it's first of all I think it's pretty unlikely that this would be used as an HMO and secondly, like I said, we haven't got any real evidence that that's the intention of the African and thirdly, if we were to do so here, we would do so on every other dwelling, the subject of an application for domestic extensions within the district.

Thank you for that clarification thanks.

Councillor Gareth

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:25:24

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:25:25

And just just to add from Mr Baillie's excellent point, obviously the applicant was here is eight or nine, he did say his family home, possibly an elderly, relative relative, that's the order that could obviously moving.

We have a personal aphid door is growing and I wish I have several bathrooms, you know, it's certainly help the Sharon and swimming in the morning so BA, and again I would like to thank Mrs. Pin for the pictures of the the planes there as well which were quite helpful thank you.

Would any other Council I'd like to speak on this item, I am seeing

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:00

nobody, so we have one proposal and that is to agree the planning permission as set out.

And recommended by the Planning officers, can I see all those in favour, please.

All thank you all those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:24

any abstentions now.

Ms Jemma West - 0:26:37

Chair that 6 in favour, 5 against and 0 abstentions, so that's carried.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:42

Thank you that planning permission has been granted, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:52

so we move on the next one we're dealing with this evening is 23 dash 1 3 2 6 dash F H, which is the land at hurricane Wayne Woking's do we have any updates, please?

Thank you, Chair nowadays.

5 23/0719/FH - Plot H Mountfield Road, Land rear Plot 15, Collins Road, New Romney

6 23/1326/FH - Land at Hurricane Way, Hawkinge, CT18 7SS

Mr Robert Allan - 0:27:08

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:12

Thank you very much, but we have two speakers on this on this evening, our first speaker is Mr Graham Mitchelston, who is the Chair of the Residents' Association, to speak against the application, could you come forward, please, sir?

And you will have three minutes from when you start, thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:27:41

Good evening I represent 130 residents who live on Tone Gardens. As Members will note in the report plot, 1 has been built in accordance with the planning permission granted, planning permission clearly show that Plot 1 was part of the scheme and included in the master plan there was never any mention that it was unsuitable for a retirement village use.

Solemn, so why is it now many people over the age of 55 would like a larger property, especially as working from home is now so prevalent.

Over 50% of the houses I have two or more storeys on the development already.

There was no mention that it would be sold and restricted at any time.

To maintain the integrity of the scheme, all properties are sold on long leases, interestingly, the marketing of Phase 1 included plotline for sale, but since it's being used as a marketing suite, we assume that you must have had planning permission for the shoes.

95% of Plot 1 is within a secure gated area.

its use necessitated as its orientation towards hurricane way to ensure that security could be maintained when poachers came to visit by appointment only.

penalty intend to divest themselves of the village marketing was stalled at a failed attempt to sell the site to a single purchaser, a fresh sales drive is now underway, slashing prices by 30%, except for plot 1, preferring to change the planning permission to enable them to have caught bottles and its disposal.

now show no intention to build out the last phase, leaving us with an eyesore of concrete and steel, we are not only concerned with noise from children as suggested by officers, but the activities from all age groups such as loud music, bogs parties etc are a recipe for compensation any impact will be most keenly felt by residents in aspirin Y.

especially plot to the site claimed, the report shows it is only 1.5 metres from the garden of Plot, 1.

We are currently protected by mutually binding lease terms to prevent excessive noise and anti social behaviour by making Plot 1 an unrestricted property, these protections will be lost, the officers suggest that the property could be an HMO, even if it were a restricted property, this is untrue at least only allows properties to be used as a private residence and no subletting is permitted.

We came to the village to live a quiet, peaceful life, free from worry towers to a security environment in their later years, this application would take this away.

we have a mixed community made up from the most able to most to those requiring high levels of care, and some, sadly, at end of life, it is the most vulnerable for whom we are most concerned.

It is not just noise and other activities that are the problem, but it is also the anticipation of what might happen because he worried and distress that will seriously impact on the mental wellbeing of residents.

To request that members reject this application, a family home in this locality is not compatible with the retirement village, thank you, sir, you've had your three minutes, thank you very much.

Do we have speakers in full here, please?

No, I don't think the second speaker has turned up, so I will come over to Councillors, please do you have any questions, anything that you'd like to raise?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:22

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:29

Thank you classic question, we've just had definitely George

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:31:34

Residents' Association, it was basically shared, among other things, is a feed under the state of fun would feed off climbing material considerations and objectives.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:32:01

No, in short, I've dealt with numerous sites where there has actually been criminal acts going on on the site and the bar for fear of crime, but becoming a material consideration is is set very, very high, I think, by by planning inspectors and by the courts that one example I can think of where it was taken into account.

was a Gypsy and Traveller site where the occupiers were?

I think they were either convicted or very, very strongly, suspected of being involved in serious crime, so I think, whilst as officers we we appreciate that you know this, this application has given rise to very strong feelings amongst community and fear of crime in this instance in my view wouldn't amount to a material consideration that,

But would warrant refusal or stand up to scrutiny on appeal, particularly as it's what's been proposed is simply use as a dwelling house.

can I ask a question?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:14

When a plot of land is given permission for it to be over 55, it has been sold as dwellings for over 55.

Where do the residents stand on that planning, if we then or the developer, then wants to change a condition on something that is within that plot of land to turn it into a family house, as opposed to an over 55 dwelling?

Because I think this is the crux of the matter here.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:33:53

I mean that that that is the crux of the application in terms of how.

we, as planning department, feel about it, we've reviewed all the issues as set out in the report and consider it acceptable for this one unit.

Obviously, a gentleman who spoke have concerns regarding its lease and the lease that applies to the properties in the development, those that sits outside the planning, planning realm we can deal with that, my covenants and things which have come up before Committee.

to know if that sheds a lot more light, but

I think also, if if.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:34:35

the there clearly seems to be concerned about.

The the Mark II in the manner in which the the properties of local community.

At the the local residents were sold to them, but, as Mr. Allen said, that's that's a private legal matter, and we we can't deal with that as a local planning authority, we can only look at what's before us in the application and whether or not it causes any any material planning harm.

So in terms of the lease or how the properties may have been sold off or marketing material, that isn't something that that this committee is entitled to take into account, you can only look at the material planning considerations inherent in the application before you.

Frankly, and I think that clears the outside of it up, Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:28

Thank you, Chair, is there a specific policy or or that we have with

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:35:35

regards to developments that are the are, the commander, the CCSC, was continuing Care retirement community, is that something that we've that we sort of hang our hat on the we've got a procedure or a policy that covers that specifically, thank you.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:35:56

in terms of the maybe it's.

As set out in the report, there is a requirement for.

Within the the current core strategy for continuing counting see 2 and C3 sort of allocations which see two being, so I'm just gonna find the relevant part, I think it's paragraph 3.6 just below that

sorry, no, it's not apologies, that was in the background for the report.

It is essentially that there's the we we've considered this, and there is an allocation within the Core Strategy coming forward over the lifetime of the plan to 2037 that meets forthcoming need for this one, and so we we planned ahead for that and as the report sets out the loss of this one property with that over 55 which it is to all intents and purposes aside from that condition just a dwelling house, a C3 dwelling house like any other in the district there would be no no harm arising from that.

Councillor Mowat, put it more.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:10

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:37:12

I think going back to the Chair's point about the crux of the argument I could, I could see that argument much more strongly. If we're talking about a dwelling that's within the gated development, it's not it's outside of the the gates of the development, so I struggle to see quite what, even if it sold as a family home, quite what that impact is gonna be on the residents, the other side of those gates, and I think we need family homes and I can't see a problem with if we take the consultancy report on face value that they've struggled to to attract interest in this one. We know that family homes are in demand. I can't see a reason to object to that personally,

thank you, can the officer confirmed that this is actually outside the

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:54

gated community, my understanding was from the report that it was 95% within.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:38:02

if we quickly look at the photo there, you can see the gates to the community on the left-hand side of the picture and the fence that extends from it running round, that wall returns to the side of the dwelling I it's moved now, but so this dwelling sits immediately adjacent to but outside of the actual security gates that all or you know are controlled access gates to the to the accident entrances to the development,

thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Hornsby.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:33

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:38:34

I've been sitting here listening in and thinking now ha, how could we refuse this and I do find it quite difficult because I understand that I have a lot of sympathy with the Speaker, you know they were in a gated community but this actually as as a previous Councillor said is not actually is not actually instigated perimeter so and it's a lovely house this is a really nice house and I do wonder whether people perhaps or downsizing.

would want such a large house so.

I think it's something that.

well, I don't see a reason for turning it down, therefore I move the recommendation.

don't have a seconder.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:23

Councillor Mike Blackmoor, I have small speakers supposed to say, Councillor Belinda Walker.

This is really just just an observation, I am, I know the area and

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:39:34

have all thought, perhaps a slightly strange, where there seems to be both inside and outside at the same time, so it's also been a little bit of a curiosity.

I am just wondering of both the residents re because if it does, it has just passed and goes on the open market, you can't say he was going to buy it, but I'm thinking it possibly will be somebody who is attracted to the fact to live next door to a retirement community and hoping that somebody robot who will be attracted by living the quiet life and not be a disturbance to the neighbours that can't be guaranteed what we addressed to the neighbours have if they do went up with a troublesome neighbour, are they able to to report them to the police, so what would the situation be regarding that?

Mr Robert Allan - 0:40:18

I mean, within within the realms of planning.

It is largely forced to anti-social behavior and working with up to thought, either either the police or extreme end of the scale or the local authority and environmental health department, possibly if there's, if there's a.

Specific noise issue to do with.

sound equipment, for example, which is something we can legislate against but yeah, obviously that's if spats and maybes.

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:48

Thank you, can I put it on, if you look at the secondary Assembly

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:40:56

report, it says the current proposal seeks to disapply condition 12 from the application property at this moment in time, does the property have that provision still on it?

I know one over the age of 55 are below the age of 55 and need a care plan, et cetera is that currently stuck on the property now correct, yes, he would see her ceremony Swan person over the age of 55 residing.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:41:24

then there was any discussion has been taking place with the applicant regarding the change of the property I mean, I'm thinking, for

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:30

example, Members will notice coming into this Chamber here, there is a stairlift at the end, able to allows me to get in these doors and adapting etc. There is nobody is no thought and given by the applicant to actually two.

Any adjustments, etc to make that more suitable for people above their age or you may need a care plan or carers or whatever, but up to the principle of looking after the old people agenda day.

there was a requirement on the original permission showing it says.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:42:04

I'm trying to see finds the paragraph, but it certainly required that each of the homes within the 21 units that were permitted were built to a lifetime homes, standards which allows them to be altered and amended to suit the needs of people as as the age or their needs change this,

often manifests itself as having like wider door frames and better maneuverability inside the property.

space, for example, for putting a lift in a

And those sorts of things, so I mean I I I, I don't know if the property has definitely been built to lifetime home standards, but that was a requirement of the permission.

Thank you for that. I understand that completely, but what I can't understand is within the body of the report itself. It implies that

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:42:49

there is an assumption there, etc etc etc yet when you look on the Council's website and you look at the files of the application, it is sales posted here, among other things that says this is Plot 1, which is within the science, etc etc etc so there's a lot at this moment in time to see the logic of a property being granted original planning permission and yes, all of a sudden, it can be disapplied

I mean, how does that work?

Mean?

In terms of all of a sudden, I mean it, you did it, the permission was

Mr Robert Allan - 0:43:25

granted in 2014, I'm not sure when exactly when it was built out, so it is, it's been in place for for 10 years.

This has operated as the sales and marketing suite for that for the rest of the development which, some of which has come forward here and.

The proposal was the proposal that is in front of us, which were we are a sort of have assessed and as planning officers considered to be compliant with the policies as soon as we have viewed them.

Thank you, Councillor King.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:03

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:44:07

No answer is it inside the gated community or not, and if it is inside, how much of it is inside, this is not clear and the residents from that's that gated community saying it's inside.

Is it inside outside, where is it?

Frankie Chair, it's outside.

I was able to take these photos standing outside of these of the the gates.

we obviously seem to have a slight disagreement, if I could just ask a

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:50

question we have so excuse me, excuse me, please, we have plots 2 and 3 on the map.

Which?

at the end of the report, can you confirm whether they are inside or outside of the gated development, please?

To gain access to those plots, you would have to pass through the

Mr Robert Allan - 0:45:09

security gates.

is it possible to show me with both security gates are then?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:20

I think you will see.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:45:30

Then, if you're able to see the cursor on the screen, all right infiltrate the security gates are here, obviously the red line is the application, property access to this property is via this road you would have to pass these security gates to access these plots here and you'll see the wider development.

To understand, so the very fact that someone doesn't have to pass through the security gates would say that it's not part of this gated

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:03

community because it's not secured from the outside correct.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:46:06

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:09

Councillor Cooper, just one final point in respect of where Plot number 1 is, whereas the parking spaces

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:46:14

In this day and age, I mean families who've got two or three, maybe four cars, if this was actually transferred into a residential development, etc

where would the people park their cars without causing an obstruction to the existing uses and or access will follow the emergency services?

The on the frontage of the property, as you can see, there is a significant area of hardstanding.

Mr Robert Allan - 0:46:39

For four bedroom properties there are, there is a requirement for two car parking spaces which is met by this Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:52

Yeah, thank you, Chair in section 3.5 of the report.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:46:57

It talks about the section 106 planning obligation, is there any requirement if, if condition, 12 is removed that the section 1 or 6 agreement has to be revisited, we're just going in the for the first sentence, the thank you it wouldn't know, because the section 1 0 6

Mr Robert Allan - 0:47:16

obligation doesn't have a package of care within it it just the the controlled.

Over the age of occupants is secured by this condition.

So just for clarification, then.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:30

Condition 12 is the thing which actually says what you have to do and set the set, so you don't need some of the other provisions which are in the Section 106 agreement and is correct.

yeah, I mean, the application is is to do with the stupid, the

Mr Robert Allan - 0:47:48

condition 12 and which has set out in section 3.5, so that that is the consideration, and there is no need to revert back to the 1 0 6 as part of this.

Proposal.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:05

I see no other councillor speaking, so that was it yourself, Councillor Beaumont, that proposed secondary, so so we have a proposer and a seconder, and that's to accept excuse me, I'm catching Hillhead, Collett, Councillor elsewhere.

To accept the officer's recommendation and to allow the change of use all those who favors please raise your hand.

Those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:36

and I believe there are no abstentions.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:42

Mr Alex Baker - 0:48:46

we have seven in favour and four against.

The application has passed, thank you.

8 Y19/1378/FH - Elham Methodist Church, High Street, Elham, CT4 6TA

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:53

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:03

Until the next application, which is why 19 1 3 7 8 dash F H, which is Ealham Methodist Church in the High Street in Elm, do we have any updates, please, thank you, Chair, no update.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:49:17

Thank you, and we have one residents who would like to speak on this

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:21

and that's Mr Broadbottom, if you'd like to come forward, so and you'll have three minutes from when you start, thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:49:35

we live immediately adjacent to the church and submitted detailed objections on the 9th of December 2020 we feel these proposals should be rejected, as they will significantly and detrimentally alter the character and visual appearance of this imposing.

Historic, complex buildings dating from 17 90 in a conservation area and A o n B. I must highlight that the officers report D C L 23 54 before tonight's committee meeting is misleading in that it contains six very serious errors.

Page 93 of the document pack contains a f HDC plan which appears to show the site boundaries this does not correlate with Wren Land Registry document K 9 6 4 0 5 2, which details the eastern boundary, extending only to the front wall KCC Highways maps also show the highway extends to that church wall and includes the cobbled area and access road to Eaton House.

Section 7.3 and 7 7 incorrectly state that the lift will be 4 metres from the KCC highway. The plans clearly show the 3 metre high lift is only 2 metres from the east boundary and virtually in line with the front of the 18 39 church building. Section 7.3 does not consider the impact of the proposed new opening an aluminium glazed door, which will extend to 3 metres above ground level, clearly visible from the highway and neighbouring properties. Section 7 3 also fails to mention that the plans show the main church door panels will be replaced with modern glazing. Section 7 10 incorrectly states that our ancient Flint boundary wall will not be impacted. The passageway at this point is too narrow to accommodate the proposed. All all 800 lift pin walling professionals have advised us that the planned removal of the steps and associated excavations will cause our wall to collapse. Section 7 20 incorrectly advises the Committee that no new sewerage connections are needed. The plans clearly show a new collect connection and inspection cover to be installed in the highway. The significant errors in the report give rise to great concern as to hell carefully. This application has been considered. In any event, the adverse impact of the proposal on the church building and the Eelam conservation area justifies the application being refused.

And I asked that the Committee do indeed refuse the application, thank you, thank you, sir.

We have no other speakers on this side, two Councillors, would anyone

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:35

like to ask any questions Councillor Jones?

I think it is difficult on this one because I love the idea that we're

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:52:44

looking at making the building more accessible to people, and I wouldn't want to stop that, I think it's really important at public buildings and churches are accessible to all people, I just wonder whether the officers can report back on any of those queries from from the local resident to help us with this.

well, I mean an intensity issue the

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:53:10

The drawing at the end of the report, which has the site outlined in red that that doesn't purport show land ownership. It's simply to indicate where where the site is for members and are a rough idea of the extent of the site. I think this is a reasonably straightforward application and a straightforward decision for Members to to make really the the key issue is whether members think that this proposal would harm the special character and appearance of the conservation area, and, if so, is that harm outweighed by the public benefits of providing access to the to the building? I understand that we've sought clarification on the issue of the Flint wall from the agent, and he's confirmed that it it. It isn't to be touched in terms of whether or not the removal or demolition of the Flip will would require planning permission. Might my understanding is that that could be carried out anyway without planning permission being required? So we we can't actually control that, but they have advised us that the intention is that it wouldn't be touched

So I think I think Mike has said it's a fairly straightforward decision for members. I note that local residents have raised objection on the basis of harm to to residential amenity but is set out in the report. We don't think that's so significant as to warrant refusal, so the key issues for as officers are concerned is, does this harm the special character of the conservation area and if it does, is that outweighed by the public benefit for improving the access to to this public building? I think that's the key decision if I might say that for Members to make tonight, I hope that insists

Councillor Goode.

sorry, what your wish to buy the Councillor Jones, United cerebrally

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:55:09

shepherd light, to visit any building I want these days, we've stairlifts and lifts some Oyston et cetera, et cetera, so move the recommendation.

Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Blake, more, would you like to think?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:25

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:55:27

I just to say, in agreement with my fellow Councillor said to me at some.

yeah, it goes without saying that everybody, whatever their mobility, should be able to access public buildings if at all possible.

Thank you, Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:45

I think anything that increases people's participation in whatever

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:55:49

goes on should be encouraged actually, and I was supposed to be able to share them with arms.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons, me, I thank you, thank you Chairman.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:56:00

Yeah, of course it's going to have an effect on on the conservation area, there's no doubt about that overnight from my view, but I think 7.12 I think it is.

it's at 7.00.12

0no 7.11, I think that paragraph actually sums it up that the benefit to the community outweighs the the disadvantage perhaps to the conservation area.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:38

from the Chair what I would like to say, obviously we do really tried to protect historic and his heritage sites, however, as we've already said this evening, from my personal viewpoint, everybody, no matter what their disability should be able to access the building, what I would ask is is there any way,

that we can talk to the applicant about screening this a little more sensitively, shall we say?

And I think that's the decision of a committed Greek, we can certainly

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:57:13

explore it with the applicant.

I'd be concerned that any sort of substantive screening like a brick wall or something like that might in itself restrict access to the lift that we can, we can certainly explore it with with the myth if that's the the decision of the committee.

Would any other Councillor like to speak on this?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:40

No, so we have a proposal from Councillor Goddard so continued by Polly Blakenhall, and that's to accept the officers recommendation, hopefully with maybe some conversation behind that, regarding screen it to make it a little more sense.

Sensitive to the area, all those in favour, please raise your hands.

I can see that is unanimous, thank you, so that's carried.

5 23/0719/FH - Plot H Mountfield Road, Land rear Plot 15, Collins Road, New Romney

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:04

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:15

So we move on to our next one committee and that's 23 dash 0 7 1 9 dash f h, which is Plot H Mountfield Road Land, rear plot, 15 Collins, Road New Romney, that was quite a mouthful do you have any updates, please, thank you Chair no updates.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:58:30

Thank you and we have no speakers on this either,

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:35

given that this is going to provide employment opportunities in the Romney Marsh area, I'm happy to propose that we move this.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:58:42

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:46

we have a proposal, Councillor Cooper and I've just had a seconder Councillor Kane on the site. Councillor Thomas, did you want to speak just as ward members just to say that I fully support the application as presented and would commend it to the Council and committee? Thank

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:59:00

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:02

you, Councillor Polly Blakenhall, yeah, I was really proud and pleased

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:59:03

to see that alongside the 17 parking spaces be 3 electric vehicle charging points, so that's a really high percentage and sets a great example, not to mention of for secure coupled covered cycle parking spaces. I just had one little question that in that there's reference to a wind turbine in the heading or the title of this

Application, but no no follow up within the report at all, I just wondered if he had any further information on that.

The wind turbine was removed from the application, unfortunately the

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:59:39

The proposal has not been updated since, but it was removed as the, as the report was submitted.

Councillor Goodall, thank you Chair, or wasn't going to jump any

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:52

source, gonna leave you to Councillor Thomas because he sees he's

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:59:56

Petch, but obviously Councillor Cooper by him to him, but obviously I support anything in Mountfield that's what it's there for the heart of the Marsh and Sidcup agree it's a family would we allow it sign it about normally, but not, as I had hoped the Marsh there and yes, what it's there for me upfield and wish him all the best and good elaborated on Councillor Thomas,

Thank you, would any other councillor would like to speak, I'm seeing nobody, so we have one proposal and that's to accept the officer's

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:24

recommendation and that was proposed by Councillor can consecutive by Councillor Kane all those in favour, please.

And I can see that is unanimous and passed, thank you very much.

7 24/0101/FH - 126 Dover Road, Folkestone,CT20 1NN

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:35

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:40

and then move on to the last application for this evening, which is 24 dash 0 1 0 1 dash F H, which is 1 2 6 Dover, Road Folkestone do we have any updates, please?

Mr Robert Allan - 1:00:55

Thank you, Chair, yes, we received representation from the new folks and Society subsequent to the finalising of the committee agenda.

summarise.

It makes sure that policy HB 3, relating to an internal and external space standards applies to the proposal, as it is a conversion.

Private garden or balcony spaces required should be required for each dwelling, the policy allows exceptions when demonstrated through the design and access statement which has not been done, and they suggest that a refusal could be based on policy HB 3,

the LPA's and planning teams are position on this.

Is that within the places and policies, Local Plan at paragraph 9 30

It says space that the Council will particularly scrutinise applications for how to houses in multiple occupation against the standards set out set out in HB 3, to ensure that proposals provide acceptable living space for residents, but there is no explicit requirement to determine HMO applications in accordance with Policy HB 3 and it cross-reference is policy HB 13, which is specifically for houses in multiple occupation which takes primacy in this case.

indeed, in the inspector's report on the examination of the the P P LP, it states that policy HB 3 internal and external space standards seeks to ensure that new build residential schemes provide adequate internal and external space in relation to the number of bed spaces provided, no reference is made to HMOs within that.

In the policy itself policy HB 3, there was no reference to HMOs, and the requirement for private open space is explicit in reference to the private useable balcony area for flats and private garden area for dwelling houses, no mention of HMOs.

Paragraph 9 8 7, of the places and policies local plan is quite clear that for proposals involving more than 6 people planning, permission is required and the council will apply policy HB 13 and members will obviously have noted that this is for 7 persons and therefore triggers the need to look at HB 13,

Within the scheme, all the room sizes within the HMO comfortably exceed the minimum area required by the licensing of houses in multiple occupation Regulations, and in terms of the technical housing standards, which is a nationally described space standard within this document itself, it states that it is relevant only to determine compliance with this standard for bedrooms storage and internal areas in new dwellings, thank you.

Thank you, and we have no speakers on this.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:03:38

Councillor King.

Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:03:44

Was and then you know, I'm looking at the objections and that every objection, the odd rave streets, will of course no car parking, rubbish issue, everybody dumps in the harbour, so that's gonna be major over intensification of use.

No mixed accommodation, and then we will be just talking about one that we're going to build because we need family homes, but we put in HMOs in the middle of an already congested area.

I had daily, if not hourly, calls about car parking, about rubbish about everything, the Harbour Board is a conservation area and we're gonna put allow an HMO right in the middle bit and would not be voting for this because the residents of the Harbour Board don't serve yet another HMO.

thank you, would any other Councillors want to speak on this?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:04:32

Councillor Walker,

I fully hear Councillor Kane and one of the problems I have with HMOs

Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:04:42

is that we have so many in in my road is why they're being built and considered why should adults who are working got jobs to to share a bathroom and a kitchen with strangers they don't know just because they don't live in a family I just find this sort of development quite difficult, however perhaps no appointment to this one particularly,

Councillor Lisburn.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:05:09

I have to agree, I don't often agree with Councillor keen, but I do actually agree with Councillor Kane, I'm I'm really really concerned about buildings in multiple occupation.

I do think that they are one, and it's not true of every every building of goals, but they do tend to create situations that perhaps we wouldn't want within our district within our within the within our wards.

I mean there's no physical change to the building, but it it will be more intensive and, and I do think it's an issue and I think anti-social behaviour could be and very often is associated with that kind of accommodation, having said that, of course we do need accommodation, people do need accommodation and people need accommodation that is is affordable, so it it's a bit of chicken and egg situation, but I will listen to what other people say.

Thank you, would anyone else want to speak, Councillor Thomas yeah,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:16

thanks just in section 4.1 on relevant planning history, so this was

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:06:21

converted from a dwelling to a two or three self-contained units, there were no conditions in there presumably no article 4 that presented that prevented this from being converted at some future date to an HMO.

correct yeah, there were no conditions to limit that an article 4

Mr Robert Allan - 1:06:41

direction is not in existence on the on the area.

As we we've covered in previous discussions this evening and as it set out in the report as well, it's and it's for up to three to six people.

can?

Or an HMO can be created without the need for planning permission, so this is one person over, and we we've sought to control that in future by putting a condition on, as some Members will have noted, too limited to seven persons and then obviously this would be subject to the licensing regime as well.

Councillor Pauline McNeill,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:25

In that sense.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:07:29

Could you maybe try another one?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:36

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:07:37

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:07:45

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:07:50

yeah, as as Councillor Hollingsworth just said, we do need affordable places for people to live in a lot of our focus is quite rightly, on families, but families on tá any residents, so I think that's something worth considering and there's something else that came to mind as I was reading the report I know that some private sector housing are slightly

Sceptical about whether this building would be granted a licence for an HMO, and I know that's outside our remit here, but they do.

Say that a condition would imply that escape windows would be required, and I just wonder if we need to get that in there as a condition for the self contained flats and for the upper ground floor.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:08:39

Mr Robert Allan - 1:08:40

it would, and I see your point in, that it would seem sensible, however, we were not allowed or it is not good practice to overlap with other other legislative requirements so.

I, I can't speak for my colleagues in private sector housing, but yes, they'd raised that point in terms of the escape windows, and that is something that they would say, you know, you have to have this in order to be a licensed property.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:09:08

I am seeing no other hands, I would just like to echo my initial concern over this one is that the the wounds are under what we would regard as the national spice for buying or private renting in France, but, as the officer has said, no such space.

comes under the legislation for planning for HMOs, which I find very distressing, actually, because we can end up creating rabbit hutches for people, and I'm trying to actually be so quite calm about this one.

But you have explained that under the legislation there is nothing that says that the fact that these are slightly smaller than would actually be expected in normal living conditions, and I totally accept that, so we have one proposal, do we have a proposal, please?

Deathly silence.

No one wants to propose, well, I will propose, then can I have a seconder, please.

I am proposing to accept the Surrey officer's recommendation, as no one else has proposed anything.

can I have a seconder, please?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:10:34

Councillor Jones, all those in favours of an HMO, please show your.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:37

Agreement now please.

All those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:50

Thank you any abstentions.

Mr Alex Baker - 1:11:03

thank you, Chair, we have six in favour, 4 against, and one abstention.

that a proposal has passed, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:10

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:15

And that is our last application of this evening, thank you very much, I think we had some good and healthy discussions this evening and thanks to the officers for answering some very awkward questions.

And until we see you next time, please take care, thank you very much.

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 16 April 2024, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting