Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 7 January 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 7th January 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Alex Baker
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  2. Cllr Clive Goddard
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Belinda Walker
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Microphone Forty
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Microphone Forty
  8. Microphone Forty
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Gary Fuller
  11. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  12. Cllr Gary Fuller
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Cllr Anita Jones
  15. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  16. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  17. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  18. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  19. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  20. Cllr Jackie Meade
  21. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  22. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  23. Cllr Jackie Meade
  24. Cllr Paul Thomas
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
  26. Cllr Paul Thomas
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Gary Fuller
  29. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  30. Cllr Tony Cooper
  31. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  32. Cllr Tony Cooper
  33. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  34. Cllr Tony Cooper
  35. Cllr Jackie Meade
  36. Cllr Anita Jones
  37. Cllr Anita Jones
  38. Mr Robert Allan
  39. Cllr Anita Jones
  40. Cllr Jackie Meade
  41. Cllr Anita Jones
  42. Cllr Jackie Meade
  43. Cllr Clive Goddard
  44. Cllr Jackie Meade
  45. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  46. Cllr Jackie Meade
  47. Cllr Paul Thomas
  48. Cllr Jackie Meade
  49. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  50. Cllr Jackie Meade
  51. Cllr Jackie Meade
  52. Cllr Jackie Meade
  53. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  54. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Microphone Forty
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Clive Goddard
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Paul Thomas
  11. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  12. Cllr Paul Thomas
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Cllr Nicola Keen
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Cllr Nicola Keen
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Clive Goddard
  19. Cllr Gary Fuller
  20. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  23. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
  26. Cllr Jackie Meade
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Jackie Meade
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Mr Alex Baker
  31. Cllr Jackie Meade
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Robert Allan
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Microphone Forty
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Nicola Keen
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Nicola Keen
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Nicola Keen
  13. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  14. Mr Robert Allan
  15. Cllr Anita Jones
  16. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Paul Thomas
  19. Mr Robert Allan
  20. Cllr Paul Thomas
  21. Mr Robert Allan
  22. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  23. Cllr Belinda Walker
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Cllr Nicola Keen
  26. Cllr Jackie Meade
  27. Cllr Tony Cooper
  28. Mr Robert Allan
  29. Cllr Tony Cooper
  30. Mr Robert Allan
  31. Cllr Tony Cooper
  32. Mr Robert Allan
  33. Cllr Jackie Meade
  34. Cllr Clive Goddard
  35. Cllr Jackie Meade
  36. Cllr Clive Goddard
  37. Cllr Jackie Meade
  38. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  39. Cllr Jackie Meade
  40. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  41. Mr Robert Allan
  42. Cllr Jackie Meade
  43. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  44. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  45. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  46. Cllr Anita Jones
  47. Mr Robert Allan
  48. Cllr Anita Jones
  49. Cllr Jackie Meade
  50. Cllr Jackie Meade
  51. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  52. Cllr Jackie Meade
  53. Cllr Nicola Keen
  54. Cllr Jackie Meade
  55. Mr Robert Allan
  56. Cllr Jackie Meade
  57. Cllr Jackie Meade
  58. Cllr Jackie Meade
  59. Cllr Jackie Meade
  60. Mr Alex Baker
  61. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Microphone Forty
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Microphone Forty
  10. Cllr Jackie Meade
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  13. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  14. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  15. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  16. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  17. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  18. Cllr Jackie Meade
  19. Cllr Anita Jones
  20. Cllr Jackie Meade
  21. Cllr Paul Thomas
  22. Cllr Jackie Meade
  23. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  26. Cllr Clive Goddard
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Jackie Meade
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Mr Alex Baker
  31. Cllr Jackie Meade
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
  33. Cllr Jackie Meade
  34. Mr Alex Baker
  35. Cllr Jackie Meade
  36. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  37. Cllr Jackie Meade
  38. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  5. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  10. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  13. Cllr Paul Thomas
  14. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Cllr Paul Thomas
  17. Cllr Clive Goddard
  18. Cllr Jackie Meade
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Robert Allan
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  7. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Tony Cooper
  10. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  11. Cllr Tony Cooper
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Mr Alex Baker
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
Welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
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 others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones
are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under
consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
So members, as chair of this committee I 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 will move on.

1 Apologies for Absence

Do we have any apologies for absence?
Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:20
Thank you, Chair. We have no apologies this evening.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:22
Thank you.
Do we have any declarations of interest please councillors?

5 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Shoop.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:01:33
I'm a member of the board of Otterpool LLP just as the Garden Town is referenced in item
6 I believe.
Thank you.
Do we have that?
Clive.
Good evening chair.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:01:47
Just 240653 the log cabin at the lovely Dunganess and one of the parades at the lovely Dunganess
Greatstone 241098 and the ward member.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:57
Thank you very much.
Do we have any other declarations this evening?
Councillor Walker?
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:02:04
I think I'd probably rather over and under declare.
The Lancaster Drive one, I was part of the group that met with the local councillors
to get clarification.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:12
Thank you.
Any other declarations?
I'm seeing none.

3 Minutes

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:23
So Councillors, before you, you have the minutes of the meeting held on the 10th of December 2024.
May I sign them as a correct record please?
Please.
Thank you.

4 Minutes of the Licensing Act Sub-Committee

You also have the minutes of the Licensing Act Subcommittee from the 12th of December 2024.
May I sign these as a correct record please?
Please.
Thank you very much.
So we move on to our first application of the evening which is 21 -0553 -FH which is the

5 21/0553/FH - Land opposite 24 Station Road, Hythe CT21 5PW

land opposite 24 Station Road in Hive.
Do we have any updates please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:03:03
Thank you Chair.
Good evening Planning Committee.
One update for you this evening just to let you know that one additional representation
has been received from a local resident.
This raises issues relating to the principle of the development, the impact on highway
safety, the impact on local services, as well as flooding and wildlife impacts, all of which
have been covered in the report.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:27
Thank you very much.
And we have three speakers on this application.
May I ask the public, when you come down to speak, please be aware you have three minutes.
When you get to the end of your three minutes, if you're still speaking, I will ask you to
Thank you. So our first speaker this evening is Kelvin Brown, who is a local resident to
speak against the application if you'd like to come down, sir. And good evening. And your
time will start when you do. Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:04:01
I live in Hollybank, a single storey bungalow on the eastern boundary of this proposed development.
Under current plans, a four storey apartment block will be built 16 .9 metres from my property.
The Council Planning Department during pre -application discussions specifically mentioned Hollybank
and concerns for overshadowing, overlooking and an oppressive sense of overbearing.
Despite these concerns, I cannot locate in the detailed planning application any evidence
to show that the proposed four -storey apartment block complies with Policy HB8 and the 25 -degree
test.
I do not believe it does comply.
If it does, why is there not any evidence within the planning application to show this?
Even if there is marginal compliance, given my property is west -facing to the apartment
block and more susceptible to the loss of probable sunlight hours, why hasn't additional
daylight analysis been undertaken to demonstrate compliance with policy HB8?
Guy Hollyway architects have made changes to the initial plans following consultation
and improved concerns over loss of privacy.
The Council Planning Department now believe that changes in roof design and reductions
in the height and distance from Hollybank mitigate their previous concerns.
It's difficult to understand why.
These changes are marginal and there is no mention of policy HBA 25 degree test.
The architectural changes do not address the fact that the size and scale of the four -storey apartment building is overbearing in relation to my modest single -storey bungalow.
Guy Holloway architects state that the apartment building has been located as far away as practical from Olliebank given the site's constraints.
This is not correct. By making the apartment smaller it could be located further away.
By removing a story it would greatly improve the over shadowing and oppressive sense of
overbearing.
I believe this application is in breach of policy UA14. Powercraft 5 .108 states that
based on the characteristics and location of the site, a development scheme of mostly
detached family houses, two storeys in height, with gardens mirroring the surrounding development
would be appropriate. It does not mention a four storey apartment block.
I believe this application is in breach of Policy HB1, Quality Places Through Design.
The apartment block's layout, scale, proportions and massing are far too large in the space
available and certainly leads to an adverse impact on my bungalow, Hollybank. I would
ask you to reject this planning application for the four -storey apartment block in its
current form. At the very least any planning decision should be postponed until evidence
of meeting policy HB8 compliance has been submitted.
Thank you sir, you are three minutes up.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:24
And our next speaker on this is Mr Guy Holloway who is the architect to speak for the applicant.
Good evening sir and your time will start for three minutes when you start.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:07:48
Members, Chairman, this is an allocated site in a sustainable location.
It's actually 300 metres from the High Street.
The actual allocation allowed for 30 dwellings per hectare.
We're at 28 dwellings per hectare.
We've been working with Council for a number of years.
It's taken quite a long time to get to this point,
just to agree the layout and the quality of the design.
And there's a huge amount of aspects attached to it.
But what we wanted to do was have a mix of units.
So we've got some flats at the front, which
gets some sea views.
And then as you get further into the site,
you've got family dwellings.
And then we're preserving the water course, landscaping that,
creating a children's play area.
and retaining as many trees as we possibly could
on the boundaries so it has a mature landscape in the space.
It is a complicated site to deliver.
Needs a lot of engineering.
It's on a slope.
Most things in high than on a hill.
And actually to get into the site is a steep sloping site.
And as a consequence, a viability assessment's
been undertaken.
And it's very marginal in terms of the site coming forward.
And therefore, we've entered into our clients
have an agreement to enter into with the council
a clawback policy so that we can assess the costs.
And then later on in the project to see
how much affordable contribution could
be afforded to this scheme.
Because affordable housing is very important,
but we also wanted to deliver the scheme.
So working with your officers, we're
really hopeful that this would be a satisfactory resolution.
We undertake a huge amount of public consultation.
We met with parish council.
And we've actually met with each of the individual neighbors,
stood in Hollybank Garden, looked at it,
made a lot of changes.
Went from 15 to 12 units on the front.
We reduced the height.
It has a basement parking.
So it's actually two stories.
and then the third story is in the roof space.
And then we've made sure there weren't any overlooking windows.
And we're maintaining the landscape
between Holly Bank and the flats.
So the trees are really quite substantial.
So all of those will be protected,
and the landscape between as well.
And there's a public footpath that divides these two.
Our client is completely committed
to quality of architecture, as we are.
We think this site really deserves a high quality scheme, very sustainable,
so air source, heat pumps, solar panels,
very progressive in terms of its architecture and quality and air tightness.
And overall, we think this is a really well considered proposal,
working with the officers,
and we've carried out extensive public consultation.
We've designed it for an allocated site.
Sorry sir, if you could finish your last sentence.
We really hope that members will support the recommendation of the officers and approve
the scheme.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:08
Thank you sir.
And our third speaker on this is Councillor Andrew Walters who is the ward member on Hithe
Town Council to speak on the application.
Good evening sir and your time will start when you do.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:11:25
Microphone Forty - 0:11:28
The local plan policy UA14 allocates this land for a residential development of approximately
30 family sized dwellings, designed to a high standard with existing trees and hedgerows
within and around the site to be retained and enhanced.
However this application for 40 dwellings attempts to squeeze on too many oversized
dwellings.
It's resulted in a design that's highly compromised.
As a result, the block of flats on the station road frontage over dominates the amenity of
the existing houses opposite and Hollybank, the bungalow to the east, and it requires
the felling of several trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders.
Plot 18 at the Y junction within the site over dominates the amenity of Bridge Cottage
to the west of the site.
In addition, several design compromises have been made including minimal outdoor amenity
space with very large houses and cycle stalls that necessitate taking cycles up and down
with light of golden steps.
Highway safety at the junction with Station Road is also a major issue.
I'm advised that traffic data is based on unrealistic surveys made during lockdown.
It needs to be given more careful consideration in order to avoid danger to life.
Further issues include concerns relating to the ability to provide a 10 % net gain in biodiversity
and the failure to provide any affordable housing.
One solution could be to remove eight of the flats at the Station Road frontage to produce
a footprint that is half the size in the storey lower.
This would address the issues affecting the Holly Bank and the existing houses on Station
Road and the lower for the retention of several preserved trees.
The removal of Plot 18 would also address the issues relating to Bridge Cottage.
This would result in 32 dwellings demonstrating that the local plan estimate of approximately 30 dwellings was correct.
The failure to provide affordable housing is a big issue. Every dwelling on this application exceeds national space standards by an average of 50%.
This has resulted in the development of large high value properties that are unaffordable by the local people and those needing to start on the housing ladder.
Smaller houses that cost less to build would improve the viability of affordable housing.
We also wonder whether the viability assessment placed too high a value on the land.
Our conclusion is that a development of about 30 dwellings of a more modest scale is likely
to meet the policy CSD1 requirement of balanced neighbourhoods which should include a broad
range of tenures.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:13
Thank you very much, Sir.
So councillors, over to you, Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:14:22
Just one quick question first of all on the viability assessment.
I noted that we were checking the sums on that.
What was the outcome of that?
What did we, what did our consultants decide?
Thank you, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:14:37
Yeah, we've the when we receive a
viability assessment we always get
them independently assessed,
which we've done in this case and the
outcome of the viability assessment,
which included a cost analysis as well,
concluded that the viability assessment
was accurate and that whilst it could
generate funds for the other section
106 requirements and for sale,
but the affordable housing it
couldn't meet those requirements, which is why we've included the clawback mechanism
in the section 106. Thank you.
Thanks for that. I may come back later.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:15:18
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:15:19
Councillor Jones.
Thank you. So I'm obviously a ward councillor for this area, very familiar with this peaceful
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:15:27
land and have been aware of this potential development for many years. It's been on the
local plan, so it will be built on. We're in a, you know, we are with that. And I think
I think this latest design is a big improvement
on what we had before.
So a lot of thought given to landscaping,
a lot of thought to the trees and the shape of it.
I think it's a shame that they have gone so high
by Hollybank.
I think that's the thing which sort of brings it down sadly
because I don't know if anybody else
has had a look along there.
It will be sandwiched between sort of two high buildings.
I think there's a picture which keeps coming up
which shows us that.
And I think we need to look into what's been discussed
or what's been suggested that it really should be an assessment done on loss of daylight
and loss of light there on that building because it will have a big impact on the residents there.
Other things, road safety and things like that have been discussed.
It is a tricky corner but I know that's obviously a KCC thing and it doesn't necessarily,
if they say it's viable, we have to agree to it.
So we're kind of stuck with that one.
But it is a bit of a problem that road,
people do race around that corner.
So I mean, there might be the potential
that it will slow people down
or it could become a danger to life.
I don't know what the outcome will be.
You never know.
And it's a shame that KCC perhaps
haven't looked at that more carefully.
You know, some kind of reduced road speeds would be good
because they race around that corner and they race up the hill and I know the residents
are always very concerned about that.
But again we can't consider that in this planning application sadly because KCC has said it
is okay.
So really my main concerns are the big apartment blocks on the main road.
I think we could perhaps request that they could be looked at again and we could look
at a daylight assessment.
Councillor Loesby.
Thank you Chair.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:17:26
Just a few points. First of all, when the gentleman, or the ward member from Hyde was talking...
Oh no, sorry, I've got confused. The applicant, about the 25 degree, I just wondered whether we could have a comment on that.
Because I think that would have an effect on how one thinks of the locker flats.
Thank you.
So the gentleman referred to a policy that relates to extensions to existing dwellings.
So we haven't applied it expressly.
However we have, as we do with any allocated sites or any of the strategic sites, would
look at the amenity of residents.
And in this case, you know, we have negotiated with the applicant to move the apartment block
further away and to reduce the scale when it is closest to the bungalow.
I mean, there is some quite useful drawings in the presentation.
And you can see that it's all on a slope.
But I've done some extra measurements.
And I can tell you that the height to the eaves of the apartment block,
which is the two stories with the rooms in the roof as well
at the third storey with the underground section as well as actually 7 .28 meters above ground level
and then there's a 13 .9 meter distance between those two buildings as well so based upon that
and having looked at this in the round you know we do consider that we've considered the
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:19:14
amenity and that there won't be a significant impact. I'm sorry, I'm sorry the public
and not only have to speak.
I'm sorry, you are observers, I'm sorry.
I'm not happy with the way things are going here.
I'm not saying it's all right, but it is.
And so yeah, we have looked at that.
Can I come back?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:19:37
And the other point was about the selling of trees.
It seemed to be that he was also talking
about selling of trees between the site and his bungalow.
And I'm just wondering about that
in terms of what ones are protected.
I mean, I've looked at the plan
and what ones might not be.
These are going to be a screen of TPOs.
Thank you, sorry.
Just finding a bit in the report.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:20:08
Okay.
Where's the trees?
Is that a point to your finger?
Point two times, and point four.
Cover.
Oh, okay.
Alright, so.
There's a drink.
Keep your hands on it.
Okay.
Sorry.
Okay.
So sorry about that.
I was looking at the details in the report in section 3 .33.
It states that the development would require
the removal of 15 trees and it lists those
and three groups of trees and partial removal
and some pruning of some other groups of trees.
Majority of the tree removal is where the access
to the site is and realistically this is an allocated site.
There would be an access from station mode
and we would need to remove trees.
There's also a small number of trees
that would be removed within the site
that the applicant is proposing to replace
more than is being removed,
and also with some sort of heavier standard trees as well,
and street trees, and they're also proposing to fill in
and enhance the boundaries,
particularly along that public right -of -way.
Thank you.
And there is a public footpath in between as well?
Yes.
I just wanted to confirm that.
The other point I wanted to just raise is some people have talked about the construction
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:21:49
time, and I see in the conditions there is a construction management plan.
Is that sufficient, I would ask.
I also wanted to make a comment on the number of dwellings.
I've read that several times that people are saying it was allocated for 32 and there's
40.
but as we all know and as we've been told many times by Llewellyn,
it's not set in stone.
It's the minimum and therefore people can come forward
with different numbers, with other numbers and other layouts.
So I think that covers that.
I've got down here.
I think that's all for the moment. I might come back in a minute.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:22:35
Thank you.
Councillor Polly Blakemore.
Thank you, Chair.
There's a couple of points.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:22:43
Looking at policy UA14 that we've referred to, and as Councillor Hollingsby just said,
so it was perceived as a scheme that was going to consist, and I quote, mostly detached family
houses two storey in height.
There's no mention of apartment blocks, and I understand that there are originally going
be three apartment blocks and that's now there's only going to be the one.
But I don't think we can be surprised that there's dissatisfaction, shall we say, amongst
local residents with this perceived mission creep because it just thinks that yes, it's
a minimum but we're not just talking more houses, we're talking apartment blocks and
they're up to four storeys.
So that was my first point and my second point was as there's no affordable housing and these
These look like pretty high value properties,
so aren't going to be within the reach of most local people.
And I'm interested just to understand
why it wouldn't have been possible.
I'm sure there's an explanation for this,
but to the uninitiated, it'd be helpful to understand,
to design and build smaller and therefore cheaper houses,
which are within the reach of local young,
well, local people generally.
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:24:06
In the viability assessment it's the abnormal costs which are pushing the cost up on this
proposal.
The application is before you for what it is.
There's many ways that you could probably develop on this site but this is what the
application is proposing so this is what we have to look at this evening.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:30
Thank you, Councillor Paul Thomas.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:24:36
Yes, so for the second meeting running, we've had a planning application presented to us
where the requirements that were laid out within the local plan, the numbers presented
to us are significantly different.
And I think that point's been made by Councillor Hollingsby and by Councillor Blakemore already.
But the thing that concerns me in relation to that is that in the report it says the
policy figure is indicative.
But if you look at that policy, there's seven criteria in there.
Those criteria are based on 30 dwellings.
So if the additional dwellings had even been included in that original assessment, what
additional criteria would have been added to that?
And again, I'll take the point that Councillor Blakemore has made with regard to the building
of the apartment blocks and the fact that that was never included in that original assessment
had it been, I wonder what other criteria, we don't know, but that's how that was
assessed through what is a very rigorous and actually very long winded process that takes
a lot of input from a lot of people.
And if you look at the comments that were put forward at the time, that were considered
by the Planning Inspector, a lot of the things that have been discussed tonight and brought
to this meeting by local residents were included within that.
And so the criteria put together are based on the input
through that process that we've been through in the local plan.
So it does concern me that yet again we're being asked to look at something
which is a significant... This is not ones and twos,
this is ten more residences here, ten more dwellings
and more significantly this block of flats as well.
I've had a look at the comments as well associated with both Holly Bank and Bridge Cottage
with regard to the relationship between those dwellings and the loss of amenity
that's being claimed by the residents in those dwellings.
And again it's one of those things you think well okay so what harm will this development do
if it goes ahead? Well the harm is clear from what we've heard tonight
and what's been presented to us in the form of 77 objections
from the 80 that went out to the local residents.
So there's a lot of local knowledge there
which has been given to us about,
this is the harm it's going to do
if this development was to go ahead.
And I certainly have concerns about that.
We seem to be riding roughshod over TPOs as well.
We're gonna be taking out protected trees
as part of this development, which doesn't seem quite right.
But there are two other things which are related to the contribution
that a development of this size would normally make to the district
in the form of community infrastructure levy
and there's no CIL for this development.
And Section 106 agreements.
The only identified Section 106 agreement contribution at the moment
is number five on the list, which is healthcare, which is £34 ,560.
pounds with education to be decide to be confirmed and the clawback and
affordable housing to be funded through clawback based on how much money is
generated by the site and the thing that I get with all of that and I accept what
the officers are saying about having a third party review the viability
statement and they're saying that the viability of this site is exactly as has
been presented I accept that but when you go back and have a look at who put
this development in the local plan in the first place.
They must have done something to understand
the difficulties with the engineering,
which Guy Holloway himself has said tonight,
this is a difficult site on the hill.
When you have a look at the breakdown in the report
about all the different aspects of the re -engineering
of this site to make it viable,
and that's the thing which is closing this gap
to make sure that they at least can sell the properties
in the way that they're anticipating,
and only then will we get clawback.
It doesn't seem right to me that a 40 housing development
is not going to make any contribution to the district.
It just doesn't hang for me.
So again, they're the conditions.
So again, I would just ask, CIL is not included in this.
That's correct, isn't it? No CIL contribution.
Yes, sir. CIL is included.
Sorry? They will be paying CIL.
They will? Yeah.
Okay. Sorry, I'm not going to speak to that.
education, we just don't know the final figure,
but they will be paying education contributions,
providing on -site open space and play, NHS contributions,
and then the clawback mechanism for the affordable housing.
That's all we would have been asking for.
So it's only the affordable housing
that we're asking for a clawback position on.
But again, just in terms of affordable housing,
there's nothing in there which is indicative as to how much
that's likely to be.
And yet the viability assessment would
have included what the estimated return is going to be on each of those properties.
So you could say, well, if it comes out, you're going to have a gold, silver and bronze position on that, aren't you?
You can say, if we get this amount, we're going to be able to pull back this amount.
If not, we're going to be able to pull back this amount.
There's nothing in there for us to understand what the contribution to this district is going to be.
It just seems to me, and I know in the officer's report it says that that's going to be for
the Chief Planning Officer to complete that and the legal requirements in Section 106,
but we're being asked to sign off this blank cheque for Section 106.
It just doesn't seem right, Chair.
I'm really sorry.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:30:20
Are you making a proposal, sir?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:30:29
I was going to propose that we defer this application so that we can actually get some
more information on a number of the things that were raised here.
Specifically I'd like to see something more formal in terms of the potential call back
if we can get an assessment of that and certainly for things associated with, so we can see
what the harm to the residential amenity could be,
particularly from this apartment block.
And if the apartment block is removed or changed in size in any way,
how that affects the viability
and therefore the deliverability of this project.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:08
Sorry, Councillor Cooper, I've already got a second on this.
We will continue through.
So our next Councillor is Councillor Fuller.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:31:20
So we're sticking to the review of the viability assessment said everything was accurate and
great.
And this was done by DSP who in summary said we consider that the scheme viability appears
to have been understated and the scheme will support a significant contribution to S106
and or affordable housing.
So is it accurate? Or we just been misled?
So following on from the.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:31:53
I mean, there's been two. There has been two viability
assessments carried out on this scheme, so I'm not sure which
one you're referring to because you've only published one
review, so I don't know which one they were reviewing. I'm
just reading the review on our website. So the latest comment
so DSP did it for the developer.
And then we had that looked at by Dix and Sell, who
are independent consultants.
They concluded on the latest scheme,
which was because it all had to be completely rerun because
the scheme has been completely redesigned
and the number of houses have been reduced, et cetera.
So Dix and Sell commented on that
and said that they agreed.
Once they'd also looked at the cost analysis as well,
they had to have that looked at too
to make sure that that was all correct
in terms of the materials, the finishes,
all of that kind of thing.
And they did conclude that it was unable
to make a contribution towards affordable housing.
However, we want to be sure that
that remains the case going forward,
which is why we've suggested this clawback mechanism,
which is not in our policy.
We can ask for that, although it is good practice
to do that and then we can make sure that that viability will be run again later and
then from there we will work out if there's a contribution to be made.
The only thing I'd say on that therefore, because we've got, I can see in the planning
portal that there were two viability assessments, but because only one review has been published,
We've come into this meeting without all of the facts, because in theory we don't just
read the report, we look at the files and yeah.
So I honestly am quite happy to support deferral now because I actually want to read that second
report, just like I've read apparently the first one.
So I know that I'm making the right decision when I come to one.
Thank you, Councillor King.
I've got one question here.
Councillor Thomas asked quite a few of mine.
If those flats were to be removed,
would the residents of that area be happy?
And if that was the case, would the developer
be prepared to remove those apartments?
Because to me, they seem to be the biggest bone of contention
and I don't really understand why they should be able
to have a sea view when they're taking sea views
away from other people.
That isn't a material consideration.
a CVU does not come as part of a package.
So that kind of lost me when I heard that the people
in those apartments are gonna get a CVU,
but some other people will lose a CVU.
So I think at the end of the day,
if these apartments don't really add to it,
why are we even talking about having a built,
why can't they be removed?
And if everyone's happy with what's there,
let's go ahead with it.
But I don't understand why the figures
don't add up for a start.
So why are we even talking about a block of flats that don't need to be there?
I don't get it.
Thank you, Councillor Walker.
Sorry, Chair.
All my questions have been asked, mainly by Councillor Thomas, as always.
Councillor Mike Breakmore.
Yeah, I'd echo what Councillor Thomas said about the kind of the mission creep that we
see with the fellows that come before us.
On the issue of the apartment block, a reason for approving that is cited as being that
the scale of the apartment block seeks to reflect upon the scale of recent nearby development
such as that at Briarwood located at the corner of Station Road at Blackhouse Hill to the
but ignores the fact that next to this apartment block is a bungalow, on the other side of it is a two and a half story house, opposite our two story houses sunken below street level.
So why are we taking our cue from a three story apartment further up the hill rather than from the houses in the immediate vicinity?
We're repeatedly told here that we don't, approving something doesn't set a precedent,
and yet that apartment block further up the road is essentially been setting a precedent
here because we've been asked to approve this because there's an apartment block further
up the road.
The other point I want to make was just about biodiversity net gain, which in other applications
we see very detailed proposals for how that biodiversity net gain will be achieved.
I don't see any of that in this report.
It seems very vague on that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Considering what you said, do you want to make a proposal?
Councillor Cooper?
Thank you, Chair.
I've got a couple of questions.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:36:51
Basically, the first question is this.
We've had representations from Hollybank
to say that they're going to be in one
where everything is overshadowed.
Can we have a little discussion on what over -scheduling means, please?
Because I'm conscious that we've got a development in Willop Way in Dimchurch,
and that development there was less, or just over 15 metres.
And to say that the people living there would have the immediately of the privacy of the garden, etc.
That's not obviously going to apply to the people here at Hollybank.
And the second question I want a little bit of information on is why don't we know what
the figures are going to be in respect of each element of the sill and why or who approved
the increase from 30 houses or 30 flats to 42.
Given that they're 50 % bigger so obviously they're going to cost more for people to buy
and therefore they're going to be denying other people affordable housing in those accounts.
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:37:57
Just don't know what the total is in total, but we can tell you what it is per square
metre.
That's in the report.
And nobody, so it's £135 .10 per square metre.
In terms of who approved or agreed the increase in number of houses,
nobody has agreed that yet.
That's the application that's before you.
But as has been said,
the number that's put in a policy is an indicative number.
And then we as a local planning authority have to assess
the impact of that number of dwellings
on all the issues that you find in the report,
the amenity of neighbouring properties, highways, all of those normal issues.
So the answer is nobody has approved it.
The applications come forward as this.
And in officers' views, it's acceptable.
And it's here tonight for members to determine.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:39:03
And the issue of overshadowing and overburden in respect of Ollivang?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:39:09
I think Alex had explained that earlier.
that has been assessed as being acceptable because we've reduced the height of the flats
and it's a sufficient distance away. The roof slopes away. They've got oriel windows facing
away from the property so we think it's acceptable.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:39:30
Okay, well I'm a bit sceptical with irrespective of that. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:35
Thank you, Councillor Giles.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:39:41
I wonder whether we could just get the visual up on the screen
where it shows the height differences and the distances
between the bungalow and the apartment blocks,
because I think it keeps flashing by, I think.
Thank you.
Can we zoom in on it a bit? Sorry, maybe it's my eyesight.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:40:01
.
Mr Robert Allan - 0:40:38
Is that better for you?
Yes, thank you, that's better.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:40:45
Although there seems to be a tree covering up the closeness of it.
It is 16 .9 metres was it?
Quite close, yeah. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:01
Sorry, Councillor Jones, did you want to ask a question on that?
No, I think it was just really important that members could see
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:41:08
visually the impact on that
bungalow before we make a decision and it was difficult to see with it kept rotating
past and it was very small.
Thank you for that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:18
You're welcome.
I see no other hands.
Oh, Councillor Goddard.
Thank you, Chair.
I wasn't going to say too much because I think this is getting past tonight's more chance
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:41:31
than Tottenham winning the league so it's not going to happen.
So obviously I will support Councillor Thomas in Mr Holloway and applicants here tonight
so hopefully they can see what the comments have been from the members tonight and obviously
the residents.
So hopefully Mr Holloway can go away and tweak, make a few tweaks and come back.
Hopefully the quality of the weddings won't change.
Because I do think they are pretty picturesque places.
I don't think anybody's gonna argue with that.
So hopefully they will go away, the applicant and the agent,
and come back very soon with a revised scheme.
Because like we say, it will happen.
It is an allocated piece of land.
So, right scheme for the right piece of land.
So we're happy to support Councillor Thomas to hopefully progress.
Thank you.
Thank you Councillors.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:35
I think a really useful debate.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:42:42
I think we've raised some issues of clarity and other information that we would like going forward.
We have one proposal.
Chair, sorry.
Sorry, go ahead.
Can I just ask, if members do vote to defer it, can we be quite specific about what we are deferring it for?
I was just about to laugh.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:02
We have one proposal before us from Councillor Thomas who I believe gave us quite a list
of clarifications that he was seeking.
Would you like to go back through before we vote?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:43:22
So a couple of things, primarily the view, sorry,
the under, how the underwriting of the overshadow
and overlooking of Holly Bank has been assessed.
So we can see that specifically in the report.
The viability assessment in relation to, you know,
the impact that then has on the section 106 contributions for affordable housing and under
the same banner for us to understand what the potential clawback could be, what the
formula, the mechanism is for clawback for any section 106 based on indicative house
prices.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:23
So you've heard the list. Would anyone else like to add to that list?
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:44:30
I just wondered if we should be looking more at the consideration of the removal of the
apartment block or at least the shrinking the footprint and the reduction in height,
just a change to make it less incongruous and overbearing structure.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:49
So I think what we're saying is for our officers to go back to the applicant to see whether
any changes could be made because there does seem to be some concern.
Am I correct?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:02
So we have one proposal in front of us and that's deferment for the list of reasons that
we've given for clarity before we make a decision.
So all those in favour of deferment please show your...
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:17
And that's unanimous, so that will go back to the officers.
I would ask that when that clarity has come forward,
this will come back to the committee for us to actually make the final decision.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:45:32
Members of the public, I know that you have...
Sorry, can I say that when it comes back,
we will only be able to consider those reasons.
That is correct. That is correct, which is why I asked for any extra reasons.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:48
Members of the public, I know some of you are here, obviously, regarding this application.
Hopefully you can see that we have taken it very seriously from both sides.
We will seek clarity on certain items that we're asking for before any decision will be made.
I know you were hoping probably for a decision one way or the other this evening,
but I think we've made the right decision in this case for a deferment.
So if you do wish to leave at this point, I'll give a couple of minutes for people to shuffle around
if they'd like to leave the chamber. Thank you.

8 24/1098/FH - 1 The Parade, Greatstone, New Romney TN28 8NP

.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:47
Right, we will move on to our second application following the green sheet, which is application
24 -1098 -FH which has won the parade in a great stone new.
Romney do we have any updates please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:48:06
Thank you chair, I've only got one update.
It's two minor corrections to the report.
Paragraph 3 .1 within the proposal, the resulting increase in height would be from 5 .7 to 9
metres instead of the 9 .3 as written in the report.
And in paragraph 7 .3 there's reference to the flats directly opposite.
These are in fact roughly 100 metres to the northwest of the site, not directly opposite.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:33
Thank you very much.
And we have one speaker on this this evening, which is Mr Barry Cook, who is the applicant
to speak on the application if you'd like to come forward, sir.
Good evening.
and you will have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 0:48:55
Good evening councillors and happy new year.
My name is Barry Cook, I'm the homeowner and applicant for One The Great Greatstone
and I'm here to support the proposal.
Earlier today I sent a report addressing some of the matters that have been raised by the planning officer
and I've provided examples of similar proposals which have been approved in my locality.
My house sits next to a car park at Great Stone Beach.
It's in a unique location and is considered a gateway property.
It plays a crucial role in shaping first impressions of the area.
I believe the proposed development will present a very positive impression to both locals
and visitors, in contrast to the current building which is rather ugly and prevents a negative
impression.
I have spent over three years in pre -application consultation with the planning officer and
I'm rather surprised that this application has ended up at committee.
The planning officers had a great deal of input in relation to the current design.
There is some inaccuracy in the planning report as we've heard and the height of the building
that's stated at 9 .3 metres and this is the basis on which it has been judged.
It is in fact 8 .9 metres, which is nearly half a metre lower than that stated.
This considerably reduces the perceived bulk of the building, which is the main reason
for refusal.
It refers to a two storey side extension implying that there isn't an existing building along
the site.
The existing single storey building is to be replaced with a two storey element providing
a balance to the design.
It raises concerns regarding the width however the design is consistent with the existing
footprint and in any case our property sits on a much wider plot and has no neighbouring
property on the side.
The proposed building will not be out of character with the surrounding area and at the officers
request it has gables that match those to the other properties.
Regarding external finishes there are several developments which feature similar finishes
including 73 the parade which the officer refers to as a good example.
My report provides numerous examples of similar buildings which have received approval.
One in particular at 184 the parade is remarkably similar in height and width.
This building received approval despite a long list of neighbour objections.
The increase in mass and volume is considerably more than our proposal.
And as the original building was only single storey with a flat roof,
yet this satisfied HB1 and HB8 where mine seems to have failed.
My proposal has received no objections.
So in conclusion, this proposal represents a significant opportunity
to enhance the Gateway property and contribute positively to the character of Greystone on
C. The design is sympathetic to its surroundings.
Sorry sir, your three minutes is up, could you finish your last sentence please?
Ok, it's in keeping with the nature of the area and I therefore respectfully ask that
you consider the merits of the proposal and grant planning permission.
I'd like to thank Councillor Goddard for his support in my application.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:21
Thank you very much sir.
Over to you Councillors.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:26
Councillor Goddard.
Thank you.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:52:29
Obviously I called this in because the applicant I couldn't believe it ended up here.
I totally agree that this is more of a statement property.
Day to day property.
The same with the property that we're in.
This committee, I don't know if it was pre -election or before when we done the shop opposite the flats,
you know, where Tony Hill's shop used to be, I forget the address, opposite, you know, that's a monster in the building.
And this isn't 100 yards from it on the opposite side of the road.
Like I said, you know, the report sort of says itself about there's no, it's considered a subject,
the bitty wordy conditions of closed extension could not result in significant harm.
You know 7 .2 the footprint of the dwelling would be retained, you know it's no bigger
than what's there now.
It's going up and going out, keeping the same footwork in addition to the roof extension
7 .5 side extension replaced, it's only this dwelling, it's not out of store with the rest
of the dwellings.
So it's a bit of contradiction itself.
It's part of it's sort of reporting, supporting it,
and the other half isn't.
So, you know, that's like I said,
I couldn't quite believe it, didn't I?
There's no local council objecting,
nobody else is objecting.
Highways there's 11 point something metres
instead of six metres.
And I can find more positives in the report,
and negatives, and it would be nice to obviously
comments from my colleagues especially Councillor Thomas because it does order his award as
well being 50 to 100 yards from the Donny Fisherman where I know it says Greatstone
New Wombly but it is in the bowl of the car there. It would be good to
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:26
get some comments
from one of the colleagues.
Would any other Councillor like to speak?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:33
Councillor Thomas?
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:54:37
I do know where the ward boundaries are actually.
Thank you.
I read the letter provided by Mr Cook as I'm sure all the members did in terms of the
pointing out discrepancies, if you like,
between what we've been presented with in this report
against some of the things which Mr. Cook
has identified tonight.
I don't recall seeing anywhere that this should be
considered as a gateway property.
I'm not quite sure, well I'm not even sure
I've heard that term before actually, to be honest with you.
The fact that this has been through
numerous pre -applications, it would appear that
that process has been gone through.
What hasn't been made clear is has the advice
from pre -application been included
in the application we see today?
So that would be my question to the officer is
that information that was provided,
has all of that been included?
And if it hasn't, is that what has been put forward
as a reason for refusal,
which is the increase in form, mass and bulk and extent of the glazing,
and the visibly intrusive form of development, poor quality design
and contrary to policies HB1 and HB8.
So again, that's my question really.
Has the information and the advice provided in pre -application
been included in this application? Thank you.
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:56:19
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members.
My understanding is that we've been reasonably consistent in our advice
and during the course of the application in requesting
that the scale and bulk of the dwelling be reduced.
Obviously, the applicant has chosen not to do so
and that's very much his choice.
For what it's worth, members,
I think it's a fairly straightforward application for members to consider.
we're of the view that it's substantial in scale and its form and bulk are harmful to
the character and appearance of the area.
Members may choose to take a different view but like I said we have requested amendments
but the applicant has chosen not to submit them is my understanding.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:57:09
Thank you chair, thank you Rob.
I think on that basis then I would like to put a recommendation forward that we support
the officer's recommendation for refusal on the basis that the application has not followed
the advice given in the pre -application process.
Thank you Chair.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:31
We have a proposal to go with the officer's recommendation.
Do I have a seconder please?
Councillor Cooper.
Councillor Keene.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:57:40
I really don't understand how it's not in keeping with that area because the thing that
I find unique about New Romney and Leeds and Greystone is there's no, everything's different,
every house is different.
I don't get this at all because there's no two houses down there, unless I'm Ron Clive
that's the same, people have designed some really outstanding houses down there and there
are some that I think, how did that ever happen? I'm looking at this and I'm thinking this
isn't ugly, this isn't out of keeping with what's already there. So I'm with Councillor
Goddard on this, what's the issue? Who's it hurting? It's not overlooking anyone, there's
no one's, you know, street scene being ruined. Because that's what makes the marsh unique.
There's nothing the same there.
It's a mishmash and it works.
So I'll be voting for this.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:38
Would you like to put a proposal forward?
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:58:42
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:43
And that's to go against the officer's recommendation.
So I have a proposal.
Yeah, have a second chair.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:58:49
And Councillor Keene, that would have been my part two
of the speech.
Can't even hit it while on the head.
I think I sat here when they built Tony Hills' own Tony.
It's the only place in the district
where there's not a street scene.
There's not a street scene down the parade coast like this.
You're right, there's no two properties the same.
Whether that's our fault as a council,
we should have put something there years ago,
that was mentioned a couple of years ago, but we haven't.
They're all unique in their own way.
What's there now is like the applicant said,
is a shack basically.
And that does enhance the area.
and the applicant sent some pictures of other houses in the area.
So it's now okay. There's just not a street scene
and that's just the whole thing.
Like Mr Bailey said, he's quite straightforward for the officers,
he's quite straightforward for me.
There's no street scene, it's not bulky.
So I don't like to disagree with the officers very often
but there's not a street scene down two or three miles of that coast.
So happy to second Councillor King.
Thank you.
Councillor Fuller.
Just one very quick question.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:00:02
Have we got an early version of this report or something?
Because I notice that the conclusion section is basically just the default text for the
conclusion section.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:00:13
Yes, apologies for that.
A prompt was left in it.
It should have been taken out and obviously sensible text.
Sensible text put in in this place.
So, polities for members.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:23
Would anyone else like to speak?
Councillor Haynes, speak?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:00:30
Yes, can I just ask on the reasons for refusal?
I mean, if that's the case,
because the officer's advice has not been taken,
how many other applications are we going to turn down
for that particular reason?
I'd be interested in any comment on that.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:00:47
Well, it's a very good question to ask. Planning permission shouldn't be refused simply because
the applicant has declined to take the officer's advice. It has to be a proper assessment of
the scheme has to be made, which we, as I said earlier, have come to the conclusion
it's harmful. In saying it's a straightforward application, what I didn't mean is that members
absolutely definitely must refuse it, is that there are less issues at hand perhaps in this
application than in the others that are before members tonight.
So we affirmly review that its mass bulk scale and form is unacceptable.
Members of course are entitled to reach a different conclusion.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:01:35
Thank you.
I'm not seeing anyone else wishing to speak.
So we actually have two proposals.
The first proposal that we'll take is to agree with the officer's recommendation to refuse.
If that falls we will then go to the second proposal which is to go against the officer's
recommendation and to allow the application.
So the first one is to go with the officer's recommendation to refuse.
So all those in favour of refusal, please raise your hand.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:14
Thank you. Those against?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:22
Any abstentions?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:26
So that proposal has fallen.
So we go to the second proposal which is to go against the officer's recommendation and
to allow this application.
All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:44
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:48
Any abstentions?
Mr Alex Baker - 1:02:53
Thank you Chair, that's eight in favour and four against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:56
So, I'm assuming that that vote to approve includes delegating authority to officers
to impose appropriate conditions.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
So we have gone against the officer's recommendations and we are allowing this application to go
forward.
So thank you very much.

9 24/1607/FH - 31 Beachborough Road, Folkestone CT19 4AA

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:03:24
Yes, I know. So the third application this evening is 24 -1607 -FH which is 31 Beachborough
Road in Folkestone. Do we have any updates please?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:03:39
Thank you chair, good evening members, no updates.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:03:47
Thank you and we have two speakers on this.
We have our first speaker which is Elio Espama, I hope I pronounced that correctly, who is
a local resident to speak against the application.
If you'd like to come forward sir.
And you will have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 1:04:08
I'm here on behalf of the residents of Beechborough to speak in opposition to this development
in its current form.
And I want to emphasize that again in its current form.
Residents are not opposed to development at the site.
Indeed, many of us want to support the right development.
But put simply, the proposal packs too many single dwellings onto the site.
It's an overdevelopment.
It's expressly opposed by 12 of the 15 neighbouring homes.
There has not been a single comment in support.
These are your constituents in the community.
They know the site and the area better than anyone else.
I ask you to trust them.
The report states that the proposals would only, quote, make a modest contribution to
local housing targets, but the effect on neighbouring residents would not be modest.
Tripling the number of dwellings on the site would have an outsized effect.
The most obvious concerns are around activity generated by so many new homes and the increased
traffic to the site along the narrow access lane at the rear.
The report states, quote, there would be an additional six vehicle movements per day based
upon the allocated parking for three vehicles only, three vehicles out, three vehicles in.
This would have no significant or detrimental impact upon the existing occupants.
These findings are simply asserted without any evidence and here I would ask you all
to apply your lived experience.
Six dwellings do not generate three cars
only leaving and returning once a day in an allocated space.
If that were the case, there would be no traffic on any of the roads during the day.
This is just plainly incorrect.
Homeworking and other arrangements are now commonplace
and people have deliveries, tradesmen and visitors,
none of which can be supported by this site.
There are double yellow lines at the front
and people without an allocated space will nip up the back.
And that means trespassing on neighbouring land,
parking in people's gardens, blocking the lane.
It means tensions, it means arguments, it means conflict.
It will have a hugely detrimental impact on existing occupants.
And unlike the report, I don't just assert this,
we have evidence it already happens all the time.
With six flats and three spaces it will be even worse,
particularly as the site is at the far end of the lane
where it narrows significantly and bottlenecks.
There are too many flats.
The report does not address the application's failure
to provide a mix of housing contrary to policies HB1 and HB2. The scheme fundamentally changes
the character and uses of the entire road and will accordingly have a detrimental impact
on existing residents contrary to policies HB2, HB8 and HB10. There's no reason, no reason
that a more careful proposal that balances all interests can't be achieved. Please reject
this one.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:47
Thank you sir and you're well within time.
So we have our second speaker on this which is Mr Steve Davies, the agent who will speak
on the application if you come forward sir.
And you will have three minutes from when you start. Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 1:07:14
Thank you Chairman. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee
tonight. The Office's report contains a detailed assessment of the scheme before you, addressing
the material considerations for the determination of the application and concluding the proposed
are entirely acceptable and that planning
permission should be granted.
The report confirms that the proposal
fully accords with the Development Plan
policies.
The scheme was not developed in
isolation but we engaged with the
Council early through the Pre -Application
Advice Service and the scheme before you
was amended to reflect the officer's
requirements.
The proposal will see a substantial
external and internal refurbishment to
the dilapidated building resulting in
its significant improvement.
The scheme proposes a modest extension
that will increase the number of flats by four to six.
All the flats meet the council's internal space requirements.
The small side and rear extension is in keeping with the form and character of the existing
building and the surrounding area and is confirmed as having a limited visual impact.
No unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the area is identified.
The access and parking provision is confirmed as being acceptable.
The property currently has parking serving up to four cars.
The proposals to reduce this parking area to a total of three parking spaces allocated
to only three of the flats.
In order to eradicate concerns of increased traffic to the property and to provide private
and shared amenity spaces providing residents outdoor space, the parking policy will be
managed through the tenancy agreements and by the planning condition requiring approval
of the parking management strategy.
In this sustainable location, close to both the station and the town centre, bicycle parking
regard is important and secure storage for 12 cycles is provided. The independent parking
assessment clearly confirms there is ample available parking in nearby streets should
any other residents have cars. Bin storage is provided in accordance with the Council's
requirements. There is no unacceptable impact on the residents' amenity due to the proximity
to the railway. There is no direct outlook towards the railway nor is there any unacceptable
overlooking or overshadowing other neighbouring properties.
Beachborough Road already provides for a number of flats on other buildings presently there.
There is significant demand for people in the town for flats that are constructed to
the latest building regulations as many older flats suffer from issues from damp and from
high energy bills due to single glazed windows and poor thermal efficiency.
Due to the cost of living crisis affecting so many of these past years, affordable flats
to rent with lower running costs and a sustainable location are very much needed and the scheme
will assist in meeting this local need. We trust that you will agree that this carefully
considered scheme will make a small but important contribution to meeting the districts housing
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:06
requirements. Thank you for your time. Thank you sir. So it's over to
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:10:11
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:10:17
councillors. Councillor
see how you can get six there, six apartments there because there isn't parking.
There would be no parking, it would be for three cars.
The roads surrounding that area was mainly CPZ and residents parking.
The only parking that's there is the railway station and people aren't going to pay for
parking.
My question would be, in the tenancy agreement you're going to state that there's only parking
for three, so first come first serve. How is that ever going to be policed? If there's
three parking spaces, six flats, and everyone's got a car, you know, it's going to cause tension,
it's going to cause problems to the residents already there. So I can't see where that's
been looked at, that there's parking nearby because there isn't. There's no parking locally.
The CPZ, there's a little bit of residents parking down by the church and that is it.
So I don't think it's a well thought out that six fats are going to be able to have
three parking spaces, someone's going to be very upset and pensions will rise.
So I will be voting again for it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:31
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:11:33
Do you wish to make a proposal Councillor Lifflin?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:36
Not at this point.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:11:38
Councillor Polly Brakemore please.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:11:44
Thank you chair.
Yeah, just an observation really firstly, and it seems I realize that the building is,
I'm quite familiar with it as well, I walk past it most days, and I understand that the
building is currently two family -sized flats, and it seems a real shame that we can't keep
housing families there, rather than breaking it up and extending it to make six one -bedroom
because it's a great area for schools and shops and you know it's a very sustainable
place for a family home but anyway that's as may be.
I am also very familiar with the access around the back and as I understand it each house
along there their boundary goes right up to the across the lane and up to the cemetery
wall so in effect they own Bishop Lane outside their flat apart from the one right at the
And I realise that's not a planning matter, but surely access is a planning matter.
And this application seems to rely on access across what we are given to understand is
private land.
And I just wonder if we can delve into that a bit to try and understand how that would
pan out in reality.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:13:00
Thank you, Chair, members.
I mean, this section F of the report deals with most of the issues here brought up by
Councillor Keane and yourself Councillor Laymore in terms of the access being, as you've alluded
to yourself, not being owned by the applicant, it becomes a civil issue as to whether they
have a right of access over it and indeed whether they are actually allowed to access
over it.
All the conditions have been worded so that most of the development can't start, i .e.
the, you know, they cannot occupy
dwellings unless
these things are in place
and if they can't get access to them
if there is, should there be a
legal impediment outside of the planning system
then obviously that's an issue
for the applicant to deal with
the parking management plan will
when they, if permission was granted
would
seek to ensure that
The three spaces were allocated to the three flats which are on the immediate sort of overarms of the ground floor.
The parking survey, the Transport Assessment, well, sorry, Transport and Safety Parking Survey,
that was submitted with the application, sets out via the, which has been reviewed by KCC Highways as well,
sets out that there is a capacity within the area and it's absolutely correct that it is a controlled parking zone
and they would have to seek permits by the council
and if they're for the flats that didn't enjoy direct access as part of their lease
then that would obviously be something they would have to be made aware of
and would have to address, you know, much as many people who buy a flat
don't have access to a parking space, for example.
I hope that's of help.
Thank you.
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:15:01
I think parking will be an issue.
I mean KCC highlighted it as part of their consultation.
They said six parking spaces should be provided.
And although they've sort of suggested that there's parking elsewhere, there really isn't
and it would be a nightmare and it will really cause a lot of tensions with neighbors and
other streets.
So I think that's obviously holding us back on this application at the moment.
Councillor White -Bakemore?
Yeah, I'm very familiar with this area as well and with the lane and I
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:15:31
sympathise with
the residents.
I can see their concern.
I lived in a similar unadopted road previously and it relies on a lot of goodwill between
neighbours as to maintain that access and only having three spaces for six flaps.
I would also query, as the first speaker did, where that assessment comes of three cars
in, three cars out, because that doesn't tally with real life, I don't think.
In some ways this would be a more attractive proposal if there was no parking, and we've
proved schemes here before where we say, well, if you want to live there, then you're going
to use public transport, which is readily available here.
But by providing three parking spaces in somewhere where, on the other side of the property,
there's a double yellow line so you can't stop and park there.
There is a CPZ as people have mentioned but then you have to cross over Beechborough Road
which is a busy road and park in Lyons Road or Station Road.
How many people are actually going to do that rather than be tempted to go up the lane and
take their chances in parking on the site?
So yeah I think I'm going to struggle to support this one.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:35
Thank you.
Councillor Paul Thomas.
Yeah thank you chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:16:44
Just in support of what Councillor Baille has already said really, the KCC aspect does
say six spaces should be provided.
They also say in there that the parking bay should be 2 .7 metres and not 2 .5 metres.
But I don't see anywhere where there's a condition or anything which actually enforces that,
although I might be wrong.
It also talks about in the same assessment from KCC about EV charging point being provided
as well.
Again, maybe I haven't, maybe I've sort of overlooked that in the report.
But there are some very specific things and again they do include the requirements for
cycle storage as well which apparently is six spaces.
So for me again I do understand other members concerns with regard to parking and the angst
its likely to cause those residents but KCC specifically have made their view in terms
of they would expect to see six spaces so the issue to do with the Whitley parking bay
is an EV provision as well I'd like that to be commented on please from the officer.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:17:58
Officer Allen. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, in response to that, in terms of the parking bay widths, they do meet the requirements that were expressly set out in the KCC comments initially,
and they would be secured via the approved plans condition, which means that they would have to fill them into court with that.
I won't refer to the conditions straight away.
EV charging points, there's one per space provided which is three and that was secured
by conditions as well.
In terms of cycle spaces, yes, the applicants suggested that they would like to supply 12,
I mean that's actually an over provision and the condition wording is actually in line
which is one per bedroom,
so that would be secured by condition.
Also, in terms of the KCC comments,
I feel that perhaps the wording
that they've used is is.
Causing sort of issues here,
because it's saying six parking
spaces should be provided,
but they reduced provision of
three spaces has been shown,
and these may advise that these are
allocated, which was the advice given
to the applicant during the course of the application which they accepted and agreed
with which is part of condition 8 which is the management plan for parking.
So part of this was also from an amenity point of view because obviously having cars coming
and going to serve the flats, if you have someone who's working a different shift pattern
outside your rear window or towards your small garden areas there,
then that could create a tension within the site for the future occupants.
So the idea was that if you had that flat on the ground floor,
that's your space.
So that's just your space to park in if no one else has it.
In terms of the wider amenity, the idea then is if you buy a flat
and you don't have a space, you're not going to drive up there on spec
to see if you can park there because you know you can't because it's not your space.
So it is only the three cars associated with the three flats that have an allocated car
parking space who would access that.
I hope that's of some help.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:20:30
So just on FMA, just in terms of compliance with T2 then, is there any requirement for
visitor parking to be allocated within this as well or does that fall outside of T2?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:20:43
Again, that would be, I think there's a 0 .2 per unit up, which is roughly one space if
you round it up, I think, for the development.
The surrounding area of the parking survey showed that I think a 47 % level of saturation,
anything below 90 is considered to be acceptable,
which is a document that KCC Highways have also reviewed.
The additional two spaces that would be pushed onto the street
from the flat requirements, based upon the census data
that was reviewed as part of the transport assessment,
would take it up to 50%,
and with an additional car parking space
for the 0 .2 per unit over the development,
I mean that's going to nudge it around 51 % saturation, which as I say KCC highways have
reviewed and considered acceptable.
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:21:43
Thank you.
Just for the sake of clarity members, I've got KCC's highways comments up in front of
me.
They don't raise objections for skiing subject to allocation of parking spaces, the electric
charging points and cycle parking spaces as Mr. Allen's set out.
Just in terms of, because I,
the discussion is very much centered around whether the proposal is acceptable on highways grounds.
And so what we have is no objection from the statutory consultee, the county highway authority.
And in terms of government national planning guidance, as I suspect members have been advised
before, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development should only be prevented
or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety
or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network fire mitigations would be severe.
So in terms of this application,
we have a no objection from the
County Highway Authority and the
advice from government is that
planning permission should only be
refused on highways grounds if there
would be an unacceptable impact on
highway safety and I would urge
members to exercise caution when
they're considering this application
in terms of its impact on the highway
network and highway safety. I hope that
Thank you, Councilor Walker.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:23:24
Thank you, Chair. Once again, I think a lot of my points have already been made.
It does say in the pack that I am the ward member, so I'll just state that now as well.
I have met with one of the residents and also visited the site.
I know that the applicant, when it came through before,
it was a much more intensive development, shall we say.
This one is slightly less, but I think it is still too compacted in.
We've got too many flats in a small space.
Three parking spaces.
I wonder if we could be looking at either developing the two flats
that have come in that house or changes to three,
rather than trying to squash six into them.
Because that would solve the parking spaces.
And again, the very narrow lane,
obviously to what everybody else said, the narrow lane.
The extra car movement will cause problems I think.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:24:20
Thank you.
Councillor King did you want to come back?
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:24:23
I'm really surprised that we've suggested this park
from nearby because from memory,
Beechborough doesn't come into the CTZ
so they wouldn't have any calling on the roads
around there for parking spaces.
But also that little lane, and I do know it
because like everyone here I walk along there,
that comes out into the flow of traffic where there are traffic lights.
So, you know, we're going to have more cars coming down that lane
to get onto an already busy road where we've got
these new bus lanes that have been put in. I mean, I think we just asked them for trouble
and I'm really surprised that highways, I'd like them to come and look at that
and there's nowhere for people to cross. There's no...
It's only on the crossroads that there is crossing.
There's nothing in Beechborough.
That is a vast road.
I think this is an accident waiting to happen
and driving out into the traffic
that comes along Sheraton Road
is gonna be absolutely terrible for people.
You're gonna have them queued up in that lane
because they're queued up to get through the lights.
They're not gonna give way.
So I think this is, it's either got to be a three -slash
so there's only three extra cars or it's no parking at all on site and people have got
to make their own arrangements. I think we need to look at the CPZ because I'm pretty
sure that Beechborough weren't part of the CPZ so therefore they wouldn't be allocated
a spot. I just think this is totally wrong for the residents and for the road users in
that area.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:25:59
Is that a proposal Councillor King?
Yeah.
That was a yeah, apparently.
Thank you.
Do I have a seconder?
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:26:15
And in fact, Councillor Cooper, you're up to speak next.
Thank you, Chair.
Basically, what I'd like to know is this.
I'm a little bit surprised from the Speaker, and no disrespect to the Speaker when he gave
his little speech before.
He made reference to the parking being subject to the tenancy agreements.
Now obviously as we know, if for example there was a tenancy agreement and the Clause of
the Excellency Agreement said that you're allocated XYZ space, if there's no provision
to ensure that's secure, obviously that's going to mean there could be a breach of the
problems of clients' enjoyment of people's property.
And in relation also, that could also increase in my view local sanctions etc.
I am not aware, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not aware of any security
CPZ actually allocating, like for example traffic regulation order, that a certain amount
of space in the road or whatever would be allocated to a certain property. As I say,
if I'm wrong there please correct me. And also what I would like to make reference to
is on page 138 of the pack that we've got, we've got a list of objections here by the
town council which includes for example, requires mechanical ventilation to meet standards for
The floor that propels flats within the rooms,
flats 205, have very little daylight to the dining areas
due to the depth of the extension.
There is no limit, there's no outdoor amenity
to the upper flats and parking arrangements
will cause noise disturbance, et cetera, to neighbors.
Could we have a little discussion on that, if we please?
Is there like a bit of clarification on that?
Because it does seem from there, and the consent report,
that whilst it might, for example,
improve local housing provision,
You can have property there available to rent.
It's not necessarily going to be guaranteed that it will be taken up by the community.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Cooper.
In terms of the flats themselves, they all meet the adopted policy space standards.
For the flats that don't have a specific allocated external amenity area, there is a communal
the whole amenity area to be provided.
So I think that addressed your queries on what the town council has
Mr Robert Allan - 1:28:36
raised.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:28:37
The town council say for example, yeah, mechanical ventilation to meet standards and for those
flats and inner rooms, yeah.
And basically what they're saying there, if I read that correctly, is that some of these
The inner rooms are not going to have any day lights and therefore what happens then?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:28:57
Thank you.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:28:59
I mean for example if you're in the habit of having ever proven properties where there's
no light and you've got a line of the bits and pieces, because it seems to me a bit silly
to be honest with you.
I mean that's my view.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:29:08
Thank you.
The flats do, all the rooms have what you call habitable rooms have daylight to them.
There are some rooms, for example, I think there's bathrooms that have no external windows
which isn't unusual and can also be met through building regs.
One of the last conditions on the last two conditions on the proposal deal with this
issue in terms of the former one, the penultimate one deals with making sure that the acoustic
levels are met via the recommendations made there and the latter make sure that any mechanical
ventilation that is employed has to meet certain standards so that it doesn't then prove to
be any sort of issue for future occupants which again it's all falls within building
regulations so it's not an unusual solution for these buildings and properties.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:30:18
Thank you.
Councillor Burdard.
Thank you chair.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:30:23
I think putting the parking and the highways issued to one side I think Councillor Blake
Moore had it straight on her head.
The parking is sort of hindering the project you know put an extra flat there to cover
the parking up works. Taking some positives out of the building,
like the road I'm sort of hearing is the parking and the roads.
Three of the flats, two, four and five are well above the policy GIA required,
which is good to see, and the other three are bang on,
level with what they need to do.
I think the building is a quality building, personally.
I like the building.
Renting properly, we all need more rent
and I don't know about it, seems to be
every meeting at the moment, rentals
pop up in folks and they don't
hang about.
People are looking for property
especially
to a one bedroom flat.
Like we've been advised
by Mr. Badey, with the parking
and the roads, it would be very
difficult for us to defend
anything to do with highways or transportation.
Councillor Pinn's probably banned and corrected about hearing somebody from KCC.
And many years ago we did.
We used to have a representative from KCC many years ago when I had black long hair.
But unfortunately, they don't come now, for whatever reason, I don't know why.
I found it very useful, and I know there's not many members on this committee left now,
to witness that but they were there in the body and you could sort of go about it.
So you know it was an interesting take away the parking and the transport side of it
and you know look at the building a bit more and discuss perhaps that, what we feel about that
because personally I haven't got to any issues with the building.
I think it's quite a tidy building like I say
and you know Mr. Davis and the African, I believe,
have done a pretty good job
with what they've got to work with.
So like I say, it'd be interesting to see
if any members sort of tend to move on
to the actual dwelling and the size of the proposed flats
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:44
and see what views there is, Mr. Chair.
Is that a proposal at this point, Councillor Boulion?
Yes, I'm happy to do that.
Because like I say, the main issue
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:32:52
is what Councillor Keena pointed out,
is the parking and the roads,
but Mr. Bailey's advised us that we can't touch that.
So the rest of the scheme, I believe, is okay.
And the report's a good report.
And like I say, yeah.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:12
Do we have a seconder?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:33:15
Two hands up.
Councillor Holinsby, are you seconding?
Yes, I'm seconding.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:22
I'll put you on the list to talk.
I've got some other councillors wishing to talk.
Councillor Mike Blaintmore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:33:27
Just to go back to parking.
It was my fault for posing it as a cynical comment before rather than a question but
I was just interested in the three cars in, three cars out assessment.
How do we reach that?
Is that a formula that's out of date or how do we get to that because I think several
of us are a bit mystified by how we reach that conclusion that it wouldn't generate
Mr Robert Allan - 1:33:56
more traffic on that? I think, thank you chair, I think as with any assessment and supporting
document I think assumptions are made as to how, you know, when calculations are carried
out so for example with the acoustic assessment as well, as a parallel which is related to
You may say well there might be a higher level on a particular experience of noise but as
an acoustic consultant will go we have to take a median value over a set period of time.
With traffic surveys they for example they do surveys over set periods of time that are
accepted ways of working, best practice and in this case as well, I think, you know, which
is uniform across traffic surveys which are carried out in the planning world, they will
say well look, you know, if there are three spaces based upon a, if you want, a sort of
standardised way of life that people get up in the morning, leave the house, go to work,
come back later on in the day.
I understand the pragmatism or perhaps the real world view from members
and members of the public that you could have someone who lived in a house
and they would be in and out like a fiddler's elbow if you want
but it would be a case of you have to base these assessments
on a standard sort of way of living and usage.
If you want to look at it in a certain way,
I mean my car doesn't need to drive for days
because I work from home for sort of three or four days a week.
So does that make mine better or worse?
It's a standardized practice and methodology used
in the production of these reports.
So that's the basis they have used and as it was reported here.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:36:02
Thank you, Councilor Polly Brightman.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:36:10
Sorry, more parking. Firstly, I actually do have a I don't normally answer
questions here, but just very quickly I do have an answer to Councilor Keenan,
Councilor Cooper's question about that CPZ because with my other hat on I do
know about how that works up there and although Beechford Road is in,
It is in the CPZ, but there is no parking on Beechville Road, so they can buy permits
to park in Station Road and Lyons Road, which as you can imagine goes down very well with
residents in Station Road and Lyons Road.
There is parking on the other side of the railway line, I hesitate to say, but then
they're 10 minutes away, and we all know they're far more likely to take their chances parking
up the lane and parking 10 minutes away.
The question I had was going back to Rob's advice about not thinking carefully before
we refuse this on highways grounds because the lane we're talking about is actually an
unadopted lane.
So I'm not talking so much about the highways, although I thought Councillor Keemate's a really
good point about tough it queuing up to get on Cheriton Road, but I'm talking about the
problems on that access road.
So is that a highway's ground or isn't it because it's not KCC owned land?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:37:24
Well, I think the issue about queuing to get out onto the adopted highway clearly is a
highway safety issue.
I'm not entirely clear what issue members consider there to be with this unadopted private
track to the rear of the houses.
But I mean it's important to bear in mind obviously that this track is used by a number
of houses presently and that there are, in my understanding, four existing parking spaces
to the rear of the application site used, albeit used by two dwellings.
But this development, if it was approved, subject to the conditions in particular, condition
8, which requires parking management strategy and allocation of the parking spaces, would
potentially see a reduction in one space at the site.
So arguably, there would be a reduction in
or an increase in capacity for the road
because there'd be a reduction in parking spaces at the application site.
So if members have particular concerns about the access road,
I'm happy to have any questions about it,
I'd be happy to consider and respond to them.
but it seems to me that an existing access track that's used by existing vehicles,
I think we'd be on pretty thin ground refusing planning permission on the basis that it might
lead to traffic conflicts within that area.
And like I said, government guidance is very clear that planning permission should only
be refused on highways grounds where there's an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
And to my mind, the fact that they say an unacceptable impact means it has to be reasonably
significant, it's not a small impact.
And again, I reiterate to members, the county highway authority has raised no objection
to the scheme on this basis and again, I'd urge members to exercise caution in this regard.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Sheehan.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:39:56
Thank you. I think Councillor Goddard probably said pretty much what I was going to say.
It is in a sustainable location. We do need single homes for single people, couples.
So it would be a good addition, albeit a small addition.
I think it's not inevitable that people are looking to rent these places or buy these places
and there's not a blige to have a car.
As I said, it's in a sustainable location, so there's not an obligatory to have a car if you're going to live there.
And I'm glad to see that there's proper secure cycle storage.
I think, as I said, it's a good location.
There's buses, you're near the train station, it's walkable and it's certainly cyclable.
So I'm very happy to support it.
Thank you, Councillor Jones.
It's a difficult one really because there are a lot of positives as Councillor Schuber
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:41:09
said back to the access road.
So I'm sure one of the officers said
earlier that all the other properties
apart from this property own rights to that access road.
Is there a possibility that that can be restricted?
And would that be a problem with the development
if the other owners of the other properties didn't agree access?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:41:51
Thank you chair and thank you.
Yes, the same section F is talked about.
It's something that's come up.
Obviously many times before committee.
If it's not, I mean, I don't like using the term ransom strip, but if, because I don't
know the extent of the covenants, because they fall outside of, you know, our arbitration
sort of thing, so we don't, as planning authority, get involved, sort of, with the ins and outs
of that. So in terms of the planning process, the applicant has identified the access, they've
served the notice, or they've signed the form to say they have served notice on anyone else
who has an interest in that land. The granting of planning permission doesn't override other
areas of law so if the people who have another interest in that land have a legal right to
stop access there then that's for them to exercise or take up with the applicant and
equally if the applicant can prove that ends to the other owners and say actually I have
a right to pass and re -pass on this which they have asserted but again that's not for
or the planning authority to arbitrary.
I don't know if that's really very concise
to answer your question.
Yeah, no, it's just a query.
I saw it happen somewhere else where a private lane
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:43:36
just put a gate up and then it causes
obviously issues for the developer.
So we could essentially agree to planning
permission and then they can't access it down that lane.
Would that be... but that's not part of the planning process,
I guess, is it?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:43:51
You're absolutely right Councillor Jones, it's not part of the planning process but
it is a part of life.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:44:01
I think everyone has said everything they want to say so we actually have two proposals
before we go to the first one.
Oh sorry Councillor Wensby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:44:09
I thought you'd forgotten me, well you had.
I was just going to say I'm not going to talk about parking because I think we've discussed
parking enough and I think Councillor Mike Lakemore was right with his first point that
we've often agreed applications where there's been no parking at all.
So in my mind I'm thinking, wish there wasn't any parking there, we might have got through
this a lot quicker.
And of course the road, the access at the back, it's a civil matter isn't it?
It's between the residents.
It's nothing to do with planning.
So, you know, I think, as somebody said,
we need rented properties.
They seem to meet all the standards of our policies.
So I'm very happy to second and support the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:45:11
Thank you, Councillor Hinesby.
So we do have two proposals.
the first proposal that came forward is to go against the officer's recommendation but
before we go to that could I ask Councillor Keene who is a proposer to state your reasons
for going against the officer's recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you Michael.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:45:28
It's not, I don't think it's a wash but it is about the safety.
There are schools in that area where that road comes out which I know from living there
how dangerous it is when the school's between 9,
8 .30 or 9 in the morning, it's a minefield along there.
I just think I would be happier
if there was no parking to this and nobody could park there.
But to me it's road safety,
the safety of children's crossings, roads,
there's no extra Zebra crossings,
that's a fast road and I don't think anyone's thought
about residents that are already there
And although that is a material consideration,
I think this is gonna be a minefield of issues
going forward.
And I think they're gonna come back to this time again.
So I think it can't go through on the transport,
it can't go through, but I do think it's a dangerous area
to even think about that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:46:28
Mr Robert Allan - 1:46:30
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:46:31
As we have already heard,
whether we agree with the parking or not,
because High Wines have not made any comment adversely to this
and we have been advised that that doesn't then go against planning regulations.
Do you still want your proposal to go through?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:46:54
Do you wish to withdraw?
Withdraw, yes.
Thank you.
So we've actually got one proposal and that's to agree with the officer's recommendation
given everything else that's being discussed.
All those in favour of agreeing with the officer's recommendation please raise your hand.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:22
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:28
Mr Alex Baker - 1:47:34
Abstentions. Thank you chair, there's six in favour, four against and
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:37
two abstentions.
Thank you, that has passed.

10 24/0653/FH - The Log Cabin, Dungeness Road, Dungeness TN29 9ND

.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:26
Sorry, if these agendas get any longer, I don't think I'll be able to find any of them
in here.
So we move on to our next one, which is application 24 -0653 -FH, which is the log cabin, Dungeness
Road in Dungeness.
Do we have any updates, please?
Thank you, Chair.
Before Ms. Wilkins does her update, recently officers have taken the opportunity to review
the application form and we've concluded that the publicity for the application was not
sufficient and further publicity, namely the posting the site notice displayed near the
site should take place.
The officer recommendation is therefore that authority to grant planning permission is
delegated to officers subject to no new
material considerations being raised in
response to the new site notice. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:24
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:49:26
Any updates please? Yeah, thank you,
care. I have two further updates,
one being that we've received
natural England comments raising
no objections to the proposal,
and they've confirmed that they are
satisfied with the mitigation measures
outlined within the HRA, which is
attached to this report and we've also received one further
labour representation in support of the application.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:52
Thank you.
Thank you.
In response to the publicity, et cetera,
I would personally, as chair, like to take this forward
because I think we need to have a discussion
regarding this application.
I also asked when we got the pack through,
I didn't believe that the illustrations that were in the pack were clear enough to actually
show the committee what was planned as the cladding.
Do we actually have enhanced illustrations so that people can actually see what is planned
for the outside of this building?
Thank you, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:50:37
Within the presentation that's going to be playing tonight,
we do have additional CGI artistic images,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:50:47
so they will be displayed as we discuss the application.
Thank you.
And we have two speakers on this.
So our first speaker is Dominant Gregory,
local resident to speak against the application
if you'd like to come forward, sir.
Good evening, I know it's been a long one, I do apologize.
And your time will start when you do.
Microphone Forty - 1:51:12
Thank you very much for letting me speak.
My name is Dominic Gregory. I've lived with my family in the Dungeness conservation area for almost the past 20 years.
and I object to the application log cabin.
I should begin by saying though, how much I welcome any sympathetic restoration of buildings
in the Dungeness conservation area, and in this instance log cabin.
I should also add that I welcome its owner or owners, even though as far as I'm aware,
they've not yet sought to live on Dungeness themselves.
The Council's own conservation area appraisal of 2006 states that
the small, often fragile, transient -looking buildings of Dungeness
represent a singular response to the social and economic forces
of a short period in the early 20th century.
They are the reasons for Dungeness being a conservation area.
That is the point that I'd really like to stress.
And that's point 15 in the council's own conservation plan.
The appraisal goes on to say,
despite their varying condition, finish, detail and state of tidiness,
virtually all the unlisted buildings contribute to the character of the area.
The ensemble would be diminished
if any were lost or altered to obscure their origins.
That's point 55.
I have two principal concerns about the current restoration plans for Log Cabin.
First, although there has been limited use of cotton steel on recent restorations across
the Dungeness Conservation Area, to my knowledge it has not as yet been used as the dominant
cladding material.
According to the conservation area appraisal, sympathetic building and cladding materials
as specifically weatherboarding, board and batten and shingle.
That's 0 .57 of the Council's own conservation area appraisal.
There is nothing fragile or transient looking about Caughton Steel.
Instead, even in the artist's impression of the restoration,
it renders the outline of the railway carriages clad within as blockish and brutal.
it obscures the modest origins of the building.
Second, I'm disturbed by the intention to laser cut the whole cladding with decorations,
which have no context within the building heritage of the Dungeness conservation area.
This is not an aesthetic judgment.
It is a statement of fact.
No matter how subtle and well intentioned the decorations may be,
they too obscure the modest origins of the building.
Moreover, they will transform the building from a simple home
into a work of art by a high -profile artist.
Sorry, sir, could you finish your last sentence?
Well, the conservation area continues to attract and inspire many artists.
It should not be confused with an art gallery.
Prospect Cottage may be mistaken by some as a work of art,
however it was only ever used as an artist's home.
Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:54:47
And our second speaker is Mr Guy Holloway again. Good evening, sir.
He is the architect to speak on the application and your three minutes starts when you do.
Microphone Forty - 1:55:03
Members, Madam Chairman,
In the 1920s the railway closed in Dungeness and the railway workers were offered carriages
as holiday homes or homes. Anyway the story goes that there were two brothers and they
actually hated each other and so one of the brothers decided to drag his carriage closer
the sea thus blocking the other brother's view and this is log cabin. And actually the actual carriage
has also been lost because over the years it's been over clad in white timber boarding and what
we would like to do is lovingly take away the carriage, completely restore it, bring it back
to the beach and then allow the form of the carriage to be really expressed so you can see
the shape and that story is not lost.
We want to become storytellers as architects and celebrate Dungeness.
Dungeness is full of rusting metals, rusting carriages, railways, buildings and about ten
years ago I was the architect for Pobel House, you'll see it on here and it's got quartet
facades with holes in it and it's survived the test of time and it's getting better with age,
it looks better with age, it looks better with time and what we try to do as architects is
design buildings that get better with age. Dungeon S has long attracted artists, writers,
filmmakers, Ed Sheeran.
And famously in 1986 Derek Jarman came to Dungeonese
and he put a poem on the side of Prospect House.
And that poem was carved into the facade and a trickle of people respectfully come and enjoy that artist.
And the artists and the creatives have become as much a part of the landscape
of Dunginess as the landscape itself.
They're becoming part of that story.
And Sam Cox, who's here tonight, he's a renowned local artist
and he wants to create a family home, he likes the isolation,
he likes the inspiration of the place
and he also wants to put his small statement or stand on this Dungeness.
And then what we are doing is doing that in a really sympathetic way,
where we are cutting into the quartet to create a veil of this artwork,
but the prevailing is that we are being respectful of Dungeness,
and this is Dungeness first, so it's designed in the vernacular of the place, but with this
little twist which reflects the artist who's in residence.
Thank you sir, your time is up.
I would really ask members to support the recommendation and allow this project to move
forward.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:58:21
Thank you sir.
Over to you councillors.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:58:30
Councillor Hensby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:58:33
Can I take on board what Rob said at the beginning?
What did he say?
No, I'm fine.
No, that's Clive saying to me.
What did he say?
He just said it would be off and again to a penemics.
It was all a bit too quick.
Well, maybe you could do that now then, please, if you don't mind.
Happy to.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:58:51
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:58:53
Apologies, members, if my initial statement was a bit garbled.
We've recently reviewed the application file and we've concluded that the publicity
for the application, which is required for applications in conservation areas, wasn't
sufficient and that further publicity, namely site notice posted or displayed near the site,
as near as possible to the site, should take place.
The officer recommendation is therefore that authority to grant planning permission is
delegated to officers subject to no new material considerations being raised in response to
the new site notice.
So that's to say if members are minded to approve it, approve the application.
We delegate authority to officers to approve it subject to no significant fresh issues
being raised.
If any are raised, any new material considerations, the application would have to be reported
back to this committee.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. I was just going to ask on that also,
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:59:56
because there was an issue raised about neighbours as well.
Have the neighbours been issued with letters
or are they likely also to be issued with letters?
I just wanted to confirm, because that was the point raised in one of
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:00:10
the objections.
One of the objections, or indeed possibly more than one,
raised the issue of letters.
And that was partly the reason for officers reviewing the file.
And in terms of the properties consulted,
we've consulted more widely than the statutory requirement
and more widely than our statement of community involvement
requires us to do so.
And my understanding from viewing the file
is that those letters were dispatched.
Obviously, the Council can't control whether or not they were received,
but I think as members are aware, this application's been the subject
of fairly wide publicity, including in the national press,
and a large number of local residents have had the opportunity to
and have commented on the application.
But the posting the site notice would offer a fresh opportunity
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:01:07
to any nearby residents to submit further comments, should they wish.
Thank you very much indeed.
And the other thing I was going to mention is,
In the email that came from a number of residents in the dungeoness,
I was a bit perturbed by the fact that if we don't pass it,
they're going to probably take it to judicial review.
I don't like that sort of threatening at the end.
Having said that, however,
as I understand it, the applicant's lifestyle is not a material consideration.
I just like confirmation of that.
Visitors. One of the things we've been trying to do for a number of years
is to increase tourism on Romney Marsh.
And if this increases tourism, respectively,
then I think that it can only be a good thing.
There was a comment, I think, about legibility of the artwork.
So I just wonder whether there's a comment on that.
And it talks about the character of the area,
and I think Guy Holloway has explained that
in quite some detail.
And actually, I mean, there's a variety of cabins
and railway coaches down there,
which I think this can only add to that
and help work with the character of the area.
So I'm very happy with the application and I would move approval.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:39
Thank you Councillor Hornsby.
Do I have a seconder?
Councillor Jones.
Would you like to speak?
Cllr Anita Jones - 2:02:48
Yes, I think it's a really exciting looking property.
I think I really like what they've done.
I love the fact that they've reflected on everything else that they've got in Dungeness.
The railway carriages, they've reflected on the rusting metal.
I think it's quite sympathetic.
and I think it's really good for the Bongani Marsh
to do things like this.
And as Councillor Hugginsby said,
we do want to increase tourism onto the marsh.
And I mean, I don't suspect the owner would like people
walking around his house all the time,
I wouldn't personally,
but certainly the Derek Jarvan house draws people
and people respectfully have a look at the garden,
have a look at the exterior of that property.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:03:31
So, yeah, I'm happy to support.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:03:39
Well, when I first moved down here in 1979, I cycled work,
and I've been along that road thousands of times,
and I've seen the way that air has evolved in that time.
I hasten to add, like Councillor Goddard,
I did have long flowing black hair in those days,
which is subsequently gone.
I was concerned by some of the comments that we received
from local residents about the lack of publicity.
And therefore, the whole issue about
did people have sufficient time and sufficient opportunity
to provide both us as members and the planning officers
with the information that was needed,
the local knowledge that was needed,
whereby a decision could be made
about this particular planning application.
And I know Rob tonight has said that, you know,
that if this is approved, then we would take it back
through a delegated position, providing
there are no significant issues raised during that publicity.
So I just wonder whether the safest position,
and the one that we could sort of hang our hat on,
is whether we actually defer this application tonight
to allow the officers to go and do what they need to do
to make sure that the application is adequately publicised,
that we do give the residents the opportunity
to provide input to us as members and planning officers,
and then we can bring it back in what should be a relatively straight order.
And then there's no issue about whether we have fudged an issue
associated with providing the statutory amount of time
and the statutory level of notification that we're required to.
So, I'm proposing that we defer this application to give the operators and to give residents
the opportunity to receive that information and make sure we're on very solid ground when
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:05:35
it comes to any decision we make in the future.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Do I have a seconder?
I second that.
Councillor Kane has seconded.
Councillor Polly Blackmore.
I'm still finding it a little bit difficult to see from the
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:05:48
presentation any close -ups
of the cotton steel cladding, so I still don't feel I'm getting a good impression of what
this is actually going to look like in real life.
I don't really understand how recognisable the artistry is for what it's going to be
and from what distance images or creations will be identifiable, so I'm finding it a
little bit hard to come down one side or the other at the moment.
The other thing I was going to say is, I think it's mentioned three times in the reports
that the replacement building is really replacing an existing building and therefore is not
likely to impact local traffic movements and parking.
I think we know that that's probably not the case and there is going to be interest in
this but again that's not necessarily a bad thing as Councillor Hollingsby said, you know,
tourism can be a good thing but I just think we need to be clear about what it is we're
discussing here.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:06:43
Thank you, Councillor Blakemore. That's exactly why I asked for further illustrations, because
I know there are some, because the Head of Planning showed me some. But there you go.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 2:06:58
Councillor Mike Blakemore.
I'm tempted to say there are better illustrations in the Guardian newspaper. I mean, it's very
often a subjective judgement that we make, isn't it? But I think more so with this, possibly
than any other application that's come forth in the time I've been on the committee, because
whether you think that this adds to Dunginess or whether you think it detracts from it is
very much a personal judgement.
It's not really in keeping with the previous small, often fragile, transient looking buildings.
That's beyond doubt.
Yes, it restores the old railway carriages, but then it hides them behind essentially
a very large artwork.
Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing I think is really a matter of personal
judgement.
I'm not sure either way really, but I think.
But I also think it's worth noting also the 16 .5 % increase in size to the building,
23 .4 square metre extra footprint, and I think that's worth thinking carefully about the
sheer size of this building and not to be blinded to that by the considerations of the
artwork on the outside.
That was all I wanted to say.
Thank you, Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:08:11
Thank you chair. Me obviously the miscommunication I think to be honest I think Rob's been on
with this rather than a deferral this time because basically it's going to save us a
meeting and future time with officers etc etc if no issues come in it's approved and we
move on etc so you know I'm happy to stick with the approval yes it has caused a lot
of issues amongst the locals in in Dungeness like Councillor Thomas know
obviously Dungeness very well and the architect mentioned Pobble House and
that has improved that there is now as I say it you know over the age that was built
I forget how many years ago now but you know that has improved over the over the years
I can remember when the smoke was first done in there, it was up -war about that and they
had glass windows joining them together.
The development at Dungeness has been pretty sympathetic to the area, it's got to be.
You won't ever see a new build there but these railways, carriages are carriages.
They don't last long and unfortunately you can't have light for light, you can't go up
to South East and say can we have one of your carriages and dump it at Dungeness.
So, you know, yeah.
But basically, you know, yeah, it's an interesting rhythm.
But they're all interesting. Every time there's a new development at Dunganess, it's different.
Again, it's challenging. The architects push the boundaries.
Like Guy says, it's a living thing, they want to develop it.
And it is weird, not seeing those digitally old places.
But we've got to go with change.
I always say when I talk about Dunginess,
nobody wants to see wild places down there,
different places, sensible places, and obviously good architecture.
And I think that's what we get when we do have new developments at Dunginess,
we do get the architecture to go with it, because they are quality buildings.
So I would obviously like this to progress tonight.
If there is issues, then fine.
The Deputy Head of Planning has turned round now,
he'll come straight back to us if there's any more issues from any more residents.
The main issues the residents point to me have been covered tonight
by the officers and the report.
So, yeah.
So, it's changing times and the boundaries will always be pushed.
As long as we get the right development and we are in control of that development as a
committee and as a council I think then Dungeness will be in pretty good shape.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:11:09
Thank you I don't think I missed anybody out.
We have two proposals.
One is to accept the application so that the officers can go away and do the publicity.
If there are no further material issues coming forward then we are delegating the completion
of the application with the officers.
OK, so that is the first proposal.
The second proposal will be to defer it tonight until the publicity has taken place and also
possibly to bring forward some further illustrations of what this cladding would look like.
So hopefully I've made that clear enough as to the two options that we have today.
So the first one is to accept the officer's recommendation with the publicity and then
to give the rights for them to finish the application.
So all those in favour please raise your hand.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:24
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:30
Abstentions.
Mr Alex Baker - 2:12:35
Thank you chair, that's five in favour, five against and two abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:44
Thank you so much.
Excuse me.
I'd like to put forward the deferment one.
I'd like to see how many on each side for the deferment before I make my decision if
I may.
Can I see those in favour of a deferment please?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:18
Those against?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:23
Abstention.
Mr Alex Baker - 2:13:43
So was that six in favour?
That was five against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:52
Sorry, can you…
Because Councillor Baitmore I believe that you voted for the deferment, correct?
Yes.
In that case, Chairman's decision on this, we will defer this one until the publicity.
we have followed the process correctly to actually ensure that the residents and the
neighbours have their full time to actually comment on this.
Please believe me this is no disrespect to the design I just want to ensure that we have
actually followed the process correctly.
Sorry, Councillor Baitmore.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:14:32
I just wanted to check that as part of that deferment we will get some better images because
because that's the reason I voted for deferment.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:15:21
So, just to clarify and to make sure that we are following process correctly, on the
to accept the application and hand it to the officers once the public is here. Because
it was equal, I am voting against that and we have now done the deferment one which I
hope we have explained with clarity to ensure that the full process is followed to its full
extent to allow neighbours and residents to actually comment on this.
If there are any illustrations that we could have as well as to the outside cladding because
I have seen clearer ones and I would like the committee to actually see the outside
cladding.
As much as some people like some artwork, some people don't like other artwork, I think
it is important that committee actually see in clarity what will be on the outside of
the building. So we will go for a deferment on this one. Thank you very much.

6 23/1774/FH - Airport Café, Ashford Road, Sellindge, Ashford TN25 6DA

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:16:44
So we will move on to our next one as time is getting on. 231774 -FH which is the airport
cafe Ashford Road in Selling. Do we have any updates please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:17:03
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:17:05
Thank you, Chair. We have no updates. Thank you very much. And on my
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:17:10
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:17:10
notes, we have
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:17:12
no speakers on this one either. So over to you, Councillors. Councillor Moseby?
I probably ought to declare an interest in that it's in my ward. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:17:24
Would any Councillor like to speak on this?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:17:29
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:17:30
Sorry, excuse me members of the public, if you're leaving can you please leave because
we do still have some applications we need to go through, thank you.
So Councillors, back to you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:17:45
Anyone want to speak on the Airport Cafe?
Councillor Holmesby?
Sorry.
It's just replacing units,
but I am concerned about the garden town
in that it was allocated as part of that.
I've read it and I understand,
but I am a little bit concerned that
you'll end up with something like this
in the middle of or at the edge of
a new garden settlement.
And also the other issue, which I know,
highways are not worried about it, should I say.
But Selinge residents are always worried about
the lorries going through the village.
And it is a concern.
I was a bit disturbed when I read that the applicant
wasn't willing to erect some signs to actually indicate.
But I think I wanted to check because there used to be signs actually indicating to go to Junction 11.
I'm not sure whether they're still there and maybe they are but I mean I pass it every day.
But you know you don't look every day do you?
So you know they're my issues and if there's a response to them that's fine.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:19:16
Thank you. The access does remain as is.
If you're looking at the airport cafe, it's to the right hand side.
And there is signage on the opposite side of the road,
directing lorry traffic towards the M20,
as opposed to going through St. Inge itself.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:19:35
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:19:35
Would any other Councillor like to...
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:19:39
Councillor Thomas?
Yeah, just a couple of questions.
On the section four, it talks about the relevant planning history.
There are two refused applications on there, one from 2021 from the temporary planning
commission for parking of vehicles, HDVs, and one from 2023, which is continued use
for lorry parking.
Does that have any impact at all on this application?
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:20:09
The lorry parking site is separate to this.
This site is, if you're facing the Airport Cafe, sort of in the bottom right hand corner
of the site where the existing run down industrial buildings are.
In terms of the lorry parking issues at the site, I'm happy to discuss outside the meeting
but it's a very long, very complex, very convoluted planning history and it's something
that we are actively looking at without our enforcement in the present.
Okay, thank you very much Phil. I just thought I'd chuck that on the
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:20:45
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:20:45
table, thanks.
Councillor Goddard. Thank you, Chair. Easiest decision of the
Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:20:52
night. Move the recommendation. Well done, Danielle. Excellent report.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:20:56
Do you have a seconder, please? Councillor Cooper. Would anyone else like to speak on
I'm not seeing anything. So we have one recommendation and that's to go with the
officers recommendation of approval. All those in favour please show your hands.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:21:17
Those against. Abstention. That's approved. Thank you.

7 24/1356/FH - 33 Lancaster Drive, Hawkinge, Folkestone CT18 7SW

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:21:27
And then we have the last one of this evening which is 24 -1356 -FH which is 33 Lancaster
Drive in Hawkins.
Do we have any updates please?
Mr Robert Allan - 2:21:47
No updates, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:21:53
And we have no speakers on this particular application.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:21:59
Councillor Hornsby, then Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Well, I'm going to move the application because I don't really want to go through all the
arguments that we've previously been through. I think it's been aired enough, so I'm very
happy to move the recommendation.
Do you have a seconder, please?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:22:22
Happy to second, but I would like to raise the issue of flooding again, because I don't
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:22:26
think we covered it enough last time. No, I'm joking. I'm happy to second, thank you.
Thank you. Would any other Councillor like to speak on this one?
Councillor Blakemore?
I was just curious about the meeting with members of the Planning and Licensing Committee,
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 2:22:39
because I think my invitation got lost in the post.
So how was it decided who was attending that meeting?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:22:52
It was decided that we would arrange a meeting
with the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion,
which I understand was Councillor Cooper and Councillor Walker,
and also it was attended by Councillor Butcher
and two other representatives of Hawkins Parish Council.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:23:09
Would anyone else like to speak?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:23:15
I am seeing Councillor Cooper.
I just had, in respect of that meeting, it was decided that we would contact KCC
in respect of further action.
And I do understand from an email received this morning from the Council of Yorkshire
copying the government's response, we've heard nothing further to that.
Now, I've got a question.
Whilst I understand the reasons and everything else behind it,
and it was thoroughly heard at the meeting that we had
with the officers,
the council of Woke, and the parish councils from Oak Ridge, etc.,
what I'm concerned about now is if we agreed this and moved this forward,
given the consents of the request of actions
that have not been followed through, will that be affected by it?
In other words, what I wouldn't want to do is say,
go with it and go with the Office's recommendation
and then tomorrow discover,
because KCC, I don't know what it's supposed to be doing
or being requested to do,
i .e. hand -to -hand,
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:24:16
if that makes sense.
If you look at page 104 of the agenda,
that shows the extent of the drainage ditch,
which is the issue we have raised with KCC,
and where the application site lies.
So this site lies well to the north of the drainage ditch.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:24:38
So approval of this won't have any impact on that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:24:40
Thank you.
I am seeing no other hands.
So we have one proposal and that is to accept the officer's recommendation for this application.
All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:24:56
Those against.
Mr Alex Baker - 2:25:03
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:25:04
abstentions. That has passed. I can count today. Thank you very much. That is the end
Webcast Finished - 2:25:13
of this particular meeting. Safe home. It's very cold out there so please keep warm wherever
you are.