Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 8th October 2024 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Cllr Belinda Walker
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Slide 4
Slide 5
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Belinda Walker
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Clive Goddard
Slide 6
Slide 7
Cllr Jackie Meade

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 10/09/2024 Planning and Licensing Committee

Slide 8
Slide 9
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 10

4 20/0604/FH - Land to the South of Ashford Road, Sellindge

Share this agenda point

Slide 11
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 12
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Microphone Forty
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Microphone Forty
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Slide 65
Slide 66
Slide 67
Slide 68
Slide 69
Slide 70
Slide 71
Slide 72
Slide 73
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Slide 90
Slide 91
Slide 92
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 93
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 94
Slide 95
Slide 96
Microphone Forty
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Slide 101
Slide 102
Slide 103
Slide 104
Slide 105
Slide 106
Slide 107
Slide 108
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Slide 113
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Slide 122
Slide 123
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Slide 128
Slide 129
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 130
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 131
Slide 132
Slide 133
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Slide 137
Slide 138
Slide 139
Slide 140
Slide 141
Slide 142
Slide 143
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Slide 152
Slide 153
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Slide 159
Slide 160
Slide 161
Slide 162
Slide 163
Slide 164
Slide 165
Slide 166
Slide 167
Slide 168
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Slide 176
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Slide 181
Slide 182
Slide 183
Slide 184
Slide 185
Slide 186
Cllr Jackie Meade
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 187
Slide 188
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Slide 200
Slide 201
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Slide 209
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Slide 218
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 219
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 220
Slide 221
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Slide 226
Slide 227
Slide 228
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 229
Cllr James Butcher
Slide 230
Slide 231
Slide 232
Slide 233
Slide 234
Slide 235
Slide 236
Slide 237
Slide 238
Slide 239
Slide 240
Slide 241
Slide 242
Slide 243
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 244
Slide 245
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 246
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Slide 253
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 254
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 255
Slide 256
Slide 257
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 265
Slide 266
Slide 267
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270
Slide 271
Slide 272
Slide 273
Slide 274
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 275
Slide 276
Slide 277
Slide 278
Slide 279
Slide 280
Slide 281
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Slide 285
Slide 286
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 287
Slide 288
Slide 289
Slide 290
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 291
Slide 292
Slide 293
Slide 294
Slide 295
Slide 296
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Slide 300
Slide 301
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 302
Slide 303
Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Slide 307
Slide 308
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 309
Slide 310
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 311
Slide 312
Slide 313
Slide 314
Slide 315
Slide 316
Slide 317
Slide 318
Slide 319
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 320
Slide 321
Slide 322
Slide 323
Slide 324
Slide 325
Slide 326
Slide 327
Slide 328
Slide 329
Slide 330
Slide 331
Slide 332
Slide 333
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 334
Slide 335
Slide 336
Slide 337
Slide 338
Slide 339
Slide 340
Slide 341
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 342
Slide 343
Slide 344
Slide 345
Slide 346
Slide 347
Slide 348
Slide 349
Slide 350
Slide 351
Slide 352
Slide 353
Slide 354
Slide 355
Slide 356
Slide 357
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 358
Slide 359
Slide 360
Slide 361
Slide 362
Slide 363
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 364
Slide 365
Slide 366
Slide 367
Slide 368
Slide 369
Slide 370
Slide 371
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 372
Slide 373
Slide 374
Slide 375
Slide 376
Slide 377
Cllr Nicola Keen
Slide 378
Slide 379
Slide 380
Slide 381
Slide 382
Slide 383
Slide 384
Slide 385
Slide 386
Slide 387
Slide 388
Slide 389
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 390
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 391
Slide 392
Slide 393
Slide 394
Slide 395
Slide 396
Slide 397
Slide 398
Slide 399
Slide 400
Slide 401
Slide 402
Slide 403
Slide 404
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 405
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 406
Slide 407
Slide 408
Slide 409
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 410
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 411
Slide 412
Slide 413
Slide 414
Slide 415
Slide 416
Slide 417
Slide 418
Slide 419
Slide 420
Slide 421
Slide 422
Slide 423
Slide 424
Slide 425
Slide 426
Slide 427
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 428
Slide 429
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 430
Slide 431
Slide 432
Slide 433
Slide 434
Slide 435
Slide 436
Slide 437
Slide 438
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 439
Slide 440
Slide 441
Slide 442
Slide 443
Slide 444
Slide 445
Slide 446
Slide 447
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 448
Slide 449
Cllr James Butcher
Slide 450
Slide 451
Slide 452
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 453
Slide 454
Slide 455
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 456
Slide 457
Slide 458
Slide 459
Slide 460
Slide 461
Slide 462
Slide 463
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 464
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 465
Slide 466
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 467
Slide 468
Slide 469
Slide 470
Slide 471
Slide 472
Slide 473
Slide 474
Slide 475
Slide 476
Slide 477
Slide 478
Slide 479
Slide 480
Slide 481
Slide 482
Slide 483
Slide 484
Slide 485
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 486
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 487
Slide 488
Slide 489
Slide 490
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 491
Slide 492
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 493
Slide 494
Slide 495
Slide 496
Slide 497
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 498

5 23/1935/FH - Land adjoining Fencing Yard, Potten Farm, Sellindge

Share this agenda point

Slide 499
Slide 500
Slide 501
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 502
Slide 503
Slide 504
Slide 505
Slide 506
Microphone Forty
Slide 507
Slide 508
Slide 509
Slide 510
Slide 511
Slide 512
Slide 513
Slide 514
Slide 515
Slide 516
Slide 517
Slide 518
Slide 519
Slide 520
Slide 521
Slide 522
Slide 523
Slide 524
Slide 525
Slide 526
Slide 527
Slide 528
Slide 529
Slide 530
Slide 531
Slide 532
Slide 533
Slide 534
Slide 535
Slide 536
Slide 537
Slide 538
Slide 539
Slide 540
Slide 541
Slide 542
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 543
Slide 544
Microphone Forty
Slide 545
Slide 546
Slide 547
Slide 548
Slide 549
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 550
Slide 551
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 552
Slide 553
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 554
Slide 555
Slide 556
Slide 557
Slide 558
Slide 559
Slide 560
Slide 561
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 562
Slide 563
Slide 564
Slide 565
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 566
Cllr James Butcher
Slide 567
Slide 568
Slide 569
Slide 570
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 571
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 572
Slide 573
Slide 574
Slide 575
Slide 576
Slide 577
Cllr James Butcher
Slide 578
Slide 579
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 580
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 581
Slide 582
Slide 583
Slide 584
Slide 585
Slide 586
Slide 587
Slide 588
Slide 589
Slide 590
Slide 591
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 592
Slide 593
Slide 594
Slide 595
Slide 596
Slide 597
Slide 598
Slide 599
Cllr Gary Fuller
Slide 600
Slide 601
Slide 602
Slide 603
Slide 604
Slide 605
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 606
Slide 607
Slide 608
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 609
Slide 610
Slide 611
Slide 612
Slide 613
Slide 614
Slide 615

6 24/0424/FH - East View, Dungeness Road, Dungeness, Romney Marsh, TN29 9NE

Share this agenda point

7 24/0721/FH - 39 Earls Avenue, Folkestone, CT20 2HB

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 697
Slide 698
Mr Robert Allan
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 699
Slide 700
Slide 701
Slide 702
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Belinda Walker
Slide 703
Slide 704
Slide 705
Slide 706
Slide 707
Slide 708
Slide 709
Slide 710
Slide 711
Slide 712
Slide 713
Cllr Jackie Meade
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 714
Slide 715
Slide 716
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 717
Slide 718
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Slide 719
Slide 720
Slide 721
Slide 722
Slide 723
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 724
Slide 725
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 726
Slide 727
Slide 728
Slide 729
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 730
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 731
Slide 732
Slide 733
Slide 734
Slide 735
Slide 736
Slide 737
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 738
Slide 739
Slide 740
Slide 741
Mr Robert Allan
Slide 742
Slide 743
Slide 744
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 745
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 746
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Slide 747
Slide 748
Slide 749
Slide 750
Slide 751
Slide 752
Slide 753
Slide 754
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 755
Slide 756
Slide 757
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 758
Slide 759
Slide 760
Cllr Jackie Meade

8 24/0815/FH - Acoustic G R G Products, Lower Wall Road, West Hythe, Hythe, CT21 4NN

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:02

meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee. This evening we 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 all members of the meeting it is important that

the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear

you. With anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent, it can be very distracting.

I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions and 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

your help during this meeting and for members of the public.

We have many questions 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 that they can give to

you during this meeting.

This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning applications

before you.

I will move on. One thing I would like to say this evening's committee is that we have

a very vital agenda this evening. So if we can keep corrections and debate succinct I

would really appreciate it. Thank you. So do we have any declarations of interest tonight

please?

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:01:41

Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:44

Thank you chair. We have received apologies from Councillor Jones, Councillor Butch is

here as her substitute.

Thank you, welcome Councillor Butcher.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:52

Do we have any decorations of interest this evening?

Councillor Honesby.

Yes, thank you Chair.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:01:57

Just to say there are three applications

2 Declarations of Interest

with this ward, which is obviously my ward.

Do you need me to say land to the south of Ashford Road,

land adjoining Fencing Yard, Potman Farm,

and the former village hall, Stone Street, Stamford.

That will be noted, Councillor Honesby.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:20

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:02:23

Yes, I'm a resident of Earls Avenue so I live near to Ward's Hotel and the other

residences and just for noting I'm a Ward Councillor on the Town Council for that ward.

Thank you. Councillor Goddard.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:32

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:02:36

Thank you very much Chair. Two in my ward, Eastview, the lovely Dungeness and Fairview

Ward. Thank you.

3 Minutes

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:47

Thank you very much councillors. So we have before you the minutes to be a record of the

10th of September 2024. May I sign them as a record? Thank you very

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:05

much. So we will

move on to our first application this evening which is 20 .0604 South FH which is the land

4 20/0604/FH - Land to the South of Ashford Road, Sellindge

to the south of Ashford Road in Sallie. Can you have any thanks

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:03:25

please? Thank you very

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:29

much. Three speakers on this this evening. Speakers when you come forward you will have

three minutes to make your speech. At the end of three minutes I will give you the warning

and wrap up your last thing. Mr Geoff Lovelow who is a local resident to

Microphone Forty - 0:03:56

speak. Good evening sir. Good evening chair. Good evening Councillor. I'm actually down

to speak twice on both applications under CSD 9 so I'm going to spare you just by speaking

once and not for six minutes, just three.

So my name is Richard and I'm here representing FID.

Please note the planning applications goes out of your way to take a look.

But the planning applications are very salient into this development with over 100 meters

of boundary and whilst all the other existing properties within CSD 9 are well catered for

with boundary layers over 10 metres, Fieldhead is proposed to be a new boundary layer whatsoever

and instead is proposed to be surrounded and over the course of the highest density housing

all built on a bank 10 foot higher than a

20 meter bank, with a height of just 20 meters.

This means that a dozen or so buildings

will be built straight down onto Fieldhead

and as such will inflict severe loss

to both ambience and value.

And Fieldhead will most easily be part

of an eclectic business.

A face to face approach to building

measures is planning guidance intended for new

not for high -density buildings on a bank overlooking a 70 year old resident

capacity elsewhere in the scheme

a equitable solution can easily be achieved without either impediments to field head or

financial loss to the applicants if they was

with each other

So it begs the question as to why the application.

Please can you ask the applicant,

for the allocation of some of the proposed public space area.

In doing so I suggest it should have an actual

loss to either applicant.

I invite and urge all members to see how unfair and unnecessary this scheme uniquely proposes

upon Fieldhead are.

This scheme will go ahead in some form but the purpose of my presentation to you is that

the proposed application of reasonable screening will realistically make Fieldhead untenable

as a family home.

There are other boundary layers in the application I have seen in years deep and I ask you to

please put in some instructions on the field head, a directive which should be cost neutral

and not be protected.

If field head is not adequately protected by you, and is not protected by the CSD 9,

It will no longer be best use of its land due to its size design and the rising topography

And as such it will inevitably be demolished for infill

This is yours. Thank you

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:20

As time thank you very much

The applicant speak is Councillor David on behalf of selling

Good evening, sir.

Microphone Forty - 0:07:39

Good evening.

I apologize for the short time I'm putting in

for the column, unfortunately not well,

and the rest of the parish council,

can't be here, so I'll try to be brief.

I appreciate that there are two applications

that I will be speaking on both,

and I'll try to expedite that.

and if it makes life any easier,

one of the things we would say is we concur

with what he says, so we'll shorten this.

Ladies and gentlemen,

the Council and residents of Salish

have a very important issue

with their main concern, which is traffic.

The challenge is built on the A20

and the A20 is a very big hit

and most of this key infrastructure,

the schools, the public,

and the village hall is built along the A20, which sadly is a relief

which is the gateway for Europe. I'm sure we are all aware of what happens

on the stack or any incidents on the motorway, especially in October,

KGC is significantly concerned with a new ID that's coming in, which will probably

All of this has congestion to this village and this area.

Also recently we've had a significant impact on Taylor Wimpie and Grove Park.

250 ,000 people have been in Taylor Wimpie and Grove Park

which is currently being constructed as we speak now.

All these impacts on the village traffic,

and all hasn't actually been built.

I have to say this application started in 2000

and we don't believe that the full impact of this

has been bared in weight in this application.

We object to this planning application.

The application submitted two planning applications

in which the planning application,

which we are hearing now, cannot be

and fully approved which also requires an application of the environmental agency

line of approval for a wastewater treatment plant to be completed and functional before

any development takes place including this one.

There is a third piece of land, which is a part of the core strategy that falls upon

this land that has been highlighted which is well put on, adjacent to both planning

applications which has an impact on both submissions planned today.

There is a specific criteria for the Council's strategy of the local plan to see if the DDS

The criteria is quite clear both past and present

must be master planned and included in a single outline planning permission.

Sorry sir you have three minutes.

Would you like to finish your last sentence?

We ask you to follow your policy for this development

length which will allow due diligence of stakeholders to make a full informed decision.

Thank you very much Sir.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:05

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:08

Our last speaker on this is John McTighey from Gladman, who is the applicant to speak

in support of the application.

Good evening Sir.

Microphone Forty - 0:11:22

Thank you Chair, thank you members.

This is the first of two linked applications before you that are located within the CELINCH

policy. This particular application was submitted over four years ago. The application has been

subject to rigorous scrutiny. We have now reached a position where all contributions

are related to the proposal and the considered opinion of your offices is that the position

should be considered. The recommendation is consistent with the planning status of the

housing led development in the core strategy review.

The principle of development is therefore fully in accordance with the statute of development.

The proposal provides a framework which is well connected to the existing settlement

accessible by walking.

The scheme accords with a master plan that has been prepared for the site at the wide

abroad location.

This has been drawn up in consultation with our officers and has been

Consultation it demonstrates how the proposed number of killings could be successfully accommodated

Developments of extensive areas of green

Permission is sought for the means of access from Ashford

And the wide abroad location and just briefly in response to the names raised by mr

Ludlow. The impact of the proposal on residential

and residential development is limited by your officers.

The proposal is limited by the relationship between the new dwellings and field head house

and the new dwelling, all of which can be finalised by your officers.

The officer report assesses the proposal against the criteria in Policy CSD 9. It demonstrates

the proposal is well designed and has a more acceptable landscape impact. It can achieve

The net gain through the wider development package protects heritage assets, is acceptable

in terms of risk, can be accommodated without an acceptable impact on the infrastructure

including schools and healthcare, importantly, is in neutrality through the wider development

package.

The report concludes that the development plan is in accordance with the policy CSD

9 and is in accordance with the development plan.

and national policy, permission should therefore be granted.

The report makes clear that all technical issues have been addressed and there are no

unacceptable harms to the business.

There are however substantial benefits including an additional housing, diversity in the supply,

20 % affordable housing and 10 % affordable housing.

These are designed to meet the needs of an ageing population, helping to address and

acknowledge local need.

Economic benefits are also provided.

accessible open space and net biodiversity gains. The proposal also delivers an access

in infrastructure to support the delivery of the

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:31

Thank you.

Ms Bruceley.

Yes, thank you Chair.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:14:41

Can I first of all say that I've been working with Mr Laidlow from Fieldhead.

I've actually visited the site, I've had a good experience and certainly the land is

very well and there would certainly be overlooking.

I've had a good experience and I understand that this can be sorted out in a very short

because as I understand it, this is an outlying application.

The other two are left for a later stage.

So that's one of my issues.

I don't know which, I think it's Councillor Haynes

who talked about the wastewater treatment.

That is a very expensive piece of equipment

and I know that from the Otterpool Park proposed development

because it has to be done as one.

It makes me wonder whether this,

I know that's not our problem at this stage,

but what does concern me is starting

because a wastewater treatment has not been completed

and into a...

You have probably three sites, two sites

we're currently talking about.

I'm sorry I had to talk about both

because they're both very similar.

And also in my view, it should have been one application.

I find it quite interesting to actually look at it.

There's two separate applications

that you do not tie up properly.

I'm a member of the

KCC and I know that according to KCC there are two access

I've had conversations with the agent or the

application

and the

Council on the access and I think it's really important that that is dealt with

but again I understand that's probably under resolution

so it's something perhaps we can't actually decide but I do think there are

informatives that we possibly can use the application if it were agreed

about fieldway and about the access. I was also, I also just want confirmation

Both of these applications do not attract sill.

I think it's one of the reasons.

To see that the health, the two applications

only come to about 130 ,000,

which seems pretty poultry in there.

Towards the medical facilities in the village.

I mean I'm very much in the middle of the conversation.

It does seem a bit of a problem, but it's what the NHS have asked for.

So I think that's a bit more difficult.

But there is another point on the 106.

There is no need for a new village hall.

I don't think there's a need for a new village hall but I do think some contribution towards the upkeep and the improvement of the village hall

has to be sensible. I know that the village hall roof is not suited for solar panels for instance and I therefore think that

some contribution should be made towards the village hall for that particular exercise because it would be a good

That's some of my comments.

I'll just go back to the course now

and hear what my colleagues say.

The other thing I might just mention in terms of

we know it's in the core strategy,

we know there's already some kind of development there,

and I think that's been accepted

because it's been going on for so long.

Today for instance we've had causes.

So another thing we'll be putting our land forward,

probably in the cellage because cellage is the place

to think that development should take place.

We do need to think, and I know it's difficult,

the cumulative, Councillor Haynie was talking about

the traffic, I mean I know too full,

for what we do.

It's very difficult to argue against Kent Highways

saying that the situation is satisfactory.

So I will leave it there, but I'd like to say.

Thank you, Councillor.

Would the officer like to come back on any of that?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:57

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:19:59

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening.

I'll deal with some clarifications around CIL,

which I think Councillor Hollingsby raised,

is because it's an allocated site,

one of the key allocations within the development plan,

for 2013 as part of the Selinch rural strategy

in master planning.

This site was excluded from the core strategy for SIL.

So yes, it's a community strategy.

In that case, the health contributions have been requested.

have demonstrated why they need that level of contribution, so we are seeking to secure

that and the applicant is currently happy to make that contribution.

Turning to the Village Hall, we've had no requests for Section 106 contribution, that's

and any request for Section 106 have to be demonstrated as to mitigating the impact on

the Village Hall. However, that does not preclude some of the districts using SILL monies from

other developments to work on the development of the selling of Village Hall in due course.

However tonight there have been no requests for such a request.

If there were no requests for Village Hall any such requests would need to be justified

against the implementation of the application.

Just turning to the application's objectives, I think I'll just reiterate that apart from

the direct access that's currently within the application, the second access is fully

The layout of the application is very important.

There is no determination yet to exactly where houses would be sitting,

exactly how high any of those houses might be and where the landscaping might be,

and the application boundaries.

In that regard, the concerns raised by the neighbours, which have been identified,

are not necessarily determined by this authority in due course,

and neither by the schedule of the houses, and would be subject to full public consultation.

Finally, I think, not the master plan, the application,

we assure you, requires that any application is accompanied by a master plan.

A portion or other portions might sit within a master plan

to show that nothing is precluded.

The applicant, both applications, although we're slightly blurred in the boundaries between the two,

have been submitted with the master plan, which also looks like a master plan.

It's not part of any application currently.

could come forward together and work together.

In that regard, the second accords

with the requirements and policy

to be accompanied by a master plan

is to ensure that the application

must come forward as a singularity

and that we are talking to each other as important.

And I believe the case of the section 106

within the proposals for the section 106,

connections to neighboring sites to be secure

make sure that they're not landlocked in the future.

Hopefully that clarifies the matter.

Certainly.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:01

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:23:03

If I can just reiterate,

planning officers said that in the section 106

there is an obligation to make sure

that the connection from the next site

goes through the region.

application and we have an applicant then submitting one application instead of two

and we would like to do it in that way but we are unsuccessful with the applicant application

in the absence of it being one application. As Joanna has said, the policy requires it

to be master planned so that the three sites work and speak to each other and that's what

we've done with the master plans for both of the sites that are joining sites.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Butcher.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:55

Cllr James Butcher - 0:24:02

I was just interested in the discussion about transport and links between the sites and

facilities.

It mentions cycle and pedestrian access to the site.

talks about pedestrian cycling.

The report then goes on to say,

you've got the same

character of the area and I guess it seems strange to say

a character of the A20 would be negatively impacted by

cycle and pedestrian

improvements.

And I don't know what the point of the policy is saying

this is what we need to have.

the best we go. No in fact it doesn't need to have those features and I think what we

are talking about future generations, the community, is that really what they would

want not to have those kind of links around the community feasible and connect the different

parts of the community one to another, connect residential, to a much more mature busy road.

Are we really saying we're going to expect

to go down to the co -op to go to the British Wall to go to the doctors because we're not going to

Make it because in some it's for the character character the area doesn't mean sense

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:23

It's obviously a balancing exercise

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:25:29

Right and cycle way footway so behind

and the grass verge close to the tree,

that that pulley would, on balance,

would be gentle to,

if members take a different view,

then we can obviously go back and,

after that, after committee,

and put that back to them.

The members asked for improvements to footpaths

to the north of the A2 and that goes some way to meeting the requirements.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:15

Councillor Polyboke.

Yeah, they're picking up on the requirements of CSD.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:26:23

Jenny Honingsby has already talked about the village hall.

There are some other requirements there.

It should not commence until and one of them is the primary school

Another one is new nursery facilities

Now I understand this is full spaces are not deemed to be necessary

Nursery

No longer to be needed because the part

And the primary school extension itself

So, we've got up and running, I think,

the buildings have been secured.

So, as things seem to have shifted a bit,

I think it will talk us through that

and maybe supply a bit of clarity.

Sorry, the commercial floor space

is a bit of a twin development.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:27:18

Given the, obviously not built,

but the planning commission,

a commercial floor space that would be

going ahead at Otterpool. It wasn't considered necessary to be on this particular site.

The new nursery, there was no commercial need identified that came through the application.

The contributions towards the land for the extension of the land for the

secondary solutions that we would usually

see in the committee.

So those are covered by the section 106.

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:11

Thank you Chair.

Just looking at the summary,

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:28:16

the description of this application says

all matters reserved except for access.

In 3 .1 it says with all matters reserved

for future consideration including access.

Which one is it?

Is it all something that we could agree

part of the access?

I know it specifically exclusive

that the process of priming

is more of a clarification of that please.

Councillors if I can turn you to

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:28:50

there is a correction to the report

to say that detail

to the site with internal access to reserve future determination

but all other matters are reserved, so let landscape play out.

There's another one that I can't remember.

Design.

This is a future consideration, apart from main access into the city.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:29:20

So tonight, we're part of what we're being asked to do.

We're talking about something else and bearing in mind

what Llewellyn's already said about the 10b,

all that will be available at reserve matters,

but for the agreement,

the primary access will be off the A20.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:29:43

That is correct for this application,

the primary, we're not approving all of the access,

because access includes all the roads within the site,

so it's including the bellmouth off the access road

have been assessed by the County Council

and found to be acceptable.

The other application is up completely separate from the other application.

Everything when it comes back as a reserve matters application

will be with everything within the boundary

bar the bellmouth of the application.

I appreciate that.

Again, I think it's confusing for us

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:30:18

to see the applications that are linked with this wastewater

facility which must be in operation before

the A20 is completed.

Either side will be able to commence.

So I think we're agreeing this design,

this site in principle and the

access of the A20 is and that's what

we're looking for. Thank you.

Just to firm up, sorry.

Yes, you're agreeing the principle

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:30:48

and the amount of the A20 numbers

I think the issue of it being two sites

is a bit of a slight misnomer.

One application site, it would be covered by

and it would still be bits that couldn't be built

before section 106 linkages between the two.

No different to a large scale application.

They have been considered together

but they can be independently

subject to one is reliant on the other.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:27

Councillor Blaketon.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:31:38

Blick comments, there was one about trees

have been cut down, I just wondered if officers

have any truth in that.

And the other question I wanted to ask was

I was also shared his opinion that the applicant looks at providing internal support for the

application instead of the employer but I worry that asking them to consider it basically

means it won't happen.

But presumably we can't require that because that would be considered an additional route,

is that right?

I just wonder whether we can lengthen that in some way so that we either look at the

A20 again.

and the cost will provide those cyclists

without damaging the character of this road.

An alternative cycle group provision.

Thank you.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:32:30

Thank you, I'll try and.

There are some TPOs on the site.

We're observing some of these.

The removal of trees which are not subject to those

of course does not require permission, is not development.

So if it has taken place and I couldn't confirm that tonight,

without knowing specifically which trees,

it wouldn't be an issue for the planning.

Taking the cycle routes, I think there are obviously conditions

which will require them to demonstrate

the nature of the site works.

Processes, you get to look at that in detail at the next

application.

The application, when it comes in,

you don't believe they're appropriate within the sites.

Not only is it important to ensure that people are getting

work in pedestrian connectivity, surface water drainage,

all of that, you can raise concerns about that

and your officers bring them back.

We have already seen it, so it's important to ensure that

we're taking people's radar.

We've already raised it within the commission,

but it is an opportunity to discuss it later

when somebody comes forward with proposals.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:33:47

Thank you chair. On the nursery provision this is me trying to fill a lack of time.

It mentions that KCC haven't requested a financial aid. I know that with schools a lot of them

have moved away from being funded by the school. How therefore do KCC have a position on this

kind of provision given that we are in charge of the related schools and so on.

And secondly, if we were minded to take a look at the decision tonight, is it within

the power of the committee to say that we would expect the reserve matters to come back

to the table?

Thank you Councillor Fuller.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:34:37

Regarding the nursery provision, we need to bear in mind that the CST 9 is a broad allocation

from the far east to the far western areas of this.

We need to make sure that the nursery is not in the first application.

So bits of this policy, whilst they're applied very broadly, would have been considered at

that point.

So it wouldn't be a problem right now having already allowed the development to take place

without the idea of a secure nursery accommodation.

But KCC hasn't requested it, so we would be struggling to now push that matter forward.

The second matter is, no matter what matters to it, if they wish to come back to planning

committee.

you could do that tonight.

I'm not a popular at all.

Obviously the parish council would

object to the scheme if they felt it necessary.

If it was a strong disagreement with the

chair of the, well, the chief banning officer, me, I suppose.

Alternatively, if they felt it was necessary,

a ward member could call it in as well.

So yes, but I think it's noted that members have sort of

the right to see themselves come forward

and that's completely appropriate.

Can I just come back on that?

Certainly.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:36:07

I was suggesting that we should push for

because we're not, we don't run nurseries.

At least I'm not aware of.

More about how KCC

the changes in the way that the education system works

because they're not as old as they used to be.

So it's more about understanding,

which probably goes a bit wrong,

but I still like your views, as it were.

I'm sure the chair of the planning committee

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:36:40

can answer that, but I'll give it back to you

and correct me if I'm wrong.

SCC do forward forecasting of

the potential for education provision,

and part of that is looking at the birth rates.

Foreseer will future large parts of our district

will actually have a decline in birth rates

in primary school places.

And if we were to look at KCC's report last year,

it would demonstrate that in many part schools

will have significant success

in the course of a sizeable period of time

until the birth rate changes.

And that's how they would predict their nursery places.

And I will turn to you, just to tell me.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:24

You've actually taken them by mouth. That's precisely how they do and we are hearing that a lot of our primary

school staff are under the amount of children that they would normally have and they're not seen because of the

over the last couple years actually since Covid.

but the number of people that are increasing.

So some of the nursery schools

might actually be struggling,

but the Lord was absolutely right on that.

Councillor McLeish,

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:37:58

my biggest concern is some of the things

that can be said.

There's everything in selling you have to drive to.

If you want shopping, you've got to come,

you've got to shop.

I think it's always oversubscribed, it's a really good thing.

The families that have been moving there won't be 70 people,

they've been from outside, so they'll be bringing children with them.

So it's very chaotic and nothing is going to change that

because you will have operations or you will have that.

You will have your families coming in there that will want shopping and will want facilities.

I don't see that happening in the local transport system when everybody's got to have the car

to live there.

There's not many buses that go there and the school is oversubscribed in all the years.

So we're going to put more houses into an area that doesn't need more housing.

So I don't understand that.

just seems...

A brief one.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:39:09

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:39:10

I think we need to go back to this side.

A lot of the school expansion that is taking place at the local primary school is being

led by new development, which is the Rose House.

This development as it comes forward and potentially the next members of the board.

upgrading the school facilities is happening

as a result of new developments to cater for that demand.

The site has footways existing.

As my colleagues have addressed,

they have chosen in balance to do that.

The scheme itself provides good water

and water and water and water through it

and provides for the facilities to go further east.

We also need to look at the other bits of development

The existing shop and the roadhouse site which all integrate with other existing routes are

available. It's also not only the facilities and this which would require more to be walked

rather than driven.

Everyone might need a car but the more people that live in a place there's a greater propensity

that the bus providers will have a chance to operate enhanced bus services.

I think that's a good question.

Oh.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:34

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:40:36

I think the issue, there is a best service between Ashford and Folkestone, a lot of

the community through Folkestone, around the sort of various villages, Brave on Lee's

Limb, and its way, just outside the site on the A20.

Can someone speak?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:00

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:41:04

Can I just perhaps confirm a couple of things.

First of all I don't agree on the pathway.

I think it's important that we actually keep that green.

I think it would be terrible to take it away and have concrete there.

So I would say that I would go back to my school, it's not oversubscribed, we are actually

not oversubscribed from Ashford because we're not oversubscribed so it's not the case where

that came from but it's certainly not the case.

I have to mention I was very pleased to see in the 106s an amount of descend

and it's interesting to see that and I know the situation at KCC and I think that's really important

and as I say I think it's the first time I've seen it.

I would like to acknowledge that we do bring back the reserved application to this committee.

I think it's important, I mean it's a very important issue and I think it would be sensible

to actually make that decision.

It's a very important issue but I would propose that.

So, Councillor Horsby, you're proposing to ensure that the reserve matters come back

to committee, is that correct?

Do you have a seconder?

Councillor Coddard.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:44

I'd just like to, Councillor Fuller would like to come back.

Two things.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:42:54

on the cycling, I have a lot of roots within but if you are saying that there is no one

in the world that can do it, then you are creating a little cycling silo as it were

and if I can't cycle to the shops, I have to go to the shops but actually I spent most

of my teenage years having to cycle to the shops because of where I lived and if I couldn't

who got to the shops, they wouldn't have been very helpful.

The 10, I get three a day. They're really bad.

They're really young, they're like pretty much everything stagecoach provides.

And they only have one hour. So stagecoach are really going to have to play game if they're going to offer anything to someone.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:43:44

I'd like to reassure members on the distance from this site to the shops.

We are talking in the realm of finding a very short walk.

So whilst we are on the road, it's not a silo which is completely divorced and difficult

to get to the local village centre because there isn't a cycle connection.

It's a short walk.

You can't cycle there but you could walk.

You could cycle there but you wouldn't be on a dedicated cycle then, which I accept.

I think just for clarity, with the fact that the

senses is a short walk and highly sustainable.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:36

Councillor Butcher.

This can walk.

Cllr James Butcher - 0:44:43

Is whether people will be encouraged to walk because they feel safe elsewhere like in Denzil

where of course you can walk but crossing the road is daunting and I think we're missing

an opportunity in this way at future proof in communities like this to make it really

easy and attractive for people.

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:45:06

Given that this policy was even thought about and never mind introduced, what are the provisions

for the rules ahead?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:45:18

The company would have been conceived prior to Brock, it would not have been conceived

prior to that which is the operation which tends to affect this.

You have to go through the A20, well the M20 was completely closed.

There was no policy requirements for air quality improvements, there were no indicators that

the air quality would be diminished and given the infrequent

and Brock would affect this village directly,

it would be difficult to require or even to require

air pollution measures because traffic is moving.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:46:03

Sorry, you've spoken twice on this one already.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:05

I'm sorry.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:46:07

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:46:08

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:08

Can I not just say that we just have got a new Premier and the cafe is something we know

about so easily within walking distance.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:21

Lovely so if I can sum up because I've been listening very carefully.

Can you suggest to the parish council that you look at the applications that are coming

through and try and get some S106 money towards the upkeep of the village hall.

I'm sure some of our planning officers will be working on that. I also agree that because we have

some of our people coming through there must be some way of connecting them because that

The cycle path will also be used with mobility scooters and ten per cent of these buildings

that are proposed for slightly more elderly and maybe slightly more immobile people.

So I would like that to be taken into consideration if you don't mind.

The water access, I'm really happy that the technology is coming forward for this.

and I will bring this up now is that quite often the viability of a site which

has a low quality, etc, all of a sudden

expenses on technology such as water treatment

are taken into consideration.

They're saying that the 22 % affordable is viable.

sincerely hoping that that will not be the case in this.

So that's my little rant.

However, we're looking at the application.

One proposer and one seconder.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:09

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:16

Sorry, I did ask are you proposing and you said yes

and that's why I asked for a seconder.

If people do propose, that's fine.

I will propose to the officers

to have a discussion

ensuring that the reserved matters,

which is what the concerns seem to be,

come back to this committee.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:42

Thank you very much.

All those in favour, please show.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:51

Those against.

Abstentions.

Has passed.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:12

Thank you very much.

5 23/1935/FH - Land adjoining Fencing Yard, Potten Farm, Sellindge

So we move on to our second application meeting which is the Land Adjoined Land Management

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:49:31

and Farm Selling. Do we have any questions? Thank you very much. And

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:33

as Mr Lodlow spoke

on the first one, he was happy not to speak on this one. So we have Councillor David Hayning

on behalf of Selling, could you come forward please, sir, and you have three minutes from

I made it without flipping over.

Microphone Forty - 0:50:00

Once again, I oppose this planning application for the same reasons as before.

what I would say is under the same circumstances

in the past, I think we're probably fighting swimming against the tide here

but what I would like to say is the following.

I am amazed that yourselves are, sorry I say the district

is putting forward the character of the village

and the community of the village.

The character of the village on a piece of glass.

I wouldn't mind that there's a Taylor Windham

which was approved.

The district actually encouraged the cycle path

and had the traffic right away to be increased by that three metres

because it helped in traffic calming,

it helped in the safety of the miles an hour

and it helped the linking of the community.

250 houses, now I'm terribly sorry but these three

We're talking about the same amount of properties that we're also talking

adjacent to the village. It has this cycle path which links everything to the east of the

village and here we are talking that a piece of grass is more important

I've lived there for 23 years my child is 11 years old will use that cycle path

and it will stop there. It will not go on the footpath.

It will not run over. You would see the effect that that had on my child.

It doesn't want to go on the footpath.

And do we want our children to actually go on the footpath?

Of course we don't. And that footpath

basically stops and then it goes on the footpath that I wouldn't want in a mobility scooter

or an ordinary aircraft.

I don't want to go on it because it's so bad.

Now the fact that the proposer of this planning application in his own plans

is suggesting that they are willing to actually do that.

The fact that the district is saying it's not a planning application,

I cannot understand and I would certainly concur.

The parish council actually, if this cycle path will be put in,

it will link not just everyone in that community

to everything to the east, but everything to the west,

to the places in Potton Farm, the pub and the church,

which will benefit from here.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are here not just to improve our communities

and to make them safer.

All I will certainly ask is if this is called back.

and also we would ask that as that happened in the past,

the area is reduced from 40 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour.

Sorry sir, your three minutes is up.

Thank you very much.

And for the second time this evening, we have John McCain,

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:53:23

The applicant speak in support of the application. Good evening again, sir. You have three minutes

Microphone Forty - 0:53:30

from when you speak. Thank you, chair. Thank you, members. I think

as this is applications within the Salinger Brothers, I'm not actually going to speak

for my three minutes.

I stand by the officer recommendation

and support the application.

So thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:53:55

Over to Councillor.

Councillor McLeish.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:54:06

I'm not going to reiterate all what I've said,

but all those comments that I made earlier

apply to this application as well.

Thank you, Chair.

So this is, I believe then, an outcome that was already

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:54:21

observed, if that's correct.

Thank you.

In the report that I was just picking up on,

I think what Dr. Lonergan said, it does say in there

that the rate of the A23 is in the 20s and 20s.

So again, I don't know whether that does

and that is the concerns from the Salinge parish councillor.

But that would be included within the condition,

and would be within the application.

Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:55:02

The calming measures were implemented as a result of the Tailor 1P scheme

with the build -outs, you know, where they created the lay -bys and build -outs.

So that relatively slowed speeds down going through the village.

And it's a 30 -meter speed limit just before you approach the school from the west now.

And the rest is 40.

Councillor Butcher?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:25

Yes, just to ask about 7 .56.

Cllr James Butcher - 0:55:31

Yeah, crossing, but the County Councillor requested this be removed from the proposal.

just wanting to understand why it was thought a bad idea to have the two -pin crossing.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:55:52

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:56:01

I think there's a traffic item proposed as part of the previous paving either side, so

that will in effect act as a pedestrian crossing.

We have another application on the opposite side

of the road and there was the access there

which is why KCC decided that the Toucan crossing

wasn't required.

Just is there any control, I can't remember now,

Cllr James Butcher - 0:56:32

controlled crossing points?

There are no controlled crossing,

but there are two that are in the middle of the block

and then one further down.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:56:41

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:56:48

On the matter of the speed constraints,

we often have this conversation with our colleagues

at the Highways Authority at Kent County Council

about making speeds faster.

And whilst they're not being supported,

they are not being capable is the feedback we get.

Now normally what makes enforcing speed limits

a little bit faster is discussions in dense hole

spring to mind, where there is front end,

where there is distance, how people are acting

and how they are doing, and we can have this conversation

with TMT and TCLC as and when they are in the world,

you would imagine that in part of their safety audit

they will re -evaluate where the speed limits are.

They can't insist upon it because they are the authority.

but from personal experience on these planning applications,

imposing one before there is development is very difficult.

Imposing one afterwards is very difficult

because you suddenly have people in the area

which means that there's no incentive to do so.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:52

I'd also like to add that if we are to agree to this application,

we would like the reserve matters to come back to committee.

I'm driftfully sorry about your family Kat.

I know how you feel about your family.

I would personally say that yes, we need to look at these sites and the pavements,

especially as we will have a lot of families and we will have some young children

and we need to try and keep people as safe as possible.

If no other Councillor... oh, Councillor Fuller?

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:58:36

Actually on that one I'd really personally urge the opportunity to walk along the A20, or at the very least waggon along the A20

because there's somebody who lives near an A road as it were and walks along the busier side of the A20 every day

the way it happens to be part of the National Site,

the way it's built off and a new language

that's as simple as that.

So, and it makes a difference.

Thank you very much, Dr Fuller.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:11

So we have one application in the planning.

I am happy to propose with the agreement

that it comes back to this committee

and the underserved matters.

Do I have a seconder please?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:26

All those in favour please stand by.

All those opposed, abstain.

Thank you, that application has passed.

6 24/0424/FH - East View, Dungeness Road, Dungeness, Romney Marsh, TN29 9NE

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:57

And we move on to our next application which is down in beautiful Dungeness and this is

24 -0424 -FH and it's East View in Dungeness. Do we have any updates for this?

David Campbell - 1:00:14

Good morning Members, there's no updates on this.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:17

Thank you very much. We have no speakers on this, so over to you Councillors. Councillor

Goddard.

Thank you Chair.

Mr Ward.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:00:31

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:36

I'm dreadfully sorry, they moved it down the page.

No, it's Mr Chris.

Thank you sir, I do apologise.

I know you're standing in for someone which is where the confusion was.

You are the agent to speak to the application and you have three minutes for any start sir.

Microphone Forty - 1:00:59

Good evening members, I'm from Ingrenold.

I'm the agent to speak to the application and I'm in support of the application.

As an elderly couple who support and care for their young granddaughter, they've been

very happy to enjoy spending important time as a family together.

We've made a very meaningful statement within Dungeness, that we can make a home in the

future, but to create a home, we've been very happy to allow them to enjoy making the

most fantastic setting.

Prior to this application another architectural project was in application for a building

in 2020 in 2021.

It received a total of 125 objections from the local community and was subsequently

approved by the City.

This development presented today has received a number of objections, namely Lid Town Council.

This clearly demonstrates that the development of the building has been addressed.

As to the National Council's particular concerns, we'd like to alleviate these and

make them clear that the main purpose of this project is to ensure that the original

property was not a part of the original property.

We have studied the local vernacular and typologies of all the original parts to make up the conservation

area and the main purpose of this project's ongoing ethos was to always go back to the

original property.

This is the main purpose of the project's appearance and scale to ensure that it was

not have characterized the use of asbestos

as clearly demonstrated in our design.

Next, we'll go through the training and refurbishing

versus replacement of asbestos.

EASEview in its current environment

has to be inhabited with the issues

in conditions that are not limited to water damage,

the presence of asbestos in the roof, walls, and floor,

which is highlighted in the submitted asbestos report.

These are the examples that will allow us to look

sensitive replacement of the dwelling to ensure that not only its physical

appearance is retained but in

to create a highly sustainable dwelling whilst ensuring that the building as part of the

collective grid is secured for many decades to come. In summary the replacement dwelling

is a highly sustainable dwelling and has a remote setting with the approach influenced by the character of the local context

providing a positive contribution to the area whilst it is acknowledged that the scheme is of a more

than a more realistic and more interesting property. It maintains a simple design that doesn't deviate away from the

character and doesn't attempt to create the structure of buildings that it belongs to.

It also has a more realistic and more realistic approach which would reinforce the beach house character's

of the existing property, making them more active and providing longevity.

The design rationale for a replacement dwelling has been well considered and therefore we

ask that you support the officer's recommendation.

Thank you very much sir, enough of that.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:04:03

Over to you Councillors, Councillor Thomas then Councillor Goddard.

Thank you very much.

We've got our first speaker.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:04:08

Thank you Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:04:12

Yeah I'll tell you we've got a speaker.

Before sums it up, it's a great way to get the people to dwell in and have to move the

recommendation.

Councillor Thomas would you like to speak as well?

If I may.

I think it's a good idea.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:04:34

I think it's a good idea, as I've said and the agent,

I think it looks nice in the area keeping

with many of the other newer places,

or in fact even some of the other places on that road.

And as the officer points out in the report,

it does beat CSDF, so we do allow for that

within our policies, so thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Cooper -Gilliams.

Any other Councillor like to speak on this?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:05:03

Councillor Butcher.

Just to say that this is considered reasonable to remove some permits

Cllr James Butcher - 1:05:10

if I'm not right.

I just wanted to understand is that a fairly normal condition and just because it's an

appropriately worded condition would secure this, is that condition for?

If not, can you just explain how the condition is?

Yes, it is a very important issue particularly around Dungeness.

David Campbell - 1:05:31

It means that we're approving the development of the Dungeness Act.

For any further works they would need to apply for permission.

Again it is the Dungeness Act to confirm the number of Dungeness Act.

And you're correct it was number 4.

Yes.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:05:51

Just to firm up, Councillor Fisher, that condition

re -imposes the existing after four direction, which

is across the site, which is the boundary that was specified

in the report.

It goes far as changes in hardscape, erection offence,

outbuildings, beehives, the whole thing is approved

because of its special needs that our development would

required permission.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:22

We have a proposer and a seconder to

with the officer's recommendation which is to allow this application

all those flavours please show your name.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:37

And I can see that that is unanimous. Thank you very much, that has passed.

7 24/0721/FH - 39 Earls Avenue, Folkestone, CT20 2HB

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:54

So we move on to our next application of the evening which is 24 -021 -FH which is 39

Do we have any updates please?

Mr Robert Allan - 1:07:10

No updates.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:15

I believe we have no speakers on this one either, I'm just double checking.

So councillors, over to you.

If there are any issues, ask any questions regarding this particular application.

Councillor Walker.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:34

Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:07:37

I'm only a neighbour, but there's been some discussion about this locally.

I don't think anyone just said that this is very detrimental to the loss of hotel rooms

and folks.

In fact, if I'm right, I think most of the people who study here are parents.

You know, just checking out the facilities.

One thing that does concern residents locally

is the loss of a place where people can gather.

The wards at Oldscliffe will be changing the layout

or helping to change the layout.

I'm using some facilities for schools.

I wonder if any consideration was given

to use net as a community space or to

open the. These two other schools in the area.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:08:31

Mr Robert Allan - 1:08:33

And thank you. The as a as a private

school in a private.

Probably own property would be.

In the remit of the planning.

It's hard to require that I'm afraid.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:08:48

Councillor Polly Blakemore?

I think that's a good question.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:08:55

In the request of the other three there's reference to national policy taking a lot

of the time to go to school places.

I don't imagine that there are children who go to school, that particular school given

that it is a private school,

and that it's a private company,

but I'm not really sure that point actually adds up.

Sorry, I think we've just heard the weather coming.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:09:22

Apologies.

Councillor Thomas.

Thanks.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:09:31

Just a clarification, I'm just picking up on something.

3 .3 says there's no...

Is that the point?

I think the point is on the layout of the building.

Oh, OK.

The building.

I don't know if that's the point.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:09:54

But then, which is anyway.

Mr Robert Allan - 1:09:59

So, in terms of, there are, I think,

there are changes internally, but I think the

and there'd be art rooms and yes,

instant side of it.

So in terms of that, I mean the physical,

internal alterations wouldn't be covered by planning.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:10:32

In 3 .9 when it talks about marketing,

It's a good thing.

It's been a long time since February 23 for 15 months.

It's been a great experience for doing such a thing.

Thank you.

The policy asks for 12 months.

Mr Robert Allan - 1:10:51

We've had a lot of that and I don't know if we've had any way that we've had.

There's no reason to discount that and which also officers call for.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:11:08

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:14

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:11:20

In which case, I'm happy to propose this application with the

it would be impressive if I could look at the

liability report, but I understand the situation

and I know you can't.

It was actually quite a nice hotel and provided

which obviously will be a loss but I accept.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:11:59

Thank you. So we have one proposer and one seconder to agree with the change of use from

a hotel and restaurant to an educational and educational environment.

Please in favour, please show your right hand if you can see that's

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:14

unanimous that that

has passed. Thank you very much.

8 24/0815/FH - Acoustic G R G Products, Lower Wall Road, West Hythe, Hythe, CT21 4NN

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:32

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:47

If we just wait for one moment for Councillor Goddard to come back.

Thank you.

You

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:40

Lovely, yes we saw you try and stop the video.

Don't ever make a big fuss then, we'll get to that.

Now that we've had the natural break that some people needed we will go on to the next item.

The location is 24 -0815 -F which is acoustic GRG products, lower wall road in West Highs.

Are there any updates?

Good evening Chair and fellow members.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:15:11

We do have one up there.

In addition to the existing conditions, I would also like to recommend an additional

one with submission provided for the raised walkway over the existing back roof.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:15:30

Thank you and we have no speakers on this so it's straight out to you Councillors and

that they would like to have a particular application.

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:15:47

I'm happy to move the office of the Mayor.

And Councillor Keene has just seconded.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:15:53

I just wanted to ask, because it's in 715,

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:15:58

refers to the application site lies within

the application site, proposals should protect

or in other local landscape areas.

For those that are not consistent with the split,

they support less the need to score economic,

social well -being outweighs the need.

Where it refers to it not resulting in undue harm

to the character of local landscape,

it would not harm the character of its surrounding area.

It seems to me like it's hard to say

that this doesn't cause some harm.

This development, it's not enhancing or protecting, is it?

really causing some harm to the

being from quite a long way away so I was just interested in where does our

duty to protect that landscape line

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:16:50

officer this is a first floor extension in the context of

sorry officer can you speak up we can't hear you

So given that the building is not

option to an existing building and that there's an

residual and business use for this site, and it's not considered that the addition

would make the landscape area more than it already does.

Yeah, I was just, it's difficult to say something. I can't see how it's protecting and enhancing

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:17:20

even if not significantly, but I'll let the point lie.

how it is protecting and enhancing by harming it,

even if only harming it by a small amount.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:17:32

Thank you, Colonel.

Paragraph 7 .17 of the report.

Where the officer, for officer Mopler,

in my report, was a very important element,

but given the context, it in itself

wouldn't result in any harm.

The report is completely open to yourselves,

so there's a way up to that balance,

and say, for example, that the extent of this roof,

the cement roof behind it,

or come to a conclusion, whether you think

there needs to be further protection and enhancement

of the use at 7 .17, we don't think it does

given what's already there.

If we were to move on, we might have sought

alternative mitigation to overcome it.

I think what's worth understanding is we've...

which we have concerns with given its bulk and scale

and much smaller impact on the building itself.

There would be a change in the harm to the landscape

and its totality and comes to the conclusion

whether you believe that was visually harmful

to the land mitigation like that.

But it's perfectly within your gift to strike that.

We've come down on the fact that we don't believe this

context is harmful at all.

Councilor Fuller.

I'll take that a little bit further.

Is the conclusion it's not harmful at all,

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:19:02

or is it the security of the business,

so effectively the, what's the exact term,

the economic and social wellbeing outweighs

the small level of harm.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:19:20

I've referred to paragraph 7 .16 of 7 .11, which is that it's not harmful to the landscape

area and concludes it would not be visually harmful. There are obviously economic benefits

and improvements in supporting the existing business, but our conclusion at 7 .17 is that

it's not harmful to the landscape area, which I think is the policy of the first time I

cancelled that one.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:19:44

I have got attention on page 225 which is in the letter supporting this which I found

quite interesting.

It seems to be quite a nice thing and the neighbour seems to think that it would actually

act as a deterrent to other crime.

have a double use.

If no other Councillor, oh, Councillor Hoesby.

Sorry.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:20:15

To refer to the comment by Bournemouth.

Wondered whether the officer

liked to comment on it.

I don't know if you want me to read it out.

Site is generally untied with tires and equipment.

There were a couple of other

and the same obstructions to the highway.

The additional story would result in an

increase in the building that would harm

the wider rural area which is just explained.

The proposal would be used as residential

and the site is not appropriate for this.

The security and security request appeared

to have no evidence and could be mitigated

by security.

I just wondered if you could comment on that note from Vermaersch.

I think it's important that we, you know,

ask parish councils what they think and I think it's quite important that we recognise it.

I'm going to address it and I'm going to turn to my colleagues who are

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:21:18

closer to the detail than myself.

Paragraph 5 .1.

Obviously the parish council are very important

and we take into consideration.

I think we understand that there can be

some discussions this evening

focused on the development before us.

Because the way the site is operated could change,

you could have different opportunities in the future.

So in that regard, I think we've probably

come to the conclusion that the building, the developments,

the extension is acceptable.

Concerns around the residential use

is not proposed in this application.

The earlier application had elements of residential

which were removed.

And for some reasons, obviously, we

don't support residential development in the countryside.

And they're specifically justified

through specific individual needs.

In this case, we don't support that.

So on balance, we don't believe that the development

is harmful and the rest of the site operates.

And I would draw your notice to the condition that this should not be used for residential.

Would any of yous like to make a comment on certain areas?

So we have a proposer and a seconder to agree with the Office of the Government's first

floor extension.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:22:52

All those in favour, that has passed. Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:23:07

So we move on to our next application which is 24 -0872 -FH which is the 4th Street Hall

in Stone Street in Stamford.

Do we have any updates please?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:23:21

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Councillors. Yes, I'll start with the total now stands

at two letters of support, two general comments and two subjections. The issues raised in

the new letters of support but raise the additional comment that there's no need for a village

hall to be supported by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a fairly lengthy response

objections raising the following summarised points.

The parish council don't object.

There are plans for work

funded by money from the sale of the village hall,

although officers haven't seen any evidence of this.

The current building within High Street

has been fully discussed and voted on at parish council meetings.

The attention of the site for community uses were considered,

but as per the report, officers agree with it.

Particulars have also now been provided by the

and not the extended marketing period required by the policy as per the report.

The decision that the agency has made to ensure that the

and site is well in support of their position.

But abandonment is a very complicated issue.

There are legal concepts within planning

and the decision to consider that the use has been abandoned.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:24:40

Thank you very much.

and we have three guests to speak on this tonight.

Our first speaker is a local resident

to speak against the application.

If you'd like to come up, good evening,

and you will have three minutes when you start.

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 1:25:07

Good evening and thank you for context.

I am a recently elected trustee.

I live opposite the hall and I have no objection to a house being built, but not at the cost

of losing a living.

As the Planning Officer has advised, parish council minutes should be changed to repair

and became unusable.

Don't go into a lack of demand for the hall.

All residents must be presented with a right to the control of the land.

On the contrary, before 2020, the trustees chairman told residents that the visual was

a force of the community and if they voted for the sale, he was optimistic.

But optimism is a force of the C2 of the Places and Policies Low Plan.

and it was known they would end up losing their community facility

and voted for its disposal.

At last year's annual village meeting, residents voted 50 to 6

to hold community events at the church

and this year the PCC is holding funding from the sale proceeds

to create a community facility and place of worship

subject to the sale and the sale being valid.

The application was also suggested incidentally by a surveyor hired by the then trustees back

in 2008.

So given there clearly is a demand, a plan that can be made in the House should be accompanied

by a detailed proposal from the trustees and the

with development potential.

But I'm not entirely sure if I'm told that its designated status has been lifted,

and I don't think it has been.

As shown, the required documents certifying that the trustees were in the sell the land

without charity commission approval.

Stanford is currently without a community facility.

The Irish Council now need to engage with the residents and the application board.

That means going back to the drawing board.

Thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:43

Thank you very much, sir.

Our speaker is Alistair Holt, who is a local and a member of the application board.

Good evening, sir.

Microphone Forty - 1:27:59

Microphone Forty - 1:28:00

Thank you, Chair and committee. I am the Chairman of the Stanford and Western Hangar

and a Trustee just like the previous speaker, Peter.

We are only a small village, we have a village hall, it fell through nobody's fault,

the village hall was built in the early days, the village didn't have very much money,

and unfortunately it suffered from societies.

When I was a boy there was cracks in the village hall and they gradually got worse,

So in the late 19th century, we were talking about a village hall.

Stanford has not had a village hall in 25 years.

If anybody said that there was a building facility, yes there has.

That happened 25 years ago.

More than that, you were depending on when you liked to draw the line.

It was used as a village hall.

have looked

at buying.

The fact that we couldn't provide disable parking.

we've

found

This is billions more years ago, and we had no talks about dub

and washed and sand droughts because it was the delivery

that Walker St rocks.

And this is a number 8th -century family experience in Japan.

So here we are CHEBRO WHY.

What we did was weren't quite as beautiful at the time

then as the children are old

There was an extraordinary committee

that was introduced to the sale of the village.

I want to make that very clear.

Nobody objected to the sale of the village.

Moving on, there is a possibility

that we are looking into

in that we can get a community facility

in the village hall to be a part of the discussion

for the village hall committee at the moment.

So it is, I'll just make it clear,

that we didn't have a chance to go out for sale

and we were able to get a new facility

or the community, thank you very much everybody.

Thank you sir.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:31:07

And our third speaker is Councillor Graham Horner on behalf of Stanford Flash Council

and the application.

Good evening sir.

Microphone Forty - 1:31:21

Thank you chair.

I'm going to make a few rounds for refusal. I'm only going to make a community facility thing.

I've lived in Stanford for a long time. All that time there's never been a functioning village before.

How it became derelict is irrelevant.

The site has been sold legally by an individual who has a real estate in the house.

the house on it and we the council are keen to rid the village of the

The law and planning guidance rightly put in place a community facility to be

proposed to change of use.

The council has directly cited non -compliance with the letter that

the council has made a chance for refusal.

The parish council have no power over the committee. We've looked on for more

In two decades, as of the beginning of the development of the existing building, the

procurement of a new building, which would require a new site, was restored by the Village

Hall Committee.

You've heard about that.

The proposed building was ultimately failed due to financial and or planning constraints.

We support the development of the building.

As custodian trustees, the council legally owned the land and as such we have a huge

ensure that the correct procedures were followed to enable the disposal site, including compliance.

This involved a formal consultation of our residents which confirmed a majority of the

site. The choice for them was between a scruffy site which could not be brought to the site

and money in the bank to be used should a suitable opportunity be made.

As regards planning, the NPPF requires an assessment to show a recreational building

is surplus to requirements.

The potential is no use to anybody and the site is too small to support a requirement.

That's my assessment.

Local plan policy see the facility to be offered for sale as a community facility for a year

as proof of lack of demand.

the members of the committee to know where they are required to.

Strictly, that is why the current owner has to insist on that.

The policy seated clearly does not envisage

the possibility of a reduction and even then incapable of doing so.

I would invite members to the committee to know

and instruct officers that in the circumstances

the public consultations already carried out

and will not satisfy the MPPF and Policy Center.

I believe this is within your powers.

If you're not able to do this, then I believe

that it is obviously what is expected of him

to remove this ground for refusal.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:29

I'd like to ask some questions.

Councillor Mike Blakemore please.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:34:36

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:34:39

I have some sympathy with the residents.

I think they found themselves in a situation where

their property is derelict.

They're not in the business of providing

commercial services.

How can they fulfil this due to the

need in the village to do that?

However, there are a few other

The speaker mentioned for refusing this application.

Insubmission information provided to demonstrate

the site and fail to demonstrate the proposed event

would be nutria.

But it can meet the requirement.

We haven't heard anything this evening.

So recommendations and

recommendation and refuse permission.

Please, can I ask a proposal? Do you have a seconder?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:32

Pardon me, did you want to speak?

Yes, please.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:35:35

We have not got a lot of time from the last two speakers.

That's why I'm interested in that I'm a member of the Stanford Church congregation in the PCC.

but I think you've got to remember that with regard to the history of this village hall.

It's been derelict for 25 years.

It's in the streets where the church is.

So people go to the church hall or if there's a wedding,

C2 has been put into place and it has put a number of people off actually having their weddings there

but I want to argue that C2 has been met

the officers think it should be met

but we're going to auction

I'm not sure what year it was

to auction.

Up until the day of the village had had many discussions,

discussing what they should do.

And at the end of the day, so it's over a number of years,

at the end of the day they decided the best thing was for it to go to auction.

And now the auction there has been available to provide a community facility

the facility within the village.

Now, I love to see it develop,

and as I say, I go to church there,

and it's an eyesore.

They want to see it develop.

So I would suggest that it has been addressed,

may I say that it should have been,

but it has been addressed because it was a very

very surprising, there have been a lot of

things that have happened to it,

so I feel that that has been addressed.

With regard to the two other reasons,

actually, I think that there is a

significant neutrality that it is

a very important movement, or,

I'm not sure what the word in the

is, but it's not so, maybe the officers

can help me out there and is to recommend that we go for approval with

delegation to work with the applicant on mitigating

and the biodiversity and I think

I think they just need a little bit of attention

and support and I think the officers could do that.

So that's my view.

And to the officers, the situation with regard

to the biodiversity.

Do you have a question?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:39:00

We have a sentence, we have two proposals.

I'm going to ask the panelists to come in and maybe clarify because I think what we're

looking at here is a pickle with the power that other people have got caught up in and

whether we like it or not as a community, it's a very meaningful process.

I'd like to turn it over to Mr Lloyd.

Thank you, Chair.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:39:30

I think there's a couple of points I could pick up on them.

I'm not surprised.

I think the first thing is whilst I also may have

to see with applicants the situation they find themselves in,

we have to be active.

We have a policy that requires

where there is the loss of a community facility.

The organization at the auction that took place

said that it had been marketed and auctioned a long time ago, whenever that took place,

for a community facility.

It's not that it's a good thing or a bad thing.

The people had the opportunity to get a bit of a concern based on its physical state as

a community facility.

In averting that, the problems that have gone on, and because it's a difficult position,

When you think about how does that consist of the district,

in the recent lessons, Councillor Thomas asked,

for the 15 months was an efficient time

to consider the planting of the site.

The planning process for the 12 months

is considered the appropriate time,

and our planning policies and this application

are consistent, they've been planning for 15 years,

and I'm no doubt the applicant's planning agent

was not considered the application.

If they believe there is no case for this site to be used for the community facility,

then the marketing exercise should be made, but I would urge caution in where we are.

I can appreciate that we would need to be careful about how we apply that policy.

I would advise that you can't approve the documentation.

because we do not know at this moment in time when any of that was installed or even possibly

secured by the government or Section 106 agreement.

Nobody has done that work.

We have no solution to the nutrient neutrality.

We have no solution to the appropriate solution to biodiversity.

So even if the new one were to be removed because members could find a reason why CS

of the policy was acceptable to be ignored.

The policy would have to be followed.

Members could not take the internet on those grounds

because you have a vacuum of information.

I'd urge caution.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:42:03

I think that's all that's gone up.

So, Councillor.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:42:12

I think we can sort of hypothetical very quickly on the idea of seed.

If you imagine that a local swimming facility, for some reason, it would take maybe 12 months

to sell it.

After 12 months we might sell it.

It's been used for a while for that purpose.

I mean maybe we could change the rules and just let somebody build some houses on it

or something.

I suspect if we were in those circumstances that a number of people on the other side

of the council would have been able to provide a council.

So I very much take the Chief Officer's view that we should be looking at the edges of

our own rules and therefore I think we should be looking at the edges of our own rules.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:43:09

As a recipient of the

coming back and actually validating some of that,

which is done really quite easily.

So again, I support what's been said,

and I support what Councillor Fuller said in regard to,

we do have a lot of work to do,

and it doesn't meet SS3,

neutrality and the biodiversity net gain as well.

So I can't see much more of a recommendation

for this recommendation for refusal for this application.

Thank you chair. Thank you.

Councillor De Zia.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:44:03

Thank you chair. What I was going to say was basically this.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:44:09

Just in the last 20 years, it doesn't mean it's a city requirement.

Let me give you an example.

In St Mary's in the Marsh, there was a village hall there.

More than 20 years ago.

That community up there, they spent 20 odd years,

and everything else, raise funds.

We have a grand soft lorry in the Prosperity Fund,

which is going up in the next couple of weeks.

So, it does decide to...

...a clap -related village hall and it doesn't necessarily mean to say.

It should be a nice place.

I understand what Mr Lloyd said, in respect that this should be consistent.

and to be fair we should be consistent and I'll support the Office's recommendation.

Thank you Councillor Cooper, Councillor McLeish.

Just to clarify, so in support of the financial aid register I just

Cllr James Butcher - 1:45:07

would like some advice on that.

I'll be in a position then to say well all right I'll do a marketing exercise

about biodiversity net gain and so on.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:45:23

I will, I might defer to my learned colleague to jump in if I'm wrong.

If once the marketing has been carried out, or the applicant demonstrates that there is

no need for a community to do this at this point, then we could enter into the office

and as officers we recognise that we can make a settlement that is not in principle unacceptable,

but we have an initial settlement and after that we can then engage in the discussion

the applicant in sorting out the nutrient recovery

and the biodiversity net gain solutions,

which I think could be theoretically achieved

before the market is transferred to the market.

So, what I would say is that the systems

to be demonstrated from a market value

or a fair value for the site would be,

whether the marketing has been adjusted,

whether people buy it.

If that can be overcome,

The deathly entertain planning applications for redevelopment of the site.

The plans are to a degree tied by policies which would seek to protect the development and the policies of this Council.

And although the Council is not in the position to do that, it is up to members of the Council to do that.

And they weight the evidence before them.

If I answered you right then it's up to the applicant then to do some work and come back

to you and have another conversation.

Cllr James Butcher - 1:46:49

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:46:55

So we have a proposal is to accept officers recommendation to review all those in favour

please show your hand. Those against.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:13

And no abstentions.

Mr Alex Baker - 1:47:19

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:20

Mr Alex Baker - 1:47:23

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:23

Thank you. So we have gone with the officers

recommended. Proposal falls in this case.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:36

application of the evening

66 -FH which is Fairfield Court Farm

Brick Lane Brooklyn in Wroldale. Do we have any updates please?

David Campbell - 1:47:55

Yes just a few updates and we've got an

additional comment from

existing objector, the section 73 process should not be applicable.

It was made in the previous decision in July last year which required the applicant to

reduce the scheme size and scope of the proposals.

It's out of place and an intrusion is in a protected rural setting and there are

All those points have been covered in the main report and just a minor one, there should

be some updates on the proposed site plan on the drawing number.

That's it, thank you.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:47

The speakers on this, Mr George Staple who is a local resident to speak against the application.

If you'd like to come forward sir, good evening and you'll have three minutes from

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 1:49:07

Thank you, Chair.

On the 8th of July, 2023, the committee declined to grant planning commission to this applicant

and to the plans which were in the same form as those before you this evening.

The only difference now is that the committee has made a decision under Section 73 of the

Thailand Country Planning Act which is designed and intended for minor improvement.

The committee also decided in July 23 that the committee should discuss the scale, size

and appearance of the proposed dwellings with the Act and report back to the committee.

Negotiations duly took place resulting in modified plans,

reducing the footprint of the dwellings by some 30 % with the alteration in their allowance.

The application was then referred back to the committee on 12 December 2021.

Thanks from the applicant for the help he had received from the officers

the planning authority's formal decision on 21 June this year, the applicant

in the UK with an application under Section 73 to revert to the original schedule.

This would result, for instance, in an increase of one bedroom and one bathroom per house,

with equivalent further living space, and many more windows to the whole development.

The courts have made it abundantly clear that 1073 is not to be used as a

change of changes to an existing permission.

Instead it is there to seek permission only for minor changes.

An increase of some 30 % in the footprint of the dwellings at 15 %

cannot possibly be described as minor,

but it is clearly fundamental and the

development under Section 73 should therefore be refused.

The focus should now be on clearing the disused site and building houses

without further consideration in accordance with the plans and conditions of the

resolution.

And it is a scheme which offers some chance of protecting the amenity

and it will also to some extent improve highway safety and encourage wildlife and biodiversity.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:52:13

And our last speaker of the evening is Mr Scott Balcombe, who is the application of

from when you start third good evening.

Microphone Forty - 1:52:26

Microphone Forty - 1:52:28

Thankfully having looked through the report I think all the concerns you've just heard from Mr Staple

have been addressed and have been justified in section 5 .3 of the report.

We had a discussion prior to putting the application in of the section 73 and whether it was appropriate

and we decided it was.

I'm here this evening to give reason to the fact that the application was deferred and

that there was a conflict that would indicate or eliminate the size of the properties but

rather conscious of the consensus by the committee

that the properties were too big.

As part of my application, I had a document

that showed more than 10 other properties

within a 1 .5 mile radius,

the same size or bigger than the ones we had proposed,

which is very much considering the sparsity

of houses in that area.

My stepfather was a resident of the city for 10 years,

and although he has recently passed,

I was asked to have many of his peers to take advice from and that advice led me to meeting

my barrister Zach Simons.

He is a specialised in planning appeals so I asked him to review the webcast as we were

all curious as to why the webcast was not his recommendation of approval.

Zach has been voted the top junior planning barrister in the country every year since

two years, including this year.

These are his observations.

The scheme has not been rushed and thrown together.

It has taken five years working hand in hand with the planning department to produce a

design and support.

There were numerous comments requesting or questioning how the size of these properties

fits into the local landscape as a comparison to what is a local landscape.

So that was concerned because the document I referred to earlier showing examples of

the sizeable properties and therefore answering these questions have not been reviewed by

all the committee members.

There was no policy that was contravened within my planning application that was an appropriate

measure for the application, especially when recommended three times for approval by the

planning officers.

And lastly, the quote from 8 .1,

the proposed dwellings are unacceptable design,

well cited and would not cause any unacceptable harm

to local residential or physical amenity,

the public speaking for itself.

The first is that if we are unsuccessful

in gaining committee support this evening,

going against the recommendation of planning officials

for the third time, we will have a very strong case

for me to go to the office where I have the advantage of applying.

I am hopeful the committee can support the officer recommendation.

Your three minutes is up sir.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:55:37

Councillors, Councillor Thomas then Councillor Polybaker.

Yeah, thank you Jeremy.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:55:44

We're all over again isn't it?

So we've been here before and we've heard the argument

supported previously when we listened to local residents

through the development with regard to the scale

and the layout.

I think I'm right in saying that the

has been tested in the High Court relatively recently.

and that providing the operating part of the application

is maintained, then the Section 73 application is valid.

Whilst we might not like that as a committee,

the applicant asked the applicant to consider

back last year and he was more likely to comply with

to get the application done.

It does seem slightly strange that we're now being presented

with the retail application again.

However, as has been stated in the report,

the applicant, I don't think we have any grounds

for refusing this or going against

the officer's recommendation tonight.

That grieves me to say that, and I think we've

had a good result, is my personal opinion.

But I do think we've made the officer's

recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Do you have a seconder?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:57:12

Councillor Goddard?

Councillor Polly Brakeman?

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:57:22

I can't quite believe we're here again either but I simply don't follow the applicant's

argument in Power Graph 7 .8 where the footprint of existing buildings is like an average development.

It's not comparing like with like.

We're talking about emptier abandoned farm buildings on one hand and large residences

or holiday vehicles on the other.

But added to that, the amount of reservations I had last July, nothing has changed.

The problem with the size, the proportions, the scare, the amount of people, all just

incongruously dominant in the open marsh landscape and all right next to the open marsh in Rye

Bay SSSI and the repositioning of the houses just doesn't work and that just makes the

whole impact or that much worse I simply can't support this application.

Thank you Councillor.

Thank you Chair.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:58:21

I think Councillor Thomas sort of gave a very good overview of the application.

I'll just pick up on 7 .5 saying the discussion on the changes amended will not increase the

density because obviously they're moving back from the yard so it will accommodate the updated

Again 7 .7 touches on when it came to us in July.

The architecture design approach of the main house, the three dwellings of Dalton remain

fundamentally the same.

So we believe there's not too much of a change there.

They've been moved about 7 .12 highlights while the dwellings would be larger in size.

that they approve to move further away from the central courtyard.

So we're the central courtyard, they don't look any bigger.

I think the speaker touched on it in 8 .1, the proposed dwellings were acceptable scale

and designed well -sited and would not cause any un -sexual harm to those who are in the

community, the public high school, the school's scheme is therefore acceptable.

So happy to support Councillor Thomas.

I agree with Councillor Blakemore.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:59:42

We asked this originally to go away because we were very concerned with the impact on the landscape.

We agreed with the applicant the Balkan scale of the drought.

and now we find that the MP3 is being used. However, I would give you some policies to

this one which is part of our core which is SS1, SS2 and HB1 which is protecting the landscape.

As much as I understand that there is the soil business there at the moment, it is very

obvious to me that the applicant has already done some dwellings, possibly for his family,

which I have been talking about previously, but we agreed to finish up the mess on this

one.

I'm going to be supporting this one.

I'm going to be supporting this one personally in this one.

Are you proposing, Councillor Blakemore?

I'm seconding.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:00:55

I am happy to second.

Do you want to speak at the moment?

Councillor Haynes.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:01:03

Well, the application...

The applicant could go back to the previous application I had,

because he's got planning permission.

And I think...

Thomas has said in terms of the year 1973,

and so I will be supporting Councillor Thomas.

Just echoing that, obviously there is already planning and permission there so will it

be difficult to...

Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:01:34

It's still within the same area of the current application.

So I guess there are an option.

The officer could have helped us out with that.

Sorry, can you just repeat your question please?

David Campbell - 2:01:54

Basically, I'm saying it's still within

Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:01:59

the mission site, it's gone bigger, but it's still within that

and if Councillors are supporting us, we can turn it down for that reason.

I'm not sure I'm the environment, I'll get the exact word out of here, but I'm sort of struggling with that, David.

And I think we've made a very good decision with the scope of the Section 73,

David Campbell - 2:02:22

both in terms of the size of the building, the size of the building, the size of the building,

the size of the building, the size of the building, the size of the building, the size of the building,

the last time round, the size of the existing buildings, etc.

But you do still need to be clear that this is acceptable.

That's a conclusion that you'll have to come to tonight.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:49

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:02:52

If I remember rightly when this first came before this, there was a bit of a debate

in respect of what we should be doing with this.

And I'm quite sure we will advise the communications here

which will be granted the original planning permission,

which is at 30 % of less than what it is now,

and then the soil works etc. would be stopped and removed.

Am I correct in assuming that, Mr Lloyd?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:03:21

That was the tenant on which the previous application was made,

that this was a development that replaced an existing,

unable development.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:03:32

and there's no further work on that just apart from the second application.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:03:41

The application is yet to be completed.

Thank you.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:03:46

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:03:48

Would any of the councillors wish to speak?

No? So our first proposal is to...

Sorry councillors.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:03:56

It's not a very clear question but I suppose because I wasn't involved on the applicant

Cllr James Butcher - 2:04:04

was making it wanting us to be abundantly clear with appeal and win costs and all of

that so I suppose the consequences are from officer's point of view what our scope for

action is turning down this application as it stands.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:04:30

We have to assess the application and put forward their recommendation for approval.

In coming to a contrary view, as with all planning applications, we believe the planning

harm is caused and given the least officers the indication of what they believe that the

and that implies the reason for refusing

if that's what you're doing.

In terms of costs,

whether it is better to make sure the planning

is identified and what is resulting

in a decision being made,

and why you're taking a contrary view,

tonight you've heard two opposing views

on the same balance,

so why don't you just take that up

and come to that view.

I think as long as you're identified,

then and policies are cited.

I think costs in this case, I don't know how successful

I think the concern raised by the Speaker was under

the previous decision, had there been,

I think the assertion was had there been a cost

based on a decision to point, no point in reaching

in reaching your viewers to your meetings for seeking amendments had you expressed what was concerned

so officers went back and negotiated and achieved the scheme before previously approved

but I think in coming to any decision contrary to officers it is up to members to identify

and invest that into a reason for refusing. If that's the final decision of this committee goes

Alternatively, we could agree with officers' recommendations

that there is no harm.

We could improve the development.

So, we did...

You've listed some policies...

Cllr James Butcher - 2:06:23

...which is, and I guess, whether Councillor Blaitmore can articulate

what the harm is that would allow us then to justify a review, if that's possible.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:06:34

I have some policies that I think go against this,

but what I would also say to the committee is you cannot make your decision on the fact

that you are not going to be able to make your decision on what is in front of you and

your understanding of the case. The very fact that we may be taken to court or threatened

with court and have to pay costs, you have to make your decision into consideration when

we are making our decision on this application. So I hope that's absolutely clear.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:12

The first proposal which is to accept the officer's recommendation.

All those in favour please show your hands.

Thank you all again.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:25

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:30

So that proposal has fallen.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:40

Councillor Blakemore, you walk forward the proposal to reduce.

Would you like to give some reasonings?

I have a question I can also put forward.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:07:54

I think I've kind of said it really but I can easily say it.

I think the importance of the open marsh landscape, the scale of the building is the proportion

of the buildings, that's the only end this year, the whole development.

Does that give you enough to work on?

Well if I add that scale of an extra 30 % I'd act adversely on the landscape of the marsh

and I believe that our

Before SS 1 SS 2 and HB 1 actually support that

Thought would that give the officers enough to work on

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:43

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:08:47

What I would just provide some advice on, I think where members are concerned is that

the proposed development, I think it might have to get delegated approval to vary the

wording marginally afterwards, but the proposed development by virtue of the bold scale of

design of the dwelling would appear dominant

and being only dominant and incongruent with the rural landscape within the

Southern Council of Lakemore reference to the North and the Chippell SI,

contrary to policy HB1 and SS1 and SS2.

I believe that you need to have some density if that's where you're going because the density of the steam has changed.

We've got bigger units but density is a measure of the amount of energy that you need.

So I would potentially urge you away from that.

Just looking at the count policies, I think those are the ones I think probably you'd need to think about.

and add them in because you've referenced

probably policies around protecting the

landscapes of any three.

we've covered it in excess work.

And surely

it shouldn't be threatening.

I know it's beside the point where it is threatening.

I think clearly for the seat, the planning issue at hand

is that it needs to come to a complete planning merit.

I think it's a draft reason for refusal,

subject to tweaking with something along the lines

of both development and the virtue of the dwelling,

the individual dwelling by the sale

of the individual dwelling options would be overly dominant

and incongruous and that would be a detriment

appearance and visual amenity, in conflict with policies SS1, SS2, HB1, and NE3.

And I'm looking to colleagues to see if they think that's a better word.

But I think that's a better word for the words you've used.

I'm just putting it into, so that you've got a recommendation for refusal.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:11:18

So we have the second proposal which has been proposed and seconded with the

and that is to refuse this particular application against the recommendation of the author.

If anyone goes in favour, please show.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:11:42

Those against, please show.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:11:47

Mr Alex Baker - 2:11:52

Abstention. That's nine in favour, two against and one abstention.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:11:55

Application is being refused at this point. Thank you.

And that is it. Thank you all for a very interesting debate.

I'd like to thank the officers.

Good evening until next time.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Folkestone & Hythe District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 8 October 2024, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting