Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 12 November 2024, 7:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 12th November 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.

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

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.

would normally be webcast live to the internet.

However, due to a technical issue, this will not be possible this evening

and will instead be made available within 24 hours of the meeting.

For those of you who do not wish to be recorded or filmed,

you will need to leave the chamber. For members,

officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones are used

so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.

Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent as they can be distracting.

I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under

consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.

So members, as the chair of this committee I would like to make a statement for the benefit

of all councillors present at this meeting and for members of the public.

The applications before you tonight and indeed any applications you consider in the future

must be considered on planning merits only.

It is essential that members adhere to this principle and ensure that their decisions

tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided during this meeting.

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

before you.

So we'll move on.

Do we have any apologies for absence please?

Thank you chair, we have no apologies this evening.

Thank you.

Do we have any declarations of interest please?

Councillor Goddard.

Thank you chair, it's more of an observation chairman.

Queen's House Guildhall Street, I'm working on a development 50 yards of that, so it's more of an observation rather than a declaration.

Thank you.

Yeah just a voluntary announcement.

Thank you.

Councillor Breakmore.

Yes, just to point out that I happen to know the owners of Twin Chimneys, which is a property

that's mentioned in the waste transfer station application as being south west of the site.

Thank you.

Any other declarations?

Councillor Sheebe.

Thank you.

In respect of item 9, just wanted to declare that I'm on the board of Otter Claw P.

Thank you very much.

So you had before you the minutes of the meeting held on the 8th of October 2024.

May I sign them as a correct record, please?

Councillor Hinesby.

Can I just make or ask one question?

I did mean to bring it up with the officers before.

Under item 40, where it says that planning permission be refused for the reasons set

out below, I couldn't see the reasons set out below.

So if they could be added please.

They are normally included I think.

So if the officers could check that and put them into the minutes.

Once we have that done, would you be happy for me to sign that as a correct record?

Thank you very much.

We also have before you the minutes of the licensing subcommittee held on the 24th of

October 2024.

May I sign that as a correct record, please?

Thank you very much.

So with that we will move on to our first application this evening which is 20 -0304 -FH

which is Longland Farm at Exstead Hill in Elam.

Do we have any updates please?

I do have updates, Chairman.

Members should be aware that following finalising the officer's committee report two further

representations have been received raising objections to the proposal.

The concerns relate to the temporary building where the concern the owners

are themselves already residing on site. Members should note that having recently

visited the site there is no evidence to suggest that this is the

case the proposed static home is not on site and the existing barn has not been

converted to provide residential accommodation. Concerns have also been

raised regarding sewage and issues these are addressed within the body of the

The keeping of livestock has also been raised where reference to not being able to keep

livestock within 400 metres of a residential dwelling was highlighted.

Members are advised that this restriction relates to buildings used in the accommodation

of livestock and forms part of part 6, class A of the Town and Country Planning Permitted

Development Order.

This does not restrict the grazing of livestock in this case.

It's worth noting that operations as a poultry farm

formed part of the 2019 prior approval.

The hatching of poultry has been included

as part of this current application

because this would result in part of the building

being used for the accommodation of poultry

and constitutes the keeping of livestock

and as such, requires formal planning permission.

The internal arrangements of the barn

provide subdivided rooms inside

and as members can see on the site location plan,

appendix one of the report,

a small section of the building,

which is outlined in red,

has been included solely for the consideration

of hatching poultry.

The remaining uses within the building

remain in accordance with the prior approval.

Matters relating to avian flu

have also been raised as a concern,

but this is not material

to the planning consideration here.

The concerns of the AOMB unit and Natural England

have also been addressed within the body of the report.

Concerns relating to the slaughter of birds on site are noted as this does not fall under

the remit of keeping livestock.

These operations are considered to fall within the agricultural permitted development rights

and outside the remit of this application.

This is set out in more detail within the committee report.

In short, members are reminded that the poultry operations on site have been agreed under

prior approval.

falling within permitted development rights

as set out within part six, class A of the GPDO.

For consideration here is the acceptability

of the temporary mobile home for residential use

by agricultural workers and hatching of poultry

within the building.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to remind speakers that you will have

three minutes to speak and when you come

to that three minutes I will ask you

to finish your last sentence.

So can I have our first speaker, which is the local resident, Robert Knight,

who will speak against the application if you'd like to come forward, sir.

Good evening. And you have three minutes from when you start.

Councillors, in recommending this application,

the Planning Officer has only three key matters to consider.

Is it consistent with the high level of protection afforded to the landscape?

Is the business a recognised agricultural activity?

And is it a viable business?

Is it a viable business?

The report refers to the business plan,

but this plan might be pure fiction and is not available to see.

What is available is this,

the audited balance sheet from Companies House.

It shows at July last year, before they were shut down for a year,

Cash at Bank £1 ,408,

amounts falling due within one year £228 ,000,

amounts falling due after one year £297 ,000,

provisional liabilities £41 ,000.

Total creditors and provisions, that is amounts owing £566 ,000.

The report from the Planning Officer says nothing of these liabilities.

But why doesn't it? It's not confidential.

It's publicly available information.

Yet knowing what these liabilities are is crucial to this application.

In assessing the viability of the business or even if it is solvent.

Agricultural activity.

The report on page 24 lists as one of the main objections made in the comments

that the activities do not meet the test of agriculture.

The first and third items listed for sale on the Longland Farm website

are for point of lay chickens and point of lay ducks.

This is not a recognised agricultural activity.

However, the report does not address this.

It does refer to private sales of hatching eggs,

but producing hatching eggs is also not an agricultural activity.

It is not working the land, it is not producing food.

The Planning Officer has identified the objection,

but failed to address it,

and this is a key requirement for the building and the caravan,

that they are in support of legitimate agricultural activity working the land.

protected landscape, the Planning Officer might not share

the visual appreciation of exceptional landscape

that hundreds of objectors share.

It's a subjective and personal judgement.

However, committee members, particularly those who know the area,

might feel that insufficient weight is given to this aspect in the report

and it is not addressed adequately.

In summary, this application fails on all three requirements for approval.

The protected status of the land, legitimate agricultural activity,

viability of the business and in my view it would be unsafe to approve.

Thank you.

Thank you very much sir.

And the second speaker we have on this application is Giles Campbell, the applicant to speak

on the application.

Would you like to come forward, sir?

And you'll have three minutes from when you start, sir.

Thank you.

Good evening.

At Longan Farm we produce high welfare, high quality, low intensity, sustainable and genuinely

outdoor reared poultry.

My wife Kate and I bought the land that is now Longan Farm in 2018 after an extensive

two year search.

It is very difficult to buy land with barns now at agricultural rates, they are all being

turned into houses.

Agricultural land without barns is sold in vast lots or small lots at vastly inflated

prices.

Only through our connections in the farming community will we be able to find some at

agricultural rates.

We moved on farming in 2020 after a night time fox attack and have successfully tackled

subsequent incursions because of being there.

We have been renting a house nearby that when you rear your birds outdoors for best welfare

it really is essential to be on site to properly protect them.

Planning permission for a temporary dwelling will formalise this.

Also if you grant planning permission this evening we will be able to move our incubators

and hatches to the farm.

We can then properly monitor the eggs as they incubate and fully inspect and protect our

birds as they hatch.

It's heartbreaking to drive to our current hatchery and find for example hundreds of

suffocated birds, something which is much more easily prevented when the hatchery is

at the farm and you can hear the early signs of trouble.

The bird welfare will be better protected and the business too when the hatchery is

at the farm.

As with all, farming has been a lot of hard work and there have been significant challenges.

In 2020, the pandemic closed all our restaurant customers for months and in 2023 we were hit

by bird flu.

But that business survived, which is testament to its financial stability, the value of what

we produce and the loyalty of our customers.

After the bird flu, we received quite a lot of letters, cards, jars of jam, bottles of

wine from people in Elam Village saying how sorry they were and how they will miss the

and hoping that they will be back soon.

To me that shows that we're a positive

part of the local community.

Our full time employee Phil lives

in the village and walks to work.

Other staff come in from surrounding villages.

At bird feed is made in a locally grown

from locally grown grain in a million

winner 10 miles away at produces

used in local pubs and restaurants.

We are strongly integrated agricultural

agricultural part of the local rural economy.

We ask that you grant us planning

commission this evening so that Kate

and I can better protect our birds and their business.

Before I finish, Sarah, our planning agent,

has asked us to say a few words on her behalf.

Your case officer's report provides a very good overview

of the application.

Your case officer and the council's rural planning

consultant have considered the proposals

in the light of national and local planning policies

and concluded that the farm generates

an essential functional need to live on site

and is planned on a sound financial basis.

My clients Giles and Kate have long demonstrated

firm intention and ability to develop their enterprise.

For actually moving to the farm and the use of the land for

stationing a mobile home for a temporary period would enable

their agricultural business to flourish.

The application complies with planning policy and I hope you

will agree with your case officer's assessment and grant

planning permission this evening.

Can you please finish your last sentence? Thank you.

That's it. That was it. Thank you for listening.

Thank you very much though. I thought it was but I thought I'd

better check.

That's very kind of you. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Councillors, does anyone have any questions?

Councillor Mike Brightmore.

I'm just curious, Chair, that it's judged to be a viable business,

and we've just heard from the applicant that he believes it is,

but we've only been asked to grant temporary permission

for this home for three years.

So what will happen at the end of that three -year period

if the business is still thriving

and the need remains for someone to live on site?

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members.

Well, it's well established in planning law in terms of agricultural dwellings that you

kind of test the water to start with.

So if it's a small holding, temporary planning permission is granted for a mobile home or

a caravan on the basis that over that period of time, the applicant should be able to demonstrate

whether or not the small holdings are going.

concern at the end of the temporary period most local planning authorities

would not look to grant a second temporary period for a temporary dwelling like a

caravan or a mobile home. We would expect an application for a permanent dwelling

on the site. Obviously in this instance it's in the national landscape so were

an application to come in it would need to be very sensitively designed and have

regard to the sensitive and important scenic quality of the landscape.

But at the end of the three year period we would expect there to be planning permission

in place for a permanent replacement dwelling or for the caravan to be removed.

Councillor Thomas.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to ask, so in the report section 724 it says that this is not part of the Stodd

Marsh catchment area, that's correct isn't it?

But Southern Water say that they do not support a septic tank facility being installed on

site but their preference is for it to be connected to a foul sewer.

But later on in the report, in fact the next section 7 .25, the report says it's not considered

reasonable or proportionate to ask for connection to the main sewer.

So again, what I'm struggling with is understanding,

you know, a direction from a statutory consultee

at Southern Water and an interpretation of that

about what's reasonable and proportional.

So if you could just talk to them,

I'd appreciate that, thank you.

Yes, apologies for the inconsistency there.

We do have comments from Southern Water

about the possibility of both septic tank or connection,

but Southern Water have identified that it's quite a distance and so the applicant would

be expected to speak with Southern Water and obtain various licences for whichever connection

they choose.

Southern Water have expressed a preference but they have also expressed the willingness

to consider those options.

Does that provide some clarity?

in the record.

Councillor Polly Grego.

Thank you, Chair. It's my understanding that there are

restrictions on keeping livestock in accommodation

within a given distance of homes. So I'm just a bit of

clarification really. Does the incubation and hatching of

poultry not constitute as accommodation of livestock?

It does qualify, which is the reason why they're applying for planning permission formally

in this instance.

The GPDO, General Permitted Development Order, states under Part 6, Class A, that it would

not constitute permitted development if you were keeping livestock internally as accommodating

within the building, which is why they've applied for it here.

But actually, that's the only reason why they've applied for it here.

and in fact if it was outside 400 metres it would constitute committed development.

Councillor Walker.

Thanks to other Councillors and officers for answering what would have been a couple of

my questions. But I have another one. On page 24 the list of objections mentions commercial

traffic increase on narrow roads. I know that area, I was dread meeting something coming

the other way. But it says later on support that sustainable with regard to vehicle movement.

Could somebody perhaps speak a bit more about the vehicles moving on that narrow road?

Yes, thank you, Chairman. In answer to your query, at the moment the hatching of birds

takes place outside of the site, another location, and those are transported to the site and

then to roam freely as free range poultry.

The current proposal would propose

that they're hatched on site,

which would admit the need to transport the birds

to the site later on to be free range.

So there actually should be a reduction

in traffic movements.

Discussion with the applicant has confirmed

that for the majority of cases

where they're selling the product

after the end product, the meat,

they would transport it to that destination themselves,

as opposed to people coming to the site directly.

Councillor Thomas.

I was just going through my notes.

There's one other piece that I've got to ask a question on.

In 7 .7,

it says the applicant has submitted an essential needs appraisal.

What status does that essential need appraisal carry

in terms of supporting the part of the application

about why a worker is required to be on site.

Why don't you just elaborate on that for us, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, the status of the document is obviously,

it's an application document submitted by the applicant,

but it was appraised by our agricultural consultant,

who concluded very firmly that there's a functional need

for someone to be on site at all times

on the basis of the information that was provided.

Councillor Ayersby.

Thank you, Chair. I thought you'd forgotten about me.

I think most of the questions are being asked.

I just wanted to confirm that in terms of agricultural aspect,

which is covered by the agricultural aspect,

That's not included as part of this application.

It's just purely the temporary mobile home.

For clarity, in 2019 we granted prior approval for the agriculture use of the site, which

included the barn and the poultry.

This current application just includes the temporary static for purposes of residing

agricultural workers and the hatching of eggs which which constitutes the keeping

of livestock within the building. Just that. Thank you very much.

Councillor Cooper. Thank you chair.

No one on what the Councillor Thomas was saying in respect to page 27.

It says there points there paragraph 7 .8 the councils were upon

consultants agrees the extensive nature of the livestock etc.

Who is the Council's quote, rural planning consultant?

Is this a new one on May as I'm showing you these new members of the committee?

Well, the agricultural consultant who commented on this application

was a very experienced charter today who most of the Kent authorities used

to comment on planning applications.

Subsequent to providing these comments, unfortunately he's retired

I'd say even if members wanted him to be here, I suspect it would be unlikely.

But he's a very well respected consultee used by, like I said, at the time almost every

local planning authority in Kent.

Thank you for that clarification.

That's appreciated.

Can I also ask another couple of questions, please?

Within the body of the report, and if you look at the comments online, there is a comprehensive

reasons for refusal of fraud by the local parish council.

Have I actually been considered?

Because what I'm concerned about, there's bits and pieces in there that relates to, for example,

the imbalance with the destroying or the disposal of the carcasses, etc.

Obviously the inconvenience that's having on local neighbours.

And also, currently, the applicants said in these three minutes that they've got a full time employee

called Phil, he lives locally.

Why is there a need for someone to actually be on site?

Because I'm not convinced, personally, there is a need for someone to be on site,

especially if this rate is being carried elsewhere.

Well, in terms of the need for someone to be on site,

the case put forward by the applicant, which our agricultural consultant concurred with,

was that that's twofold.

One is to prevent predation of birds by foxes, for example,

and the other is where birds are hatching.

If they're too close together, they tend to suffocate to each other,

so it's to prevent that happening.

And it's fair that the tests

for whether there's a functional need for someone to reside on site

are fairly tough.

They're not the toughest tests in planning, but they are fairly tough

because by definition of the way the planning system works,

one of the key things is protecting the character of the countryside.

So the tests have to be relatively tough

to ensure that only the sites where there is genuine need

for someone to be on site can pass the tests.

In terms of the other issues raised,

I think the key thing here for members to be in mind of

is the fact that agricultural use of the land,

so keeping birds on the land, is not development,

doesn't require planning permission.

So that use could continue regardless of the outcome of this application.

So in terms of the harm set out in some of the letters of objection,

for example, removal of carcasses

or anything that is associated with the agricultural use in general terms, members shouldn't consider

that as a reason for not granting planning permission for this scheme.

What members need to consider here is the impact of the mobile home and the use of a

comparatively modest part of the existing building for hatching birds.

I hope that's it.

Thank you very much Mr Bailey.

Is there any comment in respect of the use of the cesspit because there were concerns

raised by the Palace Council and others in respect of the disposal of the ancillary works

because there was concern that the cesspit etc or the cesspit might not be suitable or

appropriate.

What's happening on that?

Do you know?

I can answer that, Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Cooper.

The concerns about the cesspit and the removal of waste centered around the then Stodd Marsh concerns, the nutrient neutrality at the time.

Now when the application was submitted in 2020, it fell within the Stodd Marsh SPA catchment area.

We have since had a review, Natural England has changed the boundary line, the site now falls outside of this, so essentially those concerns fall away.

Thank you.

Councillor Goodard.

Thank you chair.

I think Mr Campbell just wants to live on his land to protect his livelihood, protect

his business, his family's welfare etc. etc.

I've not got an issue with this at all, living on site.

I think he should live on site.

Especially with Mr Bailey's explained with the birds.

it's not just poaching but they can trample each other etc etc so you know I haven't got

too much of an issue with this at all and you know I wish him all the best and the small

business all the best and moving the recommendation.

Thank you and we have a seconder from Councillor King.

I would just like to ask the officers because one of the issues obviously this is in the

natural landscape as it's now called.

Do we have any say, should the committee agree the application for the mobile home?

Do we have any say as to the colour of the mobile home?

Because obviously if it's white or bright yellow it would be even more harmful to visual

amenity than if it was a possible darker colour.

I just wondered if there's anything that we can say within conditions that should the

committee choose to put forward.

And there is a condition already on the decision notice

requesting details of the color and of the static home. We could

put an informative on to sort of steer recommendations towards

any specific color you might have in mind.

I was thinking black or possible black disappears. We know this

was just why so many fences are done or maybe dark green to fit

within the thing. I don't know what other councillors think about that colour scheme,

but I just wanted to know that we do have and we do have the possibility of an informative.

So, Councillor Goddard? I would usually say the colours of Tottenham

Hotspur, but they're not playing very well at the moment, be it hit or miss. So, forget

that. But yeah, I think in the past this has come up with power vans, like I say, in the

sort of dark colour of the green. Common sense choosing prevail, the applicant, the agent,

there in the audience tonight so hopefully you're right it won't be pink the blue spots

or anything like that. You know a dark colour of green, a brown, you know creosote, dark

oak, washed oaks, a new colour everybody seems to be into at the moment but at the moment

Tottenham are definitely off the list.

So would you be happy for some informative to be put on there with your proposal?

Thank you very much.

So with the, oh, Councillor Walker.

So I had a loaded question, should mostly answer by others.

And there is one thing I just wanted to check.

There's a mention in the objections of a hedge that's mentioned in the Dunes Day Book.

I wondered if the sighting of this mobile home will have any impact whatsoever on the

hedge.

No impact site, that's all.

So committee, we have one proposal in front of us and that is for permission to be granted.

subject to the conditions and also an informative regarding a dark colour, possibly on this mobile home.

All those in favour, please raise your hands.

Those against?

Sorry, there was a hand I didn't see, I thought.

Sorry, I didn't see you behind there, Councillor.

That has passed unanimously, thank you.

Yes, Councillor Walker.

I was actually abstaining on that, so yeah.

So we have one abstention, but the application has passed, thank you.

So we move on to our second application this evening, which is 24 -1249 -FH, which is Queen's

House in Guildhall Street in Folkestone.

Do we have any updates, please?

No updates, Chair.

Thank you very much.

And we have one speaker to speak on this application, and that's Sam Bowman.

Could you come forward, please?

And he is the agent to speak on the application.

Good evening, sir.

And you will have three minutes from when you start.

Good evening.

I'm sure you're all aware of the history of this building

and what has previously been approved by way of planning permission

and prior approval notices by the previous developer

and also the condition in which the building was left in prior to my client acquiring the

site.

There's been no public, in terms of the re -cladding of Queen's House, there's been

no public objections to the proposal and as there's nobody here to speak against the

scheme this evening I'll try and be brief.

But I just thought it was important that I come and speak this evening in favour of the

scheme to show that we are serious about getting this project done.

The building needs it, the high street needs it and Folkestone needs it.

I want to be clear that this application follows a previous planning approval by others for

the re -cladding of Queen's House prior to my client taking the project over.

The design of the facade as we're proposing follows closely what has already been approved

except that we are now proposing different cladding materials.

When we met with the planners early on in this project to discuss the proposal they

We were keen to see that the facade had a solidity in its appearance

and that informed the previous design and what we are on the main replicating.

The main horizontal and vertical grids

was to echo the solidity of the port and stone of the town hall opposite.

The previous scheme achieved this with cladding panels,

choosing to look at the panels, making the panels look like a render.

We're actually using render.

The previous approved facade was a rain screen cladding

which was going to be built off the existing facade

and there would have been a vented cavity behind that

and these panels would have had horizontal and vertical joints

which we considered would somewhat dilute that solidity

that the planners were asking for.

We're using a render that can be applied continuously over the facade

to create that sort of solidity, that replication of the stone

that the planners were sort of advocating us for.

The system we're using doesn't require any movement joints, so unlike the previous scheme,

there won't be any joints in the mcladding and it will be directly fixed, rendered back

to insulation, back to the main façade, so there won't be any voids behind the mcladding.

It's not a planning matter, I appreciate, but the parish council did make a comment

about fire safety.

So our approach will remove the bended cavities associated with the previous rainscreen cladding

which would require fire stopping along the lines etc.

So in summary we consider we're offering a more refined version of what has already been

approved.

Thank you.

Thank you very much sir.

Over to you councillors.

Would anyone like to ask any questions or raise any issues?

Councillor Hinesby?

I'm really pleased to see this building come forward.

I have to say that many years ago, when the Iran Insurance moved down from London, I used

to work in that building, so knew it quite well.

I would just like confirmation that, oh yes, one of the things is, I understand that from

the report. A fifth story will be added but it will not overlap and I

just wanted confirmation whether that's part of the... oh that's the next application.

Oh it shows I've read it doesn't it? Read them all. Okay that's fine so yeah well

On the fire risk, I just wanted to confirm, and I know we've just heard from the Speaker,

but with regard to Grenville, we have to really make sure that it is fire, it has been fireproof,

or it will be fireproof, and I just wanted confirmation that that's right.

We trust that is the case but in any case it would be subject to building regulations

which would cover those matters more cohesively.

Councillor Goddard.

Thank you Chair.

This is just what this building needs, a good render which is the safest product out on

the market.

it looks a lot better there with that development there and one down the other end excellent

development you've got it both ways as you come into Guildhall Street.

Shots are improving down there, a couple of houses are getting a lick of paint so this

should be the transformation of Guildhall Street what it needs.

So yeah and like I say when you see the architecture there, low architecture with the white window

that will tidy it up nicely.

So I'm more than happy to move the recommendation.

Thank you. Do you have a seconder?

Councillor Mike Blakemore is seconding.

Councillor Cooper, you want to speak?

Yeah, I was just going to say,

if the impressionists are here, then the applicant is...

It's taken to account for our safety

and it should be encouraged

and I'm more than happy to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Walker.

I was pleased to hear that the folks in town council query had been answered and yes it

should be good for Guildhall Street, we're trying to get more people there. But I just

have a comment about the report 7 .25 it says it's within walking distance of the bus station.

Probably by the time this is developed the bus station won't be there so it should be

walking distance of public transport rather than the bus station. Just a small point.

Thank you Councillor. Would anyone else like to speak? No? I would also like to say that

I support this. This building unfortunately has been an eyesore at the Hiddagild on the

street for quite a while now and I think the quicker it can be brought up to good standard

I think it will actually be very good for the town. So Councillors we have one proposal

and that's to accept our officer's proposal to allow this application for the book cladding.

All those in favour please raise your hand. That's passed unanimously thank you.

So we'll move on to the next application which is also Queen's Hills which is 24 -1334 -FH.

Do we have any updates at all please? No updates chair.

Thank you very much and Mr Bowman if you'd like to come forward once again.

And again, you'll have three minutes from when you start.

Thank you.

Well, first of all, thank you for approving the facade application so quickly.

I wasn't actually going to speak, but as I've got an opportunity to speak for three minutes,

and as Councillor Hollingsby raised about the fire protection of the building, and we're

talking about an extra floor on top, I thought I'd just use this opportunity to perhaps it's

really a planning matter as a planning officer's point out it does come under building regulations

and obviously we've got to satisfy the current regulations in terms of fire safety but as

I hopefully outlined in my previous we have removed any voids in the facade it's all

being rendered back to insulation the brick slips back to insulation which is back to

the main facade so there's no cavities so we consider it it kind of eliminates that

sort of fire risk and we did actually meet yesterday with a fire consultant with the

Mr Brown and yes, so the client is.

I'm very sure that he's going

to put out all the stops and not

obviously just meeting building regulations,

but a fire consultant is doing a

report to advise on the fire safety

aspects the top floor is creating

a building that's over 11 meters,

so we'll be putting a full sprinkler

system into each of the flats.

The facades non combustible way,

one rated so yeah,

I don't think we can do any more

for the client so they can't do

anymore in terms of fire safety and clearly if it wouldn't comply with building regulations

we can't build it but it will be built to the building regulations in terms of fire

safety. Thank you.

Thank you very much sir. Councillor Philip.

Thank you chair. The main thing I wanted to note is how positive it is to see flats being

built that exceed the space requirements by a reasonable margin.

I mean the smallest one is more than 20 % larger than the minimum requirement which is a pleasant

surprise and somewhat unusual at times.

So yeah they're to be commended for that choice.

Thank you Councillor Thomas.

Thank you Chair.

I had a look at all the previous applications for this site and I'm going to have a look

at what's being proposed now.

I mean it certainly ticks all the boxes doesn't it?

And I think for me, and it's been touched on tonight already,

165 letters sent out, one letter of objection,

but no real dissent other than the things that have already been addressed

in what is a very good and comprehensive report from the officer again.

I did have an issue initially I thought with parking,

but five additional spaces are being made available as part of this now.

So I think on the back of that, Chair, I'd like to approve the officer's recommendation.

Thank you.

And Councillor Fuller would like to second.

Councillor Hinsby, did you want to speak?

No.

Councillor Goddard.

Thank you. I'd just like to ask the officers, with the new extra flats, is there bin layout

there? Is there cycle storage?

We have conditions information regarding bins and cycle storage to be provided.

Thank you. I often ask this because the public won't have always seen the whole of the plans

and I know it's an important part. So we have one proposal and that's to accept the officer's

recommendations. All those in favour please raise your hands. That's carried unanimously.

Thank you.

So we move on to our next application of the evening, which is 24 -1356 -FH, which is 33

Lancaster Drive in Hawkins.

Do we have any updates, please?

Thank you, Chair.

No updates.

Thank you very much.

And we have three speakers on this application.

So our first speaker is local resident Patrick Hayes to speak against the application if

you'd like to come forward sir.

Good evening.

And you will have three minutes from when you start.

My name is Patrick Hayes and I've been the owner of the paddock adjacent to the land

in question since 2015.

I would comment that there appear to have been serious breaches of conditions in due

process in respect of the protected land, i .e. the western buffer strip, and object

to further attempts to adopt parts of it.

Our stock fencing has in place been removed, omitted and re -sited, ignoring the existing

designated boundaries.

Since 2015 complaints have been made and recorded, but enforcement action has not been complied

with which is concerning. It is a matter of record that the surrounding land drains extremely

poorly and surface water remains a frequent issue. Any local resident, possibly member,

will be well aware of the perilous and unkempt state of the verges, curbs and gullies surrounding

the site. The paddock floods regularly owing to a lack of drainage and this is detrimental

to the livestock.

With the current additional activity and piling, earth moving, etc. at the new Pentland Development

adjacent, we must now expect flooded, icy and dangerous road conditions for another

winter.

Wallace is not resolved.

We submit that the drainage ditch should be reinstated as a matter of urgency and no further

adoptions of this land be permitted.

It is imperative that the Council now take action to address the recommendations that

that were made at the time of the original application in 2010,

regarding the planting, maintenance and upkeep of the buffer strip

and the drainage strategy.

The land that has been adopted or filled in should be reinstated.

The fence line and trees should be reinstated

and drainage ditch dug out and repurposed

to the original approved strategy.

The longer this is left without appropriate action,

the greater will be the cost of the landowners

and the local authority in the future.

I just briefly turn to the legal status of the designated buffer strip,

per the original application, which is Lancaster Drive West Ltd,

which is not permitted to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the land,

which is why the company was originally incorporated

to own and protect the buffer strip.

There is no doubt in my mind that the approval of this application

any further adoptions will exacerbate a difficult situation. I would urge the committee if they

are in doubt that perhaps a decision should be deferred pending a full further investigation

in view of the history of emissions and lack of adherence and enforcement to the original

plans. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And our second speaker tonight is Councillor Chris Johnson, who will speak on behalf of

Horkinch Town Council. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, all of us.

And you have three minutes from when you start.

The development was planned with two buffer strips, 15 metres on the south, 10 on the

The planting plan was approved to augment the existing trees and hedging.

Half the west strip closest to Paddlesworth Lane included a drainage ditch for surface

water from the road.

The design statement said the landscaping strategy has three key features, the open

space, the western 10 metre and 15 metre southern buffers.

The approach has been rigorously considered and discussed with districts.

The buffers will be retained and planted in accordance with the planting strategy.

It will provide for enhancement of ecology and allow semi -mature native planting to establish

itself fully to screen longer views to the site.

Officers report to the committee said the strategic landscape buffer to the western

boundary is integral to the site given its age of settlement location and potential impact

on the visual character and appearance of the AONB and special landscape area.

Unanimous committee approval proposed by Councillor Goddard included condition 22 requiring a

maintenance period of 10 years minimum and later management.

In April 12th District confirmed the condition and said it should be clearly stated in the

terms of the management company that these areas of land should not form part of any

residential curtilage attached to any individual house and should only be used or managed on

a communal basis. The buffers owned by Lancaster Drive West, their objects say to hold on an

ongoing basis, manage, maintain and deal with a landscape buffer, provide for and maintain

it in good order. If the company is dissolved it can't be split.

Officers report 7 .3 says that planning permission did not require the buffer to be retained.

7 .8 says there's no planning controls but documents suggest otherwise.

The application form says the applicant owns the land but they don't and never can.

This has arisen because councils have ignored breaches of planning conditions from 2014

on with little or no enforcement action.

None of the buffers have been reinstated, trees and planting have been removed and the

drainage ditch is blocked.

Enforcement in January last year required the 15 west properties to apply for change

of use or reinstate the buffer and dig out the ditch. None have reinstated. Only four

have applied. This is the fifth. So ten have ignored the enforcement. Although the ditch

was not behind 33, it's irrelevant. All 15 are responsible through the landowner to pay

for the work. One part's in the south buffer with a different owner. Approval may mean

reluctance to contribute. Please refuse the application and instead work on resolving

this long standing problem. Thank you sir. Amen. And our third speaker on this is ward

Councillor James Butcher, good evening, who will speak on the application. You have three

minutes from when you start. Thank you chair, I'm speaking against the proposal. Some of

I was going to say has already been said so I won't repeat it.

The original 2010 report describes how the dimensions of the buffer zone and the planting

scheme would quote, protect the undeveloped nature of the countryside beyond.

Meanwhile an objection to the application stated, the drainage ditch on the western

boundary carries away a huge amount of surface water from Paddlesworth Lane and is unlikely

to be able to cope with any additional runoff.

In response, the report says the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist

for the long -term maintenance of the subs facilities.

It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity.

The notice of approval said it should clearly be stated in the terms of the management company

that these areas of land should not form part of any residential curtilage attached to any

of any individual house and should only be used or managed on a communal basis.

So when members originally agreed this development, it was on the basis of a maintained buffer

zone.

But from 2014 onwards, the council were notified of incursions into the buffer zone.

Trees cut down, hedging removed, graveled and planted areas created on the buffer zone

as communal land was incorporated into private gardens.

Those incursions led to the drainage ditch being filled in.

Paddlesworth Lane and the field neighbouring the buffer zone flooded as a result, something

predicted before the development was built and one intended to be prevented by the maintenance

of the buffer zone.

So unless the buffer zone is properly maintained as intended and agreed, residents will be

stuck with the problem of flooding in perpetuity.

Each application that's been approved has made it harder to maintain the drainage arrangements.

Access is now only possible from one end of the site.

Tonight officers are again recommending a condition quote to ensure existing drainage arrangements can continue to operate.

But those arrangements don't operate now precisely because the council has failed to enforce conditions from the original report.

So what confidence can we have that these new conditions will be enforced when the original ones so evidently have not been?

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillors, over to you. Would anyone like to ask any questions or make any queries? Yes, I know. Give me a chance.

Councillor King.

Why have we not enforced this? Why have we allowed this to go on?

Because I use Paddleworth Lane quite a lot. It's always a mess.

There's mud on the road, it's coming off of the fields.

So why when these things have happened, have we as the council not enforced them?

Because they've obviously been reported in. People are telling us that.

So why have we not enforced them?

I'm not familiar with the enforcement history of these sites going back that far, I'm afraid,

but what I would say is that the issues under consideration here are whether this use of

this plot of land is acceptable.

Now my understanding, there's been a lot of reference made to the drainage ditch, my

is that that's some distance to the South of this site.

Confirm that in the approved drainage plan,

the ditch that was forked part of that

is from number 29, approximately number 29,

Mancos Drive to the South.

Obviously number 33, well not obviously,

but 33 is above that line, if you want to draw a line,

and there is, I believe, part of the development

that was constructed to soak away to the northeast

that forms part of the drainage development.

So subsequently, the area of band

that the application site forms part of

wasn't part of the original drainage scheme that

was approved.

So it is primarily just for the visual aspects of it

that it was initially retained for the ten years as you have seen the report.

I understand that, I get that, but what I don't understand is why,

if enforcement issues have happened, why they haven't been dealt with.

Why have we not gone out and checked?

Because that area is a mess, an absolute mess.

You've got Penelon times one side, it makes it very difficult for the people who live there.

The roads are in a terrible state, so we've got to allow someone else to take some land.

And then no one checks that the drainage is going to work.

That's a tiny little lane.

You haven't really answered the question why we haven't enforced what we said should happen.

That's what I want to know is why we've not enforced it.

And I think this needs to be cut off until we've got clarity around that.

Well that I mean if members want to defer the application on the basis that they want clarity and one false when action hasn't

Been taken on on up the wider side

That's obviously a decision that's open to the planning committee to to take what I would say is

I don't think it's particularly relevant in terms of the merits or or the harm caused by this application

As mr. Allen set out the drainage ditch

Is not located within this site the use of this

small piece of land as domestic gardens, subject to the recommended condition,

which would prevent any operational development taking place on it,

wouldn't have any material impact on drainage

because it would have to remain soft landscape.

So I do think, whilst I understand members' frustration

in relation to drainage here,

I really don't think it's a material consideration

that's relevant to this application.

And I've heard and listened carefully to the speakers tonight.

And one of the other issues that appears to be raised

is that if members were to grant planning commission for this development,

it would make it more difficult for successful arguments to be made

regarding the reinstatement of drainage elsewhere.

But again, that is not a material planning consideration

that's relevant to this application.

The material considerations relevant here are set out in the report.

I hope that's useful.

Councillor Mike Baitmore.

Yeah, I'd share the frustration, Councillor Keene and the speakers that what we seem to

be doing, we didn't carry out that enforcement of our own conditions from 2014 and now we're

compounding that by giving permission for this land to be acquired by someone.

There's an empty space of land at the bottom of my garden which I think I might acquire

but it has a railway line running through it so it might inconvenience people.

I think the drainage issue is a real one and I hear what Mr Bailey says but I think that

does merit some further investigation as to what the, I cannot believe there is no impact

on the drainage there by what's happening with the acquirement of this buffer zone as

as well as the environmental damage, the loss of hedges and trees etc.

Thank you. Councillor Hinsby.

Well, I find this quite a difficult application

because, to be honest, we have already granted planning permission

for two other houses within that area,

almost adjacent to this site.

So I think, although we're told in planning,

no planning application sets of precedent.

I do believe it would be extremely difficult to turn this down in the light of the permissions

that we've already issued.

So I'm actually going to move approval.

Whether I get any support I don't know, but I will move approval.

Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Goddard.

I have some more questions first though.

Erm, Tony Cooper.

Thank you, Chair.

Can I refer Mr Bailey to page 77 of your report, please?

Mr Bailey, it says there in reference to condition 22, etc.

Now it makes reference to the paragraph 7 .5.

Yeah, condition 22 in relation to 9 .8 ends,

black, black, black, black, black for ten years.

What did the council do when this was originally granted?

was the 10th year plan that looked at, visits, check -outs, supervises, anything like that.

The reason I'm asking that is we've got a similar situation in Dimchurch,

where we've got flooding down in Ewing Road, and adjacent to the caravan park,

it would appear that some of these drainage ditches, for one reason or another,

have actually been filled in, and that would cause the problems.

I think the speakers personally, and the local parish council,

have got a well founded point in respect of the Council

or the Plan Committee's approved application XYZ,

but it's not followed up on its conditions.

And I would be more than happy to go with it if I'm looking to speak to myself.

Thank you.

Is that a proposal, Councillor Hooper?

Do you have a seconder?

Councillor Walker, thank you.

And Councillor Paul Thomas.

Thank you, Chair.

So as you point out, this is a retrospective application because it's already been cleared

and the buffer zone's been removed.

And again, it's evident that that isn't the only one in the area where this has occurred.

So again, I think just in terms of discussion that's been had with Councillor Keene and

it would appear that people have gone about and done things without,

that appear to be outside of previous planning conditions,

and almost taking two fingers up to our arrangements,

which doesn't seem quite right to me.

So, again, I don't think I can support this application, Chair, thank you.

Is that a proposal?

Yes, that would be a proposal, thank you.

Do you have a seconder?

Second, second.

Just thank you chair and just just to sort of.

Come back on on a point about

enforcement action part of a

protocol is to invite a planning

application which we have done and

the applicant has complied with that.

And obviously as part of that process,

planning officers review it,

make a recommendation against policy

and the material considerations and put that,

because of the scheme delegation,

we've put that to members.

So I'm trying to make clear that we are following

an enforcement process.

As you obviously all aware and have

dealt with applications similar to this before, we've had,

just to pick up on Councillor Hollingsby's point,

we've actually had four previous,

and as the gentleman from Horkhitch Town Council

pointed out, we've actually had four previously.

In all of those reports, we said it

doesn't set a precedent.

Each one was considered on its own merits.

I think it was possibly, I think it was Councilor Blakemore

who said about the removal of vegetation,

as you would probably noticed on the sort of slide show that's

running behind me.

There's quite a lot of very substantial vegetation there.

I'll concede it may not all be entirely native.

native planting, it's a low -world hedging, but it is in terms of a visual buffer extremely

strong and in the longer range photographs which will emerge very shortly.

You'll see, certainly it's not a competition, but I challenge you to spot this particular

garden in terms of the visual impact that it has on the area, which is, I would argue,

negligible.

and set out in the report just to make that clear.

We've also, within the report, set out clearly that

this particular part of the land did not form part of the drainage strategy for the wider development.

The frustrations are very clear and I understand the issues there.

I've parked in that lane and seen the water that does collect at the verge.

I don't think that any correction or refusal here would correct that.

Obviously anything below 29 Lancaster Drive was part of the drainage strategy and obviously

that perhaps is something that does need further investigation.

I'm not sure that this particular application, I'm not sure, I am very sure because I made

recommendation this application will not impact or be detrimental or have any

impact on the drainage capacity of the area in that respect.

I hope that provides a little bit of clarification.

Councillor Thomas.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

That makes things a little bit easier in terms of what we have to do to rationalise any decision

we make tonight.

But one of the things I'm still left with,

and that's the frustration from the residents as well,

is so where do we resolve this drainage issue?

How do we get to a resolved position

with regard to the prevention of water buildup

and all the other issues it causes local residents

at various times of the year, particularly in cold weather?

When do we get an opportunity to discuss that?

And how do we as a council,

What is our responsibility, this Council, to provide a solution to that problem?

I think that's the question I'm asking.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I take Councillor Thompson's point and I'm happy to have a discussion with him or indeed

any members regarding that outside of this meeting, but it's not, as Mr Allen and I have

It's not a matter that's relevant to the consideration of this application.

The key issues here, in my view, that taking away the issue of drainage, as Mr Allen said,

this portion of land is, the use of it either way would not have any impact on the drainage

issues.

So the key issues are the principle of the development and the visual impact of the development.

So if members are concerned,

then those I guess the visual impact of

the use of this land is the key issue.

Now as Councilor Hollingsley said,

and Mr Allen clarified,

this committee has previously granted

retrospective planning commission

for four different sites for this very

same development in the immediate vicinity.

and in planning and certainly decision making,

there needs to be a degree of consistency.

So I think if members are concerned about this development,

I would urge members to consider whether any decision they're considering making here

is consistent with the decision that this committee has made

on the four virtually identical applications nearby.

If members are concerned about visual impact, and particularly, let's say, domestic planting,

suburban landscaping, that sort of thing, it's open to members to impose a condition

to require native planting to take place within the site.

As Mr. Allen set out with reference to the photos, particularly long distance views,

we don't feel that it's necessary.

We don't feel that there is visual harm arising from the landscape that's within the site.

But it's certainly open to members to make that decision.

Just one more question then.

I'll come back to the other question.

So when the next one of these is brought to this committee, how do we make sure that we've

got our arms around this whole issue about drainage and we're not going to have numerous

residents and local councillors and our own district councillor come in standing here

saying they have concerns about drainage.

Drainage is a massive issue for us on Romley Marsh as we know.

So again I just feel that we haven't got our arms around it in a way that we can give a

reasoned argument as to why this is not, drainage is not the issue for this application and

for the other ones.

There's a brief statement in the report that Mr Alsberg put forward in terms of the drainage

runs up to number 29 which is still a couple of houses away from this.

But the local residents concerns are still that, that doesn't appear to be the whole

issue with drainage in this area.

So, am I missing something in terms of what we're being asked to approve tonight,

compared to what we've been presented with,

in terms of the real issue of living in this area

with the drainage issues and the problems it causes on roads,

that's existed for year after year.

I still want to know when do we get to a point where we can get resolution of that

or satisfy, you know, Hawkins Town Council,

satisfy ourselves that we understand what the problem is

and what we can do in the future.

Sorry to push it that way, Robert,

I mean, that's just how I feel about this site.

Well, like I said, I'm happy to have a discussion outside of this meeting.

The key thing is whilst there may be wider drainage issues in the area,

This site and this proposed development in.

First of all, this site is Mr Allen set out,

it's not part of the drainage issue,

but has concerned locals,

namely the drainage ditch and the impact

that has on the public highway.

But secondly,

I think it's important to remember

that what is proposed is a use of land.

It's not operational development.

There's no hard side to that.

going down. So if members were to approve this, or indeed if they were to refuse it,

there'd be no difference to the drainage coming from this land because it would remain

soft landscaped. So like I said, I'm happy to have a wider discussion with members outside

of the meeting. But in terms of this application, which is what members have to consider as

was before this committee.

In my view, the drainage issues are not material consideration here because it's not relevant

to the scheme that's in front of members.

Now whilst there are wider drainage issues, I wouldn't expect a report for a site that

has no impact or where the development has no impact on the drainage of the wider area

to touch on those issues.

The key question for members is whether this development in and of itself is acceptable.

I think if I may then, Chair. Sorry.

I'd just like to say something. I now have six councillors wanting to speak on this.

I'm not going to take any more after this. We will have to come to some form of decision.

Sorry, Councillor Walker. I've already got six.

Councillor Fuller, please.

Thank you, chair.

Just wanted to confirm that it was.

Effectively 27 is the end of the

drainage then number 27 and 29 is the

start of the bit that isn't part of the

drainage is that right first of all,

that's why.

I'm going to get this straight in

mind so from number 29 downwards as

I understand it from the historic

documents that that land or that area of the ditch constitute or formed part of the approved

drainage strategy.

Right, okay, thanks for that.

So we've already therefore in January approved part of that drainage to be taken into because

29 Lancaster Drive, Hawkins, incorporated the landscape buffer zone adjacent to the

in January. So we've actually already, if I've understood correctly, we've already actually

voted to destroy part of that. I stand corrected. It is, as you've said, it's from 29, so 29

and then to the south west. Right, so 29 is in part. Apologies. That's what I was trying

to really get to the bottom of. So, yeah, so effectively then we've had 29 and 31. We've

January.

We know that the ownership of a piece of the land isn't a material planning consideration

sorry.

So I mean I could get planning permission on the Civic Centre if I wanted to.

I'm not sure what I'd do with it.

But I could.

So we know that the ownership of the land isn't a consideration.

We know that we've got the two most closest adjacent properties have done the same thing

and this committee has agreed it.

Therefore we've already got an argument for being consistent, which I suspect would, if

we were to vote against, would get us into trouble if it went before an planning inspector.

So to be honest, I can't see any way that we can actually, without setting ourselves

was up for a kick in as it were go against this application. I have to say that with

ABR but I'm going to have to vote for. Thank you Councillor Fuller. Councillor Keene.

I'd just like to say I didn't vote for those and I don't think you did either. When they

came it was voted for by the previous administration. Sorry can I just correct on that one. It was

January 2024 and you're right I didn't vote for it because I was I sent apologies for absence

for that matter. I can tell you who proposed and seconded it but it doesn't tell you how everyone

votes. Well on 29 it was you Clive and Jenny seconded it and on 31 Jenny proposed and Clive

seconded it. The dream team. I'd just like to say that I didn't and I think we'd had one before that

and the previous administration as well.

And I'm just really worried about that area.

And I really don't think, we just sit in a prison

and eventually it'll all be taken into someone's back garden.

And I just think it's wrong.

I won't be voting for it.

Thank you, Councillor Keene.

Councillor Polly Blakemore.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm struggling with this having to be consistent

but not setting a precedent.

It seems to be a bit of a conflict there to me.

But one thing that strikes me that has changed is that do we not now, as a district council,

have a new statutory duty to protect the Kent Downs National Landscape as we've moved now

from the area of outstanding national beauty to national landscape legislation, where it

does specifically point out that district councils do have a duty to protect the Kent

Downs National Landscape.

So I'd like to know how does that change what we're doing here because we can't dismiss

and I don't think that was in the frame

when we made the decisions beforehand.

Apologies, members, I was pressing the wrong button.

Well, the revised duty for authorities

in respect of national landscape is,

and I apologize if it's not the precise wording,

to seek to further the purpose of designation of the national landscape.

So I think the decision for members here

is whether the use of this comparatively small strip of land

without any operational development on it,

so remaining entirely soft landscaping,

would harm the scenic beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty

or would fail to further the purpose of the designation.

Like I said, I apologise if that's not wholly correct wording.

In my view, I think it would be very difficult to argue in front of an inspector

that keeping this area soft landscaped,

albeit potentially in a comparatively domestic way,

so with lawns and planting,

I think it would be difficult to argue

in front of an inspector that that caused

significant harm to the national landscape,

or indeed any harm as Mr. Allen,

and I apologise for repeating myself,

as Mr. Allen pointed out earlier,

when you look at the site in distance views,

it's virtually impossible to pick it out.

And that would suggest that there's no harm in landscape terms.

And at a micro level, having it entirely soft landscaped

with a condition that would prevent any operational development,

so hard surfacing or outbuildings being put on it

without an application for planning permission,

I think we would really struggle to demonstrate to an inspector that that caused sufficient

harm to the national landscape to warrant refusal.

Councillor Jones.

Good.

I don't think you saw me again earlier, so I keep trying to put my hand up.

So a joining landowner mentioned fencelands being moved earlier.

Do we have any more details on that?

That's a private legal matter

between the relevant parties.

The issue before members is whether

the site edged red on the application

documents is acceptable for the

for the use that's being proposed.

So OK, that's fine.

So that's not relevant to this.

They're just going to extend their garden.

That's fine.

Maybe not so fine.

The other thing was I was going

to say was about precedent.

I think it's really concerning when we

kind of go oh well we did it before.

so we're going to do it again, because we're always told when we're making decisions

that we have to look at each application by itself and we're not meant to compare it to

others.

So I do have a dilemma with that, and I'm sure other members do too.

Thank you.

Councillor Cooper.

Thank you, Chair.

Mr Bailey, what my concern is with this is what's previously been said and what Councillor

Thomas was mentioning before, is the issue of flooding.

And while it's okay to turn around for example and say,

yeah we can put it somewhere there, you can look at the photograph and it looks great.

But what you don't understand is if you put something there or if you approve something there,

the next door, well no the next door with two or three neighbors,

is going to wake up one morning, walk in the garden and find themselves Uncle Deep in Water.

Because we haven't considered this.

Whilst it did come before the committee in January this year,

and it was a split of 36, 5 years which has been mentioned,

One of the arguments at the time, or one of the discussions that we had around this, was

basically that it's been filled in, etc. on the previous applications.

And with all due respect here, and please don't be afraid when I say this, we in this

committee can impose whatever conditions within reason that we like on any application that

we make.

But we've heard from, we've heard from Council Bookchair, we've heard from the

irrespective of the conditions that we put on these applications that we approve or otherwise,

they're not enforced or upheld.

And that's what my issue with this is completely.

Why are we sat here approving these things with conditions when we're not being backed up

and in all due respect by enforcement actions or whatever.

It might well be a question for example,

oh well of course it's a private thing between individuals.

Not necessarily because if we've granted the permission,

subject to condition one, two, three, four, five, six or whatever,

and those conditions are not being met or enforced,

there's got to be something fundamentally wrong in my view.

And that's what my concern is with this.

I'm not going to have a discussion with you outside, not to shout it out,

but it is just the impression that's being given to the general public.

The council's giving permission or otherwise and therefore don't care.

Because it's not being followed through.

That's my own personal view, and that's an observation, not a criticism of staff.

Thank you, Councillor C

if a subsequent application came in for land

that was part trying to incorporate

part of the drainage ditch,

then the material considerations

would have changed and officers

may arrive at different.

Decision based upon the material

considerations within that proposal.

For the previous four applications,

the material considerations were

considered to be largely similar,

and for this one as well.

Hence,

officers have made a consistent recommendation to members on that point.

So I hope that helps. It may not. I don't know.

In terms, I understand Councillor Cooper's frustrations there on behalf of,

you know, a lot of local residents and in wider questions about enforcement.

And I think the applicants followed the requests

from the planning department here.

And it would feel punitive to punish them for other people

not having done particular things.

So the point being that this is considered

on its merits, dismerits, however you want to view it.

It is considered alone.

And as you've acknowledged, this is, and other members,

this is part of a wider discussion, potentially,

on this site and potentially others

in terms of enforcement, which I know

is something that everyone's very close to make sure

that people, if there is an issue, it is followed up

and the appropriate action is taken.

So I hope that's somehow.

And we have one last Councillor, Councillor Shoop.

Thank you.

Although I think Councillor Fuller pretty much said word for word what I was wanting

to say, which so I understand now where the drainage actually starts, which properties

that's associated with.

And yeah, I would struggle to see, to find any planning grounds on which to refuse it.

But that doesn't mean I like it.

Yeah, and I absolutely feel the frustrations of everyone and the, you know, drainage and

flooding is a real issue, but I'm struggling to find reasons in this particular application

to refuse it.

Yeah, so it's again with a heavy heart,

but I think I will have to support it.

Thank you.

I think what I would say at this point

to the officers is I think we do need

a meeting with the councillors of the committee

regardless of which way we vote this evening

to actually discuss the various aspects

not just of this particular application but this piece of land and this particular building

area, because we had this discussion last time, we're having this discussion again,

and I'm just getting the feeling that the committee is not particularly happy or maybe

needs more clarity.

So I'm going to ask that I'll leave that with you.

We do have three proposals. We will take the first one first, which was to go with the

officer's recommendation to allow this application. Before we go to this vote, I would like to

ask the people who asked for deferment to get their reasons ready should it be so needed

as to why you would want to defer what you would want clarified in order to bring it

back and also those who raise the proposal to vote against the officers

recommendation you will also need reasons as to why you're going against

it.

Ok I think I've made that clear. So the first proposal is to go with the

officers recommendations. All of those in favor please raise your hand.

Those against.

Abstention.

Thank you chair, that's four against, sorry, four in favour, five against and three abstentions.

So that proposal forms.

So we then move on to the deferment. Before we go to that, can I ask the Proposer and

Seconder for the deferment what they would like it deferred for. What would they like

to happen in order for it then to come back to this committee? Who was the Proposer please?

I believe it was you, Councillor Cooper. It was, Chair. What my concern is basically

given that it's been new port,

it's been new port,

it's been flooded etc.

there since 2012 or 2014.

I think that needs to be addressed

and looked at before we consider

this again definitely on personal

do of course.

So just just so I'm clear,

are you are you asking officers to

provide information in relation to

the impact of this site on the

drainage of the area?

before this committee will be happy to make a decision.

If it's our question, please.

So we have a purpose for deferment in order to have more clarity around the flooding issues

and whether it's actually part of this application.

So did you want to come back now?

So it's important, it has to relate to this site.

Yes.

The wider area.

Specifically for this site because this is the application we're seeing before us.

Yes please Chair and Mr Burley, thank you.

Fine.

All those in favour of deferment please raise your hand.

Those against. Abstention. Thank you chair. That's eight in favour, three against and

one abstention. Thank you. So that proposal has passed. So we are going to go for a deferment.

May I suggest that Councillor Cooper have a word with the officers outside of this meeting

so that we can actually pin down and clarify exactly what we're looking for regarding this

application.

Thank you, that's appreciated.

Thank you and we will ensure that it comes back to this Council Committee as quickly

as possible.

So thank you for everyone who's had their input on that.

Thank you.

So we will move on to the last application of this evening.

And in fact it's not a straightforward application but the officer will explain this one to you.

It's 24 -1363 -FH which is the land adjacent to Ashford Road stroke the A20 at Western

and could the officer just take us through it please?

Chair, just before, can I just, because I believe it's an application,

well it's not an application, it's within my ward.

Absolutely, not a problem.

Sorry, if the officer would like to just explain regarding this as we're consortees,

we're not giving agreement or objecting to anything in this particular application.

Yes, thank you chair. Good evening members. So I'm sure members are aware of this from

reading the report, but just to reemphasize the point that this application has been made

by Kent County Council to itself, which is entitled to do under the planning legislation

and Kent County Council are the local planning authority that will formally determine whether

to grant planning permission or not for development.

And the role of Foulston and Hyde District Council

is essentially as a consortee.

And so we can make a recommendation

and provide our response to Kent County Council

on the application, but we're not the determining authority.

So we're essentially a bit like a parish council

would do to the council.

When we deal with our planning applications,

it's a similar situation to that.

In terms of an update to the application itself, members will note from the recommendation

that one of the issues of concern relating to the application is the effect of odour

impacts on land immediately adjacent to the site and which forms part of the proposed

garden settlement at Otterpool Park.

A revised air quality and odour assessment has very recently, today in fact, been submitted

to further assess these impacts and this has been forwarded to our Environmental Health

team for further review and comments.

So in light of that I would ask that if members do agree with the recommended course of action

in the report that delegated authority is given to officers to amend or remove the points

raised on odour impacts prior to issuing our comments to Kent County Council.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I would just like to make a declaration at this point.

I will be chairing this part of the meeting, but I will not be voting or putting any comments

forward because I am in fact on Kent County Council Planning Committee.

Although I have no skin in the game as they say.

And I believe Councillor Keene wants to make a declaration as well.

Although I don't sit within that directorate.

I work for Kent County Council,

so I don't think I can vote on it either,

because I feel it's wrong.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Jones.

Thank you, I think the biggest concern I had

from local residents,

which I think Saltwood Parish Council might have said about,

was trucks going up the small roads,

particularly through Saltwood.

Obviously, there's a lot of congestion through there.

I think they were worried that, obviously,

waste transfer would go through the village,

and cause more problems.

So I don't know if that's a condition that we can ask for,

that trucks will obviously stick to the larger main roads

rather than going through the villages.

I think Postling might have commented on that as well.

I don't know how much it will impact them,

but it certainly could impact Soughtworth if they're not careful.

Yes, we can ask for it.

It's a point that with a lot of developments that we deal with, we generally can't control

what happens on the public highway.

But I understand in county matter terms that there is the ability with applications for

this type of development that you can control the potentially the routing of

vehicles so we can certainly add that to the the list of conditions that some

that's put forth in the recommendation if members see fit thank you thank you I

think that would make a big difference to sort with if they knew that to be

happy. Councillor Honsby. Yes thank you chair.

Personally, the parish council actually did not object.

Their concern actually was lighting,

and I don't think I've seen anything to do with lighting.

Could that be mentioned, please? That's really quite important.

Yes, there is reference to lighting in the report,

and just... It's paragraph 7 .19 on page 101.

Essentially the facility is going to be operational between the hours of 7 and 5 PM, 7 AM to 5 PM,

and the lights will then be motion controlled outside of those hours.

Again, in the recommendation, in the list of conditions at the end of the report, there

is a recommendation there that illumination is to be limited to those operational hours

only.

Thank you.

I was pleased to hear about the Oda report that will be coming out.

But just my question is about the residents of Honeywell Cottages.

They've suffered quite a lot in recent years with extra roads being built, extra noise

and the smell will directly affect them.

I just wondered how bad that might be if that's been considered.

I think Honeywell Cottages is to the northeast of the site, is that right?

It's on the, I think it's Sandling Road coming on, joining on out.

So the odour assessment has identified a number of existing, what's called sensitive receptors,

which are generally residential properties in the area.

The report has assessed those all but one site is deemed to be negligible.

One site has a slight adverse impact which is deemed to not require any further mitigation.

Our Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the report and has considered the impacts

on those existing receptors to be acceptable and the report to be robust.

We have also asked for in the again in the recommendation at the end of the

report for an odor management plan to be approved and operated as well so on top

of the comments in the or the assessment and the odor assessment itself which

concludes that there aren't any significant impacts we're also

recommending that a management plan is put in place to further control odors as

Thank you.

Councillor Thomas.

Yes, thank you.

Just a clarification, if I may.

Just in section 7 .30, it talks in there about the building, combined with Bream, very good

rating, which requires a 10 % reduction on the use of the building.

of having... Sorry, I'll smart bless on you now.

The target emissions for the building regulations

and our policy says it needs to be very good,

but that's not achievable

because of the way the building is going to be operated.

Our own assessment of that is that that's still going to be acceptable,

even though it's only 5 % rather than 10%.

I just want to know what the basis for that would be.

Yeah, it's essentially that the main dominant building on site is the waste transfer station

itself where material will be brought in.

It's going to be an uninsulated, unheated building.

So it doesn't need to have any thermal qualities to it essentially because of the nature of

its use.

So in this instance we've taken the view that the energy efficiencies, albeit lower than

in the policy we don't consider that should stand in the way of this particular application.

Thank you.

Would any other Councillor like to raise anything at this time?

I'm not seeing anything.

So we have one proposal to vote on and this is that we raise an objection to the general

principle of developing the site for the waste transfer facility for us to feed back into

Kent County but we would like some information put forward I guess is the right word regarding

the routing outside of Saltwood and also I think we've had confirmation on the lighting

now and we've had confirmation on the Bream. So one last try. Would any other Councillor

like to raise anything at this point before it goes back to KCC? I'm seeing no. So all

those in favour of the Officer's Report to go back to KCC as a Consortee, please raise

your hands. That's unanimous officers thank you so much I know that was a hard piece of

work but thank you very much for it. That is the end of the meeting this evening. Safe

journeys home everybody. Thank you.

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 12 November 2024, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing CommitteeTuesday, 12th November 2024 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 12th November 2024 at 7:00pm