Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 11 February 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 11th February 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Mr Alex Baker
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  10. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Tony Cooper
  13. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  14. Cllr Tony Cooper
  15. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  16. Cllr Tony Cooper
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Gary Fuller
  19. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  20. Cllr Gary Fuller
  21. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  22. Cllr Gary Fuller
  23. Cllr Jackie Meade
  24. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  25. Cllr Nicola Keen
  26. Cllr Gary Fuller
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Jackie Meade
  29. Cllr Anita Jones
  30. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  31. Cllr Jackie Meade
  32. Cllr Gary Fuller
  33. Cllr Jackie Meade
  34. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  35. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  36. Cllr Jackie Meade
  37. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  38. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  39. Cllr Jackie Meade
  40. Cllr Paul Thomas
  41. Mr Robert Allan
  42. Cllr Jackie Meade
  43. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  44. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  45. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  46. Cllr Jackie Meade
  47. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  48. Cllr Jackie Meade
  49. Cllr Nicola Keen
  50. Cllr Jackie Meade
  51. Cllr Gary Fuller
  52. Cllr Jackie Meade
  53. Cllr Jackie Meade
  54. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Microphone Forty
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Nicola Keen
  9. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  10. Cllr Nicola Keen
  11. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
  13. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  14. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  15. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  16. Cllr Jackie Meade
  17. Cllr Gary Fuller
  18. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Anita Jones
  21. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  22. Cllr Jackie Meade
  23. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  24. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
  26. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Paul Thomas
  29. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  30. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  31. Cllr Paul Thomas
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
  33. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  34. Cllr Jackie Meade
  35. Cllr Tony Cooper
  36. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  37. Cllr Jackie Meade
  38. Cllr Gary Fuller
  39. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  40. Cllr Gary Fuller
  41. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  42. Cllr Gary Fuller
  43. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  44. Cllr Gary Fuller
  45. Cllr Jackie Meade
  46. Cllr Jackie Meade
  47. Mr Alex Baker
  48. Cllr Jackie Meade
  49. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Mr Alex Baker
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Robert Allan
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Microphone Forty
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Microphone Forty
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  11. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  12. Mr Robert Allan
  13. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  14. Mr Robert Allan
  15. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  16. Cllr Jackie Meade
  17. Cllr Nicola Keen
  18. Mr Robert Allan
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  21. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  22. Cllr Paul Thomas
  23. Mr Robert Allan
  24. Cllr Paul Thomas
  25. Mr Robert Allan
  26. Cllr Jackie Meade
  27. Cllr Tony Cooper
  28. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  31. Mr Robert Allan
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
  33. Cllr Gary Fuller
  34. Mr Robert Allan
  35. Cllr Gary Fuller
  36. Mr Robert Allan
  37. Mr Robert Allan
  38. Cllr Jackie Meade
  39. Cllr Anita Jones
  40. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  41. Cllr Jackie Meade
  42. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  43. Cllr Jackie Meade
  44. Mr Robert Allan
  45. Cllr Jackie Meade
  46. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  47. Cllr Jackie Meade
  48. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  49. Cllr Jackie Meade
  50. Cllr Tony Cooper
  51. Mr Robert Allan
  52. Cllr Tony Cooper
  53. Mr Robert Allan
  54. Cllr Tony Cooper
  55. Cllr Jackie Meade
  56. Cllr Jackie Meade
  57. Cllr Jackie Meade
  58. Mr Alex Baker
  59. Cllr Jackie Meade
  60. Cllr Tony Cooper
  61. Cllr Jackie Meade
  62. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  63. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  64. Cllr Jackie Meade
  65. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  66. Cllr Jackie Meade
  67. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  68. Cllr Nicola Keen
  69. Cllr Jackie Meade
  70. Cllr Tony Cooper
  71. Cllr Jackie Meade
  72. Cllr Nicola Keen
  73. Cllr Jackie Meade
  74. Cllr Jackie Meade
  75. Cllr Gary Fuller
  76. Cllr Jackie Meade
  77. Cllr Jackie Meade
  78. Cllr Jackie Meade
  79. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  80. Cllr Jackie Meade
  81. Cllr Paul Thomas
  82. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  83. Cllr Paul Thomas
  84. Cllr Jackie Meade
  85. Cllr Jackie Meade
  86. Cllr Tony Cooper
  87. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  88. Cllr Paul Thomas
  89. Cllr Jackie Meade
  90. Cllr Jackie Meade
  91. Cllr Jackie Meade
  92. Mr Alex Baker
  93. Cllr Jackie Meade
  94. Cllr Anita Jones
  95. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  96. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  97. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Anita Jones
  6. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  7. Cllr Anita Jones
  8. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  11. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
  13. Cllr Gary Fuller
  14. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  15. Cllr Gary Fuller
  16. Cllr Nicola Keen
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Nicola Keen
  19. Cllr Gary Fuller
  20. Cllr Jackie Meade
  21. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  22. Cllr Jackie Meade
  23. Cllr Gary Fuller
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Anita Jones
  9. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  10. Cllr Anita Jones
  11. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
  13. Cllr Tony Cooper
  14. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Cllr Jackie Meade
  17. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting,
it is important that the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting?
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under
consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
So members, as chair of this committee I would like to make a statement for the benefit of
all councillors present at the meeting and for members of the public.
The applications before you tonight and indeed any applications you consider in the future
must be considered on planning merits only.
It is essential that members adhere to this principle
and ensure that their decisions tonight
are based on the papers before you
and any information provided to you during this meeting.
This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues
relating to the planning applications before you,
so we will move on.

1 Apologies for Absence

Do we have any apologies for absence, please?
Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:23
Thank you, Chair. We've received apologies from Councillor Goddard and Councillor Walker,
and Councillor O 'Keeffe O 'Kelly is here as her substitute.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:29
Thank you and welcome, Councillor O 'Keeffe O 'Kelly.

2 Declarations of Interest

Councillors, do we have any declarations of interest this evening, please?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:42
I am seeing no declarations of interest.

3 Minutes

We have before you the minutes of the 7th of January 2025.
May I sign these as a correct record of the meeting please?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:59
Many thanks.

4 24/0719/FH - Ash Wells, Pilgrims Way, Postling, Hythe, CT21 4EY

And so we will move on to our first application this evening, which is 24 -0719 -FH, Ashwell's
Pilgrim's Way, Postling.
Do we have any updates, please?
No updates, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:02:22
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:24
We have one speaker on this application, Tracey Roman, to speak on behalf of the applicant.
If you could come forward.
You will have three minutes from when you start and I will let you know when your three
minutes is up.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:02:47
Hi.
So I'm Tracey Roman, I have lived at Ash Wells for 13 years and during this time I've provided
a home to many unwanted horses who have come to me through word of mouth due to their current
owners being either unwilling or unable to care for them and meet their needs.
I currently offer sanctuary to 12 horses, all of whom have a range of orthopaedic issues,
metabolic issues or other illnesses where they require careful and sensitive management.
Their ages range from 4 to 25 years old.
I work full time and care for these horses alone.
I have no pay in liveries nor any intention to do so. This is a private yard
Ashwell's is set on the escarpment of the pent -downs in a private and secluded position
The existing stable block is set away from the main property in a concealed corner whereby it is hidden from Pilgrims Way
We have no immediate neighbors and extensive tree coverage
Which means it is secluded from the footpath running behind it and pent -downs running along the rear of the property
being set down in a sunken position meaning it is not visible year -round.
The concrete slab where the current stable block sits is impractical. In winter, standing water sits on it and causes it to become extremely
icy, which is dangerous not just for me,
but also for my elderly horses who slip on it. The concrete is also starting to crack where the water is freezing on it.
There is a lot of wasted space here where the current concrete is exposed without any shelter roof coverage, causing it to be unusable
not just in winter where it is icy,
but also during the summer where it throws off so much heat
so that I cannot leave my horses on here
because it's too hot.
I have no covered areas for horse care professionals,
i .e. my farrier or physio, et cetera.
Under this planning application,
I would like to replace the existing stable block,
which is now 20 years old and needs updating.
This would be with a small American -style barn,
allowing me to add roof coverage
to the existing concrete slab.
The footprint here would be the same
and would cover the unsightly unusable concrete slab.
The barn would contain the same number of stables,
but slightly larger ones to allow
me to accommodate my horses who were all over 16' 2",
and allow me to keep my ponies together,
two in a larger stable.
It would also allow me to have a wash bay where
I can care for the horses more easily than having to wash them
down on the concrete, because in winter it
becomes like an ice rink, and allow me adequate storage
for all of my many rugs, hay and other items which come with having horses.
The soakway on the yard is completely blocked causing it to flood during the winter so suitable
drainage would be installed as part of this development.
Ultimately I would like to implement a track system which is a much more natural way for
managing horses with orthopaedic issues and metabolic issues, encouraging natural forage
and movement rather than them just being turned out on lush grass paddocks which are not suitable.
The track will link up with the new barn, which will have a small sheltered area to
the side which is three metres wide by the whole length of the building.
This will allow the horses free movement to come and go from the field getting out of
the elements.
Thank you for listening.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:05:57
Thank you very much, you're spot on time.
Thank you.
So councillors, over to you.
Any comments?
Any questions?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:06:10
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:06:13
I note in the officer's report that there are a number of policy non -conformances which
is the reason for the officer's recommendation for refusal for this application.
And I've looked particularly at policy NE4 part 1 which talks about no detrimental impact
on the Kent Downs National Landscape.
but it also talks in there about existing buildings being reused.
So I just wonder if the officer could just tell us a little bit about the sort of rationale
behind that really in terms of using existing buildings as opposed to building new which
is part of this proposal.
That's all, thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:07:02
So I'm not quite sure I understand your question, Councillor.
Are you asking whether the applicant can reuse their existing building?
That's correct, yes.
I don't believe so.
As the applicant said during her three minutes, the existing building's 20 years old and in
poor condition and inadequate to cater for the horses at the moment.
That's certainly my understanding.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:07:29
Councillor Polybakemore.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:07:37
So I see when Kent Downs National Landscape team were consulted, for them it doesn't meet
the threshold for a response.
There haven't been any objections from what I understand and one letter of support.
I understand the issue of it being in the Kent Downs National Landscape and therefore
the visual amenity being an issue, but are we able to add conditions to this, well if
one was to approve it, to make it acceptable in terms of could something be done to make
the building won't accept or whether that would be a living roof or something.
Just us recommitigate against those concerns of policy any floor as Councillor Thomas mentioned.
I just wonder how we can make this acceptable.
Yes if members were minded to go that route we can certainly discuss conditions or amendments
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:08:34
with the applicant and work towards getting something that members were happy with or
if members wanted to give us delegation to do that.
Yeah, you can hold a pop in.
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:46
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:08:49
Can I just ask that in respect of
paragraph three of the report's proposal,
it makes reference there in paragraph three, two,
it would measure 11 metres by 7 .8 by 4 .5 metres
tall to the ridge.
What's the cutting size of the building now, may I ask?
How tall is it, given it's gonna cover
the existing footprints?
It's on page 15 of the report back.
If you bear with me, cancel, Sir.
I'm trying to remember where I put the existing measurements in.
Roy fighting there with me second by all means.
No apologies council I haven't got the existing measurements in there but the reference really
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:09:49
is at paragraph 7 .6 on page 23 where we've set out that the proposed barn is significantly
larger than the existing but I don't have the precise dimensions to hand I'm afraid.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:10:00
Okay if this was to go through could we pull a condition on it that it wasn't to be used
for residential use?
Absolutely well, I don't think we would have a need to put that on because that's not what
they're applying for applying for.
Even so for future use.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:10:19
We wouldn't normally apply impose a condition of that nature on a building that self evidently
isn't for that use.
We would normally impose it on say a planning permission for a residential annex and to
it being used as a self -contained building.
Just on the issue of footprint members, in terms of the size of the proposed building,
whilst it may be no larger or not substantially larger than the footprint of development,
that includes a concrete pad.
In terms of the scale of the building, it includes the concrete yard area.
So in terms of the footprint of the building, it's substantially larger than what's on site
at present.
I hope that clarifies matters.
Thank you for that.
That's helpful.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:11:08
Thank you.
Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:10
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:11:13
I suspect I know what the answer is going to be for this, but my question kind of follows
on for that.
Have you got any indication, because you've obviously included a number of figures that
give us an idea of what you see at the moment when you look towards the stables, but have
got any indication as to how much more intrusive to the landscape it might be.
Because without knowing that, it's difficult to be certain that it, yeah, I can see it's
very big, but I can also see it's recessed.
And I don't really have a way of knowing at the moment whether or not, if I were walking
down the various footpaths or areas, I don't really know if I'm going to see much more
of the building, even though it is bigger.
So it would be useful to get an indication of whether or not that's the case.
Because as Councillor Brainwater said, although Postling did object, there aren't really many
objections that I can see.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:12:17
Unfortunately there's no comparative drawings showing the two overlaid.
I think the most helpful drawings to answer your question would be a figure, sorry, a
Figure five on page 14 shows the existing building
and you can just about see the land levels
off to the left of that.
Figure four on the previous page as well,
you can see the roof line from the adjacent footpath
which runs north -south down the side of the property.
In figure five you can also see the concrete pad
that Mr. Bailey was referring to.
And then if you flip to figure 11 on page 17,
that shows the proposed bond, the front elevation of it, which is a direct comparison to figure 5.
That's the best comparison we can provide.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:13:09
Just to sort of come back on that then, I mean looking from the direction of figure 4,
which I assume is the most likely direction from which someone would view this,
It does lead me to the question of whether or not potentially some more screening on
that sort of elevation might actually overcome the issues that have been raised here.
I mean is that potentially something we could do in terms of a condition?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:13:42
Yes if that's something members wanted us to look at we can look at a landscaping condition
and additional planting, those sorts of things.
Yep, not a problem.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:13:53
I would therefore like to propose that we go against the officers
recommendations and add a condition to, and now Mr Bailey's going to tell me
that I've done my proposal wrong, but as part of that we add a
condition around landscaping to make sure that in particular the views from
footpath are not ruined shall we say.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:18
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:14:20
Thank you apologies chair.
I wasn't going to say that at all actually Councillor Fuller.
What I was going to ask is whether that included delegated authority to impose reasonable conditions
on any permission granted.
But secondly, as the report sets out, there's now a test that development or a duty that
local authorities in making decisions on applications have to seek to further the purpose of conserving
and enhancing the natural beauty of national landscapes.
So I think in terms of that duty, I think I would suggest members need to set out why
they consider this development meets that duty otherwise it could be any decision could
be subject to challenge.
Thank you.
We have one proposal to go against the officer's recommendation and I have a seconder from
Councillor King and Councillor King you wanted to speak.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:15:27
Yeah I mean I've been on planning long enough now to know when it suits this council we
build on areas of outstanding national beauty and you know there's been good reason for
that.
Horses are part of country living.
You know the same as we walk our dogs along the road.
People who have got horses have fields and they need stabling and I know that because
I've had horses all my life and I've had old horses that require a lot of care and I think
if we refuse this tonight I would be absolutely gobsmacked that a woman who is taking on elderly
horses with health issues. You know, you make no money out of horses, no one with the horse
is rich. This isn't a money making venture, this is care of animals that years ago we
wouldn't have even looked at this because barns would have been built. Barns would have
been built where animals that are on farms live and I think this is really kind and a
wonderful project for these horses and more horses will benefit from it. So I think this
through and show that we're a council that cares, not only for residents but also for
their animals.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:35
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:16:35
Councillor Jones.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:36
So I'd like to explore further the idea of the green roof.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:16:41
I think that would mitigate some of the damage to the national landscape.
Can we put that as a condition or does it have to go back to planning to obviously discover
whether that can actually happen with this development?
We would need to have considerable discussion with the applicant about a green roof in particular,
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:17:04
the structural implications and it might affect the design of the building or the cost of
the building or viability of actually the scheme coming forward.
If that is something that members would like us to particularly discuss, we can certainly
do that.
But if there's any other things or lesser measures that members would be happy with,
we'd be equally happy to discuss those.
but I think a condition specifically requiring a green roof would be unreasonable given the
impacts it might actually have on the scheme coming forward.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:33
If I may say, Councillors, what we can do is discuss should we be so minded to go against
the officer's recommendation.
We can give them some ideas as to what we would like to see and then delegate powers
to the officers.
Councillor Fullard, you were next again.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:17:53
Yep, I'm fighting the temptation to offend the whole Committee again by talking about
classism and horses but leaving that one aside, just on Mr Bailey's point about the need
not only to preserve but enhance the national landscape which I had noticed is a relatively
new piece of legislation isn't it?
Went off 23 was it?
But anyway, that's the source point.
Where I'm going with this is that I believe that currently the view from the footpath,
although it's not terrible, you can still see the existing building from that footpath.
So it's my hope that by adding a landscaping condition, we can actually, even though the
building's bigger, we can actually make it less visible than it currently is and thus
That's achieved the aim of improving the national landscape.
Whether or not the officers agree with me on that one is another matter, but that's
why I'm making this proposal because I do believe that it's possible to do that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:02
Thank you, Councillor Sheebe.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:19:06
I just wondered whether there had been any discussion with the applicant in the application
and were there any recommendations you made at that point which would have made this acceptable
that aren't being reflected in the final application?
Or is there any guidance you can give us that would make this acceptable?
In short, no.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:19:36
We haven't had those discussions with the applicant.
These buildings tend to come forward as they are.
They're functional.
I think if members are wanting to go against the recommendation, you would need to give
some guidance as to what you'd be looking for us to do as to how helpful we can be in
that regard and have the pass over to Mr Bailey.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:20:04
Councillor Mike Blakemore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:20:10
Yeah, I'm very minded to support making this a better building that's more acceptable.
I'm still a little bit unclear about whether and by how much it's higher than the existing
building, so I wondered whether when we look at improving it, we could stipulate that it's
not to be higher than the existing building, or it's only to be a certain amount higher.
There was something about the pitch of the roof, wasn't there, in the application, but
I'm not really clear how much of an issue height is here and what we can do about that
it seems to me the footprint is largely the same, you're replacing a concrete area with
a building, but I'm not quite sure how much higher that building is given that as Councillor
Foote said it is sunk down. As I was saying previously Councillor,
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:20:53
unfortunately we don't
have that measurement, so I can't give you that. What we need to be careful of though
is if we restrict the height of the new building to the same as the existing building, we'll
up with a very slack pitch which may actually look worse than what's put forward at the
moment.
So, yeah, we need to be very careful about those sorts of amendments and we can certainly
have those discussions with the applicant now.
Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:22
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:21:25
When I look at the photographs, and again it's evident from the cross section of the
final drawing you showed us.
The existing block sits within an excavated chalk area already, which if you look at section
4 .1 of the report was covered under a previously approved application from Shepway District
Council in 2003 or thereabouts.
So again I think we have technically as a council agreed in principle to this development
in the past.
So, again, I support what my fellow councillors are saying in terms of let's minimise the impact as best we can
by making sure that whatever is built can be camouflaged, if you like,
without adding additional harm to the area, Chair. Thank you.
Mr Robert Allan - 0:22:17
Councillor Polly Blakemore.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:22:18
Just going back, I think I mentioned it before, but I didn't put it as a question.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:22:23
So the KENT -Des National Landscape Team,
it doesn't say it doesn't meet their threshold to comment on,
which is kind of interesting if we're refusing it,
if we're being recommended to refuse it
because of where it is in terms of the national landscape.
Why do they not feel it worth commenting on?
As with many statutory consultees,
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:22:49
the time is limited, unfortunately,
so they set a protocol threshold for the scale of applications as to which they're going to respond to.
I wouldn't be able to comment as to why they've chosen the threshold they have,
but the advice we have is that this is outside their remit because of those requirements.
And sorry, Councillor, while I've got the microphone on,
my colleague has very helpfully just looked at the drawings and says the proposed is 1 .4 metres taller than the existing.
So the existing is 3 .1 metres tall and the proposed is 4 .5.
To me the fact that they didn't feel it worth responding on means
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:23:28
they're not bothered by
it, to be honest.
Who knows Councillor Blakemore.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:23:34
Before we go to the proposal I'd like to ask Councillor Fuller to have a think about what
conditions that he wants to put into the proposal please. So have a think about that. All I
would say is horses are part of the countryside. I remember being a child and being so excited
when I saw a horse or even a sheep because I lived in the city. If we don't allow these
animals to be there, yes we have beautiful greenery but there's no other visible life
there.
So I am very much in -minded depending on the conditions Councillor Fuller comes up with
to support his proposal.
So Councillor Fuller, oh sorry, Councillor.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:24:31
Apologies Chair, I thought it might be useful if I can just say where I think we've got
So the proposal is to grant planning permission with conditions delegated to officers,
but including landscaping conditions specifically to improve the visual impact of the site.
And I think that is capable of meeting the requirements of the revised duty in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
There have been a number of other issues raised by members, which I don't think is Mr McCardell's
so can be dealt with by condition.
We could seek to explore those with the applicant but as far as I am aware they are not part
of the proposal that is before the committee at present.
I hope that is helpful.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:20
I would also like to add with Councillor Fuller's permission if I may that you look at conditions
regarding lighting because that will be important to do with the visual immunity.
It's not just hiding it behind trees because light will come through so I'd like to have that.
Councillor Keane.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:25:45
I'd just like to add that what I've seen in here is far better than what's already there
and I think it actually enhances what's there and I agree with what Councillor Meade said.
if we're not going to use the countryside for countryside type animals,
what's the point of having it?
And we had built on AIAB land before,
and there didn't seem to be as much worry then,
because if it suited, we could do it.
But all of a sudden, a building that needs to be there,
it's not a house, a house doesn't need to be there,
but anything equestrian does,
we've made horses needy, we've made horses need to come in.
And that is really important, especially the older the horse gets, and I think on welfare
grounds for those animals, let's think of them.
And let's think of it's not making an impact, it's actually improving what's there.
You've got beaten up old stables that this lady wants to improve, not just for the area
but for her animals.
I'm 100 % behind what she's doing and I think for a change, let's do what people need.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:26:47
So, Councillor Fuller, would you like to come back and describe
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:26:50
exactly your proposal, please?
I'm going to take verbatim what Mr Bailey said and still verbatim what you wanted to
add on, if that's okay.
I hope that's sufficient, Steel, without me trying to remember what everyone said and
read it out for.
But also just on Councillor Keene's point, I do understand that this is a recent statute
so the situation has changed.
It is easier to refuse stuff in the national landscape now because of this requirement
to approve it.
That said, I still think it's possible to improve the landscape based on Mr Bailey's
very helpful advice on my proposal.
And also Councillor Meade's very helpful addition to that proposal.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:47
So Councillors, you have one proposal brought forward and that is to go against the Officer's
recommendation to refuse, including the conditions and the delegation that we have spoken.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:05
All those in favour, please raise your hands. That is unanimous and has passed. Thank you.

5 21/0077/FH - 21 Station Road, Lyminge, CT18 8HQ

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:12
So we move on to our second application of the evening and just to let councillors know
some of these have moved around in order so please bear with me. So the second one is
21 -0077 -FH, which is 21 Station Road in Liming. Do we have any updates, please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:28:36
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:28:37
No updates, Chair. Thank you very much. And we have two speakers
on this. Our first speaker is Christopher Hendy, who is a local resident, to speak against
the application if you'd like to come forward, Mr Hendy. And you have three minutes from
Microphone Forty - 0:29:00
when you start. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to speak. We were pleased at the last Planning
Committee meeting on 10th December 24 that the concerns of the National residents about
access for emergency vehicles were taken on board and that the Councillors deferred the
decision until a professional opinion could be sought.
However, although a fire engineering report has been obtained, this is only focused on
access to the development itself.
Note is made of a narrower than recommended access but essentially says that the proposed
property will be accessible.
Unfortunately, this has not addressed the concerns we raised at the previous meeting
about access for emergency vehicles to all the properties on Nash Hill including those
above the bridge.
It would seem that this report was undertaken using the planning application paperwork rather
than a site visit.
There are nine further properties above the bridge beyond the proposed new bungalow which
do not appear on the planning application paperwork maps.
We therefore sent in for today's meeting an OS based map which shows Nash Hill from the
site of the proposed development up to the last property on Nash Hill which is Nash House
250 metres away.
We trust Councillors will find this helpful in understanding our remaining deep concerns
that no consideration has been given to the safety of the other residents of Nash Hill,
given that Nash Hill is a single track, no through road, with no alternative access to
the houses on the lane.
We understand that a building regulations consultation will consider the proposed new
build but this is not reassuring as it will not address the safety risks to the other
properties on Nash Hill.
We've also written to the fire engineering department expressing our concerns and the
reasons why but we're still awaiting a response.
There are three properties in the vicinity of the development and these are all thought
to be accessible by long hoses.
Clearly not an option for the other nine houses above the bridge.
We believe building the proposed development will narrow Nash Hill to the point where a
fire engine would potentially be unable to pass to reach the other properties further
up the lane, particularly those above the bridge.
The roadway at the proposed development will become the narrowest point of Nash Hill.
The fire engine is 255 centimetres wide.
The bridge is 371 centimetres wide, which is wider than the lower parts of Nash Hill,
and so wide enough to accommodate both ambulances and fire engines.
These have attended emergency incidents in the past.
Refuse collection was mentioned during December's discussion.
In fact we do not have a standard size vehicle but a smaller vehicle with collection on a
different day from the rest of the village.
So in summary we therefore ask that this proposal is turned down until a thorough and complete
emergency vehicle access assessment for all the properties on Nashville including the
line above the bridge is requested and carried out.
We therefore reject the proposed development in its current form.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:32:04
Councillors, we've seen this one previously.
We deferred it because we wanted more information.
It is back before us.
Does anyone have any questions?
Oh, I'm so dreadfully sorry.
I'm so dreadfully sorry.
We do have a second speaker on this.
And that is, is it Chani or Charlie?
Charlie?
Charlie Sanger on behalf of Liming Parish Council to speak on behalf of the application.
I'm so sorry Charlie.
Oh okay.
But you will have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 0:32:43
This application was first considered four years ago and we acknowledge that positive
changes have been included.
We agree with the Kent Downs National Landscape Team that the design is more appropriate for
the location and note the information provided to the KCC Ecology Team.
We have no objection in principle to general redevelopment, however we do have concerns
regarding the parking, access to emergency vehicles,
and impact of the increased surface water
when there is no public surface water sewer
to serve the development.
Given the regular and very recent overflow
into the existing drains in Station Road
and the impact that this has on our nail -borne chalk stream,
we are concerned.
Not a single document that we could see
on the planning portal gave detailed measurements
of the proposed build.
However, we note that the committee document states
that three meters by five meters has been given for the tandem parking. A 3 .5 meter car turning
radius is also given, however this radius overlaps the neighboring property's boundary which cannot
be relied on as a way to access this parking and neither can the driveways opposite the development.
The road at the widest part of the edge of church views boundary and the development is 2 .9 meters
with a narrower part being just 2 .4. The average car in this country is 4 .4 metres long and 1 .8
metres wide. The image showing the turning radius is very colourful and attractive, however not
realistic. The occupiers would have to be driving only small cars for this image to be realistic
and this is not something that we can guarantee for future occupiers. A medium -sized car or larger
would struggle if not outright fail to be able to park in the proposed spaces.
There is a reason that every single other property in Nash Hill is set back from the
road with ample vehicle manoeuvrability.
The second consideration in this application is emergency vehicle access.
We acknowledge that Kent Fire and Rescue are satisfied that a development meets the 45
metre hose laying requirements.
However, during the construction period emergency vehicles will need to be able to access the
properties beyond the development.
The application site is around 45 to 48 meters from Station Road, but what about the other
houses in Nash Hill?
For example, the lawns sits 260 meters approximately from Station Road as the crow flies.
If a fire breaks out beyond the development site, Kent Fire and Rescue have acknowledged
that the site is at the upper limit of where a hose situated on Station Road can reach.
If access beyond this point is restricted, even for a short time, how will other houses
be serviced?
This also applies to ambulances.
In summary, considering this application, we would ask that prior to a decision being
made sufficient site visits are conducted so that planning officers and potentially
councillors can appreciate our comments about the realism of the parking provisions outlined.
We would also ask that consideration is given to the handling of surface water and the very
valid and numerous resident objections.
We would also ask that if this application is approved, there is a stipulation that at
no time can the road be blocked as Nash Hill is a no -through road and access is required
at all times residents and emergency services.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:56
Well done and thank you very much.
So as I was saying Councillors before I forgot the second speaker and I do apologise again.
This is the one that came before us previously.
We asked for more information because I believe this committee were also concerned regarding
the narrowing or the actual narrow lane down there for emergency vehicles especially given
vehicles past this particular property and I believe we also had some concerns regarding
where the parking was in this design as well.
So Councillors over to you, do you have any comments, any questions please?
Councillor King.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:44
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:36:46
Can I ask why what we asked for hasn't been provided because there should have
been site visits. The more I hear this the more I understand where these
residents are coming from and one of the best parts of planning is local
knowledge and I really don't believe that we can just go ahead with this and
hope that it fits into where it's going. We need the proper information that was
asked for at the last meeting and it evidently hasn't come to pass.
So can I ask why it hasn't come to pass?
Thank you, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:37:21
Well, the resolution of the committee was to defer determination until consultation
with emergency services can be carried out and amendments sought addressing concerns
regarding visibility into and out of the site.
Now the information regarding visibility into and out of the site has been provided.
The car parking spaces have been amended.
In terms of the emergency services, well the report sets out that that consultation hasn't
taken place and that they're satisfied that there wouldn't be any risk arising from this
development.
So I'm not entirely sure what in context of the resolution of the committee meeting in
December, what information, what further information we could have sought.
I think it's all there in the report.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:38:10
Can we say that a site visit was made by the emergency services, they've been and looked?
Is that, that's what I asked.
If a site visit where they've actually physically gone to that area and looked.
Well, firstly that isn't what the resolution said.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:38:23
Secondly, we are not able to confirm or otherwise what the emergency services do in response to consultation and planning applications.
and we couldn't demand or require them to go out on site.
They're satisfied that the development would not give rise to risk.
Building Control are similarly satisfied,
hence why it's back before members with the recommendation that it has.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:54
Councillor Holmes, please.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:38:59
Thank you. Well, I was going to ask a question
and I think it's been answered by Mr Bailey in terms of have we been out to I
mean it says it in the report but I just wanted confirmation that we have we have
reconsulted again and as I understand it you know we we deferred it for that
particular reason only so when it comes back is it is it not the case that
that's the only thing that we should be considering at this stage although I do
notice a comment with regard to surface waters water so I wonder if you just
Just comment, please.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:39:31
Well, I'll let Mrs. Payne comment on the issues surface water drainage, but in terms
of the committee's consideration of the issues, I think in past experience tells me that where
committees have deferred for one or two particular issues and then subsequently determine the
application on the basis of other issues that they didn't seek further information on
or that they could have determined the application on in the first instance.
That's been held by the Planning Inspectorate
to amount to unreasonable behaviour
on behalf of the local planning authority
and left it liable for and would have cost against it
if an application were to go to appeal.
So whilst I think in law,
committee is not restricted
as to the issues it can consider,
I think in terms of acceptable good practice and reasonable behaviour
in the eyes of the Planning Inspector,
I think it would be unwise of members to determine this application
on the basis of anything other than the reasons for deferral.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:40:40
Thank you. I actually went up the road today,
trying to miss all the potholes.
It was absolutely awful.
I do have some sympathy with the residents, but it's very difficult when you've got in front of you 4 .6 and 4 .7,
which clearly state that the fire and rescue have been consulted, building regs will follow up on that,
and also in terms of the parking. So I would find that quite difficult for reasons for refusal.
So I'm just waiting to hear what other people say.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:20
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:41:22
Councillor Fuller. I'm going to ask Mr Bailey to help me with
my memory here. Could you remind me if the previous report made any reference to the
surface water drainage that's been mentioned here and if so what it stated because obviously
I've read the addendum recently about the report a while ago.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:41:46
Councillor Filler, I can draw your attention to paragraph or section F within the original
officer's report.
That's paragraph 729 to 731 where it covers surface water drainage.
We clearly stated that alternative means of drainage would be required but that we could
easily condition this in the event of an approval.
Councillor Jones.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:09
So I just want to be clear.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:42:13
So by deferring it and just asking one thing,
we essentially agreed to it last time.
Is that how it legally works?
And then in that case, am I right in thinking the understanding
that only the councillors who were at that meeting
are therefore able to vote moving forward on this application?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:42:36
Well, I have to defer to the Committee of Services,
Officer Imatt, that respect,
insofar as it relates to the Council's constitution.
As I said, in law, committee is not prevented from considering other issues, but in terms
of established good practice and what the planning inspector deems to be reasonable
and unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council.
And I would, like I said, members would be unwise, in my view, to determine this application
other than on the basis of the reasons for deferral and whether they're satisfied that
that information makes the scheme acceptable.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:17
Councillor Polly Greatwell.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:43:22
I just have a question about the construction method statement because I understand that
residents and our speakers are concerned about the lane being blocked during construction.
So we have a condition requiring the construction method statement, but can we actually specify
as part of that that the road will not be blocked for any length of time, for a given
length of time when doing construction?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:43:50
We can't, no, it's the same with any planning application.
We can require the facilities to be made available.
we can't force people to use them.
But then that being said, if permission were to be granted and the building was being constructed,
it's general good industry practice to avoid that sort of thing happening.
So no, we can't require them to use the facilities.
We can only require them to provide them and equally we couldn't impose a condition that
requires the road to be kept open because apart from anything else, it's not in the
ownership or control of the applicant according to the application papers.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:32
Councillor Sheave.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:44:36
I think I have to agree with Councillor Hollingsby that finding any reason really to refuse it
once as we've had the Kempfire and Rescue has given their opinion that it's accessible
and we've seen the amendments to the parking area.
So I'd be happy to propose it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:04
We have a proposal to go with the recommendations
of the officers.
Do we have a second please?
We have a second.
Councilor Paul Thomas.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:45:15
Just in terms of one of the comments made
by the speakers this evening about the lack of detailed measurements.
Condition 2 states a whole load of drawings that are associated with the development.
So I just wanted to ask the officer, do those drawings contain sufficient information for
you to be able to judge whether this development, if it is built, is built within the drawings
and within the constraints identified in the drawings in Condition 2?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:45:47
I can confirm all drawings are scaled appropriately and that's all they need to show.
We're confident that the development is within the red line which is the applicant's ownership
and that wouldn't result in a development larger than what's clearly shown on the plans.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:46:09
Thank you, Chair.
I think, as Mr Payne was saying, all the drawings are accurately drawn to scale.
Planning drawings don't commonly have dimensions shown on them,
because there are so many dimensions that one can measure
when one's looking at a drawing.
In terms of the accuracy of drawings,
we're satisfied that they're accurate and are accurately drawn to scale.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:46:34
And secondly, I remember the discussion,
I was just referring back to my notes from that meeting,
Again, Section 4 .5 of the report says that in developing the site as proposed, it would
not obstruct access along the lane, specifically for emergency vehicles, and the applicant
has confirmed that, and that the proposed development would be contained solely within
the application site, would not result in a reduction in the width of the existing carriageway,
which was a concern that we had last time, so that's clearly stated in the report.
and as Councillor Hollingsby has already said in section 4 .6,
Kent Fire and Rescue have said that although the lane is narrow,
they accept that it's an existing situation
which would not be worsened by the proposed developments.
So the access arrangements for emergency vehicles
would be subject to building control, which is what we talked about.
So again, I think in terms of the concerns that we'd had previously,
I think the officer's report clearly identifies our concerns
and the mitigation in respect of that and the information that we need to make a decision.
So I'm happy to support this planning application. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:44
Councillor Mike Layton.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:47:48
Yeah, I was going to make a similar point to Councillor Thomas. I sympathise with those
residents further up the lane who are concerned about the access, but if we're assured that
there isn't going to be narrowing of the lane, that's an existing problem already for them
that isn't going to be made worse by this. So I too can't see a reason that we can't
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:07
approve this. Councillor Cooper. I'll just ask a couple of questions there. The first
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:48:13
one is that we've heard from speakers tonight and one speaker particularly said there was
a lack of a turning circle, the information we brought in with other things wasn't strictly
true and basically would that be a proper reason for refusal and the second one would
be given this is access from the public highway and given that there would be construction
and traffic and everything else, would that be a proper reason for the refusal given the
inconvenience and danger to other advantages that would be caused on the hill accessing
this little lane?
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:48:43
Well, I think in terms of obstruction of the highway, the reports that Pains points out
that the development would not narrow the highway.
If you look at paragraph 4 .7, which is on page 36 of the agenda.
So whilst it's accepted that the existing parking area to the front of the garage currently
occupied on the application site may be used from time to time as an informal passing bay,
it remains privately owned land, is not part of the highway and cannot be relied upon in
this regard.
So in terms of the actual highway itself, the development doesn't encroach on it.
In terms of privately owned land that people may use from time to time for vehicles to
pass, well it would result in a lot of that, but equally the owner could put up a fence
or a wall along the boundary with the road tomorrow and not require planning permission.
In essence, it's not part of the highway and shouldn't be relied upon and cannot be relied
by people using the highway.
It would be the same as people routinely pulling into my driveway to pass.
And I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't encourage it,
and in fact no one would have the right to do so.
In terms of the parking provision, like I said, the plans have been amended,
parking spaces have been widened, the visibility splays,
which is the reason members deferred consideration of this from the December meeting shown in
the report.
I'll just find the correct drawing.
The time for me is page 35, figure 2.
So it's not a turning circle, that's visibility splays and it does go across the adjacent
side but that is within the control of the applicant, it's also owned by the applicant.
So in terms of visibility splays that's considered acceptable.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:50:57
Would any other Councillor like to raise anything?
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:51:03
I just wanted to circle back to something that Mr. Bailey said because I wasn't sure
I'd entirely understood it.
It was around our ability to add conditions on the highway as it were.
It's always been my understanding that an applicant can effectively apply for planning
permission on any piece of land, including land they don't own.
So I was a little surprised when Mr. Bally was saying that we couldn't apply conditions
to land that the applicant didn't own, because the condition would be around the application
site.
Now admittedly you could argue it's not part of the application site, but I was just a
little bit surprised as to that sort of overlap.
I just wondered a bit of clarity on that if possible.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:51:51
Well certainly in this instance it doesn't form part of the application site.
If it were to be included, there's a whole statutory notification procedure that the
applicant would need to go through, including adverts in the paper, land registry searches
and serving notice on the owners of the site.
So I mean, in that sense, it's not part of the application site and therefore we couldn't
condition it.
You're correct, they could apply to build a house on it, in which case we would have
to give consideration and in those circumstances we potentially could apply conditions.
But in this instance, requiring the developer of a site adjacent to the highway on land
that he doesn't control to maintain that highway free of obstruction wouldn't meet the test
for conditions set out in national guidance.
not leased because he doesn't control that and also doesn't form part of the application.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:52:54
Does that also even include the process of construction?
So in terms of health and safety and so on we couldn't require that the vehicles involved
in the construction of the applicant's property do not block access.
We couldn't require that at all.
So effectively we could end up with a situation where construction traffic is parking there,
there's nothing we can do about it and somebody dies further up the hill.
In which case who's responsible?
I mean presumably the contractor.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:53:28
Well that's the same for every development site.
Every single development that this council grants permission for.
We couldn't control construction vehicles blocking the highway.
Like I said we can require the provision of facilities to get them off the highway.
But if they obstruct the highway, well that's a separate matter outside of planning legislation.
It's not something that we could reasonably refuse planning commission on the basis of.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:53:55
Just coming back on that, so it's a separate matter but is there anyone, is there any recourse
that the residents of that road would have further up were that to be blocked?
I mean, presumably KCC highways, but just this is, I know this is a bit outside the
remit of what we're discussing, but it's a learning experience.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:54:17
Well, as it's not a planning matter, I'm not qualified to advise you on it, and anything
I said would be my own personal opinion and quite possibly entirely inaccurate, so I'm
afraid I can't answer that question.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:54:31
It's a very polite way of saying, bog off and go and ask someone who knows the answer.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:38
I'm not seeing anyone else wishing to comment, so we have one proposal in front of us and
that is to accept the recommendation by the planning officers.
All those in favour please raise your hands.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:59
Those against?
Oh, check.
Mr Alex Baker - 0:55:01
We've got a point made earlier about members on the previous application.
There's a point in the constitution under the planning code section 1 .13
says don't vote or take part in the meetings discussion on a proposal unless you have been present to hear the entire debate.
So effectively only people on the previous committee.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:24
We've had a debate this evening and the paperwork before the councillors regarding this.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:06
I want to get this absolutely 100 % correct, so we're going to have a five minute adjournment

5 21/0077/FH - 21 Station Road, Lyminge, CT18 8HQ

just to double check the constitution because as much as we have as
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:18
councillors that were
not at the original planning committee, can you please abstain on this?
So I hope that makes it clear.
So all those in favour of the officer's recommendation please show your hand.
Thank you.
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:46
Thank you and abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:53
Thank you chair, that's five in favour, two against and four abstentions.
Mr Alex Baker - 0:57:00
I believe that has passed.

7 23/2061/FH - Land Opposite Kinross, Rectory Lane, Lyminge, CT18 8EG

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:03
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:10
So we move on to our third application of this evening which is 23 -2061 -FH which is
the land opposite Kiln Ross in Rectory Lane in Liming. Do we have any updates please?
Mr Robert Allan - 0:57:30
Good evening chair, thank you. Just one update. In response to drainage concerns, officers
would highlight that the statutory consultee hasn't objected to Southern Water and if members
were minded to support the officer recommendation, it would be the officer's intention to impose
a condition requiring details of the method of disposal of foul and surface water prior
to first occupation.
Officers have spoken with the agent about this and they are happy to accept a condition
along those lines should it come to that.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:10
And we have three speakers on this and our first speaker on this is Richard Juce I believe
it's pronounced who is the local resident to speak against the application.
Good evening sir, you will have three minutes from when you start.
Right, good evening.
Microphone Forty - 0:58:31
I'd like to begin with a question.
What is the point of having a local plan?
Because if your officers are to believe there isn't one, they are advising you that because
this application is just a little bit beyond the boundary and close to the centre of the
village you can approve it.
We take the view that outside should mean outside.
In football you can't be just a little bit offside, the rules clearly state you are offside.
Furthermore, the application site lies right on the Elam Valley Way and inside the Kent International Landscape.
Both national and local policy says it warrants the highest form of protection
and this remains the case despite the pressure to provide more and more housing.
This unsightly and overbearing development can only have a detrimental impact.
Your officer's advice will potentially open the door to any developer who wants to build
outside a boundary anywhere in our district.
If you approve, the developers can hold it up as an established precedent.
These new homes will tower over existing dwellings.
You only have to look at the elevation drawings and they'll give rise to substantial loss
of amenity in clear conflict of national and local guidance.
They effectively form a wall right across the site as clearly seen on page 91 and this
compounds the effect on the surrounding national landscape.
The idea that the impact on views from both sides of the valley can be ameliorated with
a hidden roof is frankly laughable.
Our view is that Rectory Lane will not be able to safely accommodate the increased traffic
and it must be remembered that thousands and thousands of even valley walkers use this
single track lane.
The incorporation of a modest passing place serves to highlight the problem rather than
solve it.
Already permission has been granted for a substantial new home in the lane but we have
accepted this to be a one off and more importantly it is inside the village boundary.
Meanwhile some 200 yards away there are almost 50 new homes being built and with fears from
some villages that local infrastructure won't be able to cope.
As you can see from tonight's agenda, there are a wide range of objections to the plan
which fails to address serious concerns about provision for both file and service water
drainage.
Well, you've addressed that just there.
In conclusion, the ink is barely dry on your core strategy review of 22 -23 which with full
consultation agreed a logical and justified village boundary.
Already you are being advised to tear that up and ignore it.
That advice is potentially seriously damaging to the future character and amenity of the
North Downs and the District as a whole.
I would urge and we urge in rectorily and beyond that you reject this application.
Thank you sir.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:01:29
And our second speaker is Chary Sangha.
Please come forward.
He is speaking on behalf of Liming Parish Council regarding the application and you
have three minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 1:01:49
Liming Parish Council strongly objects to this application for a number of reasons.
For this, I will be referencing from page 101 of the committee report back.
The planning officers have stated in 7 .1 the main considerations for this evening, first
being whether the principle of the development is acceptable.
The site sits outside of the settlement boundary
of the village and is therefore considered as building
on open countryside.
In 7 .2, it states, to maximize efficient use
of existing infrastructure.
Given that Rectory Lane is a narrow, single track
lane with no main sewers or drainage,
we would challenge that sufficient infrastructure
is in place to meet this requirement.
In 7 .3, it states that the site is
considered to be no less sustainable
than the properties opposite.
However, we would also challenge this.
While the site is in a position to walk to many places in the village,
we would argue that it is not acceptably sustainable to ignore the settlement boundary
and build on an open green space in a national landscape.
If this is permitted, we feel it makes a mockery of planning law.
In 7 .4, in bold, it is stated that modest expansion is acceptable to meet rural development needs.
We would argue that this development is not modest
and is in fact fitting in as many large houses as possible
in a small space for pure profit -making potential.
This is not a modest proposal.
We are currently working on our neighbourhood plan
and while this is not complete and cannot be considered,
the feelings of the entire parish
are that we need to protect our open green spaces,
let alone our open countryside.
We would also challenge that three large houses
that are likely to cost upwards of £750 ,000 each
are going to positively impact rural housing needs
when many parishioners can't afford to heat their own homes
and thousands of people in the district
are waiting for social housing.
In 7 .5, we challenge the notion that this proposal
will enhance or maintain the vitality of the area.
7 .12 notes mitigation relating to the proposed scale,
particularly the height of the dwellings.
However, we are concerned that hidden flat roofs
will not be enough to limit the overall height
and reduce the overbearing nature of the proposed dwellings.
7 .17 notes Policy HB1 stating that planning permission will be granted where the proposal
does not lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours surrounding area and
taking into consideration loss of privacy, loss of light and poor outlook.
We would argue that on this basis planning permission should not be granted.
Prior to the application being submitted, the land was butchered and made desolate.
Much of the vegetation is now growing back and is a welcome site.
The many comments from residents on Retro Lane outline how the proposal will impact
them.
There will be loss of light for many houses opposite the development loss of privacy as the properties are so much higher than the
existing dwellings and already the outlook has been impacted
7 .32 notes of the sites predates the requirement for biodiversity net gain
However, if permission is granted we would ask that this is reconsidered given that it is an open countryside
Finally you mentioned that one of the core policies now is to actually enhance and prove that there is an enhancement to the national landscape
and we just want to have one more point. We failed to see how butchering the open
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:05:04
countryside is enhancing the national landscape. Thank you. And our third speaker
is Hannah Garland who is the agent to speak on the application if you'd like
to come forward good evening and you will have three minutes from when you
Microphone Forty - 1:05:22
start. Thank you. Good evening members. The scheme before you tonight would
provide a small but meaningful contribution to the district's housing
supply within a sustainable location on redundant overgrown land. It is
acknowledged that the site falls outside of the settlement boundary however the
boundary in this part of Liming excludes all properties on the western side of
Rectory Lane, the old Rectory, St Mary and St Ethelburger's Church and Liming Village
Hall and Bowls Club. The principle of development in this location is
supported by offices where the site would be
a natural extension to the village,
owing to its location adjacent to the settlement boundary,
as well as the existing pattern of development.
The site is located within a rural center
where policy allows for modest expansion
from the current built limits
and seeks to focus small -scale developments
which are well related to the existing built form.
In terms of neighboring amenity,
distances between the proposed dwellings
and the existing properties opposite are similar to,
and some are greater than,
the distances between existing properties
on the western side of Rectory Lane,
which are also at an elevated position
and those on the eastern side.
Pre -app advice was sought from the council
and their comments incorporated into the scheme,
including the use of traditional materials.
Prior to submitting this scheme,
the applicant engaged with the parish council
and the residents of Rectory Lane.
Their comments were taken on board,
including the suggestions for a passing bay
and a turning head.
It is worth noting that in approving the detached dwelling
to the southeast of the site of the rectory in 2021,
the council found that the development would not give rise
to any serious harm to the local amenity
or the character and appearance of the national landscape.
That approved plot projects into open countryside
and is more visually prominent
than the site before you tonight,
albeit that it lies within the settlement boundary.
The application site relates far more closely
with the existing pattern of development on Rectory Lane
and has a less visually prominent location.
In comparing these two sites,
The logical and consistent conclusion is that,
like the approved dwelling,
these proposals do not give rise to any serious harm
to local amenity or the character and appearance
of the national landscape.
In respect to foul and surface water drainage,
it should be noted that no objections
were received from Southern Water.
It is anticipated that drainage details
will be secured via condition to ensure
that a suitable foul drainage connection can be achieved
and that water runoff is managed.
The applicant has stated their willingness
to agree an appropriate condition
to ensure drainage details are approved
prior to commencement.
In summary, the application site
is a natural in -field development block
that finishes off the line of properties
on the western side of Bractory Lane.
The southern boundary of the site provides a natural edge
between the built form of the village
and the open countryside.
It is acknowledged that the proposals will result
in a changed outlook and setting for the existing properties
however the proposed layout, building lines,
separation distances and difference in heights
would continue the established pattern of development
on this road. The dwellings have been carefully designed to ensure no unacceptable degree
of harm to neighbouring properties. It is requested that members follow the officers
recommendation to approve this proposal. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:08:23
Thank you very much. Councillors over to you. Does anyone have any comments, any questions
they would like to ask?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:08:38
Q. Yeah, I'm a bit torn on this one because I can see on the one hand
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:08:42
that it does naturally
continue the line of properties along that line, but also the point that how far do we go with
extending a village when we have a boundary to the settlement and then we add a few homes and then
could we then say well we've got a few homes there so we can add a few more. But my biggest concern
I think is the scale of these houses and the size of which I think is exacerbated by the
land being higher on that side of the road plus the impact on the national landscape
which we talked about earlier in very serious terms when we were discussing a stable for
horses but we don't seem to be giving that quite the same weight when we're talking about
three, four bedroom houses.
Thank you.
Councillor Clifford Kelly.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:09:28
Yes, I was thinking about the point that was made that because the rectory was built that
that sort of sets a precedent and that means that these other houses can be built.
And you know I agree with Councillor Blakemore about the fact that you know using that as
an excuse, how many times can that be used as an excuse to continue to extend and extend
and extend.
And I wanted to know, in regards to the rectory, I mean, how many people did that accommodate
compared to these three new dwellings that are going to be built?
And what difference does that make?
Because it's not, is it really like, you know, much of the same sort of thing?
Or is it actually a big difference compared to the rectory?
And then finally, this thing about green spaces and improving green spaces, is it actually improving the green space if it actually takes away some of the views that people have and the actual feeling of the actual village itself and the way that people feel about it and how much space they actually experience in the village as well.
And also the directory I remember hearing was within the boundary,
whereas this is outside the boundary.
So again, I don't know if that's something that can be compared
and used as a reason why they should go forward.
Thank you for your questions. Just give me a moment to find the...
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:11:09
As regards the rectory application, I believe that was for a single dwelling.
I don't know if that was the full extent of the information you're after.
I don't know how many rooms were in it. I don't have the information to hand.
Yes, that is within the settlement boundary as drawn at the moment.
One of the sides ticks around and it shows you the relative positions.
and I can certainly indicate that when it does appear.
In terms of the national landscape, I think I've got the wording here.
So we have duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty
of the designated landscape.
Now, the duty there is to seek to further the purpose.
And in that regard, within the report I've put in,
which the applicant has proposed,
which is obviously landscaping, which will over time mature,
become more prevalent, and add to the existing landscape
on the site, which is being retained, some of which is,
I think, there's a hawthorn that's
being removed on the eastern side and another tree
on the western side.
But other planting is being added to the site
to go out, which should also have biodiversity improvements
as well.
In terms of furthering that purpose,
we've also talked about the materials
of the building, which actually sit within the guidance
that the national landscape team suggests,
which is very muted colors, very warm colors.
It's been advised it's a four bed house at the rectory that was permitted.
Thank you.
And I can't remember your other point. I do apologise.
The whole point of just asking how many people could dwell in the
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:13:12
rectory is because obviously because there's three dwellings then that means there's more of an impact on the village and the amenities and the resources in the village as well.
So again, I'm just trying to make a point of the fact
that it can't be used as a comparison
and as something which sets a precedent,
because it's completely different,
this new application.
Just to come back to that, it hasn't
Mr Robert Allan - 1:13:39
been used by myself as a comparator in this report,
or indeed, any sort of thin end of the wedge.
This has been assessed, as any subsequent application
would be, on its own merits.
and at some point there is there is,
you know, you cumulatively say,
well, what is that sort of stopping point?
The tipping point?
And in officers opinion,
this this represents this proposal
represents something that is for
this stage acceptable because all
the reasons set out in the report.
Thank you, Councilor King.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:14:16
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:16
Yeah, I've got two questions.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:14:20
one if we allow this do we keep allowing these boundaries to be moved to soon
developers and the one that really kind of boggled my mind was how can three
houses make any impact on our housing quota as quoted by the agent that those
three houses will go towards our quota I failed to say about three houses are
going to make a difference and I don't even think that should be considered but
three houses aren't going to make it. I mean unless you're telling me different, do we
have like a board upstairs and as we build a house we knock it off?
Well it may sound petty but we do. Not physically.
It's crazy then isn't it?
We don't, you know, ring a bell on it.
But three houses are going to make a massive difference to our housing close house.
If I can come back on that, within the National Planning Policy Framework the government has,
and the previous governments have said that small to medium sites are to be encouraged
because they do come forward and they do actually get billed.
So yes, it's incremental at best, but it does cumulatively help assist with build -out rates,
which puts the council in a good position in terms of its policy figures and also just
it does chip into obviously the overall figures.
I believe the point I've also made with the new report as well as in terms of, like I said,
you talked about village boundaries already and I think I've sort of said what I needed to say
on that in terms of yes, they are our sites.
The point has been made, it is something that is assessed on its own merits each time.
In terms of the infrastructure, the village, I mean, a small number of houses can support
and as part of the argument there, they can support the existing shops, services such as bus routes, doctors,
the pharmacy within the village, the library, so they do help with supporting that.
And that is part of the balancing act, for want of a better word, or balancing of considerations within this report,
that has been put together.
So really and truly what we're saying is boundaries really don't count
so we can do whatever the small development wants.
So we're going to be stretching boundaries in villages all around the district.
I would say there is provision within the development plan.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:16:55
It is a line that is drawn on settlement boundaries
that we have chosen to do in this district.
I think Ashford District doesn't have boundaries around them on their local plan.
They have allocated sites and it is a consideration.
It is not an absolute and there have been applications before, members before, where
the consideration is put forward that is outside of the system of boundary and as we've seen
earlier this evening you've weighed up the material issues associated with a development
in the countryside and decided to go against the officer recommendation which is for members
to do based upon the material considerations in the application. Obviously I've set out
exactly how I feel, not how I feel sorry, how the application of policy is based upon
the experience and the considerations of the application and made a positive recommendation
which is for our members to consider.
Councillor Hinsley.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:18:02
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:18:04
I was wondering if Mr Bailey, or in fact Rob, could actually make a comment.
There's lots of comments about the Local Plan and being outside the settlement boundary.
And I know that we are actually just starting a new Local Plan,
so we're probably starting to be in between.
And of course housing numbers are important, but not at the expense of having development
that we don't want.
I mean I went up there today, I had a terrible job to turn around I must say, I went right
up the top.
The thing that perhaps worries me more than anything else is actually the hype.
It does go up very high, the bank, but on the other hand,
it is a natural development of that particular lane.
So I'm waiting to hear what other people say,
but I would be interested in your comments on the local plan and housing numbers.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:19:07
In terms of local plan, obviously we have a plan -led system
where the law sets out that development proposals should be determined in accordance with the
development plan and less material considerations indicate otherwise.
Now that doesn't mean that all proposals that are called with the plan are going to be approved
and it doesn't mean that all those that don't accord with the plan are going to be refused.
The key issue, certainly in situations like this where it is outside the settlement boundary,
is that you have to carry out thorough assessment
and establish that there is material planning harm.
In this instance, we have carried out that assessment
in terms of the principle of the development,
which is set out on pages...
Let's get the right document up in front of me. Apologies.
Paragraph 7 .2 to 7 .6 on page 101 to page 102.
So we recognize that it's outside the settlement boundary and in that sense it's broadly contrary
to the council's spatial strategy.
But you have to assess whether there's any harm arising from that.
And I think a good example, albeit on a much larger scale, was the development that was
allowed on appeal at Highknock, where that was outside the settlement boundary.
Now, in terms of housing numbers, which is your second point, obviously that one was
materially different because it contributed significantly towards the housing numbers
within the district.
This is a much smaller site, as Mr. Allen said, it still contributes towards housing
land supply in the district and potentially towards housing delivery within the district.
And as with all applications, the decision maker has to balance out the pros and cons.
So one particular pro will be that it adds to the supply of housing land within the district.
If that is outweighed by the harm that members might perceive to arise from the development,
then potentially that wouldn't be an issue that the decision would turn on.
So it's about looking at the harm arising, balancing that against the merits of the scheme.
So it's not a determining factor that is contrary to the local plan.
It's not a determining factor that it's outside the settlement boundary.
But equally, it isn't a determining factor that it would increase the supply of houses
within the district.
I'm afraid that's as firm an answer as you can get.
Councillor Paul Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
I think as a couple of other members have already mentioned, the thing
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:21:55
that really concerned
me is associated with image four, where you have a look at the position of the new houses
with regard to the existing dwellings.
And particularly the third one, which looks at a dolphin cottage there, and you look at
the height of the existing dormer and the existing houses.
So again, in the report it references HB1,
quality of places through design,
and part four talks about adverse impact on amenity
of future occupiers, neighbors or surrounding area,
taking into account loss of privacy and what have you.
And in there it actually states that the test set out
in HB8, as in the 25 degree and 45 degree tests should be applied in those circumstances.
So I'd just like if the officer could just tell us whether that test as laid out in HB8
has actually been applied in this instance and whether it actually meets the criteria
from that policy.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:23:03
The 25 degree test hasn't been applied.
The properties are 18 and a half metres apart,
16 and a half metres apart.
It was felt that that did not trigger the need to do that.
In terms of the distances there,
I mean you made reference to Dolphin Cottage.
I think that's over 20 metres
and actually I think the extent that that distance
is a little harsh on the proposal
and as much as that's taken from the front of the,
I think the carport or garage, integral garage
of the proposed dwelling.
So it would actually probably be more like 22 meters,
maybe more window to window with the dormer.
As set out in the report, it's considered
that there isn't a material impact upon the properties
on the eastern side of the lane from the proposal
that we felt could be sustained.
Thank you very much for that.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:24:06
So again, the thing that does concern me about that,
and I'll accept what you've said in terms
of the distance between the two, but just in terms of privacy
and the fact that those two things are,
you're looking at each other.
And I know elsewhere in the district,
and St. Mary's Bay Flats are a case in point,
where they can shake hands with each other almost
across the different dwellings there.
It just seems to me that...
Is there anything else that could be done
to protect the privacy of the existing dwellings
that's not included in the officer's report already
with regard to the design or other mitigation for that,
because that's not clear to me in the report.
Thank you, Chair.
The application is as it's submitted,
Mr Robert Allan - 1:25:01
and I've made a recommendation based upon that.
These are the fronts of the property
and as you can see from the photographs
there's a footpath that runs along Rectory Lane
and you can stand should you be so inclined
and in Rectory Lane which is closer
and stare directly at properties along that lane already.
So there is an element of the front areas of these properties
element of the front area of the properties that aren't in existence already being in
the public realm and the consideration of the application is that it would not over
and above that existing position result in a detriment to amenity.
Yes, look at that.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:25:54
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:25:57
Can I refer you please to page 104 of your report and the drawing which comes from the
reference to as well as Councillor Holm's remarks there.
Do those drawings not actually appear to be overbearing in respect of the properties across
the way?
Because to me that seems a hell of a thing in front of you to be built.
And what I'm thinking about here is a property down in Dim Church down Willop Way which was
built on and that is so overbearing that there is no privacy for people living across the
even in the kitchen or the front room,
because it's been overlooked by people across the way.
That to me seems extremely overbearing.
Would that be a proper reason for refusal?
I think in terms of the separation distances,
I think we would struggle to win an appeal
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:26:45
on the basis of a refusal based on overbearing impact.
But I mean, that's a judgment for members to make and for the committee to make it.
We've set out in the report that we consider this to be unacceptable.
Members of our call seem entitled to disagree with that.
But looking at the separation distances, I think it would be difficult to argue that
the proposed dwellings would have an overbearing impact on the existing.
Councillor Polybake.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:27:23
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:27:29
So interestingly, this application does seem to reach a threshold for the Kent Downs National
Landscape team to comment on.
And on page 98, we read that they say the principle of residential development here
could be acceptable in terms of national landscape impact.
subject to the right design and suitable mitigation.
So when they say that, have they looked at this application in detail to say that?
Because they're not actually saying, we think this is fine,
they're saying it could be fine.
But are they being careful with their words
or have they looked at this application and said,
yes, we think this is okay where it is?
I can't comment on the choice of words, how they've picked them.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:28:15
But yes, they have reviewed the application as it is submitted.
Councillor Fuller?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:28:26
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:28:29
Just following on from Councillor Blakeney's point there, is there any indication or do
we have any custom and practice for one of the better web where we can demonstrate what
would effectively be suitable mitigation in a case such as this.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:28:55
I think as touched upon in one of the previous answers where we've said in terms of furthering
the aims, the landscaping which they've proposed and obviously we've required, it may have
had a chance to look at conditions in terms of requiring
a full detailed scheme for that, which will grow up over time.
And the management for that as well.
The material choice of the properties, which,
for example, it's dark or windows,
even though there's no white new PVC or anything,
it's all muted colors, warm colors that
fit with the materials and tones and hues of the national landscape.
And in terms of the design of the properties where,
in covering the span of them, they've
had the hidden flap built into the roof
so that it isn't a complete pitch all the way up,
but it still maintains the integrity of the design
without impacting negatively upon that as an overall property
and making it appear as a traditional style of dwelling
that would, in this context, be suitable,
or we consider to be suitable.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:30:20
So, effectively you're saying you're having to take it on the balance
of what you've got in front of you,
but you don't really have a model you can apply as such,
you just have to consider best guess.
Well, guess is an unfair way of putting it,
but best experience.
Best kind of, yeah.
But also, just circling back to what Councillor Thomas said
about the 25 % thing, and again,
in terms of customer practice,
do we have a maximum distance
which we would say that we would no longer apply that?
Is there a set distance at which we would no longer attempt to apply that rule?
Or again, is it based on best estimate rather than guess?
Guess sounds a bit derogatory to me.
Well, sorry, I'm losing my voice a bit here.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:31:11
Mr Robert Allan - 1:31:21
Taking your latter question first, there is no set distance.
In terms of your first point, we refer to the Kent Downs National Landscape Unit have produced a set of lots of guidance
and there's, I mean should you wish to delve into it really deeply, there's even a colour chart with rail colours and everything
which you can apply to the whole of, Kent is broken down into a patchwork quilt of different areas that have specific colours
based upon geology, vegetation coverage, that sort of thing.
It's incredibly intricate.
As it's presented to us, and as borne out
by the comments of the National Landscape,
I mean, they haven't specifically
said this is the right color.
But they have not raised an objection in that regard.
And having had a look at the guidance as well,
it ties in with that.
It wasn't a finger in the wind, and I know you weren't implying that, but at the same
time it has been considered acceptable.
Would any other councillor like to ask a question, make a comment?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:35
Councillor Jones.
It's a tricky one.
I know it well, actually, that road, and I've walked Neil M Valley
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:32:43
Way, and there is that
argument that it does finish off the road on both sides, and I can see that.
And I was just curious to see what
the distance was between the houses further down the road.
So we're talking about the distance and the overbearing.
I mean, again, we shouldn't look at precedence.
But I just wondered how that compared.
I'm just curious.
It's a really hard thing to balance
with the national landscapes.
But then I know that it could be challenging on appeal
because, again, we haven't reached our housing targets.
And our current government have increased them yet again.
So I think we would be really struggling on appeal.
I don't know what Rob thinks about that
and whether we would actually have any chance at appeal
and what the risk to the council would be.
Sorry, there's two questions there.
Should we start with the first one?
Well, whether we have any chance on appeal if members refuse this
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:33:42
rather depends on the reasons for refusal.
But I think if we felt that we would win an appeal, then we wouldn't have recommended
approval.
I mean, it's not the determining factor, obviously.
We assessed the application.
But if we came to a conclusion at the end of that, that we thought it was a poor scheme
that should be refused, and we backed that up with the thought that we would, with 80%,
90 % certain that we win on appeal, then we wouldn't have made the recommendation that
we have.
Councillor Sheard.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:24
Sorry, Chair.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:34:27
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:28
I just wanted to come back on Councillor Jones's other points.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:34:30
My colleague has very helpfully done a swift review of the other properties down in Rectorie
Lane and it varies between 18 and about 20 metres.
It does whiteboard now to obviously towards the top of the road in terms of front to front
distances.
Councillor Sheb.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:34:48
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:34:48
Yes, I'm struggling to find any reason to refuse it based on the officer's report.
I do have – only they are, but they do appear to be very big, and I have great sympathy
with some of the speakers.
I think Councillor Mike Blakemore alluded to it as well.
Yeah, these are very big houses.
I note in the report it sort of mentions
the space requirements and talks about
eight person home, which I would be very surprised
if eight people ever lived in any of those houses
Were they to be built?
But yeah, that said, yeah,
I I I I'm struggling to find any reason
to go against the officers recommendations.
Are you making a proposal?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:47
Councilor? Why not?
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:35:49
Yeah, happy to propose it.
We have a proposal to go with
the officers recommendation.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:35:53
Do we have a seconder please?
We have a seconder Councilor Cooper.
Thank you, sir. Can I ask in respect
the properties next door to these three properties,
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:36:04
how high are they?
What relation will these three properties have
in relation to that?
What I'm thinking about here is actually the street scene.
Have we got properties this high
and then all of a sudden it's like that in that area?
And also can I ask a question in respect of on page 103,
paragraph 77, it says the application site sits
between the Kent Downs National Landscape.
The break weight should be given to conserve
and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty.
How does that not conflict with this given that you've said further in those sections
there that one of the buildings is going to have a flat building or a flat roof?
Thank you.
Basically what I'm asking is how does that fit in and how does that
Mr Robert Allan - 1:36:49
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:36:50
not reach that thing
in the paragraph 77?
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:36:58
The paragraph 77 is the opening line, as it were,
and builds through that section in terms
of section B, which runs onto page 105 eventually, which
sets out what we have to work with as a framework,
as officers and decision makers and you as decision makers
and discusses the various points and arrives at the conclusion
that the visual impact would, with the mitigation proposed, be acceptable.
Sorry, I've forgotten your first point. I do apologize.
Oh, the heights, yes, thank you.
I don't have the heights of the properties to the north.
We can see, I think it's Whisper Cottage, which is immediately to the north,
maybe appearing on your screens.
Stay tuned, there we go.
It's a two -storey dwelling, as is the property to, I think it's the Semidetache, aren't they?
To the north, I don't know what the height is.
I don't have that information, I'm afraid.
Thank you.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:38:20
I'm not seeing any other Councillor wishing to comment.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:38:23
So we have one proposal and that is to accept the officer's recommendation and that has
been brought forward and seconded.
All those in favour please show your hands.
Thank you.
Those against?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:38:41
Abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:38:48
Thank you chair, that's four in favour, four against and three
Mr Alex Baker - 1:38:54
abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:39:07
Officers I'm going to stick by my decision on this and so I'm going to have to give you
and reasons. My reason to go against the officers recommendation is number one it is outside
the boundary and I don't believe we need to be going outside the boundary at this point.
Number two I do feel that it will have an adverse visual impact on the national landscape.
Number three, I do find the properties too large and overbearing for this particular
plot of land, especially considering the current neighbourhood.
Would anyone else who voted against like to put forward any other reasons?
I'm fairly happy with what you said there, Chair.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:40:02
We'll introduce that as well.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:40:07
Thank you, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:40:10
As I set out during my answer to one of the questions that members raised, the fact that
it's outside the boundary isn't in itself a reason for refusal.
So we need to demonstrate that there's material planning harm arising from it.
I think in terms of the second reason, which is the impact of the national landscape, I
don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm assuming that you're saying it fails to
conserve or enhance the special character in the scenic quality of the national landscape.
But you would need to set out why that is.
What is it about this scheme that does that?
And in terms of the third reason,
you said that it's overbearing and too large for the plot.
So I think we'd need clarification
as to whether that is in relation to the impact on residential amenity
and which residents, the occupiers of which dwellings it would harm
or whether it's something else.
Thank you. It quite obviously affects the visual amenity of the national landscape.
It's three large houses. I'm not seeing from the so -called landscaping that there is any
enhancement within this particular scenery and that is why I brought that side up. When
When I say large, houses designed to hold eight people are large by their very nature.
And I believe, and I stand to be corrected, that the other houses actually down this road
are not of the same scale as this and therefore do not fit in with the seats.
They are outside of the boundary and yes I do have sympathy regarding the plan because
sometimes we do go over boundaries but I just feel that three large houses of this do not
fit in with the seat to the street.
I'll try that again, put my teeth back in the street scene.
And by the very fact that they're there, I do not see landscaping involved that will
actually enhance and actually stand up to the new policy that has now been invoked.
I hope that helps.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:43:00
Sorry, just in terms of Reason 1, where you've set out that it's outside the boundary,
what harm does that give rise to, just in terms of Reason 1?
Reason 1, there will be increased traffic.
Reason 2, the likelihood is that these will be large family houses and therefore there
will be extra pressure on GPs, dentists and schools. So yes, there is likelihood to be
more stress on the infrastructure for the whole village, especially given that we've
been told that there are some rather large developments already going on. I just believe
that this could be the store that breaks the camel's back.
Sorry, Councillor Hinesby.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:43:54
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:43:57
I was just going to say, in terms of houses, there are a number of large houses there.
There are three.
I mean, I've been up there today.
I know there are quite large houses there.
So I'm just trying to help you in that respect.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:44:15
I've been asked to make the decision for the chair, and I'm sorry, I'm sticking by my decision
on this whether it be right or wrong should it go to appeal.
I would actually encourage the developer to come back and maybe look at the size of these
particular houses and I'm seeing people nodding here but unfortunately we can only go on the
application in front of us.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:44:46
Okay, so just so I'm clear on this, there are still three reasons.
The first reason is that due to their location outside the settlement boundary, they would
give rise to increased pressure on services within the village.
Right, okay.
and traffic.
So, would give rise to harm to highway safety by virtue of the vehicle movements associated
with this.
On the speed of the road.
Right.
Just a single track road.
Right, okay.
So, reason one is by virtue of location outside the settlement boundary, the proposed development
would give rise to increased pressure on the shops and services within the settlement and
would give rise to significant harm to the safety of other users of the highway.
Of the single track road?
Yes, but the highway leading to the site.
Okay. So the second reason is by virtue of their scale and design
and the location of the site that the proposal would fail to conserve
or enhance the special character and scenic quality of the national landscape.
And the third reason is by virtue of their scale and design
that dwellings would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene.
Okay. My professional vice members is that the first reason for refusal
would not be supported and appealed by the planning inspector
and would be very likely to give rise to a successful claim
for costs against council.
The second reason, I think,
is acceptable in terms of planning merit.
I think it's a judgement that members are entitled to make and equally the third reason
I think members are entitled to make a planning judgement on that basis but like I said my
professional advice to you members is that the first reason for refusal would not stand
up to scrutiny I'm afraid.
Thank you.
Understood.
Councillor Keecor will come in.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:47:19
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:21
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:47:22
Yeah could you stand to those list of reasons that say light pollution would also be a consideration
given that there's none at the moment.
And that's what amongst concerns I've got
besides the overbearing and visual immediacy issue.
Thank you.
Councillor McLeish.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:38
And also, with our housing quota, Rob,
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:47:41
aren't they meant to be fantasised?
I mean, they're massive houses, eight people.
That's not really helping our housing quota.
That's a niche market, isn't it?
It's not, it wouldn't be everybody that's going to have those side houses.
So surely there's got to be some policy around the side of houses that come off of
our quota.
No, that wouldn't be a valid reason for a few of the members.
So sorry, the first reason you believe will not stand?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:19
In my opinion, we would be unable to defend that reason if it went to an appeal.
And the first reason is again?
The development by virtue of its location outside the settlement boundary would give
rise to increased pressure on the shops and services within the settlement and would give
rise to the safety of users of the highway serving the site.
However, you believe the second and the third one are based on planning merits, correct?
In my view, they would be more defensible than the first, yes.
Fine, then I will go with the second and the third. Thank you.
So currently that application has been denied. Thank you.
Yes, we did.
It's not on the reasons we've used them.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:02
Oh, right, councillors. I had the deciding vote.
However, apparently we need to vote also on the reasons for refusal.
So you've heard the two reasons that we're putting forward at this point.
All those in favour of the refusal because of those two reasons going forward, would
you like to say, did you want them again, Councillor Fuller?
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:49:31
Just very briefly, Chair, who would the proposer and seconder for the motion to refuse on the
grounds that you are?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:38
I'm proposing Councillor Keener's seconding.
So you've heard the reasons that I'm using my vote for.
So all those in favour of the two reasons that I am refusing this application, please
Please raise your hands.
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:50:07
Abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:50:14
So, officers where do we stand now?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:50:25
Well, I think members, there's been a vote to approve the application in accordance with
the recommendation.
That's been lost.
There's been a vote to refuse the application and the reasons put forward, and that has
been lost.
It's in your hands, members.
I mean, it may be that there are certain elements of the scheme that you might want to seek
amendments to and defer so that the design, for example, could be amended
and it could come back before members.
Whether that's something that the committee
could potentially be interested in?
Councillor Thomas?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:51:09
I propose we defer the application for the reasons stated.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:51:12
We don't need to do anything else other than say those three reasons
we've already identified.
So my proposal is we defer the application and follow the Office of Rob's advice.
Thank you.
Is that to... Sorry to interject.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:51:25
I'm mindful I'm speaking far too much tonight.
Is that to seek amendments to the design to reduce its impact
on the character and appearance of the national landscape?
That's correct, yes.
Thank you.
Reasons two and three that we stated. Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:51:45
Do you have a seconder?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:51:46
Councillor Moit -Blankmore.
So we have reasons to defer so that the officers can actually go back to the developer and
discuss ways to minimise the developments effect on the national countryside.
all those in favour of deferment and to come...
Oh, well done.
And to come back to committee.
All those in favour, please raise your hands.
Can I make a point of order?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:52:25
Given that we have the conversation earlier on regarding the previous
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:52:27
matter that had
been deferred, what's going to happen if this comes back to us and you said, for example,
reducing the height of the roof by a foot?
I'm just a bit concerned that if we vote in favour of that, that I'm not going to be
tying our hands if we're not happy with what comes forward in the future, if that makes
sense.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:52:51
Well, the alternative, members, is that the application is deferred for a different reason,
so possibly for further clarification of the impact of the development on the character
and appearance of the street scene and the scenic quality of the national landscape.
I mean, I'm not in a position where my suggested route is trying to push members in a particular
direction and I wouldn't want members to inadvertently find themselves in that position.
So I think perhaps you could defer for additional information on the basis of that and for the
suggested improvements to the design and then you'd be able to consider those two issues
which were the two reasons for refusal which members voted on when it comes back on the
basis that unless members have any other concerns relating to the development those were the
two key issues that members found the scheme unacceptable on the basis of.
What he said.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:53:57
You can always play the recording back.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:54:02
So, Councillor Thomas has proposed with the additional information to come forward.
That is being seconded by Councillor Cooper.
All those in favour and it's to come back to committee.
All those in favour please raise your hand.
Thank you.
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:54:32
And abstention.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:54:37
Thank you chair.
That's ten in favour and one abstention.
Thank you.
Mr Alex Baker - 1:54:41
Councillor Jones.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:54:43
In light of what we discussed earlier with deferrals coming back, do we need to just
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:54:50
record, have a recorded vote or anything like that or just to make sure that the right people
are here when it comes back to committee?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:54:59
Well we'll seek clarification on the implications of the planning code in the constitution.
Obviously the members that are in attendance tonight will be recorded in the minutes anyway
so I don't think a recorded vote is necessary.
I'm sobbing today so I definitely won't be here.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:55:16
That's fine and understood.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:55:20
So that has been deferred so we will move on to our next application which is 24 -1749 -FH

6 24/1749/FH - Seapoint Canoe Centre, Princes Parade, Hythe

which is the Seapoint Canoe Centre on Princes Parade.
Do we have any updates, please?
Yes, Chair, thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:55:42
Just to let members know that there's a typo at paragraph 5 .2 on page 79, which says that we've received 14 objections.
We haven't received any representations on this application.
It has set out 5 .3, so apologies for the confusion on that.
The applicant sources submitted a selection of, quote unquote, heritage -appropriate colors,
which could be used to repaint the containers if members are willing to support the application.
and if so, I'd be grateful for delegation just to agree those colours with the applicant
so we could amend the wording of Condition 1 to tick it off rather than have them submit
further info. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. And we have no speakers. Councillor Fuller?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:56:19
I'd like to propose the Office's recommendation with the delegated
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:56:21
power and choosing the
colours as it were.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:56:26
Do we have a seconder? Councillor Thomas?
Councillor Jones, did you wish to speak?
I did, I know it's late, I'm sorry.
But I was just gonna say, I love the Sea Point Center.
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:56:36
I think they do some amazing things.
But the containers are really ugly.
And obviously being on the seafront,
they do rust quite considerably.
I didn't know whether we could suggest
some kind of cladding.
Would that be appropriate or does that make it too permanent?
Because obviously paint is okay,
but I don't know, I know they're making the best
of what they've got and it says here that they have to be removed within five years
which would be devastating actually. But would there be, if timber cladding would just make
it look a bit nicer wouldn't it? Yes it would, this is something I have discussed with the
applicant. It's an unfortunate situation they are over there, they're
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:57:18
having to look at
the temporary permission to find alternative accommodation in the long term given the situation
at the long princes parade. I did discuss cladding with them, it makes it cost prohibitive
for them particularly as we're only looking at temporary permission here,
I think it would be slightly unjustified of us to put them to that expense.
If in five years the containers are still there and members are minded to approve it,
we could look at more robust solutions for this.
But it has been discussed, but I don't think we would suggest going.
Just another thought while we're on that.
I mean, is there a way of screening them at least from the road or somehow?
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:57:57
because obviously the rest of it is all open space now and there's obviously no hoarding
or anything which is very nice but if anything we could make it look a bit nice for the next
five years that would be really appreciated by the community I think.
It would be appreciated I agree.
Unfortunately that's not part of the application we're looking at just
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:58:19
retention of the units
not any additional form and I think just again to refer to what's set out in the report officers
are of the opinion that these aren't good looking things, but we note the community
benefit of having the centre being there for the future and the fact that it is a temporary
permission.
So it's not going to be a long term issue.
We agree with you, but I don't think that's something we can do in this instance.
Councillor Polybriant, you want to?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:58:46
Yes, slightly concerned that we're saying that if they're still here in five years'
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:58:51
we can look at then maybe the cladding
because this needs to be a temporary solution.
I don't think we want to be in this position when five years' time comes back
and then we're approving it for another five years.
I think we need to know that temporary means temporary.
Well, I entirely agree, Councillor Blakemore.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:59:13
Good planning practice is that you shouldn't grant more than one or two
temporary permissions for any development on the basis
that the reason you're granting temporary permission as a planning authority is for
a better solution to be found.
So I think if an application to retain them came in in five years' time, obviously we'd
have to consider that on its merits, but the very purpose of the temporary permission here
is to get them to find a more permanent solution and is the reason why we wouldn't, for example,
explore landscaping etc because that would put the applicants to expense when in five
years time the harm arising from these structures should be gone.
Councillor Fuller.
Oh you set me up there Mr Bailey.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:59:59
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:00:00
Presumably the applicant were they to put in place planters potentially funded by grant
bids to you.
Unnamed organisation, yeah, insert organisation here.
Presumably they wouldn't need planning permission for that, would they?
I think so, likely.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:00:19
Just to make it very clear what I'm suggesting,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:00:23
what they should probably do is apply to maybe some local parish councillors
or district councillors to play for a few planters
and then we can all forget about this.
Councillor King.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 2:00:37
They're not a charity, they're a business,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:00:38
So why would we be giving the grant to a business?
Cllr Nicola Keen - 2:00:40
Or maybe you can take it out the green grant?
Possibly.
It's not my grant.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:00:47
I don't get to get to decide where it goes.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:00:54
What I would say is I do know that this is a much loved company.
We need more activities along our shoreline.
We're sorely missing on these.
From my viewpoint, this is temporary for five years.
They may come back in five years time
and ask to put something permanent,
but as we know there's consultations going on
regarding what's going to happen with Prince's Parade.
But I really welcome the fact that they're looking
at the heritage colours to brighten it up
or maybe make it disappear slightly,
whichever way that works.
So I would like to support this application.
Would any other councillor want to speak?
Councillor Hinsby?
I'm just checking that I'm allowed to speak
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:01:38
because I've read all the paper, but I was out when you started the debate.
I'm just checking.
I'm just checking.
I'm just checking, but I will speak, and you can ignore it or take it as you like.
Canoe Club was... I supported...
Not with funding, but certainly with time,
when I was cabinet member for Communities.
It does an amazing job and I think, you know, had Princess Fred have gone ahead of course,
they would have had a permanent home by now.
But of course that's
not yet happened, but maybe it will.
And I mean, I fully support this.
I think it's really important that we support them and let's hope they can find a permanent home.
If it's not on Prince's Parade, somewhere else.
Thank you.
Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:41
Just very briefly, just some good news for Councillor Keane.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:02:44
They appear to have a registered charity number, so maybe they're not a business.
So we'll see.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:53
I can see those grant applications flooding in, Councillor Fuller.
So we have one proposal and that is to go with the officer's recommendations which has
also been seconded.
All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:03:12
And I can see that that is unanimous so that has passed.
Thank you very much.

8 24/2016/FH/PA - Land Adjoining 1 The Coppice, New Road, Saltwood

And then we go on to our last one of the evening, which is 24 -2016 -FH -PA, never seen PA before,
okay, which is land adjoining One the Coppice, New Road in Saltwood.
Do we have any updates, please?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I've got a short introduction for you and then an update.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:03:38
So as a way of introduction, I remind members that as set out in the report, this is not
an application for Planning Commission.
It's an application for prior approval.
Applications for planning permission are weighed against all relevant policies and material
considerations with a balance being applied to reach recommendation.
In contrast, however, applications for prior approval relate to certain forms of permitted
development where Parliament's already established that the principle of development is acceptable
and the Council is therefore only able to consider the impact of specifically defined
matters as set out in the appraisal section of the report.
In that respect, this application is materially different from the previous refusals of planning
permission for dwellings on the site in that the general permitted development order has
already granted in principle consent for the scheme subject to consideration of matters
set out in the report.
And then as an update we received an additional objection from an existing objector who raises
the following additional points.
They refer to road problems in the area including congestion, potential danger to children and
elderly poor access and they commented it's on a greenfield site these issues
have been addressed in the report however thank you chair thank you and we
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:04:52
have no speakers on this one this evening committee so over to the
councillors would anyone like to make a comment ask any questions at this point
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:05:04
I'm seeing up councillor Thomas I'd like to move the officers recommendation
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:05:10
Do you have a seconder?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:05:12
Councillor Hysbitt seconding.
Did you wish to speak as well?
I'm very happy.
Thank you.
Did you wish to speak Councillor Thomas?
No.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:05:19
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:05:20
I'm not seeing anyone else.
Oh, Councillor Jones.
I mean I'll just respond to comments that I've had obviously about access.
Cllr Anita Jones - 2:05:30
Because obviously New Road is, it essentially ends up being like a single route road because
you've got cars lined up a bit,
and then you're driving up a footpath really to this,
aren't you, it's not really a proper road.
So I don't know if that's any consideration to this.
I'm a bit confused by what we can quite comment on here.
As you're saying, it's a different kind of,
it's not necessarily an application like the others
that we've been looking at.
Sorry.
So transport and highways impact of the scheme
are something that we can look at.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:06:05
That's a paragraph 7 .3 on page 127,
sets up the specific items we can look at.
And then, where are we?
On the page over, page 128,
we've looked at the transport and highways impacts of this,
and essentially the likely impacts
from a single additional dwelling using existing access
that already serves other properties,
they're not likely to be to such a degree
that we could reasonably object to the application.
And just, is there any problem with the agricultural land
and things like that?
Cllr Anita Jones - 2:06:41
In short, no.
So the section of the legislation
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:06:46
that this is considered under is designed specifically
to allow conversion of former agricultural buildings.
So as per my introduction, the government
has already agreed that this sort of development
is acceptable in principle, subject to us looking
at these very specific matters.
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:06
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:07:09
Thank you. Could I refer you to page 125, where it says in paragraph 4 .4,
it makes reference to an appeal from a planning inspector
and basically it said the structure and site, including the site, was not suitable
for proposed developments having to regard its location, proposed land and use of the amount of developments.
And in the paragraph above, it makes reference to it not being suitable for developments
and can't you see the northern policies there.
Is there any conflict with that?
Because I can understand where you're coming from
in respect as part of this is
if it isn't your planning permission it can go ahead.
Why is that information in the report?
The information is in the report for transparency in effect.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:07:50
We don't want to mislead anyone.
And to reiterate my introduction,
the planning permission system is very different
from the prior approval system.
When we're looking at planning applications, excuse me, applications for permission, we
have to look at the relevant policies as set out and in those previous reasons for refusal
under this prior approval system that in principle consideration is taken out of our hands and
we just look at the very specific matters that the government wants us to consider for
these.
So they are quite materially different in that we're not applying policies in regards
location of development we're just looking at as at 7 .3 highways, flooding, contamination,
etc.
Thank you for that.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:38
Fine, I'm seeing no other councillors wishing to speak.
So we have one recommendation.
It's a prior approval, but we have to agree it.
So all those in favour, please show your hands.
And that has passed unanimously.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:55
Thank you very much committee, quite along this evening.
Thank you very much for your time, thank you officers and we'll see you next time.