Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 21 January 2025, 7:00pm

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 21st January 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Nicola Keen
Cllr Nicola Keen

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

Mr Jake Hamilton
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Nicola Keen
Cllr Nicola Keen

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Gary Fuller
Mr Alex Baker
Mr Alex Baker
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

Share this agenda point

Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Microphone Forty
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Microphone Forty
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Microphone Forty
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Microphone Forty
Microphone Forty
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Anita Jones
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Clive Goddard
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Belinda Walker
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Belinda Walker
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Anita Jones
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Anita Jones
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Belinda Walker
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Llywelyn Lloyd
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Laura Davison
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Belinda Walker
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

Share this agenda point

Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Mr Jake Hamilton
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

Share this agenda point

Cllr Anita Jones
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Polly Blakemore
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Laura Davison
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Mike Blakemore
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Anita Jones
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Mr Alex Baker
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Anita Jones
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Anita Jones
Microphone Forty
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Gary Fuller
Mr Alex Baker
Cllr Anita Jones
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:00:00

be webcast live to the internet. For those who don't wish to be recorded or filmed,

you will need to leave the chamber. For members, officers and others speaking at this meeting,

it is important that the microphones are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the

room may hear you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it off, 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.

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

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

The applications before you tonight are 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 during the meeting. This is not the forum to discuss

any auxiliary issues relating to the planning application before you. Will we now move on?

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:01:20

Have we any absent about and apologies for absences?

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:01:35

Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:39

Thank you chair. We've received apologies from Council Godard and

Council needs and Council Davison is here as a substitute.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:01:47

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:01:48

Move on to declarations of interest. I'm now standing down because I'm speaking on this

matter so I will leave it up to my colleagues to propose in the chair for this meeting.

Mr Alex Baker - 0:02:07

Councillor MacMahon would you like to speak?

I'd like to nominate Councillor Jones as chair please.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:02:13

I'd like to second that nomination.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:02:23

Councillor Walker.

Mr Alex Baker - 0:02:26

I would like to propose Councillor Paul Thomas as chair.

I'll second that given that he's independent as well.

Thank you, Councillor Cooper.

Can I have a show of hands for all those in favour of electing Councillor Jones, please?

Mr Alex Baker - 0:02:59

Thank you, and all in favour of electing Councillor Thomas.

Thank you, Councillor Jones, you've been elected Chair of this meeting.

Mr Alex Baker - 0:03:18

Could you please move the front of the chamber?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:04:08

Thank you. We'll carry on with the meeting and we're going to continue with declarations

of interest. Do we have any declarations of interest?

Councilor Davidson. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Laura Davison - 0:04:18

Member of folks in town Council

planning committee.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:04:22

Thank you. Any others?

OK, thank you. Let's move on to agenda.

Item three.

240505 FH former Rotunda amusement

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

park plots F1 F2 G1 G2 and H Marine Parade,

Folkestone. First of all,

have we got any updates?

Thank you, Chair.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:04:49

We've had three further representations

making the following additional points.

The redesign has resulted in increased height

around the station.

An up -to -date viability assessment

should be submitted and made public.

Little has changed as a result of community engagement.

Scale is not accepted as having been determined

by the minimum and maximum parameters established

in the outline permission.

The omission of plot G2 and its replacement with public open space does not comply with

the approved parameter plans.

Question Y is a beach sports center not included as per the outline permission.

Lack of dedicated cycle lanes around the development.

Compliance with certain policies and NPPF paragraphs.

And if I could just confirm in terms of liability report and the lack of publication, the rules

and case law about this changed in 2020.

At that point, we had to publish viability reports,

but in any event, that isn't relevant to consideration

of this application this evening.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:05:52

And now we're going to move on to speakers.

So...

This is the first...

Hang on.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:06:12

Our first speaker this evening is Anna Galanzzi.

Apologies if I pronounced that wrong.

You can correct me in a moment.

This is a local resident to speak against the application.

You will have three minutes to speak from the time that you start speaking.

We'll let you know when you're coming to the end of that.

Can you hear me? Okay.

Microphone Forty - 0:06:41

So I believe the proposal brings many disbenefits to the local community.

Number one, it shows full response to community concerns.

92 % and 96 % of respondents in two consultations oppose the application.

Any community building and placemaking has failed to engage the local community and be community led, contrary to policy C1.

Two, lack of affordable housing.

The application is not compliant with MPPF and CSD1, which requires 22 % of the new housing

to be affordable.

Only 8 % of the new homes are marked as affordable, all of which are shared ownership.

Last year actually MPs called shared ownership a mockery.

Number three, home to heritage.

The proposal downgrades the significance and character of listed assets newest to the site,

the viaduct and the lighthouse, as well as the train station

and asset of local significance,

changing it into a shopping center with knocking down walls

and leveling of part of the truck bed to platform level.

This is against MPPF 207 -2221,

policy SS3, paragraph 4 .216 and paragraph 4 .223.

two, three.

Affects views from the national landscape.

The application doesn't mention it though.

MPPF Paragraph 189 says it has the highest status

of protection and requires great weight to conserve

and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty

in national landscapes.

It will affect the views from Martello Tower number three

on the East cliff, Warren and East cliff

and a marine conservation zone.

will likely affect Dover -Foxton heritage coast,

which stops just east of the harbour arm.

The Kent Downs management plan considers heritage coast

to be extremely sensitive to development.

But this is again not considered in the application.

Number four, extreme flat risk to the area.

According to Climate Central report,

the coastal area is likely to be affected by inundation by 2030.

Have CCMA been identified in local plans?

Permament in residential development will not be appropriate within a CCMA.

No mention of sustainable drainage systems, which are required by English law.

Research from around the world calls for increased permeability.

This development decreases permeability.

Design of underground car parks is unclear.

How will this impact building heights or the ground due to flood risks?

Number five, ineffective use of land.

Most sports facilities which were mentioned in the previous application restricted public

space, for example, smaller pedestrian space around the train station and across the site

would appear.

The area of the goods yards seems to have decreased.

Its use is unclear.

The goods yard will be within residential settings with new homes above and around it.

Noise during weekend and sports events will cause...

Can you finish your last sentence, please?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:09:53

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:09:58

residents and guests. Thank you very much. Our second speaker this evening is Councillor

Chapman on behalf of Foulton Town Council to speak on the application.

Microphone Forty - 0:10:20

Thank you, Chair. The Town Council doesn't want to question the principle of this development

that has been decided. However, several changes have occurred between determination of the

outlined consent in this application for reserve matters.

Some changes are due to the developer's choices, while others are due to new circumstances.

The Town Council prioritises the rights and wellbeing of those who already live here over

those who may come to live in the proposed development.

It wants new development, but it wants development that allows everyone the chance to thrive.

The developer has increased the height and scale of the proposals and reading the very

large number of objections from people. They feel the proposals are out of keeping with

the town and offer them very little in the way of amenity that they would use. Even the

parking currently made available for commercial purposes has been reduced by 240 spaces, despite

proposed increases in commercial activity which appear ill thought out for the climate

we experience here. In addition, one of the only three roads that would serve is closed

for the foreseeable future due to landslides which are affecting the cliffs behind this

development. The developers also opened holiday -led accommodations at Shoreline and it looks like

this trend will continue. This could exacerbate the seasonal nature of any shared benefits.

The people who live here have rent, mortgages and the cost of living to deal with. They're

not seasonal. In the last three years we've seen increased sewage discharge into the sea,

climate change pressures our beaches and there's no guarantee that Southern Water will construct

its necessary off -site facilities. No formal agreement exists between Southern Water and

developer. Why not? It is again the existing inhabitants of folks who will

pay the cost. Additionally, we face a health care crisis with existing

residents struggling to access services. More residents will require additional

capacity. Our MP Tony Vaughan highlighted in this week's Folks and

Herald that in Folks and Heights we have the eighth highest level of absolute

child poverty on the southeast coast. Harbour Ward is in the top 10 % of

deprived wards nationally and yet let's turn to the level of affordable housing

on offer here. Eight percent when the core strategy calls for 22 percent. Do you really

think eight percent is what Folkestone needs? The town council's view is that the proposed

reserve matters are not yet good enough for Folkestone. Since this development was given

outline planning permission, this community has faced increasing pressures of cost of

living crisis and has lost significant local assets such as the beautiful purpose built

library building, our leisure centre and swimming pool and the Citizens' Advice Bureau. It

now also faces a possibility of losing our adult education centre. Many of the people

we represent are struggling to pay rents and an increasing number are being forced to consider

moving away after being issued with Section 21 no fault eviction notices. People are struggling.

Against that background, a development of this size offers so little, it's simply not

good enough. We believe that core strategies are sound reason for refusal. The people behind

this development need to reconsider how they can work to add real value and amenity to

benefit all those who live here, not just future residents and part -time Airbnb guests.

This community deserves that respect.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:13:31

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:13:39

Next speaker this evening is Councillor Nicola Keane, who is a ward member, to speak on the

application.

Microphone Forty - 0:13:54

Thank you chair. The reason Councillor Mead and myself are not sitting on the committee

this evening is because I wish to speak on this matter as the ward councillor and Councillor

Mead because she has shown a predisposition by taking the district council to the secretary

of state for planning in order to overturn the original decision on all of the seafront

development. I am not against progress as it is a central part of a community's evolution.

However, progress should not impact on what is already there. It should enhance and also

increase opportunities for not only existing businesses but also residents living in the

ward and Fokesten as a whole. This development has brought with it a great deal of controversy,

displeasure and fear and instead of working with local residents and businesses it appears

to have worked against them. With few exceptions, residents are unhappy with what's happening

in the ward that they live in because of the harmful impact that it will have on their

lives. Firstly, I will address heritage, a soft point but nevertheless important. The

purpose, the proposed buildings are completely out of character with the area and also the

street scene and given that the development is opposite and adjacent to a working Victorian

harbour and the residential properties that reflect the area's history. The

application states that the nearest listed building is the Lees lift. Both

the swing bridge and the lighthouse are nearer and also misted. This is not just

about the immediate street scene but threatens to change the whole character

of our town which could adversely affect not only the lives of the residents

living here but also destroy tourism for those seeking the scene of a small

coastal town which would greatly reflect on the economic values stated in the papers.

A further issue is lighting. Light within the development in the old station, which

is regarded by locals as an important heritage asset, by placing blocks of flats on either

side of the building will no doubt plunge the area into darkness for a majority of the

day. The old station received a National Railway Heritage Award and the association were deeply

shocked over the proposed plans which would hem the building into darkness.

However, the lighting issue will also adversely affect various flats within

the station area as the layout effectively creates an alleyway. Albeit

wide it will shape people's natural daylight. The environmental impact of the

development is more than the light and the sun on its various

There will be increased traffic, therefore air pollution, which will impact further on

the people that live in the area.

The infrastructure on waste, the visual impact, not only the local area but also the town

and its residents.

There should also be a full health impact assessment.

The one that is attached to the application is five years old, out of date and appears

to be a rapid desktop assessment.

Can you finish your last sentence please?

I would tell Heather like to say to this,

the applicant, because you can,

it doesn't mean to say you should.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:17:11

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:17:19

Our final speaker is Sir Roger De Haan,

of Folks and Harbumber Limited applicant

speak in support of the application.

You'll have three minutes from when you start.

Microphone Forty - 0:17:31

Good evening.

Microphone Forty - 0:17:32

Our

outline planning application for up to a thousand homes was considered by the whole council over 11 years ago and

saved for one

abstention received unanimous approval.

After receiving consent, we raised the level of about half a mile of beach by up to 2 .2 meters and we lovingly

refurbished and repurposed the run -down viaduct and swing bridge and signal

blocks and without any obligation to do so the dilapidated station, customs

house as well as the harbour, the harbour arm and its lighthouse. Most of these

areas had not previously been accessible by the public. Our project involved an

inquiry led by the rail regulator into the closure of the harbour branch line

and Parliament having to consider a Foulks and Harbour revision order.

We've created a new economic purpose for a redundant Brownfield site

that I've always believed was of significant importance to our town.

Over the past 20 years, we've commissioned great architects,

produced the Fosters Master Plan, the Sir Terry Farrell Plan and the ACME Plan.

These and nine subsequent planning applications

have involved extensive public and stakeholder consultations and we've responded to many

of the constructive recommendations by modifying our plans.

Council officers have held our feet to the fire with the result of improvements being

made to our application and the new public realm it delivers.

Our scheme has been very well scrutinized.

I'm very proud of what we present today, particularly the outstanding work of the Architects AS4.

These reserve matters applications conform with our outline consent as amended by our

section 73 application of 2018.

This project is an important part of the delivery of the Council's core strategy being one of

the two significant housing schemes in Folkestone.

With its reprofiled beach, heightened ground levels at the harbour and the new sea revetment

We will provide a critical defense against flooding for not just our development

But much of the adjacent land and property in local folks in lower, Folkestone

Our scheme has already had a very positive impact on folks and economy and its regeneration

And will be extremely important for our town's success in the future. I

Commend it to you

Thank you

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:12

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:16

So we have the papers before us and we have a recommendation before us and now we're going

to open this for debate of the councillors who would like to speak first.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:34

Councillor Thomas.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:20:36

Thank you, Chair.

I wonder if Llewellyn could actually provide us with an overview or review of the planning

situation as it's seen from the planning officer perspective please.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:50

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:20:51

Thank you chair, good evening councillors and I'll try my best, Councillor Thompson.

From a planning officer's point of view, our advice in the papers before you is based

on the council's adopted policy and how it arrived at its decision around the outline

Planning Commission and the Outline Planning Commission itself and the constraints that

that places on any reserve matters planning application.

This evening we are determining the appearance, scale, form, layout, access of these plots.

The principle of development on this site, as one of the speakers highlighted, has been

accepted by this council.

Matters of health impacts, impacts on heritage, on mass, matters on transport have all been

assessed as part of the 2012 and again as part of the 2017 applications to this council.

So our advice team is very much framed within that because the applicant should be able

to rely on those approvals and it is a core part of our core strategy to deliver up to

a thousand houses or dwellings on this site.

Affordable housing I'll quickly touch on.

No this doesn't meet the 22 % adopted in the current places and policies plan.

In fact, when this application was first put to committee,

I suspect it was probably a policy requirement

to close to 30.

But the viability at the time demonstrated

that the amount was not viable.

The works required to make the beach acceptable,

the cost of going into building on this site,

of raising the levels to ensure the flooding,

to deliver the aims of the core strategy affected that.

The 8 % affordable housing is not a material consideration

for the segment.

Matches of scale, design, access, layout of these buildings are all matters for yourselves.

What I would highlight is that there are parameter plans attached to this development.

There is a decision notice attached to it.

The decision notice is Council signed in 2018, which requires there to be no fewer than 720

homes across the site.

It requires that where built development is brought forward, it should not exceed the

That is established in conditions four and I believe conditions seven of the Outline

Planning Commission.

So we'll be having our debate this evening.

Those are matters of requirements placed on the applicant by this council and should inform

the framework of your decision making this evening.

As I say, our advice to you tonight as you debate the matter before you is very much

taken within that legal framework and any decision has to be taken along that.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:23:31

Councillor Mike Laitmore.

Just one question, Llewellyn.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:23:36

That 720 homes, is that for the whole of the harbour and the shoreline development?

That's not just for the one that we are discussing at the moment?

Correct.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:45

There is a minimum and a maximum.

There's a maximum of 1 ,000, there's a minimum of 720.

That covers the entire site from shoreline all the way through to the harbour.

This development, if approved this evening, would only take the total quantum up to about

830 or so, I believe.

There are a number of plots as highlighted by local residents which the applicant has

chosen not to bring forward, G2 and I, and as set out in the officer's report, they're

proposing as much development of the upper -rim, it's my turn to help.

Thank you.

Councillor Mrs Jenny Hollingsby.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:24:24

Thank you chair.

Can I?

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:24:28

Is there another microphone we can use?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:24:30

I have one.

He's very sorry, he's apparently broken his finger tonight.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:24:40

I've gone through this application, or this reserve matter, quite thoroughly, I think,

quite a few times, and I'm sure everybody else has.

And I've looked at the Folkestone Town Council and I've listened to the comments made, and

I think Llewellyn summed up some of the things that I picked out, or headed in the Folkestone

and town council comments that we received.

The overall height and scale,

but I think Llewellyn's just answered that.

Eco -friendly, I think that's been answered in the report

in terms of the heat pumps, the green roofs,

and a number of other issues that have been dealt with.

Heritage is quite an interesting one.

But, and I think that's quite important

because as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Llewellyn or Sue,

the harbour master's house was going to be demolished but it's been retained.

We've got the signal box retained, the customs house, the railway platforms and tracks,

and obviously the boardwalk, which is new, whether that's part of heritage or not.

A swing wage and other issues, I think,

they've all been covered in the report,

and I think actually very fortunate

to have those kept and retained.

Parking, again, I think that was agreed

in the outline planning permission,

but it is unfortunate that we're going to lose

about 200 parking spaces, but we have to look at that.

I'm sure there are other places where parking may come forward

and I know that has been discussed.

And I know that has been discussed.

But on the other hand, it is also good

to have the parking out of the way underneath.

So I think that that is an advantage.

One of the other things I think was access.

And as I understand it again,

and please do correct me if I'm wrong,

The access to the site is mainly going to be for maintenance and other utility vehicles,

not for the general public and there will be walkways.

Sewage I think has been dealt with, I know it's been mentioned and obviously it's an

issue but it has been dealt with in the report.

Holiday lets, as I understand in the report again, there's nothing we can do to stop that

and if that's part of the current system, so be it.

Play areas were mentioned.

I think there are two or three public play areas.

If you could just confirm that, please.

And I think...

I've also gone through the Folkestone Society list of points raised

and I think they've been mentioned by the welling.

Again, affordable housing,

that's something outside of this application.

Parking, community engagement, which is an interesting one.

I think it was 800 objections.

I mean, there have been lots of consultations.

I've attended quite a few consultations.

I think there was 800 objections, and I think another 150,

and I'm not sure whether that's 150 as part of the 800,

or what.

But if you take that as a proportion of the number of residents in this area, 110 ,000,

it's very, very small.

And of course, and of course, it is likely to be residents who live close, understandably,

and I quite understand that.

But this is for the whole district,

it's not just for one particular ward,

and I'm sorry about that.

I think I talked about effect on,

and I think there's a lot of issues on heritage,

but I think I'll probably mention that now.

And then going through what is listed in the report

as what we can discuss.

So the principle has been agreed.

Housing numbers, that's quite interesting because the Labour government have increased our target,

housing target, from 735 per annum to 800 from, and then moved it to 838 and it is now 859 houses per annum for this district.

We haven't met that for a number of years, but there will be penalties now.

Penalties will be, as I understand it, we could have to provide another 150 houses

per year to make up that deficit. So this development makes a contribution to

those numbers and it was always planned that it would. Just going back I think

that Sir Roger mentioned 11 years ago,

and I remember, and I'm probably the only one

on this committee who remembers that,

it was always going to be a development like this

prior to the refurbishment of the Harbour Arm.

Over a period of time, it was decided,

because of the housing climate at that time,

that Sir Roger would develop, refurbish the harbour arm.

And actually, what a success that has been for all of us, for everybody.

It's brought visitors, people use it, what a success.

You know, you have to think sometimes of what are the benefits that we've got out of it,

that we're going to get out of it.

I don't have to probably mention it, I'm sure most people will know,

but the contribution to Lee's Lift,

the boardwalk,

the F1, Three Hills running track.

We have really benefited as a district

from developments within Folkestone.

I don't think that we can take that.

And, of course, the community can use all these facilities.

I like the idea, particularly the idea,

of the retail units along the railway tracks.

It's going to be a shopping area, cafes, etc.,

for all of us, for all of us to use.

So, I mean...

I'm very minded to move the recommendation.

Whether I have a seconder or not, I don't know, but I will move the recommendation.

Do we have a seconder at this point?

We'll continue the debate, but I think there was just a question to be answered about play

areas.

Yes, I can confirm there are three play areas proposed, and in terms of the heritage assets

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:32:14

within the site, it was proposed and it was included within the outline that the Harbour

and it's now not proposed to be demolished.

It's included within the proposals and retained.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:32:28

Thank you, Councilor Polly Blakemore.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:32:34

Thank you, chair. So Councilor Hollingsby has mentioned one of the

upsides of what we've got coming to us.

My notes up here.

And that is the restoration of the Lee's lift.

And we've actually, I think work on that has actually started within the last week.

I saw guys up there clearing it just a few days ago.

There are other upsides.

There's a 3 .7 million going into primary education, the 1 .3 for healthcare improvements, and the

promise of, and I'm not quite sure where this figure comes from, but the promise of 500

jobs during construction and operation.

Development on this scale in this location is alarming.

It will of course have a significant visual impact

and cause harm to our heritage assets,

not least our heritage coast.

What's different in this situation is that the applicant

has revitalized the harbor area, award winning

restored station and all, and we've all embraced this

with open arms of course, but it has to be paid for

and would be by this development, even at the cost

of compromising those very heritage assets which have been the focus of the Restoration.

Our heritage should be leading our regeneration, not being drowned out by it.

When it's gone, it's gone.

However, we as a committee are shackled by a ten -year -old outline planning commission.

Only one of us sitting on this committee today was on that original committee.

It is also my understanding that more of the substantive elements of the scheme were locked

down at outline stage than would normally be the case, which leaves us even less room

for manoeuvre.

The economic and environmental climate has changed beyond recognition in the last decade,

and it is disheartening and frustrating to be locked into a decision made by other councillors

in another time.

Thank you.

Councillor Mike Blokemore.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:34:32

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:34:36

I was done with Tony Cooper intervening between the two of us, couldn't we really?

But no, I do think Folkestone has much to be grateful for

with the restoration of the harbor arm

and the historic buildings that they've given the town

an enviable attraction for visitors and locals alike.

And yes, now the time has come to pay for those.

I don't think any of us thought that we would get those

for free, but the prospect of those very assets,

which have been restored and in some cases created,

nurtured, being denigrated by massive development, it's very, very troubling.

And it does seem very out of kilter with its immediate and its less immediate

surroundings with their history and with the heritage.

That's not to say it's a poor quality development.

It's not.

And it's been improved greatly by the work of officers and the applicants.

But it still feels to me like it's the wrong development in the wrong location

because of its scale.

Some of this is a subjective judgment, but I do think that the impact upon the heritage

assets, not just the buildings, and we shouldn't be grateful for that, that a heritage building

that was going to be demolished is now not going to be demolished.

It shouldn't have been demolished, it shouldn't have been planned for demolition in the first

place.

But yes, it's fantastic that those assets have been restored and that people are enjoying

them.

But the impact upon those and upon the national landscape, the heritage coastline, will be

severe I fear.

And that's what troubles me most about this development, the scale of it, the feeling

that this is a development more appropriate for a city than for a small seaside town,

I find hard to reconcile.

I too am very frustrated by the fact that so much of this was agreed ten years ago.

So if I'd sat on the committee, then my hair would be thicker and less grey,

and I don't think I'd have been voting in favour of it.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:36:40

And we have Councillor Rebecca Shub next.

Thank you.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:36:45

So in the context that the principle of development has been established,

there are certainly a lot of positives

which have been mentioned already.

You know, a lot, you know, undeniably, you know, the station,

the all the the heritage assets which have been restored.

You know, it's we we all appreciate them, I think.

In terms of just addressing a few points in terms of car parking,

I am glad to see it's underground.

I know there's a lot of concern, obviously, that there's not enough

parking, particularly in light of the less than great public

transport options we have.

But I think not for this committee,

but I think we should be addressing the public transport

shortfall as the answer to that particular concern.

It's currently a vast expanse of concrete.

It's a car park.

and there are great views to be had from the edge of the car park,

but currently as it stands, you are standing in a car park

to have to enjoy those, so that's not particularly safe or pleasant.

So I can see that there are those benefits from the proposal.

Absolutely, the concerns about the level and type of affordable housing

is absolute legitimate concern.

I absolutely share that.

But that doesn't seem to be something

we can challenge at this stage of process.

I accept that.

And I can't disagree with the factual statement

that this helps meet the district's housing numbers

and that that's a material consideration.

but I would, I suspect that it would lead not necessary to more people being housed

but probably to a few people having more houses.

So obviously, you know, the applicant has made attempts to address some of the issues

raised during the consultation and I'm glad to see some of those.

I think for example the changes to the goods shed are much preferable to the original designs.

Some of the heights, some of the colours have been addressed.

But I think, as Councillor Mike Blakemore said, I'm also, I feel really uneasy about

the overall impact of it.

It does feel like a city, a development that you'd see in a sort of city, coastal city

rather than a town.

I think the Burston seems to be doing quite a lot of work here to justify the scale of it.

And the Burston is colossal.

Whether that needs... I'm not sure that justifies not being replicated across this site.

Yes, I'm really keen to hear what other people think.

It seems, as Councillor Polly Blakemore said,

it feels like we've got very little scope to challenge any of this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it feels like the impact on the heritage

which is perhaps, you know, we have to weigh that against the public benefits.

And I'm struggling, you know, to do that at the moment.

So I'd be very, very interested to hear what other members of the committee have to say.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:41:09

And it's Councillor Tony Cooper next.

Thank you, Chair.

Can I ask Mr Lloyd, how long is this development expected to take

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:19

before it's actually completed?

Do we know?

Please.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:41:25

We don't have a timer on that, Councillor.

Okay.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:29

Now I remember that we as a committee had a meeting with you and officers, not about

this but about other planning matters last year and you made reference to the previous

Conservative governments actually changing the rules for developers having to put money

up.

Have those rules changed or is it a requirement now that any developer actually puts the money

in for the section 106 etc etc after the end of the build because as you know developers

were whinging that you couldn't put money up first.

So is there been any change in that?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:42:03

I think you're referring to the changes from the SIL regulations to the potential infrastructure

levy where payment at the moment happens up front under SIL and would become later on

in the process under the infrastructure levy.

That's not relevant in this case because this application is subject to a section 106 and

not SIL.

The applicant is already tied into, is identified by a number of members into some significant

financial contributions, 3 .5 million to community facilities, contributions to the doctors,

surgeries etc in the report, contributions to the lease lift, the infrastructure package

which would normally be covered by still.

In this case was covered by the section 16 application in 2018.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:42:45

Jay, may I ask a question?

Can I just say this?

I share the views of other committee members

where they say that they're concerned about this.

This is the first time I've ever made a comment

in respect of this and I've read the reports

and I've read the press articles and everything else.

And can I just say this?

I feel the applicants, with all due respect,

needs to be reminded that this is Folkestone.

We're not here replicating the pier head in Liverpool.

And these buildings in my view are not in keeping with the area.

There's certainly the distraction.

I know it's not a material consideration whereby, for example,

we're having the reduction or there's 400 homes, etc.,

that we can't go into housing with.

I understand all that.

But the point being is, this development in my view,

There's no public benefit for the people of Folkestone.

There's reference there in respect of the reports

and the public benefits are increasingly meaningless.

And this, in my view, is definitely not.

I need to be reminded or change my mind on it,

but I'm going to say straight away,

I am not convinced at this

because of the shape, the colour, the design.

We've read various reports attached to the file in respect of daylight and everything

else and what I am concerned about is this.

Does this development conflict in any way with any town centre policies that we've

got?

Because it seems to me that the lifeblood of the town centre in Folkestone is actually

being drained away and sucked into this development and if that is the case, obviously what's

going to be happening to the town centre?

It's just a thought.

Thank you for now.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:44:27

Thank you.

Our next speaker this evening is

Councillor Belinda Walker.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:44:37

I think as always, lots of the other Councillors

have taken words out of my mouth.

Again, I especially agree with my quality Councillor Cooper.

What I'd like to say is pick up an appointment

Councillor Chapman made in her talk,

a very inspiring talk in the three minutes.

I think I've never known an application like this

where there's so much strength of feeling.

we've got the people behind us in the gallery,

you've had some very passionate speakers on this,

both for and against.

It has been a massive talking point in the town.

To find that 96 % of the respondents were negative responses

is just colossal.

I think local people's concerns need to be taken into consideration.

One particular point I wanted to make was...

Regarding not so much the car parking, but the amount of cars that will be on the road

as a result of this, it's a very small area where all these cars will be coming out onto.

It's already quite full with tourist traffic in the summer. Local people need to get their

cars out as well, the existing local people. And when this was all mooted, we had the Road

of Remembrance, we no longer have that, whether it will open for traffic or not. Again, we

just don't know at this stage. I just wondered if Mr Lloyd would give us anything on whether

it's likely to reopen, what impact this will have, because I think there will be severe

traffic disruption down there. Like Councillor Shueb, she knows that I'm very keen on buses.

I'd like to see buses going down there on a regular basis to discourage people from

using cars in the first place. So I just wanted to know anything on that, please. Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:46:13

Thank you. Did you want to come back on that?

Thank you, Chair. I should do my best. I have no details on what's happening with the road

of remembrance that obviously is subject to other discussions around investment in fixing

the cliff.

What I can say is that Kent Highway Services were consulted on this application and as

the highway authority raised an objection that's on the basis not only of the original

outline which determined the level of traffic to and from but obviously they would be aware

of the local network and the traffic movements from to and from the scheme.

They have not raised an objection to this scheme on highway safety grounds and that

is sort of the advice from them.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:46:52

Thank you and now we've got

Councillor Paul Thomas to speak.

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:46:55

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:46:56

Yeah, thank you chair.

Just a couple of points from me.

I did go back and have a look at the

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:02

section 106 agreement from many years ago.

It's very comprehensive legal agreement

with the town.

You have to wonder whether some of the

assumptions made in that are valid in

today's housing market but you know we

are constrained by the fact that that legal document specifies,

as you've already told us this evening,

the level of affordable housing and the type

of affordable housing, which is shared ownership.

So again, I think as alluded to by both Councillor Blake -Wolfe,

we are constrained by that as part

of this decision we have to make.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

So picking up on Councillor Walker's comments,

with regard to road safety and the items on page 44 of the report.

There are 10 bullet points in there associated with the KCC highways

and transportation submission.

And I just wonder whether all of those are actually included in the conditions.

I couldn't find all of them when I went in there earlier on.

So what if you could just clarify if all 10 of those bullets are covered by conditions

as required by the by KCC.

Thank you. Are you able to do that?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:48:20

Yeah, I can confirm we've included

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:48:23

every condition that Kate Kent

Highway Services has asked us to.

Thank you if I may and just

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:48:28

on the same thing for me.

So one of the in one of those

submissions it talks about the

management of construction traffic,

but I wonder if, as many others

have in this room tonight,

that that actually takes a lot

cognizance of the fact that the road is closed down the road of remembrance

and the impact that will have and therefore what impact will construction traffic have

on access into and out of there when you look at whether it has to come down Tram Road or

elsewhere it just seems to me that we're narrowing that down an awful lot so I just like confirmation

if I can and if it's not already included for that to be reaffirmed to us that that

has been taken into consideration by either KCC or our own assessment of the road safety

data.

Thank you.

Are you able to come back on that?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:49:23

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr Thomas.

On the construction management point, condition 28 of the Outline Planning application requires

the applicant to submit a construction management plan for transport.

It's quite clear the condition states that shall be in conjunction with consultation

with Kent Highway Safety, Kent Highway Transport, at the time of determination.

So at the time of determining that condition we will be in contact with the highways authority

and they will then have input as to where lorry routing, where construction unloading

takes place, where site operatives take place.

That's covered already by Condition 28 which is why it's not replicated in the reserve

matters because it's not appropriate to repeat conditions which are already covered by the

Outline Planning Application.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:50:10

Just on page 44, and again it's covered by two of our speakers this evening with regard

to sewage discharge and facilities, a number of Councillors in this room sat in on a meeting

very recently with the Environment Agency in Southern Water, and specifically about

the more bathing water quality at Sunny Sands.

One of the things that they identified was the fact that the pre -work that they'd done,

looking at the declining standard of water conditions,

bathing conditions and sunny sands, indicated that it was probably contamination of the pent stream.

The pent stream comes out into the harbour area and is likely to be affected by anything

which is carried on during construction.

That's my one point.

My second point on the same thing is that

in the CPO comment with regard to the adequacy

of the Southern Water sewage system,

it actually says that Southern Water infrastructure plan

should already account for the level of sewage

associated with the development in its entirety.

As such, Southern Water's request to apply a restriction

on this plot would not constitute an appropriate

or reasonable condition for this reserve matters application.

This has been the case in previous reserve applications.

I'm just wondering that with the age of this condition

and with the age of that comment,

the fact that we're saying it should already account,

I'd like that to be much firmer in that those facilities are there.

So we're not in a position whereby any development

is likely to compromise an already stressed sewage system

and therefore affect bathing water quality in the future.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:52:02

If you were able to conduct a moment.

Thank you, Councillor Thomas.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:52:12

I'll try and answer. If I get any of this wrong,

my colleagues will correct me by kicking in at the table.

To touch on the Penn Stream, as you know,

that sits north of the site

and runs in a southern direction to the harbour.

But as you say, construction management is already covered and condition fought and we

can contain through conditions how stuff is happening, but I can't see that the construction

of this site is going to affect pollution in the Penn Street.

There is a matter that will be controlled.

Turning to the southern water, the point that the CPO comments is that when local authorities

approved development plans, they consult the relevant statutory undertakers and when they're

adopted those undertakers then build those into their forward plans and should therefore

be both because we are required as councillors, as a council, to ensure that we connect to

the public network at all costs unless it is unfeasible to do so and that is why Southern

Water have incumbents to build it into their business plan.

So for Southern Water to say at this stage that we wouldn't allow it, well they have to because they should be building it in,

because otherwise they're placing the council's local plan in jeopardy, not necessarily this development.

However, condition 40 of the outline planning application deals with the required connections to and from.

And it would be a requirement of the developer to ensure that the site is connected to mains foul drainage,

to get building regulations approval for any of their developments in any case.

So I think the matter of connections and capacity,

a Southern Water should be dealing with it in any event,

but it becoming incumbent on the applicants

to ensure that it's provided, because they won't be able

to sell a house without it being connected

to the local sewer network.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:53:59

Just if I may, just to come back on that.

Southern Water actually in front of the House Commodity Select

Committee today because of their poor performance

and lack of delivery over many, many years.

So again, I think it would be incumbent upon us to make sure that they absolutely have

that in their plan and they are going to deliver it.

I did look in their most recent capital plan and I couldn't see an element which linked

to it and they took us through their capital plan last year.

So again, that's where my concern is that although they should have done it, there's

lots of things that Southern Water should have done and there's lots of things that

Southern Water haven't done.

So again, I just like confirmation that that is in their plan and will be delivered in

the timescales, as Councillor Cooper has already alluded to, with regard to the delivery of

this development.

That's all, thank you.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:54:49

And Councillor Cooper, you wanted to speak once more?

Yes, if it's all possible, please.

Mr Lloyd, I don't recall if you answered the question that I made

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:54:58

about if this conflicts

with any policies in respect to central Foulston, and I can't remember if you said that, if

you had, I apologise.

But alluding to what Councillor Thomas has just said, I understand through the walls

that they haven't actually got any action plans or infrastructure plans for this particular

area for at least five years, given that the majority of what they want to do is up in

the Whitsworth area, etc.

And what I would also like to know is given that we've got a reduction in 240 -some car

parking spaces, what would be the effect, if it had been in mind, ten years ago, people

wouldn't know what the pollution effect would be.

So I don't want to hear, in all due respect,

someone to come back to me and say, well,

it was dealt with by the digital application in 2015.

Do we know what the effect of the pollution

would be to visitors and residents

with increased traffic, please?

Are you able to answer all of those?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:55:57

I'll do my best.

So in answer to the question about town centre policies,

this is an adopted plan.

This is an adopted site allocated in the local plan, allocated for employment uses, a mixture

of business and retail uses.

This is in conformity with our adopted plan and in conformity with itself as an outline

planning application.

The Council has envisaged the idea of there being a larger and multiple separate offerings

to the town in terms of commercial and retail activity.

So I think that deals with that point.

I think the secondary point about Southern Water is

the developer will need a connection.

Southern Water should have made provision,

but before anything can be connected or built,

the applicant has to detail that they have got access to foul drainage.

I think the matters raised by Councillor Thomas in terms of Southern Water's performance

or otherwise in other areas and other matters,

which have been discussed in this Chamber and in other chambers of this Council around motions,

are obviously very important,

but they're not matters that we can take into account tonight.

We are directed to approve those.

I think there's a third point which I've forgotten.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:57:10

The third point was the effect of the increased traffic and fumes and pollution

as a result of the reduction in the parking spaces,

given that we're going to have a mini go -around,

cars coming and going, not having a space and going back on, blah, blah, blah,

and everything associated with it.

And also, I'm not too happy with the amount of disabled parking, either,

given that a lot of people with hidden disabilities have got to access spaces etc.

And it just seems to me, in my view, that we shouldn't be excluding people here.

If we're going to be engaging with the community, we should engage with the whole community.

And I think a point was made earlier on, if I might say this, by one of the speakers,

that the community feel disengaged.

And that is a shame, to be honest with you.

Because the community, if it had been taken along with this, would have approved this,

would have been in favour.

But even looking at that screen there, you can see that is not this area, that is not

Feltland.

That on the screen there is something else which is earlier, see this earlier.

And people quite likely are concerned, very concerned, about the effect of this.

But anyway, that was a fair point, in respect to the pollution and etc, in respect to the

increased traffic.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:58:23

Thank you, Mr Cooper.

So the original outline planning application to which this relates would have both had

a transport assessment and a health impact assessment and an environmental statement

at the time.

We should have dealt with the traffic to and from the site for the development.

This application was also accompanied by a health impact assessment.

There was an up -to -date one down as part of the planning application which is covered

in the report at page, at paragraph 3 .106 of your PACTS, which confirms that there are

no health impact assessments as a result of this development, which record with the Outline

Planning application.

So I think that deals with that matter.

In terms of the parking, obviously all parking is precious locally, we understand from that

I think we have consulted with Kent Highways and it meets with Kent Highway Services.

If members were minded we could potentially amend one of the conditions to require that

the parking plan is looked at as part of a condition to see what the best balance of

parking is to address disabled parking.

But the standards are met at county level.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:59:35

Do we have any other councillors?

Councillor Laura Davison.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Laura Davison - 0:59:41

There's a number of things I wanted to raise.

In relation to housing, turning to the section, I think it's 7 .4,

the Places and Policies Local Plan,

which outlines that an appropriate housing mix is required,

meeting the needs of existing residents,

while also attracting new households.

It's particularly important to appeal

to families and key employees.

I would have a question as to whether

this development meets the needs of

existing residents and would appeal

to families and key key employees.

And the mix of the one bed,

two bed and three bed and four plus bed

and properties that are outlined in the report.

It's clear in the report stated at 7 .42 that the mix doesn't align with our policy requirements

in terms of the mix of housing and there's an over provision of one bed units and under

provision of two and three bed units.

There is a proposal that the three bed units be considered as family housing alongside

outside the four bed units.

And that clearly is not our policy

and appears to be a moving of the

goalposts in terms of how those.

Those properties with three

bedrooms are characterized.

It then goes on to talk about what

the mix would be cumulatively across

the whole of the harbor development.

If that was done,

but by my calculations,

I don't think it's in the report.

I don't know if you have a figure,

But if you did those figures, even taking into account the three bed units as part of

family housing on the specific plots that we're talking about this evening, it would

still be well under the threshold of our policy in that respect.

So I would question whether that is going to meet the needs of local residents and indeed

whether the development in the round

does meet the needs for local people

and will be appealing to families

and key employees in that respect.

Lots of people have raised the question

of affordable housing.

Again, I think by my calculations,

when you look at that family housing,

there would only be one unit in that family group

under that provision of being affordable housing.

And I know it's been said that the decision

about 8 % provision was taken previously

and that that's not something that's within our remit,

but I do think it's important that it's being highlighted

this evening because it is so clearly well below

what the council policy was at the time

that the decision was made, and the viability report

that's been referred to hasn't been made public

as far as I'm aware and shared

and is clearly an old viability assessment at this moment in time.

I wanted to ask about play areas because that's obviously also important for future residents

of the development.

I thought I'd read in the report that there were four rather than three, but please correct

me if I'm wrong.

And I just wanted to know what level of detail we would expect to have on those play areas

at this stage in terms of what would be in them

and whether they meet the criteria of being,

if I get the terminology right, LAP and LEAP play areas.

In terms of the heritage aspects,

I wanted to thank the new Folkestone Society

for the work that they've done looking

at this, the detailed work, in terms

of the setting of the heritage assets on the site

and to in the round, I think what we're being asked to do is to balance the public good

and the impacts of the development on things like the heritage assets.

And I think in the report it lists a set of bullet points which are set out as the public

benefit points.

And I just wanted to have a look at those while we're going through them.

So 7 .89, I think it sets out the public benefits.

So the provision of a mix of 112 new homes to meet local needs.

I think, as I've said, I'd query whether it does meet local needs.

Six affordable units out of the provision.

Again, we discussed that and whether that is an adequate level of affordable units.

the high quality design and appearance of the proposals

which contribute to the character and vitality

of this part of Folkestone.

I mean clearly, a vast quantity of the public responses

that have come in are about the character

and of the development and how that contrasts

with the setting of the rest of the town.

And I think that is highlighted in a number of the reports

as well assessing that difference and it's clear

that there would be a harm to the heritage setting

of the heritage assets that are on the site.

Provision of a publicly accessible shingle garden, the beach.

Improvements to the public rail, pedestrian and cycling environment.

So, I mean, for me, and I think looking at the images that have been scrolling

while we've been considering it and thinking about the comments that have been made by

members of the public which were so overwhelming their percentage.

If you take a step back and those pictures are shown to people outside the town, I think

they find it baffling really why these proposals would be coming forward in terms of just the

difference in character, the scale between this development and the setting that it's

in and the remainder of the town.

And I know that the heights have been referenced and the Grand Burston in relation to that.

And I'm not making any comment on the style or character of the Grand Burston, but some

might say that two wrongs don't make a right.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:06:25

Thank you.

Was there some questions you were going to come back on there?

Thank you, thank you, Chair.

In terms of the housing mix, as the report sets out in roughly paragraph 7 .45 onwards,

there are less four bedrooms, there are more one bedrooms.

Family housing is the one, two and three bedrooms.

If we look at the mix set out at 7 .41 of our policy, it requires there to be roughly 15 -30 %

of four bedroom units, which one would argue is possibly towards the other end of affordable

for most people, but also it's the bigger units, more family housings.

The balance offices have taken, which are set out in paragraph 7 .41 and onwards, is

that on balance we feel, having weighed it up,

that more one bedroom units, which

should be accessible to a wider range of people,

and more three bedroom and two bedroom units,

would comprise more of the family units.

Members obviously have liberty to take

a different weighting of that.

But our view is on balance, as the policy sets out,

that our shma is the starting point,

and then we have to weigh up the pros and the cons.

Touching on the heritage items, correct, the vast balancing of the heritage benefits versus

the harms was done at the outline stage and this application needs to be seen as part

of a wider jigsaw puzzle as touched on by a number of councillors this evening.

We then have to look at the impacts on the bespoke heritage items within this development

and officers have come to the conclusion that based on the provision of four correct open

space, public open space, well four play areas, one of which is a private debt space, which

is the fourth one, which is why my colleague didn't refer to it as public open space, combined

with the access to the car park which is now, which is a new terrace and a new, I forgot

the word for it, amphitheatre, access to the Shingle Gardens, which is not the beach, there

are a series of numbers as part of the ecological strategies, Shingle Gardens which sit between

the curves of each of the separate plots alongside detailed play areas.

We do have details of play areas, they do meet the requirements for lap and leap, but

there was a condition attached to the reserve matters approval, should it be approved, which

would require more precise details, exactly what it was.

But in terms of size, we believe that the provision is more than adequate.

And I think that was all the points.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:09:03

and we've got Councillor, Mrs. Jenny Hollingsby again.

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

I seem to be outnumbered here,

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:09:13

but I'll keep plugging away.

On page 35, it does list the changes

from the previous, or in response

to the public consultation.

One of the things I forgot to mention

in my previous comments, was that the Rotunda building,

which I think is a great reference

to what was the Rotunda some years ago,

that has a viewing platform, which again,

must be, and it's a public viewing gallery,

that has actually been included

because of community engagement and the feedback.

And the other thing I wanted to say is in terms of the current tenants, I think it says

in the report that they would be offered the opportunity to move into new retail units.

And so again I think that's another benefit to them and it's tenants who are obviously

already on the harbour arm and why shouldn't they go into something that's more modern.

I was trying to find, I've been looking through, there was a comment I think from officers about the fact that

obviously it's a different style and a different design to what Folkestone perhaps is used to.

Having said that we've got the shoreline which is built and it's a reflection also of that.

I mean, well, it's a modern feel and it's a modern development,

but it's also in keeping, I believe, with what one would expect in the free seafront position.

In an up -and -coming town where people want to come,

I mean the harbour arm has created a visitor place where people come from all over the place.

So I don't see why that shouldn't happen here.

And also, it does bring economic benefits to the district.

You know, people come here, they spend money,

and that can only be useful or good

for the people of the district

and the people who run businesses, hotels and restaurants

and other businesses within the town.

So I'm really still happy to go along with the approval like officers have recommended.

Thank you and Councillor Gaffler.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:11:57

Thank you chair.

I found myself in a real quandary with this one.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:12:04

So I might ramble through a bit.

It does, the design of the area does kind of remind me a bit of Liverpool as mentioned

by Councillor Keeper and also of Cardiff actually and I was there for Gov Camp, Kyne Room as

you do and that was held in something called Pierhead Building which is quite an old building

and they had managed there to put some modern buildings in and obviously you've got the

old historical building at a centre -piece and there was a lot of space around it.

I do think it is possible to put modern buildings with heritage assets as it were and make it

work.

I'm also aware of some of the planning history in terms of just my own experience on planning,

having opposed McDonald's and lost appeal on that one and opposed a bit of

Shauncliffe on similar grounds to the concerns that have been raised here and

then the cynics sort of come back slightly altered and then go through again.

Though improved to be fair but still slightly altered. I've also seen that

it's possible to protect heritage assets if you happen to own the land.

Princess Parade anyone.

But I've also seen recently that councils like Tunbridge and Mooling have recently had

to over, not overturn, that's not the right term, but refer a decision back to the committee

because it was made on grounds that in the view of the planning officers weren't entirely

legal.

So, whatever decision we make tonight

is liable to be overturned very quickly if it's not completely nailed on.

And that's where I'm having a problem, is that,

just on a personal level, and everyone's going to hate me for saying this,

I don't actually hate the look of the buildings.

I'm probably the only person in the world that doesn't, but I don't.

But leaving that aside,

I can't come up with a decent planning grounds to vote against it and that's what I'm still

waiting to be convinced of because, and this has been my experience of sitting on a planning

committee, it's nice as a councillor to think that you have some power in planning but you

don't.

The law has all the power.

The government creates the national planning and policy framework, which is like a straight

jacket around you.

You do a little bit of tweaking of that with your local plan, but if you've had a sudden

change of ownership, so to speak, then you're still restricted by that.

So we've been restricted by government policy, we're restricted by conservative policy, we're

restricted by an outline planning application that took away a lot of the levers that we

might have had, again put through by the Conservatives on this council.

And that's not a criticism, that's just where we are.

So it's really difficult because there isn't,

despite some really good work by the new folks in society

and despite the real strength of feeling locally,

there isn't anything that anyone has managed to say to me that says

I can refuse it on that. You've given me my reason.

I'll wait and continue listening because I still don't know how I'm going to vote, to be honest.

I need more. Is the only stance out?

Otherwise I wouldn't be able to oppose it purely on the legal grounds.

Irrespective of how I might feel morally about it because I'm not...

planning, that's the way the law's been written. And much as governments might sit there and

bemoan planning committees for refusing every development, they can't. We're not allowed

to. They've made it impossible to do so. And I just heard the comment about changing the

law. Exactly. That's what actually needs to happen. But I'm not in a position to do that,

much as I might like to be.

But I shall continue listening and hopefully something will snap, as it were.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:16:37

Thank you, Councillor Fuller. That's really helpful.

I think it's really important that public understand that we're listening

and we understand the issues, but we are really stuck with this one

because of decisions that have been made before.

So we're being asked to make decisions on an application,

majority of us who weren't councillors at that point.

And that is really hard and I apologise that we don't have more freedom to make those decisions

because of the law, because of what the government sets in place for us.

So I think it's really important just to kind of reiterate that again, that you've got to

understand that as councillors we are in a very difficult position here.

If it is refused and appealed,

it can cost the public purse a lot of money as well.

And we have to be mindful of what's best for our residents

and what's best for the public purse.

I really struggle with this one as well.

I've been concerned about it all week,

even longer than that from when it came into.

And I don't know where we're going with it at the moment,

but I'm gonna let Councillor Mike Lakemore

take us forward with this hopefully.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:17:50

Yeah, I think I hear everything that Councillor Fuller said and I think all of us feel is

conflicted and we do accept the principle of development there and we obviously can't

revisit that and I hear what New Ellen said at the start of the meeting about the requirement

for the number of homes but what we are able to consider tonight is scale of the development

and I think we are able to consider whether the damage to the heritage assets, be they

the buildings there or the setting of them is outweighed by the public benefit.

And I think those are the things that we focus on and possibly consider rejecting the application

on that basis.

It's a very fine balance, I think, on that.

And I think I struggle a little bit because obviously there has been public benefit already

in terms of the opening up of the harbor arm.

I really struggle with the station.

We restore a station.

It wins an award for its restoration and then we turn it into a shopping arcade with six

storey buildings either side of it.

I really, really struggle with that.

I'm a member of the cabinet as well and tomorrow we'll consider the amended heritage strategy

for the council which talks about the council, ensures or requires the council to seek to

ensure that the district's heritage assets are sustained and enhanced.

And I've listened to everything tonight.

I do not feel that this sustains and enhances those heritage assets.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:19:18

Thank you.

I think we're starting to draw to a close on our discussions but Councillor Cooper you

have one more thing to add.

Yeah I was going to say given what Councillor Fuller was saying there

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:19:28

basically I understand

one of the reasons or a valid reason that the committee could actually refuse this application

was that it was against the National Planning Policy Forum.

And I was just wondering what paragraph 191 of that referred to and said.

Because I know within the officer's report,

and in the stuff that we've received from the new folks in society,

there is no reference whatsoever in the officer's report

to local havities, assets, etc.

And there is reference to that, to paragraph 191 of the MPPPF

as a potential or possible reason for refusal.

and I was wondering if you could have an explanation on that please.

Thank you.

Have you?

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:20:08

Okay, just give them one moment.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:20:24

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Cooper.

So I think the first thing is the site is not within the Heritage Coast, it sits adjacent

to it.

The second point that we need to be clear about is that the impact on adjacency to the

heritage coast as a principle and the impact of building envelopes as set out in the committee

report and their impact on listed buildings was assessed at the outline stage.

That's probably not making your decision making any easier this evening.

What I would say is the parameter plans that's been coming up here a couple of times provide

you with some limits of deviation and they provide the applicant with some limits of

deviation as well.

But within this application before you, as we've highlighted, first of all this committee,

maybe not people in this committee, I don't know if you're in the office, but have determined

that the impact of a scale to bring this railway line back into some use was acceptable as

a balance, the balance between the harms versus the benefits.

That doesn't suggest there won't be any harm, it identifies there is harm, but we've suggested

that the longer term benefits outweigh those.

In terms of what can change, the applicant obviously has upper and lower parameters as

do you.

It's worth highlighting that the units along the front of the site, the smaller of the

units, are at the minimum heights available.

The units in the middle of the site are at the minimum heights available to the applicant.

The only ones which exceed or add to the maximum

are the two highest plots, which includes the viewing platform.

There are abilities to move the footprint slightly

along the railway line, it would be no more than two metres

if there was a justified planning reason for doing so,

and then you have to set that out.

So I think it's a very difficult decision, I understand that for a lot of you,

but the framework, which we've highlighted a number of times tonight,

is this is an application effectively for discharge of conditions for something that

was approved in 2018, not so much 10 years ago, but it was refreshed in 2018.

And when you come to a conclusion, you need to assess whether the developments that currently

stands generates harm.

And if you can't identify material planning harm within the framework available to you,

I would direct suggest that that would suggest whilst you're concerned about it and you have

some reservations, that probably means it needs to be approved.

I understand that's a very difficult position for lots of people but that is your decision

to take this evening.

But if you were to reach a decision contrary to officers' views, you would need to identify

the material planning harms and that would have to form the basis of your recommendation.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:23:12

Belinda, Councillor Walker, sorry.

Thank you, Anita Chair.

Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:23:16

This is a deeply troubling application.

We're here to represent the local people as councillors and local people have spoken

out quite clearly they are against this.

I have a few concerns.

I mentioned the road of remembrance.

That's a change from when this went through.

No one thought the road of remembrance would be closed by a land site.

That's going on at the moment and that maybe would get worse.

Also, with these social and economic conditions, Shoreline, I believe, has not solved many

of the units.

So I'm wondering how many of these units will be solved if we end up with an empty

place where people just come down for the weekend, then that will produce harm for the

local community.

And as Tony mentioned before, I'm on a town council as well, in a group that's been

and try to regenerate folks in town's centre

and actually move things into the town centre again,

because that's not as bad as some high streets.

Dying when it's feet -flotillised streets are,

so I think it's a great shame that this has come to us now.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:24:27

So we only have one proposal on the table at the moment.

It's not seconded.

Do we have any other proposals?

So as I understand, if we aren't going to approve this,

we need to have a valid planning reason.

So we would need somebody to come forward

with a valid reason, valid planning reason, why

we're not going to go with the officer's recommendation.

Councillor Laura Davidson.

Yeah, I mean, I think Councillor

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:25:08

Blakemore summed it up really well.

And in my understanding of the

position is that we're individually

and collectively weighing up the

harm that's recognized within the

application against the public benefit

and with the public sitting behind us

and having contributed so extensively

to the to the application and so.

The harms are set out,

particularly in relation to the heritage assets,

as has been highlighted,

and the impact of the design

and the scale and the appearance of the development

in contrast to the surroundings of the town

and the views, if you like, the sight lines

from parts of the town to the development

and are clear in the report.

So that would be the basis, I would suggest, of a proposal that we don't approve the application.

We're going to come back on that.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:26:25

Sorry councillors, if you were minded to refuse, obviously someone would have to set our material

planning arms, which is that something about the scheme would result in something else

and that would result in a harm and crucially for this discussion this evening, that that

harm has not already been assessed at outline stage.

So this evening we're talking about scale and we've gone through this in the report

but we do this individually.

The scale of the developments, is it in accordance with the parameter plans?

Yes it is.

Does it exceed the parameter plans in any area?

No.

Are they proposing more dwellings than are allowed?

No.

Are the buildings appropriately located to each other?

The applicant's wind analysis would suggest so, the applicant's daylight and sunlight

of evidence would suggest so.

If you were to object to that and take a view that you don't think they are, you would have

to present evidence that suggests and could be defended at appeal as to why that is not

the case.

Are the buildings too tall within their parameters?

Well, as the applicant is already at the minimum in many cases, there are only limited areas

where you could make that case.

And if there was a concern that elements were too tall, then you'd have to set out why that

would be harmful and what level of harm that would give rise to, which hasn't already been

assessed through the visual impact assessment done in 2012, refreshed in 2018 and confirmed

again as part of this. In terms of heritage, the Council's Conservation Officer raises

no objection. Historic England raised no objection. So we have that to bear in mind and any objection

on heritage grounds, unless members have a different view. The balance tonight is for

you to weigh the pros and the cons within the framework. Does the development of the

conditions require you to assess the scale of these buildings, the design of these buildings

in accordance with the design parameters approved at our blind stage.

The committee report has gone through those as officers and we've assessed those and come

to a view that we believe it meets those terms.

I understand that local residents and yourselves have some concerns with that.

Obviously that is an opinion that everybody has allowed.

As Councillor Fuller has wrote, tonight we need to make a decision based on planning

merits and planning grounds.

And if a member is proposing to refuse it,

that is absolutely fine.

But they are going to have to identify the material planning

harm and what is causing it.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:29:21

Thank you.

So do we have anybody who would like to put a proposal forward

with planning grounds?

Councillor Cooper.

Chair, can I ask you a question, please?

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:29:34

Given that the report that Mr Lloyd has just made reference to was 10 years ago, at the

time of doing that visual report etc, would the people doing that report or the committee

be aware of what the proposed future plans will develop like?

Basically in other words, when this committee decided 10 years ago to actually approve this,

this is what's been slapped in our faces time after time after time, because the previous

committees have proved that our hands are tied and it is extremely frustrating to say

the least as you can appreciate and I can imagine the public appreciate that.

But when that report was done, it was done in 2012 the report says, it was done again

in 2017, when those reports were done in respect of the visual impact assessment, would the

people carrying out that visual impact assessment be aware of what the plans are in respect

of what we're considering tonight.

I'm able to answer that.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:30:35

At the time of the Outline Planning application,

both in 2012 and again in 2018,

the environmental statement would have required them to consider

the building envelope, the maximum and the minima.

The image on the screen in front of you is that upper parameter,

the maximum amount of development, the maximum amount of harm

that could impact on the skyline or folk stone.

That blue envelope is what was considered by the landscape visual impact.

As we can see, if we go down to the next image, Dan, along with everything sitting within

it, this plan here, and I apologise for the colours if it's not clear to everybody in

the room, transposes those maximum built envelopes on top of what is currently being proposed

this evening.

And as can be seen, they all fit within it, and importantly, as specified in the report,

there is less footprint in this scheme than was permitted in the outline application.

The heights will all be within the parameters of the landscape visual impact assessment.

So yes, they have full awareness both of the minima and the maxima.

And it is your decision tonight to decide where that maximum minimum sits and whether

you think the buildings are well designed and if they're not well designed what harms

that give rise to.

Councillor Polly Blaipmore.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:32:00

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:32:06

So the assessment of harm, as we all know, can be hugely subjective.

So I'm just trying to understand and maybe for the benefit of others here it would be

helpful to have it explained.

At paragraph 7 .117, there's a list of heritage assets,

all grade two listed.

And next to them in the report, we

have it said whether it's negligible or negligible

to minor adverse.

What is that measured against?

Is there a, because I might think something's harmful

that the next person might not.

So what is the measure that is used to reach those conclusions?

Are you able to answer that one?

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:32:56

Thank you, Chair.

That is the professional opinion of both the Conservation Officer

and Historic England,

and any officer, councillors themselves, in coming to that conclusion.

Those are the conclusions of the Heritage Assets Report,

which was submitted with the application, which was an independent, although working

for the applicant, which has been assessed by these officers who conclude the negligible

harm.

Now, the New World's negligible significant minor adverse have come through case law in

both the MPPF.

As we've highlighted a number of times this evening, the proximity of the blocks of development

to heritage was established at the outline stage.

The heritage assets were all known at that moment in time,

the proximity of both the scale and the footprint.

And Dan, if you could go to the parameter plan with the footprints.

This is the parameter plan of how far buildings can move left, right, up and down

in terms of where they sit on the site.

You can probably see a very faint purple line

along the route of the railway line, bounding it either side.

That is the maximum level of deviation allowed within the Planning Commission,

set by the Planning Commission, and that is two metres either side.

Currently it is 17 .5 or so.

There is the opportunity to move it two metres in one direction,

two metres in the other direction.

Remember to have to take a view as to whether that would achieve very much.

in officers' view, you can come to a different conclusion,

we believe that the balance is appropriately struck.

Our discussions at the time were,

because of the need to activate the ground floor

of the railway line and the plans within proposals

to provide economic benefits,

that would create a shelf or an artificial detachment

from a wall, and on balance,

it wasn't sufficient to recommend refusal.

I can just come back on that.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:35:04

So I'm not just talking about within the site itself, but a couple of the buildings on this

list are up on the east cliff.

We're talking about the St Andrews Hotel and Church of St Peter, etc., and the effect that

this development is going to have on them.

So it's not just about how the actual development is built and what space is between what, but

it's just the overall effect on the town.

Absolutely.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:35:27

and as the report clarifies, we've assessed the setting of the development

and the setting of the development would have been assessed at outline stage as well

and we have found that the developments within the parameters of the planning application

involve in respect of those assets and the wider assets,

the benefits outweigh the harms and the developments, etc.

It is completely up to the Office of Members to come to a different conclusion

but they'd have to set out why.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:35:58

It feels a bit, sorry.

Sorry, Councillor Mike Blaik -Brom.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:36:04

Sorry, just feels like that's an opinion, it's a subjective opinion,

but we cannot make a subjective opinion contrary to that, essentially.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:36:15

The officer's opinion has been set out in the report with reference to all supporting documents,

with reference to the independence advice of a number of bodies.

we have weighed and balanced that and come to a professional view,

as required by this council to do to advise you.

Our advice is that the application does not generate sufficient harm

to generate a refusal that could be sustained at appeal.

What I would say is, of course, members can come to a different balanced view.

In doing so, they'd need to balance the benefits of the harms

and understand the framework of the application before them.

The key implication for officers and members tonight is that if this was refused, an appeal

inspector would understand what was already approved.

What am I now looking at?

And within that, what is acceptable and what is not.

It wouldn't be a blank page for anybody.

Councillor Baitley, you're perfectly in liberty to come to a different view.

Officers have said this is our view for these reasons and we recommend approval.

It is over to you to take that advice or to disregard it, but in doing so I would advise

that you need to set out why you disagree with us and what the harm would be, because

the crucial bit of the harm would form the nuggets of your reason for refusal if there

was to be one.

Because it would be that, that members and whoever else would be defending it would have

to sit in front of a planning appeal, that could be a hearing, could be a public inquiry,

and defend that position and give the evidence also.

Councillor Mike Blootmore.

I understand that and I'm not...

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:37:59

I don't think I've got the right word,

criticising officers' opinion in any way or their expertise in this,

but how can we demonstrate the harm that we feel

and you folks in society feel,

and 800 people who respond to consultation feel,

how can we demonstrate that that harm is greater than you've said it is and we said it is. We have no

evidence to say that because it is a subjective judgment but nevertheless it's a judgment and it's

a judgment which would be supported by all of the people in this gallery here, bar one I think

probably and by a number of people around the town. It's backed up by local civic societies. So

So it's not that it's just my opinion

or even that it's just our opinion.

There's a lot of people that share that opinion,

but does that not carry any weight

if it would come to an appeal?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:38:54

The volume of,

when it got to an appeal,

you would have to have generated your harm.

You would have to demonstrate

that I think the scale does X,

the appearance does Y, the layout.

Why doesn't that conform with the outline planning position

and what was envisaged at the outline stage?

and that gives rise to harm to what and what can't.

You have perfect liberty to come to that conclusion,

you need to set that out,

and you'd have to set out why officers would potentially bother.

If it got to appeal, those questions would be put

to whoever was defending that appeal.

And yes, there are people, you're here to represent the ward,

no, not the ward, the district, and the needs of that.

You need to be making a decision in relation to both

the plan which covers a lot of policies,

the MPPF which officers have considered

in light of everything,

and the proposals.

It's entirely open to you to come to a contrary view,

but the key issue here for officers,

and the reason I say it is because it will be important

if development is refused,

is we need to be clear on what the reasons are

and what the harm is

and why it isn't mitigated already.

because at an appeal stage, the applicant will potentially choose to defend that

and they will come and have counterarguments

which are set out in their application.

Councillor Laura Davidson.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:40:26

Yes, a point of clarification.

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:40:27

If the proposal that's on the table to go ahead

with approving the application were to be put,

would that have to include in terms of individuals who would then vote on that proposal, making

their own judgement about the balance of harm and public good, would those reasons have

to be set out at this stage? Or only if there was a proposal to refuse?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:41:04

Thank you chair. I just assumed in this case. In reaching a recommendation or a proposal

it would be appropriate and it is advice given by central government and many organisations

that in doing so you need to set out your planning reasons for doing so. So the audit

trail would be this is what I think, it gives rise to these harms for these reasons, I recommend

refusal on these grounds against these policies.

Then that proposal is then either seconded or not, a vote is taken on as normal course.

Then members individually need to weigh up the pros and cons of that and come to that

conclusion.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:44:40

Sorry, just needed to check on what's appropriate and how we move forward with this.

Councillor Gary Fuller.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:44:48

Yeah, I was just going to clarify what I think Councillor Davison was basically saying was

that if we voted on the, if Jenny had a seconder and we voted on that and then voted against,

would that be sufficient,

which I suspect the answer is not.

We would still have to have a second

motion that said why we wish to refuse

or we wouldn't actually have refused.

We would have just failed to agree.

Having said that,

I'm going to I'm going to risk getting

shot in the street and move things

along and get the vote going and

I'm going to second Jenny so that

we can deal with that now.

OK, and then then it'll be over to

counselors to find their reasons for

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:45:39

So we have one proposal and we have a seconder and that is to move the recommendation.

Do we have any other proposals at this stage?

Councillor Laura Davidson.

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:45:50

Yeah, well, I would propose that we refuse the application.

I'd invite other councillors to assist in terms of the reasons for that, but going through

the public benefits that are listed, the bullet points that are on page 76, I think.

Provision of housing does not meet local needs.

Insufficient affordable units.

Design and appearance of proposals out of character with the town.

Harm to heritage assets.

Those are my starters for starters for 10.

Please I'm inviting other councillors to add if they wish to.

I'd say harm to heritage assets and their setting.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:46:45

Do we have any other additions to that?

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:46:49

And I would just like to ensure that they are within the parameters of this planning

application.

Thank you, Chair.

It's an unenvious bit of advice.

We would need councillors to set out why the housing mix is inappropriate.

On balance, we would need affordable housing that's been set so I think if you were to

recommend refusal on that grounds, my advice would be it would not be defendable at appeal

because that decision has been taken.

We've stated that the development's out of character.

I think Councillors in doing so would need to demonstrate why it doesn't meet the terms

of the specific design codes which are highlighted in the committee report at paragraph 7 .133

onwards which goes through the requirements placed on the applicant to design the buildings.

But that would be fine in terms of what is harmful about the character and out of keeping.

In terms of harm to the assets, the setting of the buildings, it would be useful to understand

what is causing that harm.

Is it the scale of the buildings?

Is it their proximity to?

Is it the design of the buildings?

And why is it the design of the buildings?

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:48:15

So I think we just need a little bit more substance to be able to take that forward.

Could you add anything else to that, Councillor Davidson?

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:48:22

Shall we take them one at a time and councillors can contribute if they want to make points?

So you want to take the proposals or do you want to take these?

Take the bullet points outlined that need more detail one at a time.

Thank you.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:48:38

I don't think I can read your writing.

Sorry, I'll let you take that for us.

The points outlined by Councillor Davis was lack of appropriate housing mix, I believe,

or inappropriate housing mix.

The second point was insufficient affordable housing.

The third point was out of character.

And the fourth point, added by Councillor Blakemore, was the setting on top of harm

to heritage assets.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:49:13

Would anybody like to add anything to that?

We need some more substance if we're going to take that forward.

Councillor Walker.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:49:19

Cllr Belinda Walker - 1:49:22

I was again wondering if, as we don't know if the road at

Rembrandt is reopening, we do have a different road layout

when it was approved.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:49:32

I'm not sure. I would like to question whether we can use that

because that's a temporary road closure.

How do we, where do we stand with that?

As discussed already this evening.

This is a reserve matters application for an outline planning application.

Which has been granted for up to 1000 homes at a set number of scales and parameters.

The framework for making that decision within that.

The access to has been assessed.

Kent Highway Safety.

I would highlight if members were to raise an objection on transport and highway safety

and also their own remembrance that would, A, I think, result in not being evidenced

in terms of impact because you don't have the evidence available to you tonight.

And I don't think it would be substantiated in appeal because the authoritative body,

which is Kent Highway Services, have raised no objection.

I would advise against it.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:50:31

Thank you. Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:50:35

Would visual immunity be included in that?

Would that be a satisfactory ground?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:50:41

Likewise, without a character, absolutely it would be.

But you'd need to identify what...

To be clear, I'm not being difficult for the sake of the councillors.

We're identifying harms, but we're not identifying what's causing those harms.

And that is what's necessary.

And then I would be mindful of saying,

and in doing so it needs to be cognizant of the framework

which was set for all of us this evening, including officers.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:51:12

Okay, what about, I mean, I understand from the report

and all of us have basically read it more than once, including the public.

Now, the report makes reference to something called guidelines.

Previous planning application guidelines said X, Y, Z, 1, 2, 3, X, Y, Z.

Now, guidelines are guidelines. They're not set in stone,

but they're not fixed in stone for obvious reasons.

Now when we had the original, when it was the public consultation last time, there was a bit of a backlash and everything else because people weren't happy.

Then it went through the second exercise and everything else.

But the point being is this, the reason it's against visual amenity is the scale and the form of them, not in keeping with the harbour area.

What about like that?

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:52:58

We're going to just have probably a five -minute

needs a little break, and then we'll come back to this at 9 o 'clock.

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:53:20

Everybody's had a suitable break with a drink and called down.

So we're going to start off with the proposal which is on the table, which has a seconder

from Councillor Mrs. Jennings Hollingsby,

and that is to go with the officer's recommendation,

and that was seconded by Councillor Fuller.

So if we'd like to have all of those

who would like to approve, sorry.

At the point where we adjourned,

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:53:48

I think we were working through the other proposal

that had been put forward,

and the points that were outlined.

And we were going to, I was going to suggest

that we, as I'd requested before the break,

that we go through those, each in turn,

so that we can flesh them out as requested.

Just a point of order.

We need to take the first proposal first,

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:54:08

and if that one falls, then we move on to the second.

And I think at that point, there may be another adjournment.

But we can't move forward to that part

until we have considered the first proposal.

So can I ask all of those in favor of the officer's

recommendation?

And all of those against?

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:54:45

Thank you, Jane. That's four in favor, six against.

Mr Alex Baker - 1:55:05

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:55:08

So that has fallen. So now we need to move forward. We had another proposal, and I have

We can't have councillors collaborating on a proposal.

It needs to be a proposal for one councillor.

We can't all be joining in and adding bits to it.

So you need to make a proposal

and then we need to find a second deferrer.

This is just a point of order.

This is how we have to do things, I'm afraid.

Then we can, if appropriate, call in a German

so that the officers can consider how that one would work

and how they can flesh it out.

So, Councillor Davison, would you like to talk about your proposal again, please?

Can I just have a clarification?

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:55:54

So, the application has been put and has been rejected.

So if an alternative proposal of rejecting the application is withdrawn, then we're in

a position where the proposal's been rejected.

What would happen then?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:56:15

Thank you chair. At some point this evening Councillors for all of us we need to come

to some form of decision. There are always three decisions available to Councillors.

One would be to go with officers recommendation, one to disagree with officers recommendation,

one to disagree with officers recommendation but to seek amendments to overcome concerns

and that would normally be the deferral route. As the first vote has failed we are in a position

now where there is no full proposition,

but we will no doubt get a seconder

in due course, I'd imagine.

At that point, if that vote carries on,

then that will be taken, and we'll take a decision.

As members are likely,

well, the current proposition by Councillor Davison

is at odds with office's recommendation,

once understanding the harms that have been identified

and the causes of that harm,

We would then take an adjournment of officers to do two things.

One to discuss those and potentially provide a framework of words

and then to provide members with officer -level advice

on your chances of defending those reasons for refusal at the next stage.

But we will take the adjournment to allow a discussion between officers and councillors

on exactly the wording that gets used

in light of what's been identified by councillors.

Just to touch on the point raised by Councillor Jones,

it's perfectly acceptable for another Councillor to say

I might support ex -Councillor's position subject to the following being added.

I think the point of order is the floor isn't opened to,

I've got my idea who else wants to jump in,

it's more I would like to add this to and change the proposition

and then have a second motion which takes precedence.

It will answer your original question,

motion would be put forward is withdrawn.

The only option after that would be to

go back to approving it or deferring it,

and then being very clear about

what it is you wish to see changed.

So do you still have a proposal

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:58:23

Councilor Wilson? I think I do.

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:58:26

So let me go back to the list that

that we had put together there with me.

So, the first point was the provision of homes to meet local needs.

Well, the provision of homes does not meet local needs.

So I think we could say that it is contrary to the section of the local plan that sets

out the requirement for the mix of housing to be for the benefit of local residents and

families.

And that the consequence of that has an impact on the types of things that we have to deal

of affordable housing provided.

That the, moving on to the next point,

the design and appearance of the proposals

is out of keeping with the character of the town

and is harmful to heritage assets,

particularly the station.

where the proposal is to turn it into a commercial area

and introduce plate glass windows

down both sides of the heritage track,

which is a significant change

and impact on the heritage as it stands.

And I think we had detrimental to the setting, the development appearance detrimental to

the setting, its setting in the town and the difference between the design and the setting

of the town, including in the viewpoints from different parts of the town, which are laid

out in the documents in terms of the very striking difference between the appearance

of the design of the development and other parts of the town, including the conservation

but also from the East Cliff and other vantage points.

I'm open to amendments.

Do you have a seconder?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:01:49

Councillor Mike Blakemore.

Do you like to say anything when you seconding it?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:01:55

Yeah, I could suggest that national policy,

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 2:01:59

National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 205 says,

when considering developments and the impact on a heritage asset, great weight should be

given to the assets conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight

should be.

This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss

or less than substantial harm.

So my suggestion is as Councillor Davidson said, in particular, the plans for the harvest

station would result in substantial harm to that heritage asset.

The National Planning Policy Framework also states that applications should be refused

if development would lead to substantial harm or loss of the significance unless it can

be demonstrated, the significance of a heritage asset that is, unless it can be demonstrated

that it's necessary for substantial public benefit.

And I don't think the substantial public benefit has been demonstrated.

I think the heritage strategy, although that hasn't been agreed yet, it's before Cabinet

that tomorrow talks about irreplaceable assets that

should be conserved in a manner appropriate

to their significance.

So again, I don't think this does that.

Turning up somewhere where troops boarded during the two

World Wars into a shopping arcade

is not appropriate to their significance,

to the significance of that.

The district's coastline, the Heritage strategy says,

makes a further major contribution

to the outstanding local landscape.

And we're talking here about damaging the district's

coastline with a development which is of inappropriate scale.

Thank you.

So we have a proposal.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:03:38

Would that class as an amendment to the proposal?

So that's an amendment to the proposal.

Do we need another seconder in that case?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:03:48

So is there anybody that would like to second Councillor Mike Blakemore's amendment to the

proposal?

Cllr Laura Davison - 2:04:02

I mean, sorry, can we just, I think it was Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:04:07

I'll happily second that and can I also add a further amendment to

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:04:09

include visual amenity

in respect of the height form of the development is not in keeping with the harbour area, nor

is it in keeping with the aspects within the town.

In addition to that, our lack of car parking spaces as well.

Thank you.

Councillor Filler.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:04:32

Just to still Councillor Davison's thunder.

Mr Jake Hamilton - 2:04:34

Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:04:37

My understanding was that if the proposer of a motion is willing to accept an amendment,

you don't therefore need a proposer and seconder for the amendment.

So over to Councillor Davison.

That's correct.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:04:52

So I think we need to, oh, Councillor Polly Bakemore.

Just to add into the mix, I don't think it's really seconded

if Councillor Davidson accepts it,

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:05:01

that about the height of the buildings around the station

as a heritage asset as well,

I think that would be worth revisiting

because at the moment they're thrifting in

on the restored station.

So we have a proposal with a number of amendments

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:05:17

and I think somebody needs to just read out

what the proposal is with the amendments

so that members are clear about what we're voting on.

Have we...

We're not supposed to have an agenda

to come back with a framework of words of activity.

Okay.

We're going to adjourn with a framework of words,

yep, to get together how we would actually

put some substance to this proposal.

Councillor Davison.

Yes, sorry, Chair.

Can I just formally accept those amendments

Cllr Laura Davison - 2:05:46

so that we've done that?

Okay.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:05:51

Councillor Mike Laitmore was the seconder, so we're clear on that.

So how long do we need?

We'll have another adjournment.

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:06:08

And making sure that we can put some substance to the proposals.

So I'm going to pass over to the officers so that they've got some gaps they need to fill in.

So the first one is the proposal.

I think it's Sue, you're going to take this forward are you?

So the first ground that we have is insufficient parking

provision and could members clarify whether they mean

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:06:27

whether that's public or residential parking and we

would normally say that would give rise to so can members

clarify what the harm that would result in so we can populate

the ground of refusal.

Would any Councillor like to add some substance to that?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:06:50

Councillor Cooper?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:06:58

Basically what I would suggest on that is that what is meant by that quite simply is

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:07:00

that the number of available spaces currently now is going to be reduced and therefore that's

going to have an adverse effect for people travelling to and from the harbour because

quite simply the spaces will not be there for them to park.

Sorry to jump in Councillor Cooper. Are we talking about the visitor

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:07:25

spaces, people visiting

the harbour? We're talking about both. We're talking visitors to the harbour and also residents.

and correct me if I'm wrong here,

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:07:37

does the local plan make reference to a required number

of parking spaces per property?

And does the existing proposed parking spaces

marry that up or is it in line with that?

Thank you.

We were gonna touch on the implications

for the decision afterwards,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:08:00

but I can deal with that one quickly.

The residential parking is over the requirement.

The commercial parking meets the requirements.

Councillor Pritchett, please.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:08:23

I think it's predominantly the visitor parking.

That is particularly an issue.

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:08:28

And I think because of the,

as Councillor Walker said earlier,

the fact that we don't know

if we've got a road of remembrance.

We've got one route in and one route out,

well, one route in to that area.

And I just think we all know the problems

that we have around the stage in the summer

and the lockdown of traffic we get down there.

So I think it's just that times 100 really, if we've got less parking and more people

trying to use it.

So the next one is talking about the housing mix and the proposed development by virtue

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:09:20

of the housing mix taken in isolation

would not provide an appropriate mix

to cater for the housing needs

of existing residents and key employees,

and as a result would not meet the needs

of the affordable housing requirements.

Councillor Davison.

Cllr Laura Davison - 2:09:48

Yeah, so families needs to be

added into the first part of what was said and as a result would not meet the needs of

local residents and has a knock -on impact on the provision of affordable housing within

the proposals within the application.

The next one is the impact on the station.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:10:20

the proposed development by virtue of scale, presence and design of frontage to the station

would give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the station building.

Is everybody happy with that?

Or would Councillor Mike Bloemore?

Yeah, I think so.

Would you mind reading it again? Sorry.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 2:10:43

The proposed development by virtue of the scale, presence and design of the frontage

would give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the station building.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:10:51

Yeah, does that cover the height of the buildings either side of it?

We can add height to the situation.

The height of the buildings either side of it just actually being increased.

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 2:11:02

The fourth one is proposed development by virtue of its contemporary design

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:11:15

would be in stark contrast to and out of keeping

with the character and appearance of the setting of heritage assets.

Is there anything we'd like to add to that?

Yeah, certainly.

Before members take a vote on that, when we get round to it,

we need members to set out what the significance of the heritage assets are

and what about that significance is being harmed

and whether that's less than substantial negative trauma

set out in the report and what's causing the harm.

I think we've identified that,

but we need to identify what the significance is

and what is harming that

and what the resulting impact would be.

So is there any further detail we can add to make that a valid point?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:12:07

Councillor Mike Blakemore.

So I think in relation to the station specifically,

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 2:12:14

the significance is host of the world's first rail, sea rail, overseas crossing.

I'm grateful to New Folk's and Society for this.

It's significant contribution to the country's history during World War II

millions of troops, nurses, personnel, refugees, supplies and letters crossed from Folkestone.

So it's used by tens of thousands in the Dunkirk evacuation. So it's that significant history

being lost to a modern shopping development. The point the new Folkestone Society made

is you will no longer be able to stand on the station and imagine this is where your

ancestors, that was their last sight of the country before they went to war, in something

which has become a modern shopping center.

The fifth and last one,

the proposed development by virtue of its height

and design would be harmful to visual amenity

and out of keeping with the character

and appearance of the town.

Is there anything that you'd like to add to that?

Councilor Blakemore, if you could just switch

your microphone off, thank you.

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:13:33

Could we include in the town basically the Harbourside area as well, please?

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:13:36

Thank you.

Thank you, councillors. As I set out earlier, we could give you a bit

Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:13:53

of advice

as to the chances of defending those reasons for refusal,

and I'll try and make reference to both the committee report

and the National Planning Policy Framework

and also the National Planning Policy Guidance Notes available.

So in talking about the, I think the first reason for refusal

was insufficient parking.

As outlined, the scheme currently meets the standards required

by this council and Kent County Council.

Yes, no one is not acknowledging that the existing temporary car park,

which is private, would be changed,

but that was always the intention of the Outline Planning Commission.

The Outline Planning Commission required there to be the provision of parking

to serve the needs of the commercial development,

which this application is doing at over 300 parking spaces

and over 500 residential parking spaces.

So in advance of defending that empirically,

we have a basis of saying,

yes, there's a change locally in the road network,

that's not ignored, but we are meeting standards.

So I think, whilst I understand your concern locally,

I think we would struggle to defend our reason for refusal.

That doesn't mean we have to take my advice.

Point two, on the housing mix,

of course, across the developments

that are set out in the committee report,

if you look at it as a whole, they are meeting the mix.

And I think Councillor Davidson's point,

which is that because there's not enough of a certain mix,

there's impacting on what affordable housing

is being provided within plots F, G and H as a provision of.

There's only one bedroom unit and it could be more adaptive.

Of course, it would be open to yourselves this evening

to request the applicant to go and change the housing mix

within the scheme to meet the Schmar.

It would also be open to you to ask them to change the proportion

of public and private car parking spaces within the scheme

to meet those and overcome your concerns,

or at least to ask them to do so.

In terms of the impact of the building along the railway line, I understand the points

about cultural historic significance, I think, as understood.

The only things I would just highlight for councillors is the Outline Planning Commission

allocated this as a commercial area, and it was one of the main predominant routes to

the harbour arm from the harbour side as it was.

And so the commercial activity was always envisaged as part of the 10 ,000 square metres,

there would be changes.

In terms of the heights in relationship to,

most of the heights along the building are,

along the side of the railway line,

are at the lower, at the minimum parameters.

There are one or two which don't meet

the higher parameters, they sit somewhere in the middle.

As I said, they are close, they haven't taken

the opportunity to push them away slightly.

So I think, whilst I understand your concerns,

I think that reason for refusal may be difficult.

Reason four, the contemporary design in stark contrast

now to keeping with a traditional harbour side

as set out in our committee report,

officers believe that this is another phase

of Folkestone's development that's gone through many.

There are different chunks of development

which are all very different.

And so it's also taken in the guise of the outline envisaged

this as being a contemporary addition to Folkestone.

It is within your guise to take a view that you don't believe this is the right contemporary

division, but I think the question is what would be the many number of ways of designing

a scheme, offices at this point believe it's acceptable.

And the last item, by virtue of its height and design, would be out of keeping with the

division and into the area.

We separated it out because the first one deals with impact on the heritage items.

We're saying that's stark contemporary at the distances which have been known since

since 2012 with the scales, which have been known since 2012,

would be harmful.

We have already assessed that.

But in the impact of the town, the impact

on the character of the town and the harbour side more specifically,

we believe the development by virtue of its scale and design

would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

I have to be honest with you, Councillor,

I'm not sure of our success at appeal based on discussions

but if those are the reasons for refusal that you're proposing,

then it's left with you to make that decision.

So we have a proposal before us,

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:18:30

and it's been outlined, and we've obviously got the detail in there,

and we need to make a decision whether we think this would win at an appeal.

It's a really tricky decision for councillors to make,

and this is just because of the law around planning.

So I'd like to ask the public just to be understanding that we are constrained by the law and what

the Government says about planning.

This is a Government mandate, you know, which restricts us.

I'm just trying to help you understand that we are in a difficult position.

So Councillor Cooper.

Can I ask you if you would call the vote, please, Chair?

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:19:09

I believe we have to have five. Do we have a seconder for that,

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:19:13

Councillor Walker? Those

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:19:28

in favour of a recorded vote? And those against? And those abstained.

Thank you chair, so we will move to the recorded vote.

Okay, so we will take a recorded vote.

Mr Alex Baker - 2:19:42

So I think you lead that, don't you?

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:19:44

Councillor Mike Blakemore, how would you like to vote?

Call.

Mr Alex Baker - 2:19:54

Thank you, Councillor Polly Blakemore.

Abstention.

Thank you, Councillor Cooper.

Against.

Point of order, can we just clarify what, so the vote is on the objections as outlined,

is that correct?

Cllr Laura Davison - 2:20:14

The vote, we are voting on the objection to the officer's recommendation, so if you are

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:20:22

in favour of the recommendation, you need to vote for.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:20:23

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:20:29

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:20:29

If you're against the motion, you need to vote against.

So, Councillor Cooper...

Sorry, Chair, I'm not clear, so can you say again?

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:20:37

Okay, so you're voting for the motion to refuse.

Cllr Laura Davison - 2:20:39

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:20:40

Apologies, Chair. I'm going to change my mind.

I'm going to go forward. Thank you.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:20:46

Thank you, Councillor Fuller.

Councillor.

Sorry.

Sorry, Councillor Filler, how would you like to vote?

Mr Alex Baker - 2:20:55

I vote against.

Against.

Councillor Hollingsford.

Against.

Thank you, Councillor Jones.

Against.

Councillor Davidson.

For.

Councillor Shoebe.

For.

Thank you.

Councillor Thomas.

Against.

And Councillor Walker.

I'm for...

Thank you.

Thank you chairs. So that was five in favour, four against and one abstention.

Mr Alex Baker - 2:21:55

So that has passed. We're going to move on to our second application of the evening,

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:22:09

believe it or not, at ten past ten.

22 slash 2168FH, plot E1, sorry, former Rotunda, amusement park, Marine Parade, Folkestone.

Do we have any updates?

Apologies. Yes, I just wanted to clarify that with regard to

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:22:50

paragraph 7 .72 on the supplementary sheets and the

from active to passive EV charging.

112 parking spaces would still have active EV charging

in compliance with local plan policy,

which requires one charging point for dwelling.

A total of 143 parking bays have been provided

and it's only the remaining 31 parking bays

that would have passive EV charging.

Thank you.

And we have one speaker on this.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:23:19

Let me just find my correct place to paper.

There we are.

Microphone Forty - 2:23:44

So Roger De Haan of F

aspects of the development, including extensive work to flood defences.

Much of our work has resulted in benefits to our town and its economy and the perception

of the town by its visitors.

The benefits have been particularly posited in the old town of Folkestone.

We have made great efforts and at considerable expense in preparing our reserve matters application,

which conforms to our outline consent.

You may not like a decision made by a previous council, but surely I'm entitled to rely on the previous decision made by this council.

What example would your refusal to consent set for people who might in the future consider investing in other major projects in our town?

I commend Plotty to you.

Thank you. So we're going to move to the debate. Would any councillors

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:24:57

like to speak on this?

Are there any proposals? Councillor, Mrs Jenny Hollingsford.

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:25:12

I move the recommendation, Chairman.

And do you have a seconder? Councillor Fuller.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 2:25:19

Okay. Do we have any other proposals?

So we'll move to the vote.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:25:30

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:25:30

Those in favour?

Those against?

Thank you chair, that's seven in favour and three against.

So that has passed, thank you.

Mr Alex Baker - 2:25:58

Cllr Anita Jones - 2:26:01

And I think that concludes our meeting this evening, thank you for everybody's patience

this evening, hope you have a good evening.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 21 January 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing CommitteeTuesday, 21st January 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:00:00

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:01:20

1 Apologies for Absence

Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:01:35

Mr Alex Baker - 0:01:39

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:01:47

Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:01:48

Mr Alex Baker - 0:02:07

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:02:13

Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:02:23

Mr Alex Baker - 0:02:26

Mr Alex Baker - 0:02:59

Mr Alex Baker - 0:03:18

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:04:08

Cllr Laura Davison - 0:04:18

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:04:22

3 24/0505/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone, CT20 1SU

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:04:49

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:05:52

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:06:12

Microphone Forty - 0:06:41

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:09:53

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:09:58

Microphone Forty - 0:10:20

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:13:31

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:13:39

Microphone Forty - 0:13:54

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:17:11

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:17:19

Microphone Forty - 0:17:31

Microphone Forty - 0:17:32

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:12

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:16

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:34

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:20:36

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:20:50

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:20:51

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:23:31

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:23:36

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:45

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:24:24

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:24:28

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:24:30

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:24:40

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:32:14

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:32:28

Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:32:34

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:34:32

Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:34:36

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:36:40

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:36:45

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:41:09

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:19

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:41:25

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:29

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:42:03

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:42:45

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:44:27

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:44:37

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:46:13

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:46:52

Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:46:55

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:46:56

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:02

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:48:20

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:48:23

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:48:28

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 21st January 2025 at 7:00pm