Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 18 March 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.
Â
UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICTÂ AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINTÂ COMMITTEEÂ WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings.Â
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.
Â
Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.
Â
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.
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone A
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1
Agenda item :
2 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
Agenda item :
3 Minutes
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
4 24/0653/FH - The Log Cabin, Dungeness Road, Dungeness, Romney Marsh
Share this agenda point
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Polly Blakemore
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Polly Blakemore
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Paul Thomas
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Mike Blakemore
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone A
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
Agenda item :
5 24/1650/FH - Bus Station, Bouverie Square, Folkestone, CT20 1BA
Share this agenda point
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone E
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Microphone E
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Microphone E
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Mike Blakemore
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Nicola Keen
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Anita Jones
-
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Paul Thomas
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone A
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
Agenda item :
6 21/0553/FH - Land opposite 24 Station Road, Hythe CT21 5PW
Share this agenda point
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Anita Jones
-
Cllr Mike Blakemore
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Paul Thomas
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone A
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone A
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
Agenda item :
7 24/1769/FH - 5-6 Shakespeare Terrace, Folkestone, CT20 2DX
Share this agenda point
-
Mr Robert Allan
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Nicola Keen
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Nicola Keen
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Nicola Keen
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Polly Blakemore
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Paul Thomas
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Anita Jones
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Mike Blakemore
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
Agenda item :
8 24/1315/FH - 41 The Parade, Greatstone, New Romney, TN28 8SU
Share this agenda point
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone Forty
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Clive Goddard
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Polly Blakemore
-
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Paul Thomas
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Tony Cooper
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Llywelyn Lloyd
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Microphone A
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
Agenda item :
9 25/0002/FH - 111 Canterbury Road, Hawkinge, Folkestone, CT18 7BS
Share this agenda point
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Mr Robert Allan
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Cllr Gary Fuller
-
Cllr Jackie Meade
-
Webcast Finished
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:01
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting,
it is important that the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting?
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration,
it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
So members, as the chair of this committee I would like to make a statement for the benefit
of all councillors present at the meeting and for members of the public.
The applications before you tonight and indeed any applications you consider in the future
must be considered on planning merits only.
It is essential that members adhere to this principle and ensure that their decisions
tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided to you during
this meeting. This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning
applications before you. So we will move on. Do we have any apologies for absence please?
1 Apologies for Absence
Microphone A - 0:01:16
Thank you chair, we've received apologies from Councillor Walker. Councillor LockwoodCllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:20
is here as a substitute. Thank you and welcome Councillor Lockwood to the committee. Do we2 Declarations of Interest
Do you have any declarations of interest?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:01:26
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:27
Councillor Hinesby.Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:01:29
Thank you.The 241650FH, the bus station,
because I was on the cabinet when the application
for the levelling up funding was submitted,
but it's changed quite substantially since then.
It's a voluntary interest,
and so I will be staying and voting on the matter.
I also want to declare an interest 241769FH, 5 -6 Shakespeare Terrace as I know the applicant.
Thank you.
Councillor Jones.
I'll just declare an interest on 241769FH.
The Rainbow Centre has been my charity this year as Chair and I know the applicant.
Thank you.
Councillor Sheebe.
Thank you and also for Shakespeare Terrace.
I would declare an interest, obviously I'm the cabinet member for housing and homelessness
so I won't be taking part in the debate and I would call for the chamber.
Thank you Councillor Shue.
Councillor Goddard.
Thank you Chair.
The first one, the lock cabin Dungeness on ward member for that area.
Any other declarations?
I'd like to declare that I have been to bus users groups regarding the bus station but
I do remain undetermined at this point
and want to hear what is being said this evening.
Councillor Blakemore.
Yes, also on the bus station,
I'm on the bus station bus users group
and also the district focus committee
but I will make my mind up as we go along.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's quite a few declarations this evening.
I think we've captured them all.
Thank you.
So, we move on to the minutes.
Excuse me.
3 Minutes
You have before you the minutes of the meeting held on the 21st of January 2025.
May I sign this as a correct record, please?
Agreed.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:37
And similar to the 11th of February 2025.Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:40
Many thanks.So, with that, we move on to the applications this evening.
4 24/0653/FH - The Log Cabin, Dungeness Road, Dungeness, Romney Marsh
and the first application we have is 24 -0653 -FH which is the log cabin in Dungeness Road,
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:03:59
Dungeness. Do we have any updates please? Thank you chair, no updates.Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:04:02
Thank you, sowe have two speakers on this. You will have three minutes to speak. You will be given
an indication to your, it will be your right hand side, you will see a card going up and
you'll know that you'll have one minute left.
When you come to the three minutes,
I will ask you to stop speaking,
and that will be the same for every single speaker.
So our first speaker today is Dean Miller,
who is a local resident, to speak against the application
if you'd like to come forward, and good evening.
Microphone Forty - 0:04:42
Hi there. Since January, another 30 people have raised concerns regarding the height,material and design of this new building. Please bear them in mind. They come from people
who live on the beach and they have not been fully covered in the Planning Officer's summary.
Tonight I want to focus on one thing.
The planning officer accepts that this is a straightforward application for a residential
building, but when he recommends that you approve the application tonight, one really
important element is being glossed over.
This isn't just another application to build a Holloway -designed house on Dungeness.
This Holloway house is being covered in something completely unpredictable, doodles.
And without any formal conditions to limit the design, size or legibility of these doodles,
the truth is that no one in this room can guarantee what this building is actually going
to look like.
When art meets residential planning, things get interesting.
Planning seeks clarity and certainty, especially in a conservation zone.
Planning is painstaking, regulated and concerned with exactly how the environment will look
when an approved building is complete.
Art seeks freedom and this artist works in a deliberately unplanned medium.
Let's recall, a doodle is defined as a casual or random scribble.
The applicant is frank about his ambition.
He told the Financial Times,
I want my work to consume as much of the planet as it can.
I hope to buy a string of houses across the world and doodle over each of them.
Giving a world famously provocative artist free reign to create whatever size and design of doodle
he wishes feels deeply risky.
Please, please take this opportunity
to nail down what this building will look like.
In January, you asked for illustrations
and they've been circulated,
but they don't give us any certainty.
They're not accurate renders and no commitments are made
as to design scale or legibility from a distance.
The architect has told the neighbors, this committee,
and the press that this dwelling is a private residence
and that the doodles are simply there
to be enjoyed by the applicant.
He has made a public commitment that the doodles will be visually subtle and only recognisable
from a close distance. These are welcome words, of course, but they are not binding. Tonight
we ask for this committee's help in ensuring that this promised subtlety is delivered.
The application cites the Prospect Cottage poem as a precedent. The key point here is
the Prospect poem is incredibly subtle and really was created for Derek Jarman's Basel
enjoyment. Black letters on black wood, the smallest letter is 7 centimetres high, the
largest is 15. It is invisible from the property boundary. We would like the reassurance that
the proposed log cabin doodles will be as visually subtle as those on Prospect. Scale
is key to subtlety. A 15 centimetre doodle about that might be for the applicant's
private enjoyment. An 80 centimetre doodle about that is an advert for his business and
has no place in a conservation area. The committee has a choice this evening. I, the set appropriate
conditions to ensure that you have control over the exterior appearance of this building
or allow this artist total freedom to doodle all over this building in this little part
of the world for which you're responsible. Thank you very much. Thank
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:08:01
you. And we haveour second speaker which is Mr Guy Holloway, architect, to speak on the application. If
Microphone Forty - 0:08:21
Madam Chair, members, you'll remember that this application got deferred, subject tomore detail coming forward.
So we've listened very carefully and thank you very much for your comments and we've
been away and I've worked with Sam, Mr. Doodle, who's here tonight, on the facade and to really think
about what those Doodles mean and what they will contribute to the place. And what Sam has done is
to really pick out the unique characteristics of Dungeness. So native species, fishing boats,
shingle, waveforms, train carriages, are all depicted in the work.
I absolutely, I rarely say this when I stand up here many times,
I absolutely agree full heartedly with the neighbour,
that we have a tremendous responsibility and we take our responsibility very very seriously.
Dungeon S is a really unique and special place and we feel that we've designed the building form
in the vernacular, the materiality in the vernacular of the place and that from a distance you'll read
the form of the building and it's only when you get closer. And what the officers and what we've
that there are conditions attached to any permission
should members seek to approve this,
that we will have a responsibility to make sure, with your officers,
that the pattern of the doodle is appropriate in scale.
And we agree with the neighbour that scale is really important.
And that we would like to construct
a one -to -one mock -up of the facade,
so your officers and conservation officer
can come down to Dungeness and then we can stand there,
look at the facade and make sure that the scale
is appropriate to this building and this place.
Sam is a home -growing talent of international reputation
and I think he wants to share with us, the community, his work and us to embrace him
as part and parcel of where he lives and this would be a home for him and his family to come to.
So I think we should allow him to celebrate that and also celebrate the legacy of artists before him in this unique location.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:26
Thank you, perfect timing.So councillors, over to you.
Does anyone have any comments, any questions, anything they would like to raise please?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:11:37
Councillor Poly Breakmore.Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:11:42
The first speaker asks for the scale and the look of the doodles to be checked by condition maybe.Before anything actually comes to fruition.
And the architect there as well was saying that they're happy to do that.
I'm just looking through the report. I can't see a condition that says that is that happening.
I have just been flicking to it quickly now, so I may have missed it,
but I just wanted to check that that has been taken care of.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:12:20
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Bakemore, and good evening.Condition 3 of the Commission controls external materiality of the building.
We could make it more explicit, but it was our intention that as the
external cladding of this building being caught in steel
with the doodles in it would be a submission of the materiality that
actually it would be encapsulated in that. We hadn't thought about having a
one -to -one life -size sample panel but if members feel that's appropriate that
would be within their gift to add. As you'll see in the recommendation further
conditions or amendments to conditions should you agree to the development would
be delegated to myself to add. We could add that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:07
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:13:11
I was just going to say I'd be interested to know what other members feel about thatand if that would be agreeable.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:15
Thank you.Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:13:17
Thank you, Chair.Again, I think as we heard from the residents tonight and those who've read the comments
from residents, they're entirely consistent in terms of their sort of view in terms of
This being a development which needs to be part of,
seems to be part of the Dunginess estate
where they're not overly large.
And again, I think Councillor Blakemore
quite rightly has said that if we did have something
in the condition which is very clear about the design,
size, legibility and visually subtle aspects of this,
I think they're the kind of words that I would certainly like to see
in any condition associated with this.
In terms of why we deferred it, we deferred this because the communication
of the original planning application didn't meet the standards that we set,
so that's been addressed.
In terms of the comments from individual committee members on the night,
we wanted some more information, some more detailed information,
and I think Danny's done a great job of including that in the report tonight
to make sure that we understand.
But again, I think if you look at what we're looking at on the screen at the moment,
you can see that is visually impactful
from what appears to be a relatively fair distance away.
In the report, it talks about the road being 38 metres away
from the front of the property.
But again, if you look at the layout,
you'll see that the neighbours are very much closer to it than that.
So again, I think just in terms of visual amenity,
we have to take into account the concerns of the neighbours.
And I think from what I'm hearing from both residents and from Guy Holloway,
we're all on the same page with respect to that.
We all want this to be something which is what the owner wants,
which is a family home, it's not an Airbnb,
it's one of those which is going to be something
which is going to be used on a daily basis.
And it gives him an opportunity of it being a unique house
to display the things that he wants to.
But it has to be managed
within the confines of the conservation area.
And again, I think the point that was made by Dee earlier on
recognises that the subtleness of this
is actually captured perfectly with Prospect Cottage.
When you cycle past there and you look at that wall, it's a black wall.
You have to go right up close to it to be able to read the poem on there,
The Sun Rising.
So again, I think from that perspective, if that's what we achieve,
I think that would be a real positive.
Conservation areas can evolve over time
and this conservation area has evolved over time.
In our conservation area documents, it references the,
I would say, the infamous rubber building on Dungeness,
which has now become part of the landscape
over an extended period of time.
So again, I think the condition limiting the size of the doodle
to make it less obtrusive,
to make sure that design size, legibility and subtleness
meets both the requirements from the residents
and doesn't become too visually impactful.
So I was going to propose, Chair,
that we move the Office's recommendation
to approve this planning application
on the basis that a condition is set out,
which identifies those very words
and makes it that much stronger,
as Llewellyn has already indicated,
to change that condition accordingly.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:06
Thank you. We have one proposal to include a conditionand agree that motion.
Would any other councillor wish to, number one, second this?
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:17:15
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:17:17
Councillor Follwell, do you wish to speak?And just on the basis that we can confirm that it is possible to condition the size
of the doodles, of individual doodles, or at the very least have oversight to make sure
that they're not too visually intrusive, because there's no point in putting a condition on
the Llewellyn garden for us.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:17:41
Thank you, Chair.Thank you, Councillor Fuller.
I think what we'd do is we'd amend condition three
to include precise drawings at one to 20 scale
of the elevations of the building
with the doodles set out therein
to be determined in accordance in conjunction
with the advice of the Conservation Officer.
As officers have set out, I think the CGI's
highlighted by Councillor Thomas
are actually from quite a close distance.
They're within the plot, they're not from the road
and I think over time that will change
but I think yes, we require precise drawing details
what that would look like and I think then what we do is ask for the sample panel as
intimated to be funded on the site to people actually once it's approved have my view of
what exactly has been approved.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:18:24
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:25
I'm happy.You're still happy to second.
Councillor Gondry.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:18:28
Thank you, Chair.Yeah, I just want to read out three or four questions slash statements from a resident
from Dunginess who's representing 30 other residents.
obviously contacted me as ward member and thought it was important for me to read these
out just to be, like I say, acknowledged and there may be two questions and answers that
Danielle can give me.
So basically the main was proposal for, obviously it's a proposal not for a dwelling but a large
scale.
It wasn't acknowledged, no acknowledgement that the proposal ignores the voice of folks
from the CA which points out the Dungeness is small, fragile,
transient -looking buildings which this is not.
No acknowledgement of the fact that the fragile nature of Dungeness
already struggles to deal with the number of visitors it receives
to determine of the triple SI.
Indeed, you welcome the concept of more tourists
who may be there to view their house halfway across the open beach.
The report dismisses the increased height of the roofline,
despite your own CA stating that this should not be allowed.
We've all dismissed and concerns over your future instances
of allowing replacement footprints to be larger
than the original despite your own CA discouraging this.
So it's just like I say mainly for Daniel
if you can answer and take anything out there.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:54
Would you like to answer?Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Charles for that.
A couple of points.
The existing building completely obscures the existing two railway carriages which sit
within it.
The conservationist talk about trying to retain these features of how dunge ness evolved.
Part of the key concern of officers at the beginning of this process and discussions
with applicants is to retain that transience and that sense of a building which is put
together with what can be found.
Hence I think the applicant statement talks about the use of Cortense steel because locally
there is lots of metal that is decaying as the sea takes it,
and that's quite a feature of the landscape.
The conservation here appraises, obviously,
a starting point for compensation.
It does allow replacement dwellings,
and it seeks to resist significant footprint increases.
I think in this case, we have a very, very modest
footprint increase well within,
but the balance of that is that we're exposing
the two railway carriages to really tell a story
about how dungeness, and there's a balancing act
for councillors this evening as to whether they think
Yes, with better thermal efficiency,
but exposing some of the historic
elements of this area to be viewed
and appreciated by more which we think
positively contributes to conservation area.
So we are.
It is a different building.
No one is.
I don't think we've ignored the
comments of local residents at all.
I think they've been carefully considered
against the conservation area appraisal.
And we remain happy that I do
acknowledge those concerns,
and I think the report has
touched on those as well.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:21:26
Councillor Mike Baintmore.Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:21:30
Yeah, I mean I've listened carefully to this, I think it's quite a difficult one becauseI think more than ever this is a very subjective judgement to make about this development because
it's such an unusual one. And I have a lot of sympathy with those residents who have
expressed those views because I look at this and I do think it, and I take the point entirely
that a conservation area can evolve and it can change, but this is a bigger building,
16 .5 % bigger footprint, a higher building, it's the material that no other building there,
and I know at least one of the residents commented there isn't metal around in that part of the
dungeon there, so it is actually quite an unusual material to be using. And then the whole thing
about doodles and everything is creating something which is going to attract a lot of attention and
that loss of amenity for neighbours, that there is the potential of this, for this to create I think.
So I do have concerns about it and I think yes it's welcome if we can have a condition that restricts us like that's something.
But I'm not convinced that's enough, I'm not sure this is the right design in that location.
I think it's possibly a step too far.
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:22:43
Thank you, Chair. I share the concerns of Council Blakemore there.Basically, I've got to say something that was mentioned within the emails, which is
that, and that is part of our planning policy.
And in those drawings there, you cannot see any building covered in metal, and that is
guidelines and it says quite clearly on there, it's a prospective purchase of property.
Amongst other things, take legal advice before you buy anything here.
I agree that whilst, yes, things do move on, and yes, things do evolve.
I think personally based upon what we've seen and if you compare the photographs to what was already there
That is far too much. I'm not happy in respect that for example we can put a condition on that that for example
limits it from what view from what view I mean is it going to be visible from 50 foot out of
200 foot the sky what and not only that
It's too big for what it is
It's not replacing anything. It's just not replacing right for like.
And as I say, the conditions, how would the conditions be enforced?
Because generally when we come here and we discuss about conditions, we notify.
Usually that is a matter between individuals trying to enforce them, looking to the council. Point number one.
And the second point generally is what would happen, for example, if no disrespect to the applicants and no disrespect to the architect in any way, what shape or form?
What would happen there to stop the, for example,
any new owner painting that completely white or black
and then dueling themselves?
If any conditions were going to be imposed,
it would need to include those.
But as I say, I share the concerns of Councillor Greatwell
and if he wants to put that as a refusal, I'll second it.
Just a matter of clarity,
there is an existing property in Dunge Nesse
near this site which is clad in Corten steel already and the pictures of it do appear in
this presentation this evening.
Within Dungeness, within the conservation area there is a property which is already
clad in Corten steel approved by this council.
Conditions could be attached to other things but I've noticed that white buildings do appear
in this location frequently and in fact the local authority has at some point tried to
retain those because they're also part of the area of the character.
I just wanted to clarify that this material has appeared and not only that, whilst it
may not be prevalent in every single dwelling, it does appear as a material in the area and
I think we go back to the conservation area appraisal which talks about the unique reason
where Dungeness is a conservation area.
It's because it's been arrived at
through pulling things together.
None of these houses have been designed
by an architect up until now,
but the conservation here talks about the unique character,
having unique houses which are not run of the mill,
and trying to work,
but it does not preclude replacement dwellings
which are marginally larger.
But I'll leave it for the rest of you to debate this.
It's a balancing act for members, it seems,
This one's clarified that way correctly.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:26:01
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:26:03
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:26:03
See we don't matter.Before we discuss there maybe having a condition once we go away.
If the committee is going to go with this,
can I rock the boat a little bit and say before it does go ahead,
can we actually see what these doodles in the skeleton would be like?
One thing I would hate to do is to walk away from here
and I'm prejudiced until all of a sudden I have something imposed on them
and because we've agreed it's here,
we're not able to come back and revisit it.
So could that be also a condition that we ask people?
We have a look at that before it's installed, et cetera.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:26:37
I think the discussion already this evening,Councillor, covers that point by the addition of details
of scale drawings and a sample panel.
I would certainly not recommend or endorse members
deferring the application again for further details.
As discussed and raised by Councillor Blake Moore
So, Councillor Thomas, following discussions from both speakers, precise details are to
be requested.
Precise details can be secured by condition to be approved in conversation and discussion
with the Council's Conservation Officer and a sample panel to be erected on the site.
That's already been discussed and is part of the recommendation by Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:27:18
Councillor Huesby?Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:27:22
Yes, thank you, Chair.I wanted to say that Dungeness composes of unique dwellings,
and obviously this is a unique dwelling.
I welcome the condition, and I think I welcome the architect
actually offering that facility for people to see,
and I like the conditions, so I will be supporting the recommendation.
I just wanted to say that the 30 people who actually wrote in
after the further consultation,
on 3 .1 there is a list of all the material considerations.
I've had a look through them.
It also lists those that are not material considerations.
And I think it complies with HB1 of the PPLP and the MPFF,
the heritage assets, and I think that was an issue that was brought up.
So it does comply with that.
It's not considered to be harmful in terms of height,
and Natural England do not object.
And it does clearly say that Trespassing is a legal matter.
but I think it was a comment I made at the previous meeting
that there are a lot of people who visit Dungeness
because it is unique
and this I assume probably will encourage more,
but then I thought that was one of our priorities
for the Marche to encourage tourism.
So I will be voting for the proposal.
Thank you, Councillor Mayorkas.
Thank you. If this building was anywhere else, I'd be voting for it this evening.
But when I look at all the objections that the residents of Dungeness have made, they all resonate with me.
And the one that really hits home for me is the loss of privacy to existing homes through increased visitor activity.
The most important thing to anybody living in the house is privacy.
That's your space.
And I go to Dungeness, but I go there so that I can walk on the beach,
so that I can enjoy the beach and the sea.
I just think this is so sad that we're going to change the outlook of that area,
because that building doesn't sit in Dungeness, that sits somewhere else.
And for everyone else who lives there,
or most of the people I feel that they're objecting,
They live there 365 days of the year.
That's their home.
This is going to be a home for holidays and weekends away and I think the impact on the
people that live there, I think is totally wrong.
So I'm going to be voting against this.
Although I love the design and anywhere else I'd be voting for it.
Thank you.
Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:30:32
I take on board Councillor Kean's concerns and I think in the report somewhere it saysthey don't, there doesn't expect to be any extra traffic.
I think with the owner's reputation being so wide and large and growing rapidly, I think
there will be people coming to visit this property just to look at it and it's just
international reputation of its own.
So I'm slightly uncomfortable about the report saying that there won't be extra traffic,
because I think there will.
Also on page 38 it says something about Natural England's comments are awaited.
Have I read that wrong and did we get those comments?
But otherwise, just generally speaking, I also like this building.
I like the fact that the railway carriages are going to emerge from the old, the previous
building, and I'm happy to support Councillor Thomas's proposal.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:44
Thank you.Do we have any information regarding the comments?
That was the previous committee report, not the current one.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:31:54
We no longer have any objections.Subject to the mitigation being secured and set out with commissions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:32:03
Councillor Gartner.Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:32:05
Thank you, Chair. Just touching on Councillor Thomas's proposal,I think it's a good compromise with the architect suggesting meeting all parties,
showing the residents because I think if this wasn't for the doodles this probably wouldn't
be here tonight.
I've seen many many dwellings on Dungeness the smoke re being a big thing many years
ago when the glass tunnel joining together went up.
It was okay, everybody liked it but there was issues before that.
So I think take the doodles away we wouldn't be talking about this tonight it would just
be one of the black buildings or white buildings down Dunjan that's what we've seen over the
many years going up so I think it is a good compromise for the residents to see the doodles
actually take place where the dwelling is going to go and like I said in the previous
meeting I do think this will once people see I think it will fit in the area and be right
So I haven't changed in that sense but I think it is an excellent way forward now.
With the proposal so everybody can see exactly what the doodles are going to be, how they
are going to be, what they are going to be, the size.
I have known people who say 150cm is that big and 50cm is that big.
But we won't get into measurements tonight.
The most important thing is people can see exactly what is going to go on Mr. Doodles
a cottage like that there wasn't any issues about the Pobel House member being constructed
again and you wouldn't even know it's there now.
So like I say it's a good compromise and a good way forward I believe from Councillor
Thompson's proposal.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:53
Thank you.Just a few comments from myself.
I totally support having a condition in there to make sure that the visual amenity from
the neighbours is taken very, very much into consideration.
And may I actually thank the developer for coming forward and saying that they will actually
put together a realistic panel.
I haven't seen the developer do that before so I'd just like to say thank you for that.
And the other thing I'd like to say regarding the footfall, and this is no disrespect to
Mr Doodle, I think you'll probably find that there would be maybe an initial influx of
people and then it would probably die down to its normal visitors numbers.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:34:48
Sorry, do I just want to come back?I was just going to say, Ed Sheeran lives there, but I saw four fans and a dog and a
cat and that was about it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:34:57
But Councillors, so we have one proposal in front of us and that is to agree the applicationwith the condition that has been described to ensure that subtlety and visual amenity
is taken into consideration. All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:25
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:31
Those against. Any abstentions.Microphone A - 0:35:34
Thank you chairs that's nine in favour and three against.Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:37
Thank you so that application has passed. Thank you.5 24/1650/FH - Bus Station, Bouverie Square, Folkestone, CT20 1BA
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:46
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:35:58
We'll just wait for those that need to leave to vacate so it doesn't put off the nextCllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:18
Thank you, so we'll move on to our second application this evening, which is 24 -1650 -FH,which is the bus station in Boonbury Square in Folkestone.
Do we have any updates, please?
Microphone E - 0:36:33
Thank you, Chair.There's a written update on the supplementary sheet, which members have, but no further
updates to this.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:44
Thank you very much.And we have one person to speak on this.
You will have three minutes.
Could Feingbeek, a local resident, speak against the application?
Come forward, please.
Good evening.
and you will have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 0:37:09
Whilst I accept that the Park Garden is going ahead,I do feel that where the bus stops are being placed is the wrong place.
There are so many people who have objected to it going down Sharon Street
that I feel there should have been another thought as to where to place the bus stops.
My idea was that since the national coaches are now going to be in front of the saga building,
you're going to be having bus stops each side of the road anyway.
I feel that if the bus station could just be placed along the top of the road,
instead of going down Shelyn Street, it would be far more convenient for all the people.
The traffic could be moved from Asperger to right
and around the back of Middleburg Square,
which is where the traffic is going to be going.
That would leave you enough room at the top of the Middleburg Square
to have three rows of bus stops.
There would be no traffic coming through then,
so it would be totally traffic -free, far safer.
they wouldn't have to have the trouble of going down over the road into Asda.
And it'd also be on the flat for the people who have problems
going up and down the hill down to Sheren Street.
That's all, thank you.
Thank you very much.
I have sent a map of this to all the councillors
so they knew what I was talking about.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:59
Thank you very much.Councillors, over to you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:39:08
Would anyone like to make any comments?Councillor Holinsbee.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Can I just say thank you to the lady who's just spoken.
I mean, it must be very nerve -wracking and well done to her and her points.
As I understand it, the position of the bus stops are outside of this application.
I just like confirmation that that's so.
But I do think it's something that perhaps should be discussed with stagecoach further.
Could I just have confirmation on that, please?
Thank you, Councillor.
Yes, you're right.
The application, if you have a look at the screen now, the red line is around the bus
station site itself.
The works to create the replacement bus facilities on Middleburg Square all fall outside of the
application and outside of planning control.
They're being carried out on the public highway under Kent County Council's powers to do that.
and members I'm sure are well aware of the Fokston Place plan and the Fokston
Brighter Future project which has essentially resulted in the scheme
that members can see in the report which I think is figure 5 and shows the
the layout that has been agreed in partnership with Kent County Council and with Stagecoach as well.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:40:55
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:40:58
Is it working?I must say I think the visual images are excellent.
They really give a good impression of hopefully what will be achieved.
I was pleased to read that basically Stagecoach support the application,
which is good, but it still allows conversations to be had with them
with regard to the bus stops.
Because in 7 .8 it says Stagecoach support
and then in 7 .12 it says Stagecoach have concerns.
So I just wondered whether there's a little bit of a conflict there.
And the other point I wanted to pick up was on antisocial behaviour that seemed to be an issue that people were raised in.
And I do note the additional condition of CCTV, so I think that would be helpful.
But I do think that's important to make sure that we cater for any antisocial behaviour.
and somebody was saying to me, if we have a cafe there,
but I know again that's probably outside the red line.
But they're my points.
The points come back.
Yeah, thank you. Just to clear up the stagecoach comments,
I'm just trying to find the right paragraph.
7 .8 and 7 .12.
Thank you.
Microphone E - 0:42:36
Yes, so paragraph 7 .8 that refers to a letter from stagecoach in May 2022, which essentiallysupported the principle of relocating the stops on Middleburg Square.
The comments that are then represented in paragraph 7 .12,
they are stagecoaches comments
on the actual planning application itself.
They have got a couple of outstanding issues
that they've raised which need to be resolved.
But again, the sense that is outside
of this planning application
and outside of our power as local planning authority.
But that's something that they've taken up
with Kent Highways as part of that project
to provide the bus facilities on Widdelburg Square.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:43:33
Are you prepared to make any comments on anti -social behaviour?Microphone E - 0:43:39
Only members will see in paragraph 5 .1 that Kent Police raised no objection to the application.They'll also note that CCTV cameras are proposed and in the supplementary information the position
of the CCTV cameras will be controlled by condition.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:44:05
Can I move the application, Chair?Oh, sorry.
Certainly.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:44:11
Could Mr Lloyd please come in first because he wanted to add to that.So I'd like you to hear what he has to say before you come forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't think it will be much was a reassure Councillors.
The comments by Kent Police in the design team.
Lots of changes have been made to the application in respect of crime and safety.
The departments in the square trees have been thinned to allow better line of sites.
High level lighting has been provided to all the comments of the Designing a Crime team have been considered fully as part of the proposals,
which now sit before you.
And just a bit of reassurance on the new bus stop locations.
In Shelyn Street itself, which happens further down,
actually there's no new bus stops in Shelyn Street itself.
There's one relocated one which has moved slightly.
Most of the bus stops that are being proposed,
other than the National Express bus stop
which is on the northern side of Middleburg Square,
run along Middleburg Square itself.
So both outside Bovary Square
and outside and alongside the groovery plate shopping centre.
Everybody could alight onto the footpath which is widened,
which is the result of narrowing the carriageway.
And members will note in the diagrams that the footpath from east to west
is a continual level for pedestrians, pushchair users,
people with mobility difficulties.
The car has to go over bumps to get to where it needs to go,
whereas the people with mobility to spend urban difficulties,
people in pushchairs, everything else,
will have a completely flush surface,
and they have right of way and priority
along the redesigned footpath along Middleburg
and along Shelling Street.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:45:55
Excellent, and I'm sure that the lady who spokewould be pleased to hear that.
So, Councillor Honsby, do you still wish to propose?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:04
I'd like to move the recommendation.Thank you, do we have a seconder?
Councillor Goddard, then I have some people who'd like to speak.
Councillor Mike Blakemore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:46:15
Yeah, I was going to offer to move the recommendation as well,because I think it's an excellent scheme.
It's not often that we get to return a green public space
to being a green public space,
and this committee were very often losing green public space,
in terms of green space anyway.
So I think it's an excellent scheme.
I think it will provide a very welcome focal point
for that end of the town. We also sometimes discuss about the harbour and the harbour
arm and that end of town getting lots and lots of attention. I think it would be very
useful to have that square there where you can hold events and other things within the
town centre. I think the concerns about antisocial behaviour are entirely understandable but
as Llewellyn has outlined there are lots and lots of things which can be done to mitigate
that. Antisocial behaviour often happens in the most secluded areas and we can avoid that
through design, through the lighting, through the choice of trees, through CCTV, all of those things.
So I think it's a very welcome scheme. I think the changes to the bus station, it's not surprising again that people are concerned about that.
It's a big change but I think in time people will come to appreciate the improvements that this will offer in accessibility
and it's much more in line with what has been done in other towns.
So I think overall I think it's a really, really welcome development, a really, really good scheme and I'm very happy to support it.
Thank you Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:47:33
Thank you chair, yeah I was obviously happy to propose this.This is the up and coming part of Folkestone to me.
50 yards to the left you've got Guildhall Street, all the fine development happening
down there and the businesses seem to get a new lease of life as well.
To me this is the up and coming part of Folkestone and good to see money being pumped into there
So I'm happy to support them.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:59
Thank you. Councillor King.Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:48:04
I've got concerns about buses and this is coming to us before we know where the buses are going to beand the safety of most of the people who use that in the morning are children.
And going in and out of there is a Russian roulette because kids run behind buses.
A young boy got run over the other day running behind a bus
and we're putting this there before we know exactly how the buses are going to fit into
that space.
I think road safety is more important than a park.
I just feel that we're doing this before we've got any of the infrastructure in place and
we're going to wipe it out and then what if the roads aren't right?
We're cutting the roads, I think we're going down to one lane, that's going to cause congestion
especially in the summer, so I'm worried about road safety and congestion in that area.
When we're putting the parking before we're putting the infrastructure in, it just seems
the wrong way round to me.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:49:03
Just a couple of clarifications.Figure 5 in the report sets out, not for determination of this application, but for context, where
The bus stops and the bus pulling areas and bus stands will be located.
They've been designed at length, I understand, between KCC highways,
for both the highways authority but also KCC in their role as
highway provider, and stagecoach themselves.
And whilst there are some small little bits, the bus stand locations and bus stop locations
are well known and have been designed through extensive consultation, I understand.
In terms of crossing points, actually, the scheme tends to provide a much better pedestrian
We've now got a significantly enhanced crossing point
between Bilder square itself and Middelburg.
It's difficult to put without pointing the pointer,
but there is a crossing which allows people
to cross a wide footpath directly
to the National Express bus stop to the north.
There are, as I said, enhanced crossing points
across all the junctions along Middelburg and Shelyn Street
to ensure that the pedestrian retains
right away. All new bus users will alight from a bus at an increased height straight
on to a pedestrianised zone as opposed to having to cross roads and walk within a bus
station which sometimes can be busy I'd imagine. So I think on balance, yes there will be a
change but I think the feeling amongst stagecoaches this would allow for them to have a much more
efficient service which no doubt has benefits for bus provision in the district and we do
see significant highway safety benefits as an officer team having assessed it.
I think we also need to bear in mind the environmental benefits that come from
such a scheme in reducing the volume of traffic. Yes, in the beginning there might
be some additional congestion as people get used to roads but overall there will
be less traffic moving through a highly pedestrianised part of the town centre
which I would imagine is probably better for environmental pollution overall.
So I just bet that my real members deliberate.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:51:20
I can confirm it's definitely not a shared space.Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:26
Thank you.Councillor Anita Jones.
Thank you. I'm really happy to support this.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:51:34
I think it's going to look really amazing actually.It's really going to improve that part of Fergeston.
My understanding is that the bus station as it is,
is not particularly safe for pedestrians.
Having these linear bus stops
should make it much safer for people alighting buses.
I think it's an excellent way forward
and I'm really impressed with all the suggestions
about the level pavements and everything
which is going to help people take buses more.
Let's hope that it expands our bus use. Thank you.
Councillor Shueb.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:52:11
I really welcome this as well.I was going to say looking at the aerial photo in the pack, but some of the existing photos
of the bus station, yeah, so much concrete.
So I think very, very welcome to have some green in this part of town.
Oh, yeah.
You get your trees, Clive.
The increase in biodiversity is absolutely off the scale, understandably so.
But I think it's really important that people, particularly in towns,
need these green corridors.
Just really beneficial to mental health, wellbeing, etc.
So I think it just makes this part of town more humane.
So yeah, really welcome it.
Just a few comments in the pack.
I think from the town council saying
that there could have been greater public consultation.
I'm not sure how much greater the public consultation
reasonably could have been.
There was some excellent work on the consultation,
and the pictures and the CGI
and the virtual reality, etc., etc.,
and the face -to -face work was excellent.
Really useful to have all the information about the bus station in the pack.
And obviously really good to see the condition
that the park won't happen until the new bus stops are in place and up and running.
So I think people can be reassured by that.
Useful to have the comments from Kent Police in there.
And I think the benefits, the whole set up,
you sort of have to take it as a whole,
with the increased pedestrianization,
just all I think adds to just more,
a more livable, pleasant experience in this part of town.
Very happy to support.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:32
Thank you, Councillor Paul Thomas.Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:54:38
Again, I support the application as presented.I think it makes the point in the report
that on balance, folks in the town council
do support the application.
As has already been stated,
there was wider public consultation as part of the Folkestone Place Plan.
Although it's been made clear to tonight by Luannyn about where the bus stops are going
to be and how that's going to be managed, I think it's obviously unclear to residents
that that's the case.
So I just wonder if there's something that we could do maybe through the KCC member to
help to work with the local residents to make sure that they do understand where these bus
stops are going to be and alleviate their concerns.
Thank you chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:19
And if anyone would like to know who the KCC member is, it's actually Dylan Jeffries.But I am happy to try and push something forward at KCC because I totally agree.
I think part of the worry that has been happening with this is especially for bus users with
mobility issues, whether that be a pushchair or maybe not so steady on their feet as to
where these particular stops will be and how it will affect them being able to get to where
they need to get to.
So yes, I'm quite happy to work with Councillor Jeffries on that.
Councillor Cooper.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:56:03
I'm reassured by the issue of the mobile pavements, etc., for those with mobility issues.Could we have some sort of tactile paving in place if need be?
And can I also ask a question?
Is there any public toilets being proposed for this area or not?
Because I don't think I saw anything in the report regarding that.
Generally at the bus station you would have public toilets.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:56:43
I do believe there are toilets next door to the subway building in the existing squarewhich is to the rear of the proposed play area.
On the point of tactile paving it's already considered on the drawings and it's normally
a requirement now for the highway services.
If you look at paragraph, figure 5 in the report, if I can scroll down to it I'll find
I think they are detailed in there as being,
he says confidently.
Okay, just figure one, handy.
Oh, there he is again.
On the, on figure five in the report, Councillor Cooper,
you'll notice that there's both some yellow,
and some red elements in sort of L shapes and in the key those are details being both proposed red
tactile painting, hence the red, and highway engineers being highway engineers, proposed buffed tactile painting in the buff colour.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:57:51
So that's all covered. Thank you.Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:53
Thank you. I'd just like to make a few comments on this. I actually applaud that this is going back to a park.It would appear that Stagecoach were involved in the conversations right from the start
on this and where we could have ended up with just a cement pavement, we've actually got
a place that through consultation I'm hoping that our residents will really enjoy.
I have checked and part of the hard standing that is planned in here, we will be able to
all be well with licensed use for Christmas markets and for live events because I'm very
very keen on pulling more people into town and trying to boost our economy through the
and a perfect place to do that would be the welcoming part as we come in.
I do echo the concerns regarding bus stops etc.
Who wouldn't? Because it's all a little bit unknown and to be quite honest with you,
when we got the pack you'd need a magnifying glass to actually work out what was going on.
which is why I did have a meeting with Mr Lloyd,
just to clarify especially when it came to the level pavements
and the ease of actually crossing certain areas for pedestrians,
which I thought was incredibly important.
There may still be some work to do on that,
that tonight's application is to do with the change of use to turn this into a park.
One thing I would point out, if you look at the plan design, there's a blue bit in there,
so I immediately said, oh, we're going to put a swimming pool in there.
And no, we're not.
The design of the children's play area is yet to be nailed down, so the blue bit actually
and there is not a paddling pool, it is in fact a playground.
So I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew about that.
So with that we have one proposal.
We have one proposal to accept the officer's recommendations
with no other conditions brought forward.
All those in favour, please raise your hands.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:35
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:41
Microphone A - 1:00:45
Thank you. Those against. And abstentions. Thank you chair that was 11 in favour andCllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:47
one abstention. Thank you that application has passed.6 21/0553/FH - Land opposite 24 Station Road, Hythe CT21 5PW
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:58
So we move on to our third application of this evening which is 21 -0553 -FH which isFolkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:01:08
the land opposite 24 Station Road in Hythe.Do we have any updates please?
Yes we do, thank you chair.
Good evening members.
I have one update for you tonight.
A further statutory consultation technical response has been received from KCC as the
highway authority.
The comments relate to the updated speed survey undertaken and submitted by the applicant,
a summary of which was provided within the written update report.
KCC have commented as follows.
Two automatic traffic counts were undertaken at either side of the site access.
This is in accordance with the publication design manual for roads and bridges CA 185
vehicle speed measurements which states in paragraph 2 .4 that measurements for journey
speed shall be taken on the approaches to the scheme extents.
The data from the new survey demonstrates that at the 85th percentile speed for the
area is below the 30 miles per hour speed limit along Station Road with the highest
85th percentile speed being 29 .3 miles per hour in an easterly direction from the westbound
automatic traffic count. KCC are therefore satisfied that the visibility displays of
2 .4 metres by 43 metres in each direction are acceptable and have no further comments
to make on the proposals. That's it, thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:33
Thank you very much and we have three people to speak on this application. Our first oneis Emma Boozy, I hope I pronounced that correctly, and is a local resident to speak against the
application. Good evening and you will have three minutes from when you start. Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 1:02:54
I represent the residents of Blackhouse Hill and Station Road and we believe we have providedthis committee with enough new evidence for you to reject this planning application. We
We repeated a traffic survey at our own costs which we have been provided with.
The highlight being in one week over 34 ,000 vehicles were recorded with 14 .8 % or 5 ,000
travelling over the speed limit.
That's 5 ,000 potential accidents each week where a driver is unable to stop due to insufficient
time.
I believe all previous proposed plans for this site have been rejected on the grounds
of road safety.
Despite us asking for this for at least two years, the developer only repeated their survey
a week after hours had been completed, but positioned the cables closer to the two sharp
bends, potentially to provide conflicting data regarding speed.
I don't believe their data is adequately reassuring with speeds still high, even while
vehicles are travelling around the corners.
The site meets seven of the eleven criteria for a protected species survey, which should
conducted over a 12 month period to cover all four seasons. The developer has not demonstrated
they have complied with this while the developer's evidence, nothing of notes, we have film and
photographic evidence of badger, kingfisher, snake and slow worm.
Regarding the site boundary and removal of trees, we have been advised by the public
right of way team at KCC highways that the entrance at Station Road and the width of
footpath is at 7 feet, suggesting some of the trees the developer is planning on removing,
which are protected by TPOs, do not actually belong to the developer but to the public
right of way.
With regard to fire safety, the planning document published states that the site is accessible
by a small fire engine.
However, neither HIVE nor Folkestone Fire Station have a small engine.
The nearest small engine is in Dimchurch and like HIVE is only manned sporadically by a
retain crew. Therefore this development and any subsequent properties on the site may
not be adequately protected from fires.
The recent alteration to plans to the apartment roof is minor. It does not address any concerns
raised regarding the overdevelopment of the block and loss of privacy to existing residents
and does not address this planning committee's concerns and recommendations though the apartment
block should be reduced or removed. The developer has failed to provide adequate justification
for the significant increase to the local plan of 32 storey family dwellings and the
inclusion of any apartment block when there are currently a number of unsold new apartments
in Hyde is unjustified. As residents there are still too many unanswered questions and
insufficient information for us to endorse these plans and as such we are rigorously
opposed to this development. We would employ this planning committee to reject the plans
in their current form as Hightown Council have done. Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:03
Thank you and perfect timing. So our second speaker is Councillor Stephen Bailey who isspeaking on behalf of Hightown Council to speak on the application. Good evening sir
and your three minutes will start when you do.
Microphone Forty - 1:06:20
Good evening, I'm speaking on behalf of Hightown Council Plans and Works Committee.We have an objection to this development, the first one being traffic and pedestrian crossing point.
Hightown Council expressed concern that the proposed pedestrian crossing did not align with the existing public right of way
on the east side of the site and on both the north and south sides of Station Road.
High Town Council expressed further concerns regarding visibility of vehicle positions,
crossing points and junctions.
High Town Council confirmed its concern that on several plots cycle stores were located
at the bottom of the gardens and that included intermediary splights of steps.
High Town Council asked how a cycle channel would address the issue of parking electric
bicycles, motor scooters and motorcycles, all of which are heavier than bicycles.
High Town Council advised that design constraints should not be an issue because of floor areas
of all of the house and flat types were significantly greater than the National Space Standard Areas.
High Town Council further advised that the design included five bedroom houses with approximate
floor areas of between 254 and 279 square metres and that the National Space Standard
Area for a five bedroom, eight person house was 134 square metres.
High Town Council suggested that the area in excess of National Space Standard Areas
approximately 50 % demonstrated that there was scope to design properties that had reasonable
access to bicycle stores.
Regarding floor areas and garden sizes, High Town Council wondered whether the gardens
were designed with sufficient plots 32 to 34, a five bedroom and approximately 234 square
meters with only 11 .2 meter garden depths.
Infrastructure and Parking.
Hightown Council questioned whether the parking as designed would be sufficient, especially
for the larger house designs.
Landscape.
Hightown Council asked whether Guy Holloway Architects could include planting for some
semi -mature trees back as a replacement strategy.
Number 5.
Scale of Flats and Relationship to the Development with Hollybank and Bridge Cottish.
Regarding the blocks of flats, Guy Holloway Architects advised that folks in High District
Council had encouraged the inclusion of a signature building at the entrance of the
site.
Hightown Council questioned the above and expressed concern over the scale in relation
to existing surrounding buildings and the proximity to Hollybank.
Hightown Council advised that the difference in the level between the block of flats and
the houses on the south side station would make it appear overpowering.
Guy Holloway Architects advised that it had made some revisions to the height.
Hightown Council considered the design revisions insufficient and would create a mismatched
building at such a prominent position.
High Town Council expressed concern relating to close proximity of Plot 18 to Bridge Cottis
and suggested that Plot 18 could be removed.
High Town Council further pointed out that policy UA14 referred to approximately 30 family
sized dwellings and that the submitted design was for 40 dwellings, all of which sizes were
significantly greater than the national space standard fall areas, the suggestion being
that the issues relating to size and proximity could be addressed by reversing the design
with smaller dwellings, fewer dwellings or both.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:09:45
And lastly to speak on this we have Mr Guy Holloway again, who is the architect who willspeak on the application.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 1:09:58
Madam Chair, members, this application was also deferred at the same time and we tookyour comments away.
The first thing was the relationship to Hollybank, which is the neighboring property.
So what we've done is to actually take the pitch of the roof off and reduce the height.
That also gave us an opportunity to actually increase the number of solar panels hidden.
And we also tested the 25 degrees to make sure that it complied and it does comply.
and we also had a specialist look at the daylight
and calculate the daylight.
The daylight study concluded that the levels were acceptable
in relation to Hollywood.
Members also asked us to go away and look at the viability assessment
and the clawback so we've given further information to officers
in that regard and a mechanism so that contributions
could be made to affordable housing as appropriate and that is the same as the agreement that
this committee reached with another scheme here in Folkestone for Ingalls Manor that
this committee approved so it's exactly the same as that.
I just wanted to really keep to the points that we were deferred for but I will just
very quickly touch on some of the points from the neighbours because they're very important.
In relation to the highways,
first and foremost,
safety is absolutely paramount,
and Kent Highways have looked at
this and work with us diligently,
and this has been approved and they've
got no objections to this application at all.
I don't want to go into all the detail
because there's a lot of detail,
but the conclusion is that also there
have been numerous surveys across
the site for ecology and KCC ecology had no objection.
The public right away, we can confirm that the trees are within our boundary and we want
to keep as many trees as we possibly can across this site and any trees that will be replaced.
I think I just want to summarise by saying that this is a well designed scheme.
We are listening. We do want this to go forward.
We have given it a tremendous amount of consideration.
The master plan fits the site.
So it's really a design first solution that we've come up with.
We really hope that this scheme will fit neatly into Hyde and respect the locals.
We'll be proud of this project moving forward. Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:13:08
Thank you. Spot on time.Councillor Hinsby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:13:14
Can I just ask a question perhaps on procedure?I mean the reasons we deferred it at the last meeting was 1 .1 and the four points there.
Can Llewellyn confirm that we can consider other points?
We obviously consider these, but do we consider other points as well?
Could you just confirm please?
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:13:46
Thank you, Councillor Hollingsby.To confirm, you can, but based on advice from the planning inspector and others,
if members were to come to a conclusion based on something
that could have sorted the advice on previously,
that could be seen as unreasonable behaviour.
So, yes, you're more than welcome to cover other aspects, that is fine,
but I'd just be mindful of whatever decision is then reached
is seen as being reasonable.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:14:15
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:16
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:14:18
Thank you. I've just got four questions to ask Alex. First being, can we provide furtherinformation clarifying how the overshadowing and overlooking of Hollybank has been assessed?
I think that's already been answered, but for Channel 5 viewers, if we can...
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:14:42
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:14:45
Just to clarify, we've looked in detail at the overlookingand the potential for loss of light,
specifically with the apartment building and Hollybank,
which members obviously wanted a bit more information on
in January.
So the apartment building has been designed
without windows to overlook Holly Bank.
There are windows with high sill levels
to prevent overlooking.
There are also bay windows that have been angled away
from the boundary.
The Holly Bank is some distance, sorry,
The distance between Polybank and the apartment block is 16 .9 metres and the applicant has
also in the amended scheme set back the second floor level to increase the space between
the two buildings as well at that level.
In terms of the assessment of daylight sunlight,
the local plan sets out a 25 degree rule and the applicant
has subsequently submitted an addendum to their design
and access statement which sets out that this has been
satisfied in accordance with the BRE guidelines for the
25 degree rule.
In addition to this, the applicant has commissioned
a daylight and sunlight scoping study.
This has been carried out by specialist daylight consultants
who have looked at the relationship between the two buildings.
The scoping study concludes,
and this was actually attached as an addendum
to the supplementary sheets as well last week,
but that concludes that the development does not have the potential
to impact the daylight availability on the neighbouring property at Hollybank.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:16:43
Is that okay?Thank you.
Obviously I've got four, so I'll carry on with the note.
Further details of the viability assessment and how it was appraised.
Please.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:16:57
I mean I won't go through the whole in detail viability assessment,but that is covered in the report in quite a lot of detail.
Essentially, the applicant, as required by planning policy,
has submitted a viability assessment and also a costs appraisal as well.
That was carried out by the spoke who are recognised experts in viability
on behalf of the applicant.
The reasons for the viability issues are as a result of a high level of normal costs
and that has been set out in those reports.
The council has then independently had the viability assessment reviewed and verified
as well as the cost report and it has been concluded by those experts that the affordable
housing is not viable to be provided.
However the applicant has agreed to enter into this claw back mechanism which is not
policy requirement but is something that we've done on other sites where if the scheme becomes
more viable in the future when it's built, that there is a potential to claw back the
full affordable housing contribution to be provided off site.
Excellent, Alex you've answered the third question with two, so that's good, no worries.
And finally, request that the applicant consider removing or reducing the size of the flat block.
That has been, the applicant has come back and removed the pitched roof of part of the flat block
and also that's reduced the height, it's reduced the eaves height, the ridge height and it's also set back the upper floor.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:19:03
Excellent, so with the four queries this committee had back in the 7th of January, they've allbeen answered, they've all been sorted out.
I agree with the architect this will be good for high.
Move for recommendation.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:19:12
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:19:14
Do I have a seconder?Councillor Keene will second.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:19:20
I believe Mr Lloyd wants to come in.Thank you Chair.
Just to remember, looking at the viability.
It obviously is a difficult decision to make.
The report doesn't conclude that affordable housing per se provided.
What it concludes is that there is a deficit in the scheme's profit level
and there's a decision to be made as to which contributions are secured.
Given the ability of imposing a clawback in agreement with the applicants,
officers have gone with securing the CIL funding,
which contributes to most social infrastructure,
and securing the other contributions such as education.
There's a balance as to where you get the best bang for your buck,
but with the clawback mechanism, we have the potential,
should the scheme be more profitable than currently expected,
to get all that money back, to deliver back into affordable housing.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:20:09
Councillor Jones.Cllr Anita Jones - 1:20:13
Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to both the residentsand the architect and the developers
for doing some speed checks on that road, that road.
It's something we raised last time,
and it is interesting to see the differences,
because I saw the first one appear,
and then the second one appear further up the road,
and the differences between the speeds monitored there.
But obviously KCC have determined that they think it's safe.
I would like to raise that with KCC moving forward,
because it is a very unsafe road, actually, if you cross it.
So, but obviously, if KCC have said at this point,
it's safe, we can't do anything against that,
but perhaps we will lobby any future KCC Councillors
regarding that and safer crossings at that point.
I'm also thankful that the architect listened
to our concerns about the height of those flats
and they have actually changed things
so it was worth deferring,
so that was a good move by the Council.
I think the only issues that the President of Hollybanks
has is kind of the depth, how far that goes back,
If you look at the pictures of his bungalow and what they're going to be,
well, I think there's a couple there, they look out onto,
it will change their outlook considerably, obviously, being a bungalow.
So I just said that I would raise that
and I don't know if there's anything else we can do about that,
but thank you to the architect for listening
and trying to work with the local residents on that.
Councillor Mike Laidwell?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:21:46
Yeah, similarly I think it's good to see the improvements that have been made to the apartment block.I think they are improvements. I think the screen looks even better because of that very, very lush canopy of trees in the artist's impression.
Maybe it's because they're not in leaf at the moment, but they seem to tower above the apartment block and probably blocking out all of the sun.
But no, I think we probably have done as much as we can. I was just interested in the point of information on the point made by the residents about access for the fire brigade.
for the fire service and whether that's true that they can't access the site with a local engine.
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:22:22
Just to clarify, the Kent Fire and Rescue have commented on the application and not raised any objections.And also fire safety is something that is covered by building regulations as well.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:22:39
Councillor Philip.Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:22:41
Thank you chair.Points 3 .17, 7 .18 and 8 .5 all state that there's a significant change to this.
But then 0 .51 states that it's a minor amendment.
I feel there's a bit of a disparity there in the way it's being described.
To me I tend to agree with 5 .1 it's a minor amendment and I don't think it goes far enough
personally.
On the highways concerns, I think anyone that lives in Hive knows that that's probably the
main route to go from Hive to Cheriton.
You go up the hill and then go past the rugby club and round.
And yeah, it's a particularly dangerous road, especially with those sharp bends.
and I like many councilors question KCC's,
shall we say, ability to accurately assess that road.
I mean anyone who's driven around Hive will know
that they're clearly under banned judging
by the number of potholes there are.
So I'm not entirely convinced by that one.
I do welcome the.
The clawback mechanism,
although I on the flip side of that,
I kind of see that as the bare minimum,
given that our own report suggests
that the viability assessment carried
out by the applicant wasn't entirely
accurate, so you know.
Given you take away so as me one other
concern that has been raised to me,
by a resident that would be useful just to get some clarification on, is works continuing
until 7pm.
I assume, especially the flats, if this goes ahead, it's going to be quite complex for
these work and I just wanted to understand whether or not it's possible to condition
it for works to continue only until something like 5pm or something more sensible so that
those works, should they take place,
won't be quite so disruptive.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:25:06
I'll try and answer that, Councillor Fella.I'll do my best.
Just touching on the highways point
which has been raised, and I think, you know,
there probably is discussion beyond this
about the general road.
What I would note in the update paper
is that the neighbours traffic survey
and maximum speeds at the 85 percentile
actually correlate quite closely
with those by the applicants survey.
The Ken Hyworth services clarified
that that limit does not fall within their enforceable range.
Whether there's other matters about existing use,
but there's no demonstration that this scheme
would make the situation worse.
On the hours of use, condition 32, I think you're referring to,
which says 8 till 7, that is a fairly standard time.
I'd imagine most contractors are off -site if we look at the...
well beyond that. I think sometimes there's flexibility,
but it is within members' decision -making to say a different time.
I think, bear in mind, there are different points in a year
when they might wish to be there later,
where it's less of a problem, but yes, that condition could be changed.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:26:13
Just coming back on that one, I do think, despite being well aware, having both workedat a college and done some labouring in my time, that it's rare to see a builder anywhere
near a site after 4pm.
I do think that because of the nature of that site and where it is, and although it's in
the town, it's in countryside, in the sense that noise will travel and the buildings,
I do think that it would need to be conditioned to five.
That said, I'm still not convinced that anything less than removing that block counts as listening
to what we want.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:26:52
Councillor Stollars.Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:26:54
Thank you, Chair.Just coming back to the resource deferral on 7 January, I know we've worked this.
I'm not quite sure as a committee what we were expecting to see in terms of reduction
in height of the flats for example, were we expecting to see a reduction of an entire
floor being removed for example, maybe that's the kind of major enhancement we're looking
for because when you look at it 0 .5 of a metre reduction is derisory really isn't it?
It doesn't really add to what I was expecting in terms of the overall reduction in the height
of those flats.
There's not a focus on Hollybank but not a huge amount of focus although we do reference
see in the report on Bridge Cottage, which is downhill,
which will be the most overlooked of all the developments
in that particular road.
So again, I just think that the 25 degree test
and the things that have been done have focused on Hollybank
but not necessarily on Bridge Cottage.
So I just wonder whether that's something that we could
actually speak about a little bit this evening.
The road safety, just kicking that can down the road
a little bit more where the focus is on vehicle speed and not traffic volume.
34 ,000 vehicle movements in a week is a huge traffic load and as Councillor Fuller has
already said people know what they are going to do when they go up and down that road.
So for me that just doesn't seem quite right.
I would like to thank Alex for the report, it's very, very comprehensive and again I
think just in terms of the returns that we were looking for in affordable housing, I
did get my calculator out and have a look at the things that were included in there
in terms of gross development value, negative residual land value and all those things included
in the report.
And it does seem to me that although we are recovering £1 .1 million in total in Section
106 payments, this whole thing about not being definitive at this stage about what we're
likely to be able to get for affordable housing, which is not going to be on this site, but
it's going to be commuted to be used elsewhere in the district.
And I think one of the things we'd be looking for is the fact that out of developments like
this there would be an opportunity where we would be able to recover sufficient funds
to make affordable housing available elsewhere in the district.
And I know in the report it actually says that housing officers saying that the housing
fund manager, this is section 7 .48, says an offsite commuted sum in the region of £1 .195
million would need to be secured.
So again it just seems to me that although we've got the mechanism there, I don't feel
at this moment in time, that what we're able to realise
in respect of this particular application
will actually deliver all the things that we're required to.
But I do recognise, and Llewellyn's already identified,
that what we've secured already in terms of CIL,
the education contribution and the NHS contribution,
even though the NHS contribution is only £34 ,500,
will go some way to alleviate, certainly my fears,
about what the net benefit to the district is going to be
when this considerable development goes ahead
if we decide to approve it tonight.
It is above what was included in the local plan.
It was 30 dwellings, it's now 40.
So again, I'm still very concerned about the lack of support
for affordable housing elsewhere in the district
from a development of this size.
Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:30:47
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Thomas. I'll try and deal with a couple of those points,because I think there are more points, just for clarity. I had to listen back to the transcript
of this meeting, because I wasn't at the last meeting, to see what the points that were
raised which finally made it into the minutes. And the points around the scale of the building
came predominantly from concerns raised about the impact on Hollybank and its outlook. And
As set out in our policy, we need to carry out the 25 -degree test.
Now officers done it themselves, it wasn't a drawing, and we were comfortable that the
previous scheme complied with that policy.
As set out in Figure 10 of the report, the revised scheme did that, do a diagram.
The red line is where the previous scheme was.
The elevation that you can see at Figure 10 is what's now proposed.
Now we can see that if it had remained
as it was previously proposed,
the applicant has chosen not to amend the
scheme to deal with members concerns.
The scheme would also comfortably
pass the 25 degree test and not
necessitate the 2545 daylight sunlight
assessment. The applicant has removed it.
I don't think half a meter has been removed.
Half a meter may have been removed
off the high pitch,
but as you can see from that diagram,
an entire gable has been removed
on the right -hand side of the property,
which is the red line that you see with the white.
And if we look at the CGIs above,
you can see that the third floor
with the flat roof is set back.
So actually the bulk and scale of this building
are demonstrably different to that
which was previously put for members.
Members obviously said, could you explore
the removal of the building, changes to the building?
And we've done so, and we believe this represents
an acceptable scheme for us, which complies with our policy
and there is no evidence against which to refuse it.
Now, members may take a different view on that.
On the clawback mechanism, the viability assessment,
as I read it, sets out that the scheme is not viable,
even with a reduced profit level.
All developers have to make a degree of profit,
otherwise the scheme wouldn't happen in any event.
And we've, as I said, had to make some difficult decisions
about do we not have education and healthcare contributions
to put those into affordable housing,
would that generate anything of any meaning
and make that difficult balance?
The clawback allows us to secure up to the 1 .5 million
if this scheme performs financially better
than is currently being projected.
The applicant clearly hopes it does
because that's in their viability statement
and we do as well.
And I think we need to be mindful of
where can we deliver affordable housing
that generates the biggest, and I hate to use this colloquialism,
a big bang for our buck to get what this district needs.
And we hope that this scheme delivers that in the long term.
On the point about number of dwellings,
our policy sets a minima, an indicative number,
depending on what then comes forward of that scheme.
It doesn't set it, it must be 30, it's not an upper limit,
it's indicative of 30.
So if it came back with 30 that covered the site,
It could come back with 40 or 20, making a difference,
as long as it fits on the site comfortably,
doesn't result in any demonstrable harm
to local residents through a bearing,
which we've demonstrated it doesn't,
and it provides the garden sizes
that our space standards require,
and it meets the internal space standards.
So I think the policy's indicative,
but it's not the end point, it's the starting point
for a conversation, as all planning policies tend to be.
We have given serious consideration to the property,
down to the west and south,
which sits slightly lower for the ditch.
There is no bund being proposed.
The Environment Agency along that bank
have said in one of the conditions
that there should be no increased land levels within the flood zone.
We're comfortable with how far the properties are away
from the garden of Bridge House or Bridge Cottage.
When we then look at where those properties face,
they don't face directly over the garden.
So there might be people walking through the street, but there's no direct
permanence overlooking that perspective and plans to be followed.
It's actually needed much more.
And I think...
Sorry, I'm sorry, excuse me, excuse me, you need to let the committee do what it's doing.
Please, you need to let the committee do its business, sir.
You are not here, you are here as observers.
you have had your chance to consult, sir.
I've listened to you every single time
to request that I speak during this conversation.
I've got the largest landlord, I've the largest property,
I'm the most favorable, I'm the most offensive,
seniorly offensive to our government,
and you've refused to engage.
Mr Lloyd, would you like to continue?
I think finally on the question of scale,
Thomas which he raised, to the east of this property,
the officers have had this in their mind
when considering this proposal.
There's another block of flats further west
which sits to the other side of Hollybank.
That was an application for a bigger block of flats
refused by this council,
allowed by the Planning Inspector.
And when formulating our recommendation,
we had to have minds to the case law
and the local decisions that have been made
will pay for the material to any future inspector
looking at this application.
So on balance the scheme will see a different layout, a different impact on this site but
we don't believe that it would be dependable appeal to refuse it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:36:35
Would any other Councillor like to speak at this point?No.
So we have one proposal and that is to accept the application as recommended by the officers
and that has been proposed and seconded.
All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:00
Those against.Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:07
Any abstentions.Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:32
We appear to be missing someone. Right, so all those in favour please show.Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:45
Microphone A - 1:37:47
All those against.Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:51
Any abstentions?Microphone A - 1:37:56
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:59
Thank you chair, that's nine in favour, two against, one abstention.Thank you, that application has passed.
7 24/1769/FH - 5-6 Shakespeare Terrace, Folkestone, CT20 2DX
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:38:18
So, we move on to our fourth application this evening, which is 24 -1769 -FH, which is 5 -6Shakespeare Terrace in Folkestone.
Do we have any updates, please?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:38:33
Thank you, Chair, Members.There's one update.
The chairman of the Fogsden -Hyven District Hotel and Catering Association
wished to add to their comment that was included with the application.
Whilst they stand by their belief that losing the Hamlet Hotel
would not significantly have a detrimental effect on the local tourism offering,
they'd like to clarify that it doesn't mean that they would necessarily support
change of use to alternative accommodations such as an HMO or temporary housing.
The position for losing hotel accommodation that's not commercially viable and or of a
low standing is to support the change to high end residential accommodation, especially
when in conservation area or prime location or alternatively in a hair B &B model.
That's the only update.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:39:26
Thank you.Thank you.
And we have three people to speak on this.
Our first speaker is Philip Carter,
who's a local resident to speak against the application.
Good evening, sir. You have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 1:39:45
I'll have to canter through this.Right, I'm defending policies E4 and HB13.
The three criteria need to be met.
The change of views from a hotel to an HMO under policy E4.
7 .5 report states,
criteria one has not been met, demand for accommodation,
but relies on statement from chair of the Hotel and Catering Association.
That has now been amended, which you've heard.
We understand there was only a phone call between Mr Dr Lefevre
and Daniel at the Hotel and Catering Association, not the officers.
Criteria 2 states that the property is in good location for tourism.
7 .7, criteria 3 states that the property needed to have been marketed for 12 months,
report states that the property has not been marketed as a hotel since 2022.
7 .8 says the application does not therefore adequately address all the criteria for change of use under your policy D4.
Page 12 .7, policy HB 13, 7 .14 HMOs will only be permitted if they do not result in unacceptable,
harmful impact upon.
There were four items that we're only saying on one, which is residential amenity caused
by increased noise and disturbance.
And that is because we've got the Windsor Hotel, which is a B &B, come HMO round the
corner.
We've got a late night bar till 1 .30.
We've got hotels for migrants just across the road from us at White Cliffs.
I live in White Cliffs and I'm speaking on behalf of White Cliffs as well.
We've got a lot of drunken problems on the leaves and anti -social behaviour and regular
occurrence.
7 .18 report notes concerns about possible anti -social behaviour issues being raised
and these are dismissed as not planning issue and can be dealt with by separate legislation
and separate bodies, i .e. the police, I assume.
7 .19 says, overall, there will be no detrimental impact
on residential area.
Central ward, where this is, has the highest
antisocial behavior figures of the town,
35 in one year.
Noise nuisance, 96.
And violent sexual attacks on the rise.
7 .20 says no parking is made available
It should be provided, one per unit, there's 19 spaces, but adopted standard is silent,
silent I read, on HMO provision.
Page 211 officer's conclusion states there will be a loss of visitor accommodation with
information submitted to support this application considered to fall short in addressing adopted
policy E4 requirements.
8 .3 considers that the impact upon the loss of visitor accommodation is outweighed by
the service this is proposed.
is, we feel it is not appropriate or fair to override with nor above mentioned policies
and residence worries concerning.
Just like the…
Sorry sir, your time is up.
Right, we have concerns and we ask you to stand by those two policies.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much sir.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:43:04
Our second speaker is Councillor McShane who is the ward member to speak on the application.Good evening and you have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 1:43:16
Good evening committee.I'm speaking today to voice my support for the Rainbow Centre, which does invaluable work,
providing vital services to homeless individuals across our district.
They do work that is essential and, as we all know, homelessness is an issue that affects many people in our time.
Therefore, any initiative that aims to alleviate the challenges faced by those in need should
be welcomed.
That said, as the Rainbow Centre's proposal is in a residential area, I believe it's important
to ensure that the local community's concerns are addressed so that the project can proceed
with broad support from residents.
I urge the Rainbow Centre to engage more closely with the local community to address some of
the following concerns which residents have raised.
24 hour concierge service. Residents would like to have more information on how the 24
hour concierge service will be staffed. It's crucial to ensure that the service operates
smoothly without causing disturbances to the surrounding areas. Clarity on staffing levels
and management will help ease local concerns.
Allocation process. Residents are also seeking more information on how individuals will be
allocated space within the centre. It would be beneficial to outline the criteria and
processes to ensure that people in need are supported appropriately.
Noise concerns. Given that this proposal is situated in a residential area, noise could
be a concern. Could the Rainbow Centre clarify what measures will be put in place to mitigate
noise, especially during night hours when the centre operates 24 -7?
Parking. Another significant issue is the lack of designated car parking spaces. This
could pose a challenge for staff members who drive or cycle. It would be helpful for the
Centre to explain where staff will park their vehicles, especially if they're working late
shifts as this could potentially impact the local area.
Consultation process. Finally, there have been concerns raised by residents about the
consultation process on behalf, sorry, some residents have stated that they did not feel
there was enough time to provide feedback and two residents reported that their comments
made through the planning portal did not appear online. It was explained to them that this
was due to a technical issue with the portal.
Ensuring that future consultations are clear,
accessible, and provide enough time for residents to respond
will help build trust and ally for a more inclusive decision
making process.
In conclusion, while I fully support the aims and objectives
of the Rainbow Centre, it is important
that these concerns are addressed in order
to ensure the success of the project
and the continued goodwill of the local community.
I urge the committee to consider these points
when making a decision.
Thank you for your time.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:45:55
Thank you very much.And our third speaker is Peter Le Ferve, I hope I pronounced that correctly, who is the
applicant to speak on the application.
You have three minutes there and good evening.
Microphone Forty - 1:46:15
These are the folks from Laneborough Centre.If we go out on the streets of our town tonight, we're going to find eight, ten, perhaps twelve
sleeping rough out there and it shouldn't be like this.
And this proposal responds to the significant lack of emergency accommodation
for people exposed to homelessness in our town.
Something needs to be done about it.
This proposal responds to it.
It is, from our perspective, the perfect building
and will fully satisfy the needs of people experiencing homelessness.
I do recognise that section E4 of the 2020 PPLP suggests that hotel spaces must be retained
in Folkestone.
This does seem rather out of date now as the demographic of people coming to Folkestone
has changed somewhat in the last five years.
If you look on the internet tonight you'll discover there's no less than five local hotels
and guest houses up for sale.
Such hotels as the Hamlet Hotel is no longer viable as a hotel.
Responding to the concerns of the residents and of the local council, yes, there will
be a 24 -hour manned staff in this centre, responsible people.
By and large, homeless people do not have cars, and if they do have cars, they've often
been sleeping in them in a discreet part of the town.
So, it's not appropriate really to consider the issue of parking.
Noise.
The Folkestone Rainbow Centre has run a winter shelter for the last 14 years, the last four
of which have been in a local hotel not far from the seaflunt.
During that time, the police have never been called to any noise, antisocial behaviour,
violence or any other concern during that time.
The Folkestone Rainbow Centre has experience of understanding homeless people and their
needs and risk assessing them.
This year, yet again, we've had an entirely calm centre.
These people experiencing homelessness are often going out to work.
These are not people lying drunken on the streets all day long.
We have very robust selection processes.
A large number of homeless people are not allocated places in our night shelter because
they are sufficiently antisocial to cause the risk of significant harm.
Anybody who does cause noise, antisocial behaviour or any other criminal activity gets thrown
out.
It's as simple as that.
Folkestone really needs this hotel to be converted to an HMO and I do commend it to you. Thank
you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:15
Thank you very much sir. Oh gosh, flurry of hands all of a sudden. Nicky, Councillor KeeneCllr Nicola Keen - 1:49:26
and then Councillor Furr and then Councillor Hoysby and then Councillor Goddard. Oh sorryCllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:29
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:49:30
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:32
and Councillor Baitmore. Flurry of hands. I'll start with Councillor Keene.Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:49:33
I think this is a wonderful proposition.I've been out there for several years on the trot and met people living on the streets.
They don't want to do that.
And I met a man a few weeks ago who'd been living in accommodation and had to leave.
Decent man, very decent works.
He's entitled to a home the same as the rest of us.
So I propose that we go with the officer's recommendations and that we go along with
his.
It's fantastic and it's about time folks didn't have something for their homeless.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:50:05
Would anyone second?I'd be happy to second.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:50:07
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:50:09
Councillor Fuller will second and Councillor Fuller is next to speak.Yeah, I'm sure I'm not alone.
There are various councillors over the years that have been invited by the Rainbow Centre
either to help out at various points to see what they do, this kind of thing.
And I remember on those occasions when we were invited that it was exactly as the final
speaker said that the people that were there, they were hard on their luck but they weren't
problematic.
They were just looking for somewhere to stay, to be safe, to be warm, to be clothed, to
be fed.
And also as he mentioned that there were people there, I remember a particular sort of seasonal
worker who actually had a home for part of the year but couldn't because it was seasonal
stay there and so the sort of scenarios that people fear I think are overblown. I think
this is going to be an excellent service. I think the Rainbow Centre do excellent work
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:51:09
and I think we should do everything we can to support them.Thank you Councillor Hensby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:51:12
Yes, thank you Chair. Everybody jumped in before me. Can I just say I know how hardthat the Rainbow Centre have worked over the last two or three years.
I remember talking to Mr Lefebvre
when I was cabinet member for Communities
because the homeless people also came under my portfolio.
And I know the work of the Rainbow Centre
and I know how important it is.
And I think there is no doubt about it
that the hotel accommodation that people visiting this district want
is much more upmarket or of different quality.
And I think to use a building like this
for people who require accommodation can only be a good thing.
And I know that Mr Lefebvre has listened to the concerns of local people,
which he basically told us that,
and that it will be run very, very strictly
and very much in accordance with what is stated tonight
and I'm very, very happy to support this application
and I'm glad and I would just say congratulations to them
for working so hard to actually get this to fruition.
Thank you.
Councillor Godoy, did you want to speak?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Yeah, I think there's no doubt in the work
the Rainbow Centre does.
It is disappointing losing a hotel.
It's even more disappointing learning that there's another fight for sale in Folkestone.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:52:52
You know, it was only a few months ago in one of the big national papers,I won't advertise it, but one of the big national newspapers,
that Folkestone was the up and coming place.
People want to come here, they want to stay here, etc, etc.
And, you know, it's the place to be.
So it's disappointing to learn that we're going to lose, you know, a hotel
for that reason but hopefully Mr Lefebvre there is hopefully some sort of reassurance
to the residents saying that there's going to be somebody there 24 7 and hopefully it's
going to be you know it'd be an ideal location but yeah disappointing to lose a hotel and
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:53:32
to hear of you know more many more on the market.Thank you Councillor Polly Blackmore.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:53:38
It's pretty much been said, but I think this change of views, which as we've heard, willinclude that 24 -hour resident concierge and support staff on hand just around the corner.
I mean, it kind of goes without saying.
It ties in with the Council's Homelessness Prevention Strategy.
It's fully supported by the Housing Options Team.
We don't have any other provision for single people in the districts and some other facilities,
other KCC facilities were closed.
And as we all know, the need for such facilities has only increased.
So, yeah, what are we waiting for?
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:54:17
I'd actually like to thank the third speaker.Oh, sorry, I'm going to do my thanks first.
For myth -busting about homeless people.
They're not all lying in ditches,
drinking, tenant, special brew or whatever. These are people that are down on their luck
and they can literally be anybody. I quite often have gone around chatting to people
who are sleeping off asking them, how did you get here? And it can be anything from
losing a job to the landlord selling underneath them to a family break up. So I'd just like
to thank you for the myth busting and I hope that that puts residents minds at rest regarding
these sorts of accommodations.
Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:55:08
Yes, thank you chair.I support this movement as well.
I think one of the things we need to focus on as well is the fact that why have we found
ourselves in this position.
If you look at section 712 of the officers report it says that as a consequence of KCC
funding withdrawal, we've lost approximately 20 units of supported accommodation in this
area.
So anything that we can do to make a contribution towards that, meeting that loss, you know,
has to be applauded.
And again, I think in the report it talks about those people who are affected by homelessness,
and this gives them an opportunity to move to a more settled way of life and access longer
term accommodation support.
I mean, why wouldn't you want to support that?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:55:53
So I'm fully in favour of this. Thank you, Chair.Thank you. Councillor Jones?
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:55:59
I absolutely support this and echo what everybody's said.It's been fantastic.
It's a shame that we have to have things like this,
but wonderful that we've got organisations and charities
which are keen to provide this for our residents.
So thank you.
Councillor Cooper?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:56:15
Thank you, Chair.I would suggest that we go with this and leave it to the experts
and look at the reassurance.
give it a trust, we've made it quite clear that not anyone just turns up to do this assessment
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:56:29
and I think in that view that should be supported. Thank you.Thank you, Councillor Mike Breakmore.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:56:34
Yeah, it's all been said, I'm fully supportive of this and also want to add my thanks to the Renby Centrefor all the work that they do in our community. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:56:44
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:56:48
I see no other hands. Oh, Councillor Lockwood, very last second.Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:56:52
How could I not? Yeah, of course I'll support this brilliant scheme. Thank you.Okay, I think I know which way this one's going. We have one proposer to accept the
application as it stands and it has been seconded. All those in favour, please raise your hands.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:57:07
And I can see that that is unanimous. Thank you very much.8 24/1315/FH - 41 The Parade, Greatstone, New Romney, TN28 8SU
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:57:24
So we move on to our next application as member of the public move through.And our next application is 24 -1315 -FH 41 the Parade Great Stone in New Romany.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:57:48
Do we have any updates please?Thank you, chair. We have no updates.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:57:53
I'm just waiting for the outdoor door to be closed. Lovely. Okay.We have three speakers on this application and our first speaker is Elizabeth Kershaw, who's a local resident
to speak against the application. Good evening, and you have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 1:58:19
Thank you. It's very rare on the English coastline to find houses from which you can step outof the kitchen into the sand without crossing a road or a promenade. A short length of the
parade in Greystone is home to such houses as I discovered in 2003. Over four years I
completely renovated it to its authentic Art Deco style from a derelict bungalow and I
fully intend to live there later this year when I start drawing my old age pension.
Meanwhile for 17 years it's attracted holiday makers from the UK, Europe and even the United
States. They all wonder at the position nestled peacefully behind the dunes with its little
path through the grasses and wildflowers onto the breathtaking white sandy beach and at
sweeping view across the channel of the White Cliffs, Dungeness, the twinkling lights of
France on a clear day and the glittering sunrises. It's a very special place.
I've come to the conclusion it's Britain's best kept secret and one I've tried to share
with the world. The houses on the parade were built in the late 1920s and early 30s and
they're of historic interest because by 1939 they were seen as strategically placed at
events of the bay that was targeted by the Nazis for the planned invasion of Britain.
Some bungalows were tanked out and filled with oil and connected to the platform which
is revealed at low tide from which pipelines took fuel to the tanks and jeeps on the beaches
of Normandy. Others were packed with dynamite to blow up if the Germans should try and storm
the dunes but most did not survive. They were destroyed by doodlebugs and 43 mine and 41
are two of those original 1920s bungalows.
In the 1930s there were big plans for the place but the war put a stop to that development.
But over the last 20 years I've seen the area slowly blossom with inward investment being
very evident. Many houses are done up and the new visitor centre with cafes, bars and
beach huts will put life into little stone. What we need is careful and appropriate redevelopment
with consideration and respect for the natural environment because that's the big draw. Great
stone dunes are a unique SSI and legally protected as is dungeoness and I hope the same consideration
will be given to this linear natural reserve full of bees, birds, lizards, fauna, dragonflies,
etc. The parade's pre -war bungalows were built at a respectful distance from the dunes to
allay human habitation without harming the natural habitat. I also see it as a fire break
that we have long gardens because the grasses, the long grasses are like a tinder box in
the summer and you need to be able to get to them. Last October residents received a
letter reminding us that nothing must be built on the dunes and with a warning of legal action
if it was. So the council needs to be very certain exactly where the dunes should start
and finish and be strict in considering back building on these plots. It's our privilege
Your time is up, could you just finish your sentence please?
It's our privilege to live there, it is not our right to change the landscape and amenity
of the area beyond recognition.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:01:39
Thank you.Thank you very much.
And our second speaker on this is Councillor Wimble who is a ward member to speak on the
application.
Microphone Forty - 2:01:52
Thank you chair, thank you members.20 years ago when this property was sold to the applicants family it was a bungalow occupying
less than 50 % of the plot. It has since been extended by 100 % of its original footprint.
Previously it followed front and rear, the building lines of the rest of the row. In
2005 a wooden fence that marked the border between the rear garden and the dunes was
replaced with a 5 foot concrete wall. At 90 degrees to this an adjoining concrete wall
was built to contain the dunes along the border with No. 43. A 12 -foot high concrete ramp
was installed up to the top of the dunes and provided vehicle access to the beach. The
owner was prosecuted by Natural England and fined. The owner was told to demolish this
ramp but it remained in place until last summer when it was replaced by a concrete staircase
up to the dunes without any known planning application. At the same time the concrete
boundary wall along the border of number 43 was raised.
In 2008, an application to extend the bungalow resulting
in it doubling its width of the property right up to the
boundary of number 43 and extended it by six feet beyond
the building line of the rest of the road towards the dunes.
Subsequently, a balcony and a conservatory were added
towards the dunes.
Height of the houses of the house also increased.
Consequently, the footprint and volume of the dwelling
building are now more than 50 % larger than that of its original footings. I believe this
precludes further extensions of the plot under the council's own planning regulations. The
application suggests that the proposed construction of an L -shaped swimming pool and gym complex
in the rear of the garden is replacing light -to -light structures. There are currently two large
sheds in situ standing side -by -side along the boundary with No. 39. The proposed building
will not be in the same position of the same dimensions, in the same style of materials
or appearance. This will not be a significant permanent dominant concrete new build, not
a temporary light for light wooden structure. It will be also extended below ground by several
metres to accommodate a swimming pool. The houses on the parade have no foundations and
are literally built on shifting sand. Could this excavation undermine the adjoining properties?
I'm also concerned that concrete footing is under construction along the boundary with
number 43.
This is not referred to in the application, so we wonder if this is for a future build.
This house is already twice the size it was 20 years ago, and I believe this proposal
will result in the development which already exceeds the Council's regulations.
Not that long ago, this Council enforced a demolition order on a rear -build bungalow
of a close neighbour to this property because that was not light for light replacement for
garden sheds there.
I suggest that to allow this substantial building to abut a SSSI area would be at odds with
this decision.
This can make the council vulnerable to an appeal and legal action and we must be consistent.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:05:01
Thank you very much.We have one last speaker, which is Mr Ian Upton, who is the agent to speak on the application.
Good evening, sir.
You have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 2:05:16
Thank you.Hi.
I understand this application was called in front of the committee on the basis of land
ownership issues and the impact on the adjacent site of special scientific interest.
I think the land ownership issues have been resolved, as it says in the committee report
pack.
And in terms of the impacts on the site of special scientific interest, KCC Ecology said
they have no objection subject to being implemented in accordance with the construction management
plan and Natural England made no comment.
So I'm not sure what the actual impact on the site of special scientific interest would
be.
I'd also note that this is a reapplication for an application that was approved in 2021
and the drawings haven't changed.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:06:10
Thank you very much.Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:06:12
Councillor Goddard.Apologies chair, before we go on I declared an interest on the first one in my ward but
I didn't on this one so I've missed it, apologies.
And your declaration is?
That's it of mine on the bane of what to do.
I award councillors.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:06:31
Sorry.Fine. Would any councillor like to ask any questions?
Councillor Polly Rakemore.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 2:06:41
Just looking for a bit of clarity, really.I thought there was a difference between this and the previous planning application,
but we've just heard that they're the same.
Can we just have a little bit of a.
Light shedding that please.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:06:57
I can confirm they are the same applicationand there's been no change from
the previous application.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:04
I'm sorry, unfortunately publichave to be observers.
No, but that's fine.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:07:15
Councilor Thomas.Yeah, thank you.
I think we've heard from local residents,
we've heard from Elizabeth Nash on the report.
Just in terms of the reasons for coming here,
land ownership is not a material condition consideration.
So again, I think in terms of,
Lidtown Council objected to this,
although they haven't sought to represent their position
here at the committee meeting tonight.
In the report in section 5 .2, seven neighbors were consulted on this and there were no letters of
objection although there were two neutral letters and there is one comment on the planning portal
associated with this which raises the issues that was raised by the resident who spoke first.
In terms of the appraisal in section 7 of the report it talks about acceptable design and
appearance of the development, the harm to residential amenity, the harm to ecology and the
extent of the dwelling garden being lawful.
All of those points are covered within the appraisal
within this particular report.
So part A in terms of acceptable design says this is
small in scale, traditional design and no harm to character.
On B it talks about this being a minor amendment
to the existing roof form, which is part and parcel
of the planning application that we've got today.
In terms of harm to ecology, the HRA assessment in here,
there's no comment from Natural England
associated with this.
And the only request is it follows
the submitted construction management environmental plan,
which again is a condition in here.
And in terms of is the existing garden
or dwelling garden lawful,
and the report makes it clear
this has become lawful over time,
so ownership is not material condition consideration.
So in that respect, I'd like to move the office
as a recommendation for approval of this application.
Thank you.
Thank you, and I have a seconder, Councillor Keene.
Councillor Holly Blakemore, did you ask to?
Oh, sorry.
Sorry, Councillor Cooper.
Thank you, Chair.
Sorry, Councillor Thomas, can you turn your mic off?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:09:33
Thank you.Thank you, Chair.
Basically, you're looking at page 223 of the report.
It's 715, although Councillor Thomas
has just raised the fact that 714 about it being a law for other time etc.
There's reference there to some sort of notice being served.
Do we know what type of notice that is or would that be material to what we can submit please?
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:09:59
When an application is submitted, an applicant has to say whether they've notified any other landowners which are involved.in an application. What I can also confirm is the neighbours were consulted on this application
and on the 2021 application. What I can also confirm is that Lidtown Council did not object
to the previous scheme which is identical largely to this scheme previously.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:10:25
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:10:28
Thank you for that and more than that would you suppose.Councillor Filler.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:10:31
Thank you Chair. I did have one question and from point 7 .9 it mentions about the largeamount of glazing effectively being overlooking but because there's a garden there it doesn't
matter. I was quite baffled about how a garden can you know a garden that you don't spend a lot of
time in necessarily or at least you've got the elements going on can be equivalent to a gym and
pool and I don't think you can see it from the other room but just the gym and the pool that
fill like rooms you would be using more often and almost more likely to overlook from so I was a bit
for the barrel.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:11:09
There might be a lot of glazing, I think the first is which weight is orientatedand the second point to remember is a single storey building
where 2 metre high fences on the boundary could be erected
so the building would have to be high to be looking down into nervous properties
Cllr Gary Fuller - 2:11:31
to generate any loss of privacy as a result of level of glazing or otherwise.Yeah, no, it wasn't so much about on, whether or not,
it was more the comparison with it being a garden.
So it says in the wording that it's not seen as overlooking
because the garden already overlooks.
For me that wording didn't quite make sense.
If it's not overlooking, it's not overlooking,
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:11:54
but it just threw me eventually.I think it's setting up the property,
the building will look back towards the properties,
but you're quite right, Councillor,
it's not a concern that raises residentially,
so maybe it's been a red herring in this report.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:09
Councillor Sheebe.Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 2:12:14
Thank you.I have sympathies for what the speakers have said,
and it is regrettable that,
you know, it's very clear from the aerial photos,
that the dunes have been,
There's been a land grab over the years which has eaten into the dunes,
but in pure planning terms,
that obviously is not a consideration and is dealt with in the report.
So, yeah, while I can, as I said, I have huge sympathies with what's been said,
I feel I have no choice but to support the recommendations.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:58
Would any other Councillor like to say something? No? Okay, we have one recommendation and thatis to go with the officer's recommendation to allow this application. All those in favour,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:18
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:23
Microphone A - 2:13:27
please show your hands. Thank you. Those against? Any abstentions? NowCllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:28
I can see that that appapplications passed. Thank you.
9 25/0002/FH - 111 Canterbury Road, Hawkinge, Folkestone, CT18 7BS
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:13:42
We move on to our last application this evening, which is a 25 -0002 -FHwhich is 111 Canterbury Road in Hawkins. Do we have any updates
Mr Robert Allan - 2:13:59
please?Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:14:02
Thank you chair, no updates. Thank you and we also have no speakers onCllr Gary Fuller - 2:14:08
this one committee so would anyone like to make any comments?Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:14:11
Councillor Fuller? Move the officer's recommendation.And I also have a flurry of hands to second by the looks of it.
Councillor Mike Blakemore can second.
Councillor Thomas, did you want to speak on this?
No, just wanted to second.
No.
Would anyone like to speak or raise any comments on this?
Oh, Councillor Goddard, welcome back to the committee, sir.
I thought you were.
Okay, so we have a proposer and a seconder to go with the officer's recommendations to
allow the application.
All those in favor, please show your hands.
And I can see that that is unanimous.
Committee, thank you very much for your debates this evening.
I think they were very sound and very good.
I'd like to thank you all.
Webcast Finished - 2:15:04
Safe journey home and good night until the next meeting.- Declarations of Interest, opens in new tab
- Minutes , 21/01/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee, opens in new tab
- Minutes , 11/02/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee, opens in new tab
- 24.0653.FH - The Log Cabin update report FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24-0653-FH, opens in new tab
- 24.0653.FH - Appendix 2 The Log Cabin (copy of Jan'25 report) FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24.0653.FH - HRA - DW - Appendix 3 FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24.1650.FH Bus station Folkestone FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24-1650-FH, opens in new tab
- 21-0553-FH Station Road Hythe FINAL, opens in new tab
- 21-0553-FH, opens in new tab
- 21-0553-FH Station Road Hythe Annex 2 - Jan report FINAL, opens in new tab
- 21-0553-FH Station Road Hythe Annex 3 - 25 degree test FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24.1769.FH - shakespeare terrace - FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24-1769-FH, opens in new tab
- 24.1315.FH - 41 The Parade FINAL, opens in new tab
- 24-1315-FH, opens in new tab
- 24.1315.FH - HRA - EN - Appendix 2 FINAL, opens in new tab
- 25.0002.FH - 111 canterbury road FINAL, opens in new tab
- 25-0002-FH, opens in new tab
- Lobbying Form, opens in new tab
- Appendix v2, opens in new tab
- Supplementary Sheet - Committee 18.03.2025, opens in new tab