Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 15 April 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 15th April 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

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

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Microphone A
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Belinda Walker
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Microphone Forty
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Microphone Forty
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Microphone Forty
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  10. Llywelyn Lloyd
  11. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
  13. Cllr Paul Thomas
  14. Llywelyn Lloyd
  15. Cllr Paul Thomas
  16. Llywelyn Lloyd
  17. Cllr Paul Thomas
  18. Llywelyn Lloyd
  19. Cllr Paul Thomas
  20. Llywelyn Lloyd
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Nicola Keen
  23. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  24. Llywelyn Lloyd
  25. Cllr Nicola Keen
  26. Llywelyn Lloyd
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Jackie Meade
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Microphone A
  31. Cllr Jackie Meade
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone Forty
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Microphone Forty
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  8. Cllr Paul Thomas
  9. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  10. Cllr Jackie Meade
  11. Councillor Tony Hills
  12. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Cllr Anita Jones
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  17. Llywelyn Lloyd
  18. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  19. Cllr Belinda Walker
  20. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  23. Cllr Jackie Meade
  24. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
  26. Cllr Jackie Meade
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Microphone A
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Cllr Jackie Meade
  31. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
  33. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  34. Cllr Jackie Meade
  35. Cllr Paul Thomas
  36. Cllr Jackie Meade
  37. Cllr Paul Thomas
Share this agenda point
  1. Llywelyn Lloyd
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  4. Llywelyn Lloyd
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Councillor Tony Hills
  7. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  8. Llywelyn Lloyd
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Paul Thomas
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Paul Thomas
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Llywelyn Lloyd
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Councillor Tony Hills
  5. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
This meeting will be broadcast 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 viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under
consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
So members, as the chair of this committee I would like to make a statement for the benefit
of all councillors present at this meeting and for members of the public.
The applications before you tonight, and indeed any applications you consider in the future,
must be considered on planning merits only.
It is essential that members adhere to this principle and ensure that their decisions
tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided to you during
this meeting.
This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning application
before you.
So we will now move on and apologies if I sound croaky.

1 Apologies for Absence

I've had a cold for the last week.
So do we have any apologies for absence please?
Thank you chair.
Microphone A - 0:01:31
We've received apologies from Councillor Goddard and Cooper and Councillor Hills is here as
a substitute.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:35
Welcome Councillor Hills.
Do we have any declarations of interest Councillors?

2 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Walker.
Yes please.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:01:47
it's the first application, 25035FH, land to the rear of Earl's Cliff Mews. That's actually
directly visible from my property, so I'll be leaving the Chamber for that one.

3 Minutes

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:57
Thank you. Any other declarations? I'm seeing none. Thank you. So before you, you have the
meetings of the minute held on the 18th of March to be considered and approved as a correct
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:13
record may I take them as so. Many thanks. So that brings us straight on to our first

4 25/0035/FH - Land Rear of Earlscliffe Mews, Shorncliffe Road, Folkestone, CT20 2NB

application of the evening which is 25 -0035 -FH which is the land rear of Oldscliffe Mews
is Shunkliffe Road in Folkestone.
Do we have any updates on these?
Thank you, Chair, yes we do.
Good evening, councillors.
Two quick updates.
We've had an additional representation received
from raising objection on the basis
of a lack of access for emergency vehicles.
I would note in paragraph 7 .36 of the report,
page 27 of the pack, I believe,
that Kent Fire and Rescue comments received
and have raised no objection to the scheme.
And this can be addressed through building regulations.
The second update is to note that through slight omission, whilst the report at paragraph
7 .21 deals with biodiversity net gain and the need to comply with it, we have omitted,
my apologies, conditions relating to biodiversity net gain, so I'd ask that the recommendation
includes an additional condition for officers to agree.
Related to biodiversity net gain, there is a debate about whether this should be secured
formally flew section 106 prior to or after any approval should it be granted.
I would ask that the recommendations further amended to agree that the Chief Planning Officer
has the ability to add section 106 obligations as he sees necessary to secure biodiversity at game.
That's the end of the update.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:03:47
Many thanks. And we have three speakers on this.
Many come forward. You will have three minutes from when you start.
So our first speaker of the evening is Stephen Secular, I hope I spelt that correctly, who
is a local resident to speak against the application.
Would you like to come forward, sir?
Thank you.
Good evening.
Microphone Forty - 0:04:21
I'm here on behalf of the residents of the ten flats, sited at 5961 Earl's Avenue,
which is adjacent and overlooks the proposed development.
I'd like to start by saying that I'm not anti -development.
New homes are much needed all over the UK and Folkestone desperately needs to increase
its housing stock if it is going to continue its regeneration.
However, there are good developments and bad developments and this proposition is neither
it is in fact a terrible development.
The plan is to squeeze six small flats into a tiny parcel of land
with extremely contentious access.
I have a direct view from my apartment into the piece of land in question
and can see the potential problems easily.
Not only will this squeezed in block of flats create a lack of privacy
due to it being a three -story development,
but it is building up real trouble for the future.
If this development goes ahead I can easily see that there will be constant friction between
the new occupants and the residents of Earl's Cliff Mews.
This can be made clear by referring to the plans themselves and photographs that we've
submitted.
I have measured the relevant area carefully and as a professional designer who has been
measuring indoor and outdoor spaces for over 23 years I can confidently state the following.
Emergency vehicles trying to turn around and exit onto Shoncliffe Road forward will find
it very difficult, bordering on impossible.
Two, the existing garages being small single garages with up and over doors means that
large modern cars such as SUVs, that's sports utility vehicles, will not fit inside the
garages with enough room for the occupants to exit their vehicles.
Therefore, it is inevitable that some cars will need to be parked in front of the existing
garages.
As it stands, current Earl's Cliff residents will need all the current available turning
area to be able to exit forwards onto Shawcliff Road because reversing into the busy Shawcliff
Road would clearly be dangerous and foolhardy.
The long part of the driveway itself is not wide enough to do a three point turn or for
two vehicles to pass each other.
So to summarise, poor access will inevitably lead to protracted disputes and arguments
between existing and new residents and I see nothing but trouble ahead.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:06:49
Thank you sir.
And our second speaker this evening is Councillor McShane who is the ward member to speak on
the application.
Microphone Forty - 0:07:00
Good evening Councillor and you will have three minutes from when you start.
Good evening chair and members of the committee.
I would like to speak in opposition to this application and respectfully urge you to give
serious consideration to concerns raised by local residents and statutory consultees.
Firstly, the new folks in society has formally objected to it due to a number of reasons
including the accuracy of the boundary lines, the heritage statement and the inadequate
parking provision proposed.
And this is a well documented issue in the area where off street parking is already under
significant pressure and this development would only worsen the already difficult situation.
Secondly, both KCC highways and Kent Fire and Rescue have expressed concerns about emergency
access. The ability of a fire plant to enter the site, manoeuvre safely and exit travelling
forwards has not been adequately demonstrated. This also raises serious safety concerns.
There are also unresolved issues surrounding the accuracy of the Red Line boundary. Several
on private land. One particular corner of the land, number 4, is Cliff Muse, would appear
to be critical in enabling large vehicles, including emergency services, to turn within
the site. If this land is not within the applicant's control, the site's maneuverability is significantly
compromised. Beyond the technical planning issues, I would also like to draw your attention
to the personal impact this development will have on our vulnerable resident, Mr Fox, at
number 4, is Cliff Muse. Mr Fox is visually impaired and relies on his guide dog for daily
mobility and independence. The proposed works would involve construction activity on or
near his property, including the removal of a wall or fence, which currently provides
secure access for his guide dog to his designated toileting area. Disrupting this routine not
only affects the dog's ability to function effectively, but also directly compromises
Mr Fox's safety and independence. Finally, the only access to the proposed development
is via the driveway to Ozcliffe Mews. This route is already in regular residential use.
Accommodating the volume and size of the construction traffic required for the build alongside daily
resident activity would be extremely challenging and likely to result in disruption, safety
hazards and access issues throughout the construction period. Given all these concerns including
adequate parking, serious access issues for emergency services, unclear boundary lines,
potential encroachment and the negative impact on a vulnerable resident, I respectfully urge
the committee to refuse this application. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:09:35
Thank you, Councillor. And we have a third speaker on this, which is Leo Griggs, who's
the applicant to speak in support. Good evening, sir, and your three minutes will start when
you do. Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:09:55
Evening Committee.
Livingston Homes is happy to discuss any planning application at committee.
We're a small housing developer with a good track record locally.
We understand immediate neighbours will not want new housing or new builds in the vicinity.
In this instance, we have been advised not to approach immediate neighbours during the
process as there has been a level of misinformation, distraction and legal inaccuracies that have
been put onto the online portal commenting process.
So I hope to speak briefly on those fears and worries this evening.
I want to start by addressing disruption during construction, which obviously cannot be avoided,
but we are a considerate builder and do our best to reduce disruption and noise to a minimum
during construction. The proposed application would be a timber frame construction thereby
reducing construction duration and we will liaise with neighbours during construction
with an open dialogue in place. I want to say personally to any neighbours here tonight
who share the Access driveway we will liaise continually and in advance through the process
and the fears and worries being forecast will not come to pass. Instead we plan to be your
in every sense of the word, and we do not plan on entering any private gardens to facilitate
utility connections, but if this does transpire to be needed, we would seek to approach this
well in advance verbally, in writing, in the correct legal way, and in a neighbourly fashion,
so all parties are happy.
We as a company are in no rush for this construction project, so nothing will be thrust upon any
labour at the last minute and we approach all our works in a friendly manner.
Also disruption during the future occupation of the six flats would be minimal.
Flats are by nature leasehold and will have to abide by the lease regulations including
the access way and other lease rules as the existing new build townhouses do at the moment
over the access way.
The scheme itself is a parcel of unused brownfield land currently overgrown with grass until
2010 it was part of the larger plot of Ellscliffe College School used as a car park.
All the areas being brownfield land, the main plot was developed from 2012 onwards to the
terrace of five townhouses.
Our transport consultant over both planning applications agreed with KCC the safest outcome
for the proposed plot.
The accessway is currently used by three rear parking spaces and garages and we propose
a very low vehicle usage increase by creating four further parking spaces on private land
which would not interfere in any way with the three existing spaces.
Many comments have been made about the emergency vehicles but it is clear a fire engine is
not proposed to enter the site, instead the new property meets the regulations of laying
a 75 metre hose to the property.
Could you finish your three minutes up, thank you.
other smaller emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles will enter in the normal way, turning
on our private land, not where the three existing spaces exist.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:19
Councillors, we've heard the speakers.
Over to you.
Does anyone have any comments, any issues, any questions they would like to raise?
Councillor Isby.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:29
Yes, thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:13:34
Can I just ask on the biodiversity net gain
in terms of the offsite provider,
do we know who they are, who that might be?
It's just a general question and I understand.
I got on my notes a fire service
and obviously that seems to have been addressed
and it was addressed in the report
and also addressed by Llewellyn.
I was pleased to see that the apartments or the flats meet the internal space standards which is really good.
I was just interested in the external space in terms of parking.
I think that's always an issue with parking and I know around all the roads in Fodston it's not that easy to park.
But I do understand, and I do understand
that Kent County Council are supportive
or happy with that scheme.
So I think it would be very difficult to go against that.
The other point I just wanted to ask,
and I know that it's been dealt with many times,
and in fact the second application,
if it's still the second application,
also relates to that is the back land development.
Now I know years ago when I was on this committee,
We certainly never allowed back land development.
I know it happens quite often now,
but I just wondered whether somebody would be willing
to make a comment on that please.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:15:11
Thank you, Councillor Hollingsby.
I'll do my best.
On the biodiversity net gain,
though we don't know who the credits would be purchased off
at this moment in time,
that would be something that would be secured
through later details,
but the application would need to satisfy that
before the development could progress.
That is in accordance with the guidance we're receiving
from the Planning Advisory Service
and other neighbouring authorities
as best practice at this moment in time
as it comes to the terms of it.
On parking you're quite correct.
It is an area where there is,
the application documents that the officers have written
highlight that there is a shortfall of parking,
but we're talking a shortfall of potentially
two to three spaces in an area which is close
to existing sustainable transport measures
and where parking is available on streets.
We don't believe that the harm that would be caused
by the lack of on -site parking would be sufficient
to sustain a reason for refusal.
On backland development,
I've never had a policy in my working career
where we've had a policy against it.
We always took the view that the scheme
had to be designed on its own merits
and that you'd have to look at not the principle
of whether it's backland, but whether that gave rise
to any material planning harms to the neighbouring uses or the operation of the site and whether
that generated any material planning harms through noise, light or otherwise. In this
particular case the site is in an area within the built up settlement of Folkestone so the
question about whether it's previously developed land or not is not really truly pertinent.
It is in a site that could come forward. The question for members tonight is does this
development fit comfortably on the site? Would it give rise to any demonstrably harmful outcomes?
Those officers we've concluded, we don't believe it does.
Thank you.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:16:52
I'm actually quite happy to move approval, move the recommendation.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:16:56
Thank you. Do we have a seconder?
Councillor Hills and Councillor Torst, would you like to speak?
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:17:07
Just in terms of what the woman said earlier on
about Kent Fire and Rescue and access issues,
Just to clarify, so no objections from Kent Fire and Rescue
with regard to access for these properties
once they're built, is that correct?
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:17:25
That is my understanding, yes.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:17:29
And if I may, just picking up on the parking side
of things again, so 724, as you stated earlier on,
says the policy requirement for parking is not met,
then there's a shortfall.
The developer has just said that there are four parking spaces
being made on private land.
Do we have a way of actually making that happen
so that we make sure that there is an arrangement in place that
doesn't impact on the residents of Earl's Cliff Avenue
and the already tight parking arrangements in the area?
Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:18:11
Condition 9 of the recommended conditions
sets out that the parking plan shall be, as identified,
shall be secured and provided.
There's a management strategy being attached to that as well.
If we look at...
I'll find the drawing for you.
If we look at Figure Image 1,
you will see there are four horizontally biased squares.
They've got a couple of cars drawn in them for information.
Those are the four car parking spaces being proposed.
Just to clarify, there are no garages being proposed.
So there'll be no garages that couldn't be used
because there are none being proposed
within the application.
But those four parking spaces must be delivered
as part of the planning application,
as part of the conditions.
Okay, so I'm slightly confused.
So the four parking spaces referred to
by the developer tonight are those four spaces
immediately in front of the property
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:19:07
and there isn't a separate piece of land elsewhere,
which is housing the parking for other vehicles,
is that correct?
That is correct.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:19:15
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:19:19
Sorry, if I may, just one more question.
In the report as well, it actually mentions
about the fact that a sprinkler system,
a fast suppression system will be installed
but there's no condition associated with that.
I know it's a building regulations requirement,
because it says so in the report,
but would we normally include a condition
to make sure that that situation is enforced through a planning condition,
as well as being guaranteed by a building regulation? Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:19:56
Thank you. It's a good point.
Planning legislation suggests that the planning authority
should not enforce whether a secondary legislation is in place.
So when everything is covered by building regulations,
the planning authority should not place those conditions on the developer as well.
We could provide a note on the application if members wanted it flagged,
but that note wouldn't be enforceable
because the developer before he is able to build under building regulations
would need to demonstrate that fire safety can be satisfied
through the building regulations.
If he couldn't, then it wouldn't matter if there was planning commissioner otherwise,
the development wouldn't commence.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:20:38
Councillor Blaitmore, Polly Blaitmore.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:20:42
Just a few points.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:20:47
At 7 .3 and 7 .4, the officer's report refers to the acceptable design quality, and I may
be reading too much into that, so I'm happy to be told that's the case, but that makes
me query if there's deemed to be room for improvement there, so that was one question.
At 7 .17, Grimston Gardens is included as a nearby open space, but I would just point
out that that's actually a private garden, those Grimston Gardens only accessible to
properties around that garden, so it wouldn't actually be available to residents of this
development.
And finally on the parking, I wondered if we should be considering allocating those
four spaces, two flats, so that to reduce the possibility of parking moors there, if
you like, of people driving up there, realizing there's not a space and having to drive out
again.
As we've got four spaces and six flats, that was just something that I wondered if it was
worth us thinking about.
And I was a bit confused about the garages.
I didn't think there were any garages, so okay.
And then finally, I just wanted to check that the issue, the man with the guide dog, I'm
I'm assuming that's not a material consideration
that we can consider in this forum,
but if we could just clarify that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:22:02
No, whilst I appreciate the concern raised by the Speaker
around the other residents and the guide dog
that wouldn't, in this case,
be a material consideration, in my opinion,
you know, everybody would have to make sure
they're moving vehicles safely
for all pedestrians and other users.
But I do understand the concern.
On the parking, we could, but at this point,
allocating the parking would be difficult.
What I would say that the applicant was going
is that the applicant would be the person
to determine how those are managed.
And as said to Councillor Thomas,
condition nine requires a management strategy
around parking as to how that's being managed.
So we don't need a condition that requires
specific allocation at this point.
We would ask the applicant to provide
a management plan for that parking
and then we would consult with that
and Kent Highway Safety,
Kent Highways and Transportation, KCC.
Councillor King.
The parking does concern me
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:23:00
because you could have up to 12 people living there
with four spaces and if only six of them had cars,
it's gonna cause a problem.
But the thing for me is the management of the building
and leasehold laws are changing relatively shortly.
So what will happen then?
Lease hold is going to change totally, isn't it?
It's something that's in the pipeline to change.
How can you enforce laws on leases and things like that?
Thank you, Councillor.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:33
Officers haven't made their recommendation based on how the building is managed or otherwise.
The Speaker, the applicant, has referenced that, and that is within their rights and ability to influence.
As the planning authority, we have assessed the application based on its merits and how
it would work and the development is acceptable with or without it being privately managed,
individual ownership or lease.
Those matters aren't being fit to mind.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:03
I'm seeing no other councillor wishing to speak.
So we have one proposal, one seconder to go with the officer's recommendation but to include
the condition regarding the biodiversity and to allow the Chief Planning Officer to deal
with that as it goes forward.
I don't believe that we need a note read the sprinkler system as per building regulations
it should be covered by them.
So all those in favour with the added biodiversity condition please show your hands.
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:50
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:55
An abstention.
Thank you chair, that's seven in favour, one against and one
Microphone A - 0:25:00
abstention.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:03
Many thanks, that one has passed. Thank you.

5 21/2315/FH - 22 Seaton Avenue, Hythe, CT21 5HG

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:14
So we move on to our second application of the evening, which is 21 -2315 -FH, which is
22 Seaton Avenue in Hoys. Welcome back, Councillor Walker. Do we have any updates, please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:25:34
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors. A short update. We've received two additional
letters of objection, both from neighbours who've already commented, stating that they
don't consider the amended plans to address the town council's concerns and raising concern
over the accuracy of the drawings, but I'm satisfied that the drawings are sufficiently
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:25:52
accurate. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And we have two speakers on this, and the first
speaker is Simon Beck, who is a local resident speaking against the application. Good evening,
And you will have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 0:26:08
Good evening Councillors. My name is Simon Beck. I'm a Chartered Architect and I've been Chartered Architect for 39 years
with experience particularly in residential development looking at how the buildings fit in with the character and neighbourhoods that you work within.
I live in Hillcrest Road and therefore have very good knowledge of the character of the area.
This part of HIVE for many years was designated in a planning policy as an area of special
character and the proposal before you tonight would erode that special character and is
contrary to local plan and national design policies.
In particular HB1 and HB2 of the Places and Policies Local Plan and paragraph 131 of the
new MPPF which seeks to ensure that developments adds to the overall quality of the area and
the visual attractiveness and its good design and sympathetic to the local character and
history.
This is set out in my objection and 15 other neighbours objecting to the scheme as well
as the highest town council who objected to it.
Not only is it overall cramped, it's poorly located in backland development.
Sorry, can we just stop just for one second because it's not fair on you.
Sorry there's been a bit of a frack hour outside we're just making sure that our officer who
went out there is safe.
Can we adjourn for five minutes whilst we sort this out?
Thank you don't worry I will give you the start of your three minutes back again so
sorry.
I'll take the floor.
Sorry.

5 21/2315/FH - 22 Seaton Avenue, Hythe, CT21 5HG

Microphone Forty - 0:28:13
With the speaker from the beginning because of that disruption. So sir you will have three
minutes from when you start. Thank you.
Okay. Sorry my name is Assambeck I'm a charter architect of nine sorry thirty nine years
experience and I've lived in Highs for eight years. I live on Hill Cross Road have good
knowledge of the character of the area.
This part of HIAS for many years was right designated in the planning policies as an
area of special character and the proposal before you tonight would erode that special
character.
They are contrary to local plan and national design policies, in particular HB1 and HB2,
in the places and policies in the local plans and paragraph 131 of the new MPPF which seeks
to ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area and are visually attractive
of good design and sympathetic to local character and history.
As set out in my objections and the objections of 15 neighbours
and that of the Hithe Town Council,
not only is the proposals cramped, poorly located, backland development,
it is completely out of character
with the Northwood expansion of Hithe, which took place in the 1930s.
It's architecturally also dull, uninspiring and characterless.
Little is given to the design quality in the proposals in the officer's report
with no assessment against policies HB1 and HB2.
And I disagree with the conclusion that the dwelling is a simple,
contemporary scale design, similar to the properties within the wider area,
which has no reflection of the properties actually adjacent to it.
The officer's report also went on to refer to a property recently built next door,
which is 19A Castle Road, saying it established a precedent.
Firstly, there's a long term... Sorry, firstly, it's long been established
that there are no precedents in planning
and we should actually hold that dear to us.
Secondly, the proposal of the other house is completely different.
It's completely different because the house is located to the rear of Castle Avenue and
next to Quarry Road.
This forms a cluster of dwellings which is similar to what you get within the area.
The dwelling that's being proposed in the site is on a site which is on a linear form
which forms the land between Hillcrest Road and Seaton Avenue and there's a series of
linear plots that could come forward if this was accepted.
The plot of the previous site was also much bigger, being twice the size.
Finally, the house was also of better quality.
I do understand that we need to support new homes.
However, granting new homes should not be a dispense of character and quality that we
all know.
The plot itself is surrounded by mature trees and we do not feel that enough due care and
taken in regards to that.
These trees are of vital importance to the character of the area.
And also I feel that if a developing is built in this place,
they will compromise the amenity of anybody leaving this space,
which then will require their removal.
Again, this is something which I'm afraid we have seen for many times.
Finally, I really do believe that if you're going to support a new home here,
then it should be of exceptional quality rather than the quality of the scheme you have before us.
All these points I'd like you to request the refuse application. Thank you.
Thank you, sir, and apologies for the disruption.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:32:05
And our second speaker is Thomas Quain, who is the agent to speak.
In support of the application, good evening, sir, and you'll have three minutes from when you start.
Microphone Forty - 0:32:18
Microphone Forty - 0:32:20
Good evening. I came here with the intention of allaying fears and countering any negative views that would come about from this discussion.
However, having read the officer's report, I can see that he's actually highlighted several areas of concern,
each of which have been fully addressed by himself,
and have concluded that not only is his proposal
in complete compliance with every single planning policy,
but is also actively supported by those policies.
I think I've run out of things to say,
but what I would say is that everything about this proposal
actually conforms to policy and comes down
to the basic tenet of planning law, which is basically
if there is no discernible impact or adverse impact on either the community,
the neighbors or the environment then the default position should be approval
every time. Madam Chairman, sorry Madam Chair and members of the committee I
thank you for your time. Thank you sir. Over to you councillors would anyone
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:28
like to make a comment, ask any questions, raise any issues?
Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:33:40
Just a couple of things from me, if I may, just in terms of some of the concerns that
have been raised here this evening to do with compliance with policy.
So this is a garden development which is covered by policy HB 10, amongst others.
So the question I had, and this is not clear from the drawing,
it sits underneath 3 .4.
So this sits in the rear garden of Seaton Avenue.
But is the garden size adequate to meet the policy requirements for HB10?
I did have another question about fire safety sprinkler system,
which we addressed previously.
So I won't go back over that one there.
And again, just for comment really,
the High Town Council's concerns were
over intensive development and out of character
to the area, which is what our first speaker said as well.
So I just wonder if the officers could just address those
and satisfy us that the way that this has been constructed
is consistent with the policies,
particularly HB 10 and HB 1 and 2.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
I'm trying to address those in order.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:35:05
So first off, I have the garden size,
which, yes, measured that against the policy.
It provides a suitably sized garden
in accordance with our requirements,
so we're happy on that regard.
As you say, fire has been discussed previously,
but we're confident here that that can be addressed.
I've discussed the matter with our building control team
and they've reiterated, as was in the previous report,
that provided that they meet the requirements
of installing sprinklers and building control requirements,
they're happy with that, so we're fine on that.
In terms of over -intensive development,
I believe as set out in the report, really,
the development proposes a single house on a plot
that's capable of accommodating the house,
the garden, necessary parking, et cetera.
So no, we don't consider it to be over intensive
without regard.
I don't agree with the town council's objection.
And in terms of the character, of course, it's subjective.
Speaker tonight has put across his position.
We as officers think that the design is acceptable.
The area has a very, very mixed character.
There's houses all look different,
as you can catch glimpse in some of the photos.
I think this property will sit comfortably within that,
and don't consider it to be harmful to the character
of the area.
Thank you, Chair.
OK, thank you very much for answering us.
I appreciate that.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:36:22
So there's no intention here, I think
it highlights in the report, for emergency vehicles
to access along that road.
And secondly, the same for waste vehicles
wouldn't be required to go down that road.
So is that both of those?
That's how I've read the report.
It's just that on bin storage day, he's got to need arms like Garth to pull these bins
52 metres along the road to take it out there to the waste lorry.
So if you could answer the two access requirements, thank you.
Yes, of course, Councillor.
So emergency access, no, it's not intended that fire appliances would
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:37:03
drive into the
site as set out in the, I forget which paragraph it was in the previous item, the installation
of sprinklers extends the length of the hoses that the fibergate can use, so that would
be addressed again under the building regulations, so we couldn't condition that, but no, to
answer your question, they wouldn't get access down there.
And so, the waste access, we wouldn't be expecting a bin light to go down there.
The proposed plan, so if I can find which page.
So on page 42, Figure 1, you can see the very top corner of the site next to the driveway,
there is a bin storage area.
So yes, the residents of the house would need to drag their bins out, but the operatives
wouldn't need to go onto the site and drag them in and out.
Councillor Hills.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:54
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Tony Hills - 0:38:00
It appears to me to require substantial building, and the space around it seems adequate to
but I am concerned in one way the driveway is not made up it looks like it's going to be just a
get all the way trapped which in bad weather could be prone to flooding or whatever and I'm not sure
about the access onto the main road onto City Avenue so that's any concerns I have but it looks
It has plenty of space around it and it looks substantial.
As for design, well, I come from a part of the world where designs do vary.
It has individual taste, I think.
But that's the only thing I'd like to ask about, is the track.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to point out the driveway material.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:38:53
Condition 9 secures details of hard and soft landscaping.
So we look at all the surfacing materials as part of that.
so we can, if that's Councillors intention,
or if you'd like us to, we can certainly look at
what material's going in there, block paving, et cetera.
That's not a problem.
In terms of access to the highway,
KCC haven't commented on this.
It falls below their protocol response threshold,
but it's a single dwelling.
It's unlikely to generate large volumes of traffic,
so we don't have any objections on that point.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Jones.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:27
Just, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of kind of constantly building in
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:39:30
back gardens and back
filling, but I don't think there's many reasons why we can dismiss this one sadly.
But the thing that I don't think it's particularly characterful, and I will agree, I think they
could have done better with the design actually for that part of Hyde, so it doesn't feel
like it is in character with the area.
So I do have a few issues with that.
So it's a bit of a shame that they haven't done
a little bit more inspiring architecture there.
Councilor Hornsby.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:02
Just wanted to make a comment on setting the precedent,
because I picked that up in the report.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:40:07
And I know time and time again,
we're told that it's not setting the precedent,
and the speaker mentioned that.
So I'd just like to comment on that,
whether it's perhaps an error in the report.
Thank you, Chair, thank you, Councillor Hornsby.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:40:23
Briefing Officer's Report,
officers haven't said use the word precedent,
lots of the neighbours have,
in comments about the applications,
officers have used the word principle.
Very recent difference is that in approving development
in the rear, the principle of putting housing in this area
is acceptable, as is putting any housing in this area
whether it's between or to the rear of houses.
We agree that planning precedent is not a thing and officers haven't used precedent for that very important reason.
But having read the report, there are a number of local residents who through commentary have raised that it might set a precedent
and we've disregarded that as not being material to our considerations.
Thank you very much. I must read the report properly then, mustn't I?
Councillor Walker?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:41:11
The resident had a little bit of concern about the trees report.
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:41:16
It says that they will be protected and won't be damaged by the construction.
But looking at the drawing above 711, they do look rather close.
I'm wondering if perhaps have a little more about the tree report and concerns about the tree safety.
Yes, of course, Councillor.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:41:36
So, bear with me. I'm just trying to point out there is a condition that requires...
Condition 11 on page 57 requires measures to avoid damage to the existing trees, including
their roots and canopies.
So the developer will need to provide details before they begin any works on site to show
us how they're going to do that.
It's not an unusual circumstance.
We're happy that they can be adequately protected.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:09
Councillor Mike Baintmore. Yeah, I think, I mean I hear the point about
building in gardens, but this isn't something new. I live in a house
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:42:14
that my neighbour's
house was originally built in my garden, so many, many years ago, long before I lived
there. So you can look at it a different way, I think. You can look at it as it's making
use of existing land without having to build on green fields and other parts of the countryside.
And I think in this case, yes, I share Anita's point about the quality of the design, but
nevertheless it is making use of existing land to provide another home without harming
local residential amenity, visual amenity or ecology.
So I'm happy to support it.
Is that a proposal, Councillor Blakemore?
It is.
I'm happy to know that.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:42:57
Do you have a seconder?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:42:58
Councillor Blakemore?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:01
Would anyone else like to speak on this particular item?
I'm not seeing anybody.
We have one proposal, one seconder and that's to go with the officer's recommendations
to agree this application.
All those in favour please show now.
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:28
Abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:33
Thank you chair.
That's seven in favour, one against and two abstentions.
Thank you.
Microphone A - 0:43:38
That application has passed.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:41
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:49
Now Councillors, as you will see from your notes, the Sir John Moore Memorial Holland
Library has been moved to a separate agenda at a later date, so we will not be dealing
with that this evening.
So our next agenda item is 25 -0410 -FH -CON which is Highview Score, Mote Farm Road in
Folkestone. Do we have any updates Tom?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:44:28
Yes just one update for you this evening. One representation has been received since
the report was published, which has been emailed by the objector to members of the planning
committee already.
This representation raises concerns relating to changes made to the archaeology condition
under a previous application.
For members' information, whilst this is not a material consideration this evening, please
note that the condition wording was revised in consultation and agreed with KCC Archaeology.
Thank you.
So councillors, we have no speakers on this this evening.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:05
Over to you councillors.
Any issues, any concerns, any comments you would like to make?
Councillor Hinesby?
Move the recommendation.
Do you have a seconder?
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:45:17
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:20
Sorry, I didn't spot him at the back there, Councillor Jones.
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:45:25
So we have a proposal in the seconder.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:45:29
I've got three people wishing to speak.
Councillor Thomas, then Councillor Polly Blakemore,
then Councillor Tony Hills.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:45:38
Just in terms of the update that we received,
so the archaeological working brief
is different to what was originally being proposed,
if that sort of makes sense.

6 25/0410/FH/CON - Highview School, Moat Farm Road, Folkestone, CT19 5DJ

And there's a condition associated with that which has now been agreed by KCC Ecology.
So, they're happy that what is being carried out on that site, bearing in mind that no work is...
The site has been cleared but no construction work is carried out.
So, nothing that's been done so far is going to compromise that position.
Is that correct? Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:46:21
There's a chronology that needs to be understood.
The applicant sought to vary the original condition.
That was done under a separate planning application.
Before the timing for the submission of the information and other watching briefs,
that was discussed with KCC Ecology at the time,
and the revised wording, which is now subject of tonight's discussion,
was agreed by KCC Ecology.
It should be noted that the original planning application, when it came in,
included a watching brief at the time,
And this new information has been passed by KCC Technology to consider as part of the
current condition and whether it now meets and protects the archaeology on the site.
So I think the discussion for the members this evening is to focus on is the information
submitted in support of the condition as amended under a previous application, not how we got
to that previous application but their current application, is the material submitted acceptable
and are there any evidential reasons why it should not be approved?
That is the discussion and the basis for tonight's consideration.
Councillor Polly Backman.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:32
Yes, I know you want to move on,
but just one further point of clarity on that issue,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:47:39
because that non -material amendment
doesn't seem to appear under the relevant planning history,
and that was why I had concerns.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:47:55
That's an omission, but there's no reason why it was omitted, other than it was a non -material
amendment and the application before us is focusing on the technical details before us,
as opposed to being a normal planning application.
We've actually, because we've had a number of these kinds of applications in the past,
sorry, my watch is buzzing, it shouldn't be, we used to include a long -winded paragraph
about how tonight's discussion is about the materiality in front of you rather than the
planning material considerations about planning policy.
Those aren't considerations this evening.
It's literally the information that has submitted and what's in front of us is why the report
formatting is slightly different to standard.
There's no ulterior motive as to that.
In retrospect, there may have been some helpful commentary on that which would have avoided
all the updates I've just given you in the last ten minutes.
Thank you Councillor Hills.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:47
Councillor Tony Hills - 0:48:53
Thank you chair. Yeah, I'm interested in the surface water drainage
On page 78 10 8 11 because KCC haven't come back
It appears, and we'll give a view on that.
But you're saying I think
and condition 19 that when it does come back,
you'll decide then whether it's all going to work or not.
So we trust in you.
Yes, I mean that is basically what we're saying.
We've had the information in that we've consulted
with the Need Local Flood Authority.
They had asked for some additional modelling
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:49:28
to be carried out on some more recent figures and things,
which the applicant has now provided to us.
we've gone back to consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority,
but we haven't had those comments back yet.
As they are the statutory consortees for these matters,
the intention is that as long as we get something back from them
that says we're happy for you to discharge the condition,
then the recommendation is that we would do it at that point.
Just to add to that, councillors,
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:50:00
if the Lead Local Flood Authority say they're not happy,
We will either seek amendments to reach an acceptable solution or we may have to bring
the application back to you to take a different view as to whether the difference in opinion
is such that it warrants a refusal.
I'm not seeing any other councillors.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:50:21
Would anyone wish to propose?
Oh, sorry, Councillor.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:50:24
I'd like to propose the officer's report as presented, thank you.
Thank you, sir.
And do we have a secondary fact?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:50:30
unhappy to second on this one. I'm sorry, sorry. As I say, I've had a rotten cold and
I didn't take my note. I do apologise. So we have one proposal in front of us and that
is to accept the conditions as laid out by the officer's report. All those in favour,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:50:57
please show. And I can see that that's unanimous. Thank you. And we move on to the second one.

7 25/0521/FH/CON - Highview School, Moat Farm Road, Folkestone, CT19 5DJ

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:00
at Highview School, which is 25 -0521 -FH -CON.
Do we have any updates on this one at all, please?
No, we've got no updates.
So again, over to sales counselors.
This one is regarding the Arbor Cultural Mitigation.
Would anyone like to raise anything?
Make any comments on this, please.
I'd like to move the officer's recommendation for this please.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:51:32
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:35
Fine and I've just had a second from my right hand side from Councillor King.
If no one would like to make any comments then we have one proposal in front of us and
that is to accept the officer's recommendations regarding this condition.
All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:54
And I can see the vacuum down this as well, thank you.

8 24/0802/FH - Plot A, Land Rear 15 Collins Road, Mountfield Industrial Estate, New Romney, TN28 8FA

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:01
So we move on to our next application of the evening which is 24 -0802 -FH which is Plautay
which is the land where 15 Collins Road in Meltfield industrial estate at New Romley.
Do we have any updates please?
Yes, thank you chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:52:19
We've received a revised biodiversity net gain metric which is currently with KCC Ecology
for consultation and as per the report we're requesting delegation to approve the item
subject to receipt of their comments and any conditions that they request.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Over to you, councillors.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:35
Would anyone like to make any comments, ask any questions on this particular item?
Councillor Thomas.
I'd like to move the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:52:43
It's a fantastic opportunity for New Romney.
It's going to generate a lot of jobs and there's a lot of other development going on.
So yeah, happy to move.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Councillor Hills?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:52:56
I've got two people fighting for it but you did the last one so Councillor Hills you can
second this one.
Would any other Councillor like to mention anything?
I will also agree that the more industrial units to actually bring businesses into these
areas has only got to be a positive thing.
But we have one proposal, one second to go with the recommendation on this particular
application so all of those in favour please show your hands.
And again I can see that's unanimous, thank you.

9 24/1901/FH - Plot C Coronet Park, Mountfield Road, New Romney, TN28 8LH

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:53:32
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:53:37
Then we move on to the next one which is 24 -1901 -FH which is Plot C Coronet Park, Mountfield Road,
New Romley.
Do we have any updates please?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:53:53
The KCC lead local flood authority have now responded and confirmed they've got no objection
subject to standard conditions to secure precise drainage details.
further to paragraphs 7 .11 and 12.
The applicant signed up to a district
level licensing scheme in respect
of great question.
Use the details of which have been
sent to KCC ecology for comment on
awaiting their response and again,
as per the report requesting delegation
subject to their response in any
conditions that they may request.
Thank you, Jeff.
Thank you very much.
So counselors over to you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:25
Any comments, any questions anyone
would like to raise?
Councillor Hinsby.
I move the recommendation, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:34
And I think you have a seconder with Councillor Hills.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:54:37
Oh, Councillor Polybait -Mann.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:42
Just quickly, I think we did get some updates then, but there seems to be quite a lot of
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:54:45
comments that were being awaited under consultees.
New Romney Town Council, KCC Ecology, Environment Agency, unless I missed it.
Have we heard from all of them?
Oh, when the RMA ID be.
Internal day is called.
No, we haven't heard back from from those yet,
so I should try to find it in the report.
I think it's in the final final recommendation at Paragraph 10.
Just asking for delegation to approve subject to receipt of everything.
I'm not seeing... oh, certainly sir.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:27
Just to be clear, Councillors, we obviously ask for comments, but members and the planning
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:55:34
authority are perfectly in liberty to make decisions without those consortees having
taken their opportunity to comment.
So if we don't receive any comments from some of those bodies, we will push ahead with making
a decision irrespective.
We will wait while we try and finalise any last bits and pieces and where we are definitely
waiting on certain individuals who have said they will come back to us.
But at some point we will have to be giving people the opportunity to speak and we will
move on.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:03
So we have one proposal, one seconder to agree with the officer's recommendations.
All those in favour, please show.
And again that's unanimous.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:14
And then we go on to the last one of the evening, before I lose my voice completely, which is

12 24/1779/FH - Royal Victoria Hospital, Radnor Park Avenue, Folkestone, CT19 5BN

24 -1779 -FH which is the Royal Victoria Hospital in Magna Park Avenue.
Do we have any updates please?
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:35
Does anyone wish to make any comments?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:56:45
I'm not saying any comments. What I would say is I have checked out this site, I know
this site very very well and these retaining walls are not going to affect the buildings
on the close who are very far low down to the land where the hospital ground is. So
So I'm happy to propose this one. Do I have a seconder please?
Councillor, can you second? Councillor Hills.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:13
Thank you, Chair. I was just surprised how large and retaining wall it was, how tall.
Councillor Tony Hills - 0:57:18
And surely when it's constructed it has to be, well, carefully constructed and having sort of life
because it's a very tall object, and if I think about it, it's a tall object.
Thank you, Jay, just to come back on that point.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:57:51
So hopefully remove any concerns.
Condition six sets out that they have to build it in accordance with their civil and structural
engineers' details, so they've had the right people look at it and we're confident that
will be fine. Thank you chair. Councillor McLeish. I was going to say
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:12
I think it is regrettable
that we're losing the trees but pleased to see that they will be
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:58:17
replaced as part of
it as well. Lovely I'm seeing no one else wishing to comment so we have one proposal
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:29
in front of us which has been proposed and seconded. All those in favour please show.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:58:38
I can see that's unanimous, thank you. That is the last application of this evening. Thank you so
much for your time. I'm wishing you all a very happy Easter break and we'll see you next time.
Thank you.