Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 20 May 2025, 7:00pm - Start video at 0:02:20 - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 20th May 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. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone A
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Godfrey
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone Eleven
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  6. Microphone Eleven
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Paul Thomas
  9. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  10. Cllr Paul Thomas
  11. Microphone Eleven
  12. Cllr Jackie Meade
  13. Microphone A
  14. Cllr Jackie Meade
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Microphone Forty
  5. Cllr Paul Thomas
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Clive Goddard
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Gary Fuller
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Gary Fuller
  7. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  8. Cllr Gary Fuller
  9. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  10. Cllr Gary Fuller
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  13. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  14. Cllr Jackie Meade
  15. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  16. Cllr Jackie Meade
  17. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  18. Cllr Jackie Meade
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Jackie Meade
  21. Microphone A
  22. Cllr Jackie Meade
  23. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Robert Allan
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Clive Goddard
  6. Mr Robert Allan
  7. Cllr Clive Goddard
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  10. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Nicola Keen
  13. Cllr Jackie Meade
  14. Cllr Paul Thomas
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
  16. Mr Robert Allan
  17. Mr Robert Allan
  18. Cllr Paul Thomas
  19. Mr Robert Allan
  20. Cllr Paul Thomas
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  23. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  26. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Jackie Meade
  29. Cllr Jackie Meade
  30. Cllr Jackie Meade
  31. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone Eleven
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Eleven
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Mr Robert Allan
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Clive Goddard
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  7. Mr Robert Allan
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Cllr Paul Thomas
  10. Mr Robert Allan
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Nicola Keen
  13. Mr Robert Allan
  14. Cllr Jackie Meade
  15. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Clive Goddard
  6. Cllr Jackie Meade
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
Good evening.
Good evening.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:03
And welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you'll 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'd like to remind members that although we all have strong
opinions on matters under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers and
public speakers with respect. So members, as chair of this committee I'd like to make
a statement for the benefit of all councillors present in this meeting and for members of
the public. The applications before you tonight and indeed any applications you consider in
future must be considered on planning merits only. It is essential that members adhere
to this principle and ensure that their decisions tonight are based on the papers before you
and any information provided to you during this meeting. This is not the forum to discuss
any ancillary issues relating to the planning applications before you. So we will move on.

1 Apologies for Absence

Do we have any apologies for absence please?
Microphone A - 0:01:28
Thank you, Chair. We've received apologies from Councillors Jones and Hollingsby and
Councillor Godfrey as here as her substitute.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:35
Thank you. Just before we start the meeting, I'm hoping that the committee will agree
that we send our deepest condolences to Councillor Hollingsby for her loss and welcome Councillor
Godfrey and her place and welcome our new member, Councillor Lockwood as well. Thank
you.

2 Declarations of Interest

Councillors, do we have any declarations of interest on any items?
Councillor Godfrey?
I've not been operating for a long time so I checked with the
Cllr David Godfrey - 0:02:01
monitoring officer and
I am acquainted in a friend of the parents of the applicant of item 2, U3 Cottage and
it's suggested I should declare that.
Thank you.
Would anyone else like to make a declaration?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:13
I'm not seeing anything.
So we'll move on to the minutes.

3 Minutes

minutes. You've had the minutes to consider and approve. Can I take them as a correct
record of the meeting held on the 15th of April 2025 please? Thank you. I'll sign them

4 23/1925/FH - Land Rear of Barnstormers, Stone Street, Stanford, TN25 6DF

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:34
after the meeting. So with that we'll go on to our first application this evening which
is 23 -1925 -FH which is the Landwehr of Barnstormers in Stone Street, Stanford. Do we have any
Microphone Eleven - 0:02:51
updates please. Thank you chair we have no updates this evening. Thank you very
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:54
much and for this application we have three speakers. May I remind everyone you
have exactly three minutes. After three minutes your microphone will be turned
off and I will ask you to finish your last sentence thank you. So our first
speaker this evening is a local resident Pete Maddox to speak against the
application if you'd like to come forward sir and your three minutes will
start when you do thank you
Microphone Forty - 0:03:27
this proposal has been before FHCC four times and each time has been refused and
rightly so this new application does not properly address the reasons for
refusal but tries to skirt around legislation with insufficient
mitigation and compounds this with fictitious figures, which for some reason the Planning
Department have accepted as true, when even a cursory investigation proves them to be
false.
The visibility displays legally required by the Highways Act are unachievable now and
never will be achievable due to the adjacent land being owned by other properties whose
fencing and foliage are not in the applicant's control.
Construction of this project will take a minimum of two years.
HEV delivery lawyers, construction plant and trade vehicles in and out of dangerous access
every day.
Once complete we'll have numerous vehicles serviced in the development, not just owners
vehicles but dust carts, delivery vehicles, postman, tankers etc.
The nutrient mitigation report for some unknown reason submitted by the planning department
for the developer has a proposal to tanker the human waste and effluent away from the
development cesspits. In the planning department's own words,
in perpetuity. On a very regular basis, once again in a HEV, through a village
with non -existent or extremely narrow footpaths. The government guidelines
dictate this development will generate 3 ,300 litres of effluent per day,
which equates to 23 tonnes of effluent per week every week. There are children
Not if there is an accident or fatality.
Anyone in FHDC who thinks it's illegal
and wantingly dangerous access is acceptable
will be accountable.
Thirdly, there is no defined drainage strategy in the plans,
just assumptions based on outdated 30 -year -old data from 1990.
Even the layperson knows
that rainfall has increased exponentially.
If they propose to use suds tanks,
what will happen when, which they will,
the tanks overflowed due to the world clay geology not being porous.
Previous applications in Stamford have been refused due to the inadequate existing service infrastructure,
which cannot cope at times with existing loadings.
It is well documented that storms surcharge the existing combined sewer
and flood effluent through the gardens of properties downstream from this proposed development.
Stamford is a secondary village. It has no shop, one public house, no bus routes,
cars will be a necessity. We request that you as an unbiased panel protect our environment,
our residents wellbeing and safety not forgetting very limited village green spaces by refusing
this application. In conclusion this developer is neither essential or exceptional. We have
10 ,000 houses being built in and adjacent to our parish. It is contrary to the core
strategy. The mitigation proposal for the Stoddemarsh issue is an inadequate, poor and
extremely dangerous attempt to circumvent current restrictions.
Thank you sir, wonderful, your time is up, thank you very much.
So our second speaker tonight is Councillor Graham Horner on behalf of Stanford PC to
speak on the application. You have three minutes from when you start, sir.
Thank you, Councillor. Good evening. There's possibly some repetition here, but Stanford
has developed in stages since Roman times. Many properties were added in the 20s and
30s, and there were regular additions from the end of the war to the end of the century.
The motorway and Stanford Bypass are a blessing and a curse. This means there's been no incentive
to widen Stone Street despite higher and higher levels of traffic, bigger and bigger vehicles
seeking to access the farm or getting lost. Similarly, the mains drainage is inadequate
even for the existing population. It floods, as Mr Maddox has said, there's no program
to provide an adequate broadband service. We lost our post office long ago, there's
within walking distance, no village hall, no public bus service north of the
motorway and your officers are wrong on that point despite being told by us
quite how they can claim this is a sustainable location for four houses is
beyond us. Aside from one field both sides of Stone Street are now
continuously developed from the drum pub at the north end of the motorway, north
end to the motorway. This proposal would be a major departure from that
development form which we say will change the character of the village.
Stanford has not had the resources to develop a neighbourhood plan but the
local plan has protections, the settlement boundary and the deliberate
demotion of the village to secondary status in the latest local plan. Both of
these are being ignored by the recommendation before you. Let's talk
about Stodbarsh as it bears repeating. The proposed section 106 obligation is to remove
all foul waste water from the site. The proposal is for cesspits, that is tanks which are not
designed to discharge even treated effluent. Simple maths, four houses, 13 bedrooms will
generate 2 .8 tonnes of foul waste water a day according to the calculator on the gov .uk
website. I recognise it's a bit different from Mr Maddox's figure. But still it requires
a 25 ton tanker at least every 10 days and yet it is claimed this will be necessary only
every 4 to 6 months. And please don't pretend water consumption will actually be less than
110 litres per day per person. We've repeatedly questioned this with your officers and requested
to meet them so that they could explain their thinking. Regrettably our request was turned
down which was disappointing to say the least. Frankly one wonders who would buy a house
with a cesspit in the 21st century.
We believe your officers are kidding themselves that this is practical
and it won't be renegotiated in due course.
Meanwhile, we will have to live with the consequences.
Had we been able to meet your officers,
we might have explained why the HRA assessment seems to have been prepared
by the case officer rather than the applicant.
Maybe they can explain that to us now.
In summary, we continue to object this application both on its own
and of the dangerous precedent which could affect the character of the village for many
years to come.
Thank you sir, your time is up.
And our first speaker on this is Grace Clements, the agent to speak on the application.
Good evening and you have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you.
Thank you, sorry I'm a bit small.
Hello members, thank you for your time here this evening.
My name is Grace Clements of Hume Planning Consultancy and I'm speaking in support of this application.
I'd like to start by emphasizing that the applicant does live in the village with his family.
He's not an outsider. He's been there a long time. He owns the property to the front of the site known as Barnstormers.
So as you can see from the slideshow, the development is for the construction of four detached dwellings,
one bungalow, two shallow bungalows and a two -storey dwelling.
and if approved this will add choice to the village in the short term and
also it would be delivered by a small local house builder and supporting local
industry. This application is the same proposal that the planning inspector
found would be overall acceptable in terms of the principal, the impact on the
pattern of the buildings and the character of the area, its design, layout
an impact on heritage, an impact on neighbours and living conditions, highway safety and
traffic levels and also ecology and trees. So since the time of the appeal decision there
are no material considerations which would justify a different stance to their conclusions
on these matters and that's been agreed by the planning officer. This includes the acceptance
that the site is outside but adjoining the red line settlement boundary as noted by the
This revised application has therefore sought to address the only outstanding matter on the Stodmarsh catchment and nutrient neutrality.
A solution has been found to be acceptable and that's been vetted by the Council's independent technical experts on the matter.
and all the other technical matters that continue to be found acceptable by the relevant consultees,
that's KCC highways, ecology, heritage archaeology.
So in summary, the inspectors supported the development of this site in principle,
which is a logical infill and importantly included that it would not harm the character and appearance of the village.
For these reasons, we hope you will support your officer's recommendation. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:12:47
Thank you very much. Over to you councillors, does anyone want any clarification, any questions
that you'd like to ask the officers at all? Councillor Baintmore?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:12:59
It seems the one issue on which we have some latitude here to accept the decision of the
Planning Inspector is around nutrient neutrality and the recommended solution of removing wastewater
but we've got the big difference of opinion between what the officers are saying in terms
of what the report is saying in terms of how many tankers would be needed, how often and
what some of the speakers have said.
So I wonder if we could have some clarification on exactly where that is because there's a
big gap between what we're hearing from different sides here.
Thank you.
Thank you, members.
Microphone Eleven - 0:13:33
We've had the nutrient neutrality assessment calculation assessed by our external consultants
ACOM and they have come back raising no objections and sort of concluding that the proposal proposed
method of mitigation would be acceptable and yeah brave no concerns about the number of
movements being between 18 months and two years for the tanker per dwelling.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:14:04
I'm not seeing any other hands. What I would like, oh sorry, oh sorry Councillor Thomas
I didn't see you, sorry.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:14:11
Just a couple of points that were raised by
Councillor Horner and by the previous
speaker as well, Mr. Maddox.
Just in terms of the visibility splay coming out
onto Stone Street, does that meet the minimum requirement
that's set out by Kent County Council
for a development like this?
That's certainly the challenge that has been put forward tonight.
I'm not seeing anything in any real detail in the report in respect of that.
Thank you, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:14:49
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members.
Yes, it's something that officers were and remain concerned about,
but if you turn to the appeal decision on page 63 of the agenda,
And if you look at paragraph 27, which relates to the provision or non -provision of visibility
space, the inspector sets out that even if the space can't be provided, he considers
that the modest scale of development proposed and the tightly trafficked nature of part
of Stone Street is reasonable to assess the proposed access as a private drive with direct
rather than as a public road designed to adoptable standards.
In such circumstances, visibility is more than adequate
from the proposed access.
So in view of the inspectors conclusion on the matter,
I would conclude, as set out in the report,
that raising an objection on that basis wouldn't be sustainable at appeal.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:15:55
Well, the inspectors obviously never driven down Stone Street,
That's fairly obvious.
I'm not expecting that he would have done, actually.
I still want to sail around this boy with neutrality as well.
There just seems to be such a massive difference
between what is being suggested by our speakers
and what's in the report as an acceptable position.
It just seems to me, this is not out just by a little bit,
this is hugely different in terms of what they're saying the requirements are.
Particularly along that road, as has already been said.
These tankers, they're not small, are they?
I just wonder, have we absolutely nailed that
with regard to underpinning that calculation?
Microphone Eleven - 0:16:58
Thank you. As I sort of said that we did have all those calculations double checked by our
external consultant who are experts in that field and they've raised no objections and
said that the nutrient calculations were done correctly at the time and there's no issues
in that regard.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:17:20
I'm not seeing any other hands up. What I would like to add is this is quite an unusual
application because it's already been to appeal. Which, considering what I think would be some
of the issues that we would raise as a committee have already been quashed by the Inspectorate.
So unless you are certain that there are other issues that have not been dealt with, I feel
that we may not have as much free hand as we would normally have. Would any other Councillor
like to raise an issue? I'm seeing absolutely nothing. OK in that case I will have to propose
that planning permission be granted to the conditions and also delegated authority be
given to the Chief Planning Officer. Do I have a seconder please? Thank you Councillor
Blakemore. All those in favour please raise your hand. Thank you. All those against? And
Microphone A - 0:18:48
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:50
Thank you, that application has passed.

5 21/1488/FH - Yew Tree Farm, Stone Street, Stanford, Ashford, TN25 6DH

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:02
We move on to our second application this evening, which is 21 -1488 -FH, which is Yew
Tree Farm, Stone Street in Stanford, Ashford.
Do we have any updates please?
No update, Chair.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:19:17
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:19:23
Thank you and we again have three speakers.
So our first speaker on this application is a local resident, Stephen Cave, to speak against
the application.
Good evening sir if you'd like to come forward.
And you'll have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:19:50
With only three minutes to speak I have chosen here to focus on what I believe is the main
outstanding matter being whether the committee's previous 8 -4 refuse decision should be amended
following the provision of a noise impact assessment.
Firstly, it is clear that the practical training operation is situated in a completely unsuitable
location.
On investigating by looking at the site locations of other CPCS training businesses, both in
Kent and across the whole country, it is clear that all others operate from designated industrial
sites with no residential properties anywhere in the immediate vicinity.
With regards to noise impact assessment it seemed surprising that it took the applicants
chosen assessor three months to arrange the date of the site visit and then eventually
a week when just a single one hour practical training session on an excavator was taking
place.
This is especially surprising as Innovate's published training schedule showed a total
of 150 days of varied training, practical and theoretical, involving their full range
of plants was taking place over a 105 day period in 2024.
What is considerably more concerning is the complete lack of noise measurements taken
from any other heavy plant.
Not only do all these items have a greater industry acknowledged sound input, output sorry, than a standard excavator,
they also operate within the main trading area which is only 30 to 80 metres from the nearest residential properties.
To me this is like requiring an assessment on how the noise from Wembley Stadium impacts on the local area
and the assessor is choosing to undertake their site visit on a day when there are no
matches played and the stadium is empty.
What adds, well I feel adds to the misleading nature of their conclusions is their continued
use of the following statements in the report.
They say the report reflects a typical plant training session, which it clearly does not.
They also state and later repeat the assessment is based on a worst case scenario when they
must know this is also not the case and they ultimately conclude with the survey indicates
a low noise impact and demonstrates that there should be no adverse impact on any residential
amenity.
Obviously it's not possible for you to hear the sound recordings used in the report but
And I hope you will be able to hear a very short recording of 14 seconds of the actual
noise generated from a typical plant training session.
This was recorded from my master bedroom in my house in Kennet Lane.
Hopefully this works, if not you won't be hearing it I'm afraid.
Thank you sir, your three minutes is up but I allowed you to do the recording because
I saw you pressing buttons.
Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.
Our next speaker is Councillor Graham Horner. Good evening again sir. On behalf of Stanford
PC to speak on the application. Thank you.
Thank you again Councillor. I'd like to first congratulate your planning team on a very
comprehensive report. But I want to draw attention to the date members last considered this.
three years ago, exactly this week.
During these three years, the applicant has made no attempt to mitigate the impact on the neighbourhood
and nearby residents have had to endure unabated disturbance far longer than they should.
Some have found this particularly mentally stressful.
We do not dispute that the activity is a worthwhile enterprise
and we support the farm in seeking to maintain an income
in what is a particularly difficult time for farmers' finances.
However, we agree with the officers assessment that this particular activity is inappropriately
located.
As a retired civil engineer well used to building sites, I was at one stage prepared to believe
that the noise and dust issues might be overcome but the noise assessment was inadequate and
misleading and as I say no mitigations have been attempted.
There has not even been an offer to reduce working hours which is still proposed as seven
days a week can include bank holidays.
This would never be allowed on a construction site in a residential area.
I should also add that although actual training might begin after 8am, machinery for the training
typically arrives much earlier to be offloaded so as to be ready for that start time.
If those hours are needed for a viable business then the application must be refused.
There isn't any other land suitable for this activity within Yewtree Farm, but the Clifton
Holts have extensive land holdings elsewhere in the district.
Hopefully they can find a more suitable location for it.
We're not sure why it took two and a half years for the applicant to come up with a
noise assessment, but we trust that whatever decision is made today will be enacted without
further delay.
Please do not defer this again.
Thank you sir. And our last speaker is Matt Judge who is the agent to speak on the application.
Microphone Forty - 0:25:58
Good evening sir. Good evening, thank you chair and councillors.
As you know this application was made in July 21 and was seen at committee in May the following
year when members were very keen to support this unique and essential business. The decision
was deferred due to concerns about noise and the minutes record that you required additional
information from the applicant and that you also expected officers and me to negotiate
matters relating to noise mitigation and potential conditions.
The specialist acoustic consultant was appointed and a week -long background survey was undertaken
after harvest time to secure the data.
The report concluded that the activity will have no adverse impact on residential amenity
when considered with a recommended infill screening along the southern boundary using
the concrete barriers and containers as proposed.
Your Environmental Protection Officer agrees with the methodology and conclusions of the
noise impact assessment and as a result has no objection subject to conditions.
Officers appear to have extrapolated the proposal to mean extending the concrete wall further
along the field boundary resulting in what is described as a substantial and prominent
structure.
However, this interpretation is incorrect.
The specialist report did not consider it necessary to extend the concrete wall beyond
the current line of panels.
The consequential recommendation is therefore unfounded.
We understand the concerns that the parish council and Mr Cave have raised, however we
must not confuse sound power levels with sound pressure levels, they're not the same thing.
Acoustics is a highly specialised science and it is the consultant's opinion that the
use of these containers with the measures to seal the gaps does provide adequate mitigation
and your environmental officer agrees.
The officer report mentions that no dust control measures have been specified in the application
but at no point have officers discussed with us that such measures might be required or
to what degree, but it's an important part of training and we're open to using them.
During the application, the hours of operation proposed were reduced.
However, this has not been reflected in the officer's report.
The reality is that no weekends are worked and the days are shorter.
Innovate have trained some 7 ,500 people working within industry that has an acute shortage
of suitably skilled workers.
Their clients include veterans, ex -offenders and people with a range of diverse health
conditions, both mental and physical, as well as lots of people who needed to switch careers
following lockdown.
They train many of the essential water and telecoms utilities.
The location here is ideal, close to the M20 and walkable to the mainline rail station,
which is particularly important for some of their rehabilitation customers.
The officer report says that the use has been going on for around nine and a half years.
This is incorrect. They've actually been operating here since October 2014,
which means that it's been going on continuously for over ten and a half years.
Officers have said that no details have been provided to demonstrate current levels of lawful activity on the site,
or to compare the levels of noise.
I could argue that the existing use of noise levels are now,
after ten years, a lawful baseline,
and no further mitigation is needed.
But that's not what's before you now.
The applicant has sought to overcome the concerns of this committee
and provided the information that was required by you.
We've proposed a scheme of mitigation that is informed by a specialist
and has been accepted by this council's Environmental Protection Officer.
Innovate are proud of the professional way they deliver their work
and of the benefit that it brings to the borough,
and hope to continue supporting the local industry and community in the future.
and I would urge you to support this application.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Spot on time.
Well done.
Councillors, over to you.
Councillor King.
Can I propose that we go with the officer's recommendation on this, please?
The officer's recommendation is that planning permission be refused.
Do you have a seconder?
Councillor Thomas, do you wish to speak?
I would, please, yes, that's okay.
It's interesting reading all the background information associated
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:29:28
with this.
And it's interesting listening to the residents and the agent tonight who have conflicting
views which is to be expected really isn't it?
It just seems to me that most of the planning applications we have in front of us are about
things that are going to happen in the future.

6 23/2061/FH - Land Opposite Kinross, Rectory Lane, Lyminge, CT18 8EG

With retrospective, you're able to use some of the information that's gleaned from operation.
As the agents already said, this site's been operating for 10 and a half years.

5 21/1488/FH - Yew Tree Farm, Stone Street, Stanford, Ashford, TN25 6DH

Whether the noise mitigation is acceptable or not, we've heard from a local resident
who lives adjacent to the site to say that it isn't.
So it comes down to this noise impact assessment, which again is referenced in the report.
in a number of different areas as well.
One of the things the report does state
is the fact that one of the proposals
to help to mitigate the noise
was to double stack the containers
and that would have a visual impact
and would affect the amenity
from those people living locally.
7 .9 of the report does state
it's a visually sensitive location.
The report is very clear.
We have a number of policies, E6 for example, criteria 1 and 2 are not met, HB1 is not met,
and E3 is not met either.
So when you have a look at it and what's presented in front of us, I have no hesitation whatsoever
chairing seconding the officer's recommendation for refusal.
Thank you.
Thank you Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:31:13
Thank you chair.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:31:20
I can remember this yourself and the deputy chair three years ago
when the agent architect said that it was quite popular amongst members
for the reasons for training disadvantaged people
and advantage people.
I was in support of it obviously being in the construction industry myself.
a training facility on our doorstep and the committee sounded keen.
Obviously the noise issue did come up hence why we deferred it that evening.
Going where I think the Councillor said about the hours,
I think we all received some communication from the agent
and there was revised hours obviously being what he said about
there wouldn't be no Sundays or bank holidays
and Saturdays would be 9 till 12 and 9 till 15 to 4 .30 would be his revised hours.
So I do still support this application for the reasons being for employment and for being a local training facility.
Diggers in the future may be electric.
You know, diggers are changing, dumpers etc etc are changing daily.
They're getting quieter, they're getting more sophisticated etc etc.
So I think there's a bit of conflict in stories between our report and the agent,
with their noise people and our noise people.
Obviously something can miss there.
But I do support this still, you know, three years down the line.
I think they have done a lot of work, the applicants have done a lot of work and had
the, you know, done their tests and consultants in and out and I think a lot of work has gone
into it.
So I do still support this and stand by my decision three years ago.
Thank you Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:23
So we have a second proposal and that's to go against the officers recommendation.
Are you seconding Councillor Miller?
No I just have a question to be honest.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:33:30
Can I just see if we've got a second for the proposal first?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:33:35
Councillor Cooper, your second.
Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:33:38
Yeah, it was just one thing that stuck out at me in the report,
for reasons that will surprise no one.
There's mention that one of the arguments for having the facility
was the loss of grants following Brexit.
But I can't find in any of the documents that the applicant has submitted
any mention of that being an issue.
They do mention Brexit as an issue for getting containers,
but I can't find it in the other...
and they get also COVID and supply chain issues effectively,
but I just couldn't find it in, so I was wondering why that assertion had been made.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:34:22
Sorry, bear with me there, second cancer.
If I could direct your attention to 7 .4 of the report.
I understand your question.
I'm not quite sure whether I have the answer, but hopefully this paragraph will clarify
it.
So the application was put forward as a farm diversification scheme and there was mention
of it being required to help continue the business as Brexit.
There's not a lot of financial information provided with the application.
There's broad profit figures provided with the initial package and not much else.
and as set out in 7 .4 on page 77, officers don't give much weight to the Brexit issue
because by the agents own admission it's been going on for quite a long time before Brexit
so there's little justification in our opinion on that side of it.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:35:10
My question isn't really about why Brexit has no weight because I agree, they've been
around since 2014, you can't blame Brexit.
My question is, at what point did we as, or did you as planning officers, become aware
that they were making this assertion?
Because in the documents that are on the planning portal, I can't find it.
I can't find that assertion by the applicant that Brexit's an issue.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:35:38
From memory, I think it's a brief reference within the documentation.
I'm certainly aware of it from the first time the application came in.
I don't have the precise dates, but it was, it's briefly mentioned from the outset.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:35:48
Again, the only mention I found is a brief mention, but it's about containers and not
about...
So, I'm concerned that we're coming to conclusions in our reports that are not based on the documents
that are being submitted to the Planning Department, and obviously we don't want that to be the
case.
Now, it could be that there's a document that hasn't been published, which is also a problem,
because ideally we want to be reading your reports but also referring back to the original
documents on the planning portal, but I don't like the disparity there.
I don't think it's necessarily going to affect how I'm going to vote on this, but it does
concern me a little.
Thank you for raising an issue.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:36:31
I'm sure we can come back on that.
I'm not sure that that would be a material planning issue anyhow.
What I would say to the committee is please remember this is retrospective, so we have
to look as if it was coming to us for the first time today. Okay, that's very important.
Would any other Councillor like to speak, Councillor Blakemore?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:36:56
Yeah, I am sympathetic to Councillor Goddard's point of view. I'm a little bit confused as
to why, if this was deferred three years ago because of concerns about noise, and then
we've had a noise report that concludes that subject to the erection of a 2 .8 metre tall
acoustic barrier there would be low noise impact upon the closest
residential properties, no adverse impact on residential amenity. Why the
recommendation then concludes that noise would affect the residential amenity of
residents. I'm not quite understanding that contradiction.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:37:32
There's two issues at play here Councillor in that yes a wall may
mitigate the noise, but the wall would be unacceptable from a visual term.
So we wouldn't support the wall if they proposed it for mitigation, and without the wall, the
noise affects the neighbours unacceptably.
So they kind of go part and parcel and hand in hand really, and that's why we've had to
adopt the two different reasons for refusal.
Councillor Lockwood?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:01
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:38:05
I totally understand Councillor Goddard's point.
It's good to have training, that facility there,
lots of people going through, good for the economy,
good for the skill shortages,
and good for the tsunami of new housing
that's about to hit us in the coming years.
But I can't see, without the wall,
which we wouldn't approve,
how the noise can be contained.
So it looks to me like a fabulous facility in the wrong place.
So can they just not move the operation to somewhere more suitable?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:44
Understood that we have to look at the application as it is this evening, obviously.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:38:49
So on that basis I would refuse the application.
That's fine.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:38:53
Would any other councillors like to make any points?
I'm not seeing...
We actually have two proposals.
The first proposal that was seconded was that planning permission be refused for the reasons
set out at the end of the report.
Will all those in favour of agreeing with the officers please raise your hand.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:20
All those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:28
And any abstentions please? Thank you.
Microphone A - 0:39:33
Thank you chair, that's six in favour, four against and one abstention.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:36
Thank you. So that has passed to agree with the officers to refuse at this time. Thank
you.

6 23/2061/FH - Land Opposite Kinross, Rectory Lane, Lyminge, CT18 8EG

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:46
So we move on to our third application this evening which is 23 -2061 -FH which is the land
opposite Kinross in Rectory Lane in Limage.
Do we have any updates please?
Mr Robert Allan - 0:40:06
Good evening chair, to give you members, no updates.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:15
Thank you and we have two speakers on this and our first speaker is a local resident
Richard Juice, I hope I pronounced that correctly, to speak against the application.
If you'd like to come forward sir and you have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:40:34
Hello again.
Can I remind you that at your meeting in February you made no commitment to accept this application
and also that before deferral there was a majority decision to reject it. Your officers
then suggested that an appeal and costs would go against you. This I am told is not the
case. An inspector would need to show that you have acted either vexatiously or frivolously.
Our argument in Rectory Lane, and we have taken specialist advice on this,
is that there are sound planning reasons for refusal,
but do not open you liable to any financial penalty on appeal.
The applicant, however, seems to believe that a few tweaks
will make the development acceptable to us.
They do not, and neither should they satisfy you.
The new side elevations only serve to show just how overbearing these new homes will
be.
and by moving them 1 .5 meters up the hill,
it will make them even more obtrusive from across the Elam Valley.
Meanwhile, the image taken from much further along the public footpath
is pretty meaningless,
as the hedge line to the left will come down under the proposed plan.
The revised plan does nothing to address our concerns over drainage.
The plot has no access to the main system,
which currently runs to the rear of existing properties.
You may argue that's one for the developer,
but it's a real concern for us.
At the February meeting,
your officers were either unwilling
or unable to suggest grounds for
refusal of this application to help you.
Can I propose the following three?
Firstly,
the site is outside the build up
confines of Limage as there are
no exceptional circumstances.
The proposal is therefore in breach
of policy SS one of the Folksnan
the Kent -Downshend -Heith Core Strategy Review 2022.
Secondly, the proposed dwellings will not conserve or enhance the Kent -Downshend
National landscape and therefore the proposal is in conflict with Policy NE3
of the FHDC Places and Policies Plan 2020.
Finally, the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing
residents in Rectory Lane and the surrounding area.
Therefore it is in conflict with Policy HB1 of the Places and Policy Plan.
In short, this is the wrong plan in the wrong area and will set a dangerous precedent for
expansion outside established boundaries.
The Paris Council also objects but no one is here because this meeting clashes with
their AGM tonight.
We urge you to reject this plan.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much sir.
And we have a second speaker which is Hannah Garling, I hope I've pronounced that correctly,
who is the agent to speak on behalf of the application.
Good evening members.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns raised at the last meeting.
In response to the deferment, the applicant has looked critically at the issues and amended
the scheme to further reduce the impact on neighbouring properties and provided additional
information to demonstrate the suitability of the scheme in this location.
We would like to highlight the dwellings have been shifted back away from the properties
on the east side of Rectory Lane by 1 .5 metres.
This is increase of separation distances between the existing and proposed properties which
will now be between 18 .2 metres up to 29 .8 metres.
While the originally proposed dwellings all
pass the 25 degree test, the applicant
has made this revision to ensure that this position is improved
further and that the test is not only met,
but passed very comfortably.
Passing this test confirms that a proposed development
is unlikely to have a substantial effect
on daylight and sunlight levels for the existing properties.
The design precedent schedule demonstrates
the proposed properties have taken design cues
from the existing houses on Rectory Lane and are therefore in keeping with the street scene.
A side by side site view has been produced to show the proposed view from the footpath
to the south.
Due to the rising level of land to the west of the path and the intervening vegetation,
no views of the proposed houses are available from the public right of way.
It is noted that properties on the east side of the road are visible from the footpath,
as would be the consented house at the Rectory, and that these visually define the village
edge.
Therefore, even where glimpse views of the proposed dwellings may be possible when, for
example, the trees are not in leaf, they would be seen in this context and not appear out
of place.
No changes to the landscaping plan have been made, but it is highlighted that the existing
headthroat on the western boundary is being retained and the headthroat on the northern
and part of the eastern boundary is being retained and supplemented.
New hedgerow planting is proposed along the eastern boundary to the front of Plot 1 and
between the driveways of Plots 1 and 2.
New trees are proposed between the driveway of plots one and two and at the entrance to
plot three, and the scheme also includes a new wildflower area to the front of plot one.
During the members debate at the last meeting, there was reference to the dwellings being
for eight people and therefore there being an increase of 24 residents on the road.
Whilst the number of bed spaces would technically add up to 24, this is an unrealistic occupancy
rate.
The dwellings are family homes and would typically be occupied by parents with a couple of children
each with their own bedroom, as well as a spare room for guests.
We trust that the revised and additional material addresses the committee's previous concerns
in full and demonstrates the acceptability of the proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:21
Councillor Goddard.
Thank you, Chair.
Can I ask a question of Mr. Allen, please, Chairman?
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:46:29
Mr. Allen, 1 .1, I won't read it out.
Has 1 .1 all been addressed, sir?
Mr Robert Allan - 0:46:43
To the mind of officers, yes, hence we are still moving with a recommendation for approval.
Thank you very much, Mr Wannam. Move the recommendation.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:46:51
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:46:53
We have one proposal to go with the officer's recommendation. Do I have a seconder at this point?
I'm not seeing a seconder. Would any other councillor like to talk on this, please?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:47:07
Councillor Baintmore. I can't see that an awful lot has changed since we saw this last
time other than moving them back by one and a half metre and I did speak against this
at the last meeting for the reasons that have been highlighted by the speakers, the extending
of the village, the impact on the nearby residents, the impact on the national landscape. I can't
see that that's just changed and I'm struggling to feel that my mind can be changed because
I don't think the development has changed very much since we last saw it.
Is that a proposal, Councillor Wainmore?
Yes.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:47:40
And you have a seconder, Councillor Keene. Do you want to speak, Councillor Keene?
No.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:45
I'm curious to know how we could ever assess how many people are going
Cllr Nicola Keen - 0:47:48
to live in the house.
I mean, how do you ever assess that, that it's going to be a couple with two children?
They're very big lost properties, so you could have a lot more people.
but I'm totally in agreement with Councillor Blakney, nothing's changed, moving them doesn't move my initial thought on this.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:48:18
Would anyone else like to speak on this? Councillor Thomas.
from.
Oh sorry, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:48:25
Just a couple of points that were raised
by our speakers, if I may.
Looking back at what we said back in February,
under consultations, the Kent Downs National Landscape
agreed in principle to this development.
I think that was in that report then,
I can't find the reference to it, so I didn't know.
So my question is, is that still the case?
Secondly, just in relation to another question raised by our speakers,
on surface water and sewage considerations, wastewater considerations,
are we satisfied that the conditions that would normally be placed
to identify suitable connections would be carried out in this instance?
That's my second question.
The other thing that we raised previously,
and you can see it quite clearly on the photographs
we've got when looking down Rectory Lane,
talks about it being narrow and two cars can't pass.
And as I think we know, this development would be dependent
upon cars to be able to get out and do the things
they want to do.
So they're my three areas. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:49:50
Officer Aaron, can you answer?
Mr Robert Allan - 0:50:00
In response to your first query, the Kent Downs National Landscape,
they haven't been reconsulted.
Their position, they were fairly ambivalent to it before,
and that has not, as far as I'm aware, changed.
Just to clarify on a point raised by the Speaker,
they've not moved 1 .5 metres up the hill,
they've been moving 1 .5 metres in,
that's been proposed.
In terms of the drainage,
I've just been looking for a condition,
sorry, moving away from the mic,
on that, I did think there was one on there
that we can, some of my colleagues
would just check please. We can obviously surface water, there was no objection from
Southern Water to the drainage either and they would obviously have to make a connection.
I have seen some of the correspondence relating to that. They'd have to do that before obviously.
They'd ratify that with Southern Water, pay the money for that and make the connection
which is to be e -studied, I believe, the main sewer.
I'm sorry, you will have to remind me of your last query.
Mr Robert Allan - 0:51:31
Yeah, I think, as you say, it was debated
at the previous meeting.
and we had no negative comments from Kent County Council on highways and transportation.
There is a parking, a passing bay and a turning head included within the scheme to facilitate
sort of general passage and there's adequate off -street parking to serve the developments
we consider without causing disruption for the three houses.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:52:05
One of the other things that was referenced by Liming,
parish council last time,
and mentioned by our speaker this evening,
is the fact that this does sit outside the settlement boundary
and is therefore non -compliant with SS1 in that regard.
But I think I'm right in saying that on the previous application,
When that went to the planning
inspectors they didn't see that as a
single issue that would prevent approval
of the application, is that correct?
Thank you.
Mr Robert Allan - 0:52:40
In terms of the location, it's immediately
adjacent to the settlement boundary.
As officers have set out, it's well
located situated next to it and because
it is a rural centre, there is some
within the wording of the local development plan,
there is some accommodation for small extensions
to this defined area.
Members may have also noted on the supplementary sheets
in the update there where we have talked
about the tilted balance and the fact
that the council's housing land supply has dipped
below the five year mark, hence we're definitely good to underline that we're holding no issue
in that regard.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:53:35
In that case I'd like to second Councillor Goddard's proposal to move the officer's
recommendation for approval.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:53:46
Before we go any further, with the proposer and the seconder who are against the application,
please note down your reasons because we have to give reasons before we go to that vote.
Councillor Breakmore.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:54:04
Yeah, just picking up on Mr Allen's reference to the supplementary information that came
out.
I think that's quite key to this situation about the fact that we're only able to demonstrate
3 .1 years of deliverable housing sites.
I don't remember this being part of the report that came to us back in February, so I think
it would be quite useful if you could just clarify what's changed between then and now.
Thank you.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:54:34
Thank you, I'm happy to respond on that.
What's changed between then and now is that the council's housing and supply figures have
being calculated and I haven't checked today but they should have been published by now.
So the difference is that we now know that we do not have a five year supply of deliverable
housing sites within the district whereas at that point in February when members considered
the previous application previously it wasn't known.
And just to reiterate what Mr Allen said, in terms of the development plan policy and
where Liming sits in the district spatial strategy, the district spatial strategy envisages
development beyond the settlement boundary at certain settlements, subject to them being
acceptable in other respects.
And one of those is Liming, hence why we made a positive recommendation on the application
back in February. I hope that clarifies matters.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:42
I'm seeing no other hands up. So I will come back to the proposal against first of all
because that was proposed and seconded first. So could you please give the reasons
why you're proposing the seconding to go against the officer's recommendation. Thank you.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:56:05
Thank you, thank you chair. I'm sure Councillor King can help me flesh it out a little bit,
but the effect on the visual amenity of residents, the impact upon the national landscape and
the fact that the development is outside of the settlement boundary.
Thank you chair, apologies, press roll back please.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:56:33
In terms of the settlement boundary, I think members need to give very careful consideration to this issue.
I understand members concern and anxiety around development that sits outside the settlement boundary.
But like I said, the development plan policy envisages that there will be some expansion of settlements of the type and size of an image beyond the settlement boundary.
allied to that is that the council can't demonstrate a five -year supply of
deliverable housing sites so the presumption in favor of sustainable
development is set out in the supplementary information and as
explored in in length in the Barnstormers report comes into play and
finally I would of course remind members that the application that was approved
was for four dwellings outside the settlement boundary. The decision made by
this committee tonight at a settlement that is arguably less sustainable than
Liming is and where the core strategy is far stricter on development outside the
settlement boundary. So whilst I understand members concerns with regards
this matter I do feel that you this committee should give very very careful
consideration to refuse them on such basis. In terms of the other reasons, I understand
that the two separate reasons are the impact on the visual amenity of the street scene
and the character and appearance of the area and the impact of the development on the scenic
quality, the scenic beauty of the national landscape. And whilst our advice is set out
the report is that we consider the development acceptable I think members would be well within
their rights to refuse on such basis and I wouldn't advise against it in the same manner
I have regarding developments outside the settlement boundary. I hope that clarifies
matters members. Thank you very much. So our first proposal and we will if this one falls
we will go to the second proposal but this proposal is to go against the officer's recommendation
and to refuse the application on the items that Councillor Blakeman and Councillor Kean
have put forward and have been discussed with our officer. So all of those in favour of
refusing this application please show now.
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:17
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:22
Abstentions.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:25
Well I can see that that has fallen.
So we go on to our second proposal which is to agree with the officer's recommendation
to allow this application.
All those in favour please raise your hand.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:44
Those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:59:50
And any abstentions.
I can see quite clearly that the application has passed.
Thank you.

7 24/0063/FH - Plot F, Land Rear of Plot 15, Collins Road, New Romney, TN28 8LH

So we move on to our fourth one this evening which is 24 -0063 -FH which is Plot F which
is the land rear of Plot 15 Collins Road in New Romney. Do we have any updates please?
Microphone Eleven - 1:00:20
Thank you Chair, yes we have one update. We received comments from KCC Ecology today raising
no objection to the proposal subject to one additional condition in relation to biodiversity
enhancements at the site. Thank you. And have we included that
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:39
condition within the proposal?
Microphone Eleven - 1:00:42
Apologies, not yet Chair. They only received that today. So that is a condition that we
would add after this meeting. Thank you. Thank you. I've looked
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:00:50
through this. I'm quite happy
to propose that we go with the officer's recommendation.
Do we have?
I have a secondary in Councillor Thomas.
Would anyone like to speak in the meantime?
I am seeing no hands.
Therefore we have one proposal in front of us
and that's to agree with the officer's recommendation
with the extra condition regarding the biodiversity.
All those in favour please show your hand.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:01:18
And I can see that's unanimous so that one has passed, thank you.

8 25/0077/FH - 2A St Michaels Street, Folkestone, CT20 1LW

Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:01:26
So we go on to our fifth application of the evening which is 25 -0077 -FH which is 2A St
Michael Street in Folkestone.
Do we have any updates please?
Thank you chair.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:01:42
Yes, just one update.
The agent has confirmed they've just
updated one of the plans to show.
I believe at it was a paragraph.
7 .9 in the report,
I've said that the plan wasn't included,
showing the retention of the balcony on
the roof, but they have amended their
plan to to show that so it's just
a clarification from the agent.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:14
And we have no speakers on this one.
So over to you please councillors. Would anyone like to raise any issues?
Councillor Goddard.
Thank you chair. It's obviously not the best flat in the world.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:02:29
Obviously from the person building excellent flats in Fochlan.
Are you boasting again Councillor Goddard?
I would say that. But no it's not the best place.
but obviously Fochlton does need these sort of places.
So it was sort of family, so I move the recommendation.
Do you have a seconder at this point?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:02:53
Councillor Blakemore, do you wish to speak,
Councillor Blakemore?
No.
Would any other councillor like to raise?
Councillor Blakemore.
Just a quick question really.
In Power Graph 7 .19 to 7 .24,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:03:05
it talks about the commercial site next door.
if that's the right way of describing it,
is considered acceptable.
I'm just wondering,
is that because there's currently no activity there
and if so, what provision, if any, is there for future changes
in that situation?
Because I think it's still supposedly a garage yard,
although it's not being used as such at the moment.
Thank you, Councillor.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:03:35
You'll notice probably from the planning history
it was refused previously because there was some concern about that relationship.
The applicant then has supplied some information that clarifies some of the history of the
site as it does sort of talk through in the report.
There's no direct opening out from the car repair business that takes place in the building
to the, get my bearings on, South East I think,
and the actual space there is,
and every time I've visited the site,
used as just an open store area, as a car park,
essentially, with very few cars within it.
I understand your concerns maybe that, you know,
that's it today, perhaps it could be something else tomorrow.
I mean, we have obviously considered that,
but at this point in time the recommendation is for approval based upon the circumstances
that we can see in this.
That's where officers have considered this and it sort of ameliorates what the additional
information ameliorates the previous concerns.
Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:04:58
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:05:00
In section 5 .3 of the report under objections,
it's been suggested that the garden area
is not the width of the property
and therefore doesn't comply with HB3.
Is that the case or not?
And how significant is that
with regard to the overall application?
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, sir.
I was just reading the comment.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:05:31
As it's a flat, it doesn't have to have a 10 -metre deep garden
and across the width of the property.
So they have an outdoor amenity space
provided which would exceed what they would
have to supply for a flat.
So in that regard, and judged against policy,
the officers have accepted the proposal.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:05
I'm not seeing anyone else wishing to speak.
Oh, Councillor King.
Can I just ask a question?
Cllr Nicola Keen - 1:06:10
One of the objections is inadequate consultation.
What does that mean?
What were we not?
Thank you.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:06:20
Yes, we were someone wrote in saying they hadn't received a letter.
So officers then sent letters to check the list,
made sure that all flats and properties in the area
had received notification and therefore discharged our function there
in terms of making sure that everyone who should be notified had been notified.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:50
So we have one proposal and that is to accept.
the officer's recommendation to grant this application.
All those in favour please raise your hand.
Thank you. All those against?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:05
Any abstentions?
I can see that has passed, thank you.

9 25/0608/FH/CON - Dale House, Land Adj Coxhole Farm, Bossingham Road, Stelling Minnis, Canterbury, CT4 6AQ

Move on to our sixth application of this evening which is 25 -0608 -FH -com.
Dale House, land adjoining Coxhole Farm, Bostingham Road in Stelling Minnows.
Do we have any updates please?
Thank you chair, no updates.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:07:36
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:07:39
Thank you and we have no speakers on this.
This is regarding the details of previous conditions.
Would anyone like to just give us a little talk on this?
I think it would be useful.
Yeah, of course.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:07:55
Ordinarily, we would be determining conditions such as this
and where no objections have been raised by the parish
or otherwise under delegated authority.
But as you'll note from paragraph 1 .1,
The applicant is related to a member of the council staff,
hence why we are here today discussing them.
There are two applications.
The presentation before you now is relating
to the first of those two.
And that is, I'm going back some,
I don't know if you all recall,
a couple of years ago we brought the proposed dwelling
to committee to consider for the same reasons.
We put a series of conditions on that
consent for the dwelling.
And then the second presentation,
which will follow this,
was the separate garage,
which was, they sought planning commission
separately for that.
But it's one development, one house on the site.
So the first one is the submission of details
pursuant to Condition 3,
which was relating to water usage.
The condition was our standard water usage condition
where the applicant needed to have demonstrated
that they could achieve 110 litres of water
per person per day, and they have indeed demonstrated
105 litres per person per day,
so they've managed to meet those requirements.
So there are no objections from officers there.
The second condition for consideration here
is Condition 5, which relates to
sustainable construction techniques.
You will note under paragraph 3 .5 a series of construction techniques proposed which
include energy conservation such as high insulation within walls, doors and glazing which would
exceed the current building regulation requirements.
Heating and hot water would be provided by a ground source heat pump.
There are also use of PV panels for more sustainable energy provision and materials would be sustainably
sourced, including the timber there.
Officers have raised no objection to these and not have building control who we've spoken
to about the proposal.
The next condition for consideration here would be materials, details of materials.
there's some pictures in your report,
but also in the presentation coming up
of the materials proposed,
and that includes the roofing,
which is a pro -fiber cement profiled sheet,
walls being facing brick in a sort of light red color
and timber, large weatherboarding.
We have noted in Officer's report
that the roofing material would ordinarily be something
that could be considered traditional,
but given the colour and the small -scale nature of the development,
it was something that we felt blended in very well with the countryside
and wouldn't cause harm to the national landscape.
So we haven't raised concern there.
And then the final condition in this application would be...
Oh, no, there's two more, sorry, I do beg your pardon.
Condition 7 is hard and soft landscaping and condition 10 is biodiversity.
They're sort of hand in hand because much of the landscaping
addresses the biodiversity requirements of the condition as well.
We did have some comments back from KCC Ecology with regards to a bird box
and that's addressed in the next condition.
There was some concern about the bird box being on the eastern elevation
where you would get more sunlight, could harm or disturb the birds,
so that's been moved now to be on the garage, which is the next condition to be discussed
and it would be on the northern elevation and so fairly shaded.
So, in a nutshell, we've recommended approval with no harm
caused by any of the information submitted.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:03
Thank you very much. I think it's important,
as this is to do with an employee of the council,
that we be absolutely clear on this.
Does anyone have anything they would like to say, Councillor Goddard?
Yeah, and how ridiculous it is, I think.
I think I said this, like, when you two remember,
The Chairman and Vice Chair was here back then.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:12:21
We employ a hundred or people probably in this civic centre and hopefully their cousins,
Uncle, Auntie, Mum and Dad don't want any extension as we have applications coming out
of everywhere.
Anyway, remember this again, 2020 seems so long ago and I'm happy to report it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:12:41
And I'm happy to second.
Would anyone else like to make any other comments?
I'm not seeing anything.
So to agree with the officer's recommendation regarding these particular items, all those
in favour please show now.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:13:02
And I can see that's unanimous, thank you.

10 25/0609/FH/CON - Dale House, Land Adj Coxhole Farm, Bossingham Road, Stelling Minnis, Canterbury, CT4 6AQ

And that takes us on to the last application this evening which is 25 -0609 -FH -CON.
Downhouse, Llanded joining Coxhole Farm, Wasingham Road.
As we've heard, this is regarding conditions surrounding the garage.
Again, could you just give us a little place there?
I think that would be useful.
Thank you.
Okay.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:13:32
So members will remember potentially considering the garage which would serve the house that
was granted in 2020.
It came through as a separate submission.
We imposed very, very similar conditions to this,
and so there will be some crossover
from the information we've agreed previously.
So in this case, materials was condition three,
and they are identical to those materials
used in the main house.
Same considerations were given,
and again, condition six, biodiversity in this case,
the same matter the bird box has been removed
from the eastern elevation for the reasons
we've just discussed to the northern elevation of the garage.
KCC have raised no concern
regards any other biodiversity proposals
and recommendations for approval.
Thank you. Who knew that birds don't like the sun?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:26
We learn something new every day.
I'm quite happy to propose to go along
with the officer's recommendation.
I've just had a seconder from Councillor Keene.
Would anyone else like to raise any issues or comments?
I'm seeing nothing.
So all those in favour of the officer's recommendation?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:14:47
And I can see that's passed as well.
Thank you very much.

11 Appeal Decisions Received

And then on the end of our pack this evening, which I always find these really interesting
because it shows whether we're making the right decisions going forward and we can really
learn from the lessons, is the planning performance update and appeals decisions received.
Hopefully you've had a chance to have a quick look through.
Would you like to make any comment on these?
I'm not going to comment on any particular appeal decision,
because there's rather a lot of them, as you will have noted.
But I think we were genuinely quite heartened
by the dismissal of the 14 appeals for the kiosks throughout Folkestone,
which would have been, putting it quite frankly,
a lot of unwanted clutter on the pavements,
which would have harmed the character and appearance of the town.
In terms of overall appeal performance,
we're doing well compared with national figures.
And in terms of application performance,
the speed of decisions and the quality of decisions,
again, we are doing extremely well,
comparing favourably with some of the best authorities nationally.
I'm happy to take any questions if members have any.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:08
Does anyone have any questions? I'm not seeing any. Do try and have some time to study this
because there are definitely lessons to be learnt in here. But can I thank the officers
for pulling this information together because I think it really is very useful.
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:16:29
Thank you, Chair. You remember a couple of weeks ago you did say to the chair if I get
the main council meeting, could be this type of information and then I will report before
the council.
So, with that be done.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:16:39
I believe that's been taken back for the annual general meeting as opposed to this, but we
will be getting regular updates so that we can see how we're performing.
And can I again say well done to our planning department because the figures have seriously
improved over the last year and they are to be congratulated on that.
Sorry, Councillor Pippa, did you want to come back?
No, I'm fine.
I'm fine, Chair.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:17:05
Thank you, but I'll endorse your comments.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:17:08
And that is the end of this week's licensing and planning.
Safe journeys home, wherever you may be, and have a good evening.
Thank you.