Planning and Licensing Committee

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 17th June 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

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

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Slide 1
Ms Jemma West
Cllr Jackie Meade

2 Declarations of Interest and election of Chair for the meeting.

Share this agenda point

Declarations of Interest

Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Jackie Meade
Cllr Laura Davison
Ms Jemma West
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Tony Cooper
Ms Jemma West
Cllr Paul Thomas

3 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 20/05/2025 Planning and Licensing Committee

4 Minutes of the Licensing Act Sub-Committee

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 04/04/2025 Licensing Act Sub-Committee

5 25/0158/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1,F2,G1,G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone

Share this agenda point

Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Microphone Forty
Cllr Paul Thomas
Microphone Forty
Cllr Paul Thomas
Microphone Forty
Cllr Paul Thomas
Microphone Forty
Microphone Forty
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Cllr Paul Thomas
Slide 54
Slide 55
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Slide 65
Slide 66
Slide 67
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 68
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Slide 69
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Slide 70
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Jeremy Speakman
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Slide 71
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Rebecca Shoob
Cllr Paul Thomas
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Laura Davison
Slide 72
Slide 73
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Cllr Clive Goddard
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas

5 25/0158/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1,F2,G1,G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone

Share this agenda point

Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Jeremy Speakman
Slide 89
Slide 90
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr David Godfrey
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Anita Jones
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Paul Thomas
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr John Wing
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Cllr John Wing
Folkestone & Hythe Officer
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr John Wing
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr John Wing
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr John Wing
Llywelyn Lloyd
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Gary Fuller
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Laura Davison
Cllr Adrian Lockwood
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Clive Goddard
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Tony Cooper
Cllr Paul Thomas
Ms Jemma West
Ms Jemma West
Cllr Paul Thomas
Cllr Paul Thomas
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:02

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 will need to leave

the chamber. For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that

the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear

you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.

I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under

consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.

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

all the 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 applications before you.

So we'll move on.

Do we have any apologies please?

Ms Jemma West - 0:01:21

Thank you, Chair.

We've had apologies from Councillors.

Mike Blakemore, Polly Blakemore, Mrs Hollingsby and Keane.

And subbing this evening we have Councillor Davison for Councillor Keane,

Councillor Godfrey for Councillor Mrs Hollingsby,

Councillor Speakman for Councillor M Blakemore

and Councillor Wing for Councillor P Blakemore.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:41

Committee, do we have any declarations of interest please?

2 Declarations of Interest and election of Chair for the meeting.

Councillor Lockwood.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:01:52

I don't know if this is relevant or not but the owner of the site

I worked for them for seven years so I should probably declare that.

Thank you that will be noted.

Any other declarations please?

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:03

Councillor Dawson?

I think I should declare I'm a member of the Folks and Town Council Planning Committee.

Cllr Laura Davison - 0:02:09

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:09

Thank you.

I'm seeing no other declarations.

I have to make a declaration this evening regarding pre -determination over this application

which means that we cannot sit as the chair or on the committee this evening.

So I'm going to hand over to our Officer West who will arrange for an interim chair

to deal with the application this evening and I thank you.

Ms Jemma West - 0:02:42

So Members do we have any nominations for a chair for the meeting this evening?

Cllr Anita Jones - 0:02:47

I'd like to nominate Councillor Paul Thomas.

I'll second that.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:02:52

Ms Jemma West - 0:02:54

Do we have any other nominations this evening?

Okay, we will move to a vote. All those in favour?

That was unanimous.

She's out to take the chair.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:03:40

Okay, thank you, members.

3 Minutes

Next item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of the 20th of May 2025.

They're in the pack.

Any questions on the accuracy of the minutes?

If not, are you happy to approve those minutes as an accurate record?

Thank you.

4 Minutes of the Licensing Act Sub-Committee

Item 4 on the agenda, minutes of the Licensing Act Subcommittee on the 4th of April, also

in the pack.

Again, I'd ask any comments on accuracy.

If not, are we happy to agree those minutes as an accurate record?

Thank you.

That brings us to item five on the agenda.

5 25/0158/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1,F2,G1,G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone

25 -0158FH, former Rotunda Amusement Park, lots F1, F2, G1, G2 and H, Marine Parade,

Folkestone.

So I'd like to ask the officer if there are any updates please.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:04:42

Thank you chair. There's no verbal updates but members will be aware they should have two written updates.

One that was circulated on Friday and one that was circulated today. Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:04:58

Thank you and is there anything else you'd like to say or presentation you want to give?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:05:03

Yes, Chair, I was going to give members a quick presentation on the application, really

just to set the scene in terms of the background to the application and also to highlight the

changes that have been made compared to the scheme that was presented to members in January.

So without further ado.

So the background to this scheme is that it's part of a wider site along the seafront and

harbour site which is allocated in the core strategy for a major mixed use residential

and commercial development and that's allocated under policy SS10 of the core strategy.

That policy allocates the site for the delivery of up to a thousand houses and approximately

10 ,000 square metres of commercial space.

The site, the wider site also benefits from Outline Planning permission for a scheme again

comprising up to a thousand dwellings and 10 ,000 square metres of commercial space.

That was first granted Outline Planning permission in January 2015.

A subsequent application, what we call a Section 73 application to vary some of the components

of the outline scheme was submitted and subsequently approved in September 2018.

And that outline planning permission approved development parameters and desired guidelines

that have been set as part of that permission.

and those approved parameter plans set minimum and maximum heights, floor areas and frontages

to the buildings to come forth under preserved matters.

So this plan shows you the wider site and it's split into different phases which are

called phases A through to H.

Phases A to E all benefit from reserve matters approval and phase B itself has already been

developed and I'm sure members are well aware of that, that's known as shoreline.

So these five phases here already have either been built in the case of Block B or have

existing reserve matters approval for development.

So the scheme that's in front of members today is in relation to plots F, G and H, which

are the areas in red here, and the site is essentially the orange outline.

Some photographs of the site, this is limited to plots F, G and H. You've got an image there

in the top left corner of the harbour area as it was around 1950. You have an image of

the harbour from around the 1990s and then the photograph down here is taken I think

around 2010. These are buildings and structures on the site taken around 2014. So this is

the viaduct and swing bridge.

You have a variety of structures that are related to the previous users of port.

This is the former harbour station and this is custom house.

And then that aerial photo shows the site essentially as it is today.

The station is, I'm sure you're aware, that's all been refurbished.

There are a number of other buildings that have been retained on the site.

The white building there is known as Harbour House.

The smaller building just there is the old Signal Box.

And just behind the large cinema screen is Custom House.

So when Outline Planning permission was granted, a number of parameters were set for any development

coming forwards under the reserve matters.

There's a range of parameter plans

and those include horizontal deviation plans.

So you can see here that the

loca, the siting of plots F, G and H

were set with parameters in respect of

how far building frontages could deviate from those areas.

And then this is a height parameters plan

and that provides on the actual plan itself maximum heights but within the key here there's a range of minimum and maximum height parameters

so within the outline parameters for example the largest buildings are located within plot G in this corner here and this corner here

The lower end buildings are within plot F around the western edge of the development site.

So onto the reserve matters then that's in front of members.

This is the site plan of the scheme that's come forward.

This is the area referred to as plot F on the outline parameters.

You have plot G here and you have plot H here.

and each area comprises a number of separate buildings and if I just go back to the height

parameters you can see from the shapes there how that corresponds with the site plan that

you have in front of you for the reserve matters. Sorry chair, I don't know if it's just me but

I'm not seeing a pointer so when you're kind of pointing out things it's not showing up for me.

Oh, right.

I think you've got to do that.

Is it not going to do it?

Oh, do I?

Sorry.

Pointer options.

Right.

A laser pointer.

Let's try that.

That's better, isn't it?

OK, right.

Shall I start that bit again?

Maybe just go back a couple more, thanks.

That's okay, yeah.

So this area, so this is the reserve matters site plan.

This is plot F here, that area there.

Plot H here and plot G through here.

And if I go back to the parameters that were set at outline stage, you can see that that

corresponds with the areas for lots of F, G and H

in the outline parameter plans.

Do you want me to go through the heights as well again?

You sure? Okay.

So this plan shows you the main components of the scheme.

The plan itself, you can see,

is made up of a variety of individual buildings.

These range in terms of height and scale from elements of two -storey buildings within plot F over here

to these two landmark buildings here which are 11 and 12 storeys in height.

And the overall main headlines of the development is that that will deliver in total 410 residential units

and 7 ,629 square metres of commercial floor space which will be a mix of retail, office, leisure, restaurant uses.

This plan shows the same plan as before but with the outline parameters highlighted on here as well.

So you can see how the how the development sits within those parameters.

So here you've got the two largest buildings.

You can see here although the parameters

covered a much larger area what you've actually got are three individual buildings with gaps in between the buildings there.

You've got some parts of the development here, which

is five stories along here, but then drops down to three stories in height.

and again includes a range of heights in accordance with the B parameters.

Likewise with block H you've got two individual buildings rather than one large building covering the whole frontage.

So these are some illustrations of the development.

So this is looking from the harbor arm back towards the site and that building to the front is called the rotunda building

Which is the tallest building on the site and you've got the railway station here

This is a view from across the stade

A view from the fire ducts and swing bridge

It's from Sunnyside Beach.

This is taken from the Warren.

I'd just highlight to members in the update paper, in the update sorry that was given

today, there's some commentary in relation to impacts from the national landscape.

Just to give some context to that,

members can see the view there of the development.

If I go to the next slide,

that was the parameter details that were submitted

in the vision appraisal with the outline planning application.

So if I toggle between the two,

members can see that the development that's proposed

under this reserve matters sits within those scale parameters.

Just some further images, so this is from approximately where the lighthouse is, looking

back at the development.

This is the Harbour Masters Square, so this is one of the main entrances into the site.

This is Harbour House.

This was actually permitted to be demolished as part of the outline planning application,

but that has been retained as part of the reserve matters application.

You can see the signal box building there and in the background you have the train station.

This is plot H here and this is plot F.

And we've got a view of the seafront park, which is all public realm.

This is the view from the North Quay, which again is all public realm.

And this is from the centre part of the development.

This is called Makers Row, which sits parallel to the train station.

and you this green area here is what's referred to as the

Good Yard building, which would be an indoor eating area with a

number of stores which is intended to provide a year round

facility for small restaurant uses.

And then we got an aerial image of the of the site, so this is

Plot F here, plot G and plot H.

You can't actually see because of the scale

of the buildings in front of it.

Members can see then that the approved developments

have all been included on here as well.

So you've got plot E, D, C, D and then A

in the far distance.

So in terms of what's changed between this scheme

and the scheme that's presented to members in January,

In terms of car parking, the same overall number of spaces is proposed, which is 910

spaces, but the quantum has been changed to increase the number of visitor spaces.

So under the refused application, the scheme proposed 323 visitor spaces.

That's now been increased to 500 spaces.

The resident car parking spaces have been reduced from 587 to 410, which is essentially

one space per unit.

And this plan shows in pink, this is the basement car park which provides the vast majority

of car parking on the site and the area in pink is the area that would be allocated for

visitor parking.

This is the ground floor just still on the parking theme.

There's a number of disabled visitor spaces and there are some in the basement including

spaces for residents.

There's also a number of disabled spaces at ground floor level which are highlighted by

the green circles.

In terms of the accommodation mix, that mix has been amended by the applicant.

There's slightly fewer one and two bed units and more three bed units.

And in terms of affordable housing, that mix has been amended as well, particularly to

provide a greater number of three bed units within the scheme.

So that's risen from one unit as refused to five units now as proposed.

In terms of the relationship with the railway station, under the refuse scheme, the concern

from members was that the buildings around the station would be overbearing.

You have plots G and H which are shown in this image here.

That's the image as refused.

Under the current application,

plot F, the upper floors, the ground floor stays as it is

because that forms the,

that sits on the wall of the station itself

and provides commercial properties.

But the upper floors have all been set back by two meters.

And again, this illustrates that as well.

So you have the upper floors here

which sit directly against the wall of the railway station

and as proposed now, these sit two metres back.

And then in terms of the treatment

of the railway station itself,

there have been amendments made

to the facades of the station.

There's a few things there to point out.

So under the refuse scheme, members can see

that there were large areas of glazing proposed.

That's now been amended to provide

a more traditional aesthetic.

We've got small glazing bars proposed

for a number of the windows.

Some areas, fascia areas have been included

within the scheme as well.

And the applicants provided some information

and detail on how different parts

of the station would be treated.

There's three different components to the station.

There's brick walls, rendered walls and weather boarded wall and timber wall, sorry, and there's

different treatment approaches to each one of those.

And I think you'll be pleased to know that's the end of the board.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:21:54

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much, Andrew.

We now go on to the, we have a local, full speakers this evening.

The first is local resident Georgina Baker to speak.

So again I'll just remind all speakers that you have three minutes and your time will

start from the time that your microphone is switched on.

So thank you very much.

Microphone Forty - 0:22:45

Thank you Sir Roger De Haan for your ongoing investment into folkstone over the decades

encouraging regeneration creativity and economic growth.

Without people, residents, visitors, traders, artists, creatives and other investors this

could not have been possible either.

As a Fokston born resident,

I know how our seaside town thrives on

tourism and how important its history

and heritage is to that.

I've worked from Fokston Harbour

and watched the ferry struggle

to dock in severe winds.

I know it's not an area suitable for

residential high rise apartments.

The RWDI microclimate technical

memorandum dated 24th of January 2025,

as contained in the document RPT

058 planning response states the

existing sites inherently windy due

to its coastal location. Uncomfortable and occasionally unsafe, congestion naturally

occurs, especially during windier winter months. Private amenity spaces, balconies will be

used as and when weather permits. In October 2023, Storm Cairn hit the harbour with 70

mph winds which battered the harbour arm. The waves breached the lighthouse, which is

not uncommon, however it is a safety concern. If someone walking below a building such as

G6 or G9 was struck by an object falling from the balcony

from a height of 41 .2 meters,

it would have a catastrophic impact.

This area is too exposed to the elements

for residential living.

Our line planning permission was granted in 2015,

amended in 2018 based on different architectural designs

to that of the contemporary design of today,

one which is not locally inspired

as per FHDC's policy HB2 Places and Policies Plan.

The previous planning application was refused on five points.

There is still a significant loss of public parking space as the ratio has improved for

visitors reduced for residents, however it is still not clear how to negate congestion

in the area.

The proposed housing mix is not meeting the needs of local residents, nor does it meet

the identified affordable housing needs within the district, and if the council offset this

by agreeing investment from a developer in alternative affordable housing location within

Fokeston, this may be seen by the wider community as a bribe to force the carbon development

and in doing so sacrificing folk since history and heritage.

Three refers to the substantial harm to the setting

of the former railway station building

and to the historic significance

of the non -designated heritage asset.

Plans show a two meter move of the build

away from the railway station, an insignificant change,

and the plan to make this into a shopping arcade

harms its historical value significantly.

Reviews of the store and fire remain the same.

The proposed development by virtue of its design

would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area

and out of keeping with and significantly harmful to the character and appearance of

the harbour area and wider settlement city blocks alien to the space.

Over 90 % of people who visited the consultation objected to the proposed development plans,

combined petitions raised over 12 ,000 signatures against it and hundreds have objected since.

This raises the question whether the entire plan should be referred to the Secretary of

State to be called in.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:25:37

Thank you very much and well within time thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, our second speaker this evening is the local resident, Daniel Sangusepi.

Excuse me if I've got your second egg roll to apologise.

So three minutes and same rules apply.

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:26:12

I'm Daniel San Giuseppe, Director of Castlewood Hotels, which owns the Burlington Hotel here

in Folkestone.

I'm Chair of the local Hotel and Catering Association and the Folkestone & Hive Tourism

Business Advisory Board.

I also sit on the South East Committee for UK Hospitality.

The hospitality sector is the third largest employer and the third highest economic driver

for the folkestone economy.

I moved here in 1994 aged 16 and my parents bought the dilapidated Burlington Hotel.

After attending the Harvey Graham School, I went to university and then returned here

to work in family business.

My school friends who left with me back then didn't come back as they felt that Folkestone

was not a place where they could build a career and raise a family successfully.

Now interestingly, a number of them have moved back.

Nevertheless, my family had great ambitions for the Burlington and whilst we did well,

the problem is we always lose money in the winter.

This is where the final phase of the harbour development, in my opinion, being able to

operate all year round, should support the year -round business for the whole town.

And following St. Rogers Harbour Development in 2012, their presentation, together with

the success of HS1, it gave me and many other businesses in Folkestone the confidence to

invest.

By 2014, we started to see more upmarket clientele at the Burlington, and by 2017, it was clear

this trend was continuing.

Despite the lockdowns and the local hospitality recovered well after COVID,

we experienced record trading year after year.

This was largely due to what was happening at the harbour and it was a very successful PR.

Of note was the Lonely Planet recently highlighting Folkestone as one of the best places in the world to visit.

This positive PR continued with numerous events including its Triennial and of course,

Rock Salt spearheading the regeneration of our bars and restaurants locally.

By approving these plans, it will give Folkestone's businesses more confidence of future growth.

The section 106 monies will support new surgery and other facilities in the town and the Lee's

lift, all making Folkestone a more attractive place to live.

If the plans are not approved, there is a risk of stagnation in the entire hospitality

business, which is already struggling in the current economic and political climate.

Within a year or two, we may see businesses close and Folkestone's economy decline.

We need more people to move to Folkestone who will invest and spend in our town, and

we need new housing stock.

A negative result tonight will have a lasting impact on the economic growth.

Folkestone is part of a national conversation led by UK hospitality on how regeneration

can be successful in other areas of the country.

The harbour development has had a central role in our town's recovery and it's given

confidence to local businesses over the last 13 years.

Bold planning decisions are key to unlocking local investment and economic growth.

The harbour development is crucial to our economic future.

I hope you have the foresight to support it for the benefit of the whole of Folkestone.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:28:54

Thank you very much, and again, within time, thank you, appreciate that.

Okay, our third speaker is Councillor Chapman.

You have three minutes, Bridget, when you're ready.

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:29:17

Good evening. I stand before you today representing the deep concerns of residents regarding this development.

It is the number one issue that is constantly raised with me by the community who feel this project is being imposed on them and their views are not being listened to.

Instead they feel gaslit as clever wording obfuscation within what feels like a heavily weighted process attempts to pretend that they have.

While I acknowledge the applicant has made some revisions, the fundamental problem remains.

This development is simply too large, too imposing, and fundamentally unsuited to this

site, and the many attempts that people in the area have made to be heard seem to have

been effectively brushed off.

This is their community, and they deserve the respect of being listened to.

It's clear that the opposition to this among residents is huge.

I would go so far as to say unprecedented in the volume of objections and the strength

of feeling.

housing. That has to be recognised. We all recognise the urgent need for housing. However,

building flats like these does nothing to fix our housing crisis. These flats, while

visually dominating a harbour, will not address the needs of our community. The world I represent

Harbour Ward is one of the most deprived in Kent and these properties will be financially

inaccessible to the very people locally who need homes. Paragraph 8 .25 of the application

admits the mix does not comply with Core Strategy Policy CSD 2. The aspiration to have 70 % of

affordable housing be affordable rent has not been met and does not address the needs

of lower household incomes as claimed in 8 .40. This development will add pressure to our

already strained local services, our GP surgeries, our schools, our roads without providing the

housing we really need. It's not good enough. This area is a heritage site. The current

proposal has threatened to overwhelm that heritage, replacing it with a scale and style

feels entirely alien. Additionally, I believe that the impact on views from the national

landscape and our dark skies are material considerations that have not been properly

assessed and are contrary to the Kent Downs Management Plan and the National Planning

Policy Framework paragraph 190, likewise for the Heritage Coast paragraph 191. What do

we need? We need thoughtful, proportionate development that addresses the real needs

of our community, social housing that people can actually afford and a commitment to preserving

the heritage that makes this area unique.

Let's not sacrifice our harbour's character

for the sake of these imposing structures

that don't meet our housing requirements,

impact on views of the national landscape,

and overwhelm this heritage site.

I urge you to listen to the wishes of the residents,

reject these plans, and demand a development

that truly serves the people of Folkestone.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:31:55

Thank you, Brigid.

Again, well in time, thank you.

Our fourth speaker this evening is Paul Ellis.

Again, three minutes when you put the microphone on.

Thank you.

Microphone Forty - 0:32:21

Microphone Forty - 0:32:23

Good evening.

I'm Paul Ellis, a non -executive director of Fodson Harbour GP Limited, the applicant of

The vast majority of the objections to this and the previous RMA concern the

principle of the development, but those principles were determined a very long

time ago when outline consent was granted.

Moreover, the allocation of up to 1000 homes on the harbour and seafront is one

of the strategic housing schemes for Folkestone in the Council's adopted plan.

The outline consent sets the maximum and the minimum heights for all the buildings

and the maximum and minimum number of homes we can build.

We have listened throughout the planning process to the views of the Council, local people

and all consultees and responded with revisions of detailed design matters.

But we have very limited legal scope to make further changes to this outline.

But we have found new ways of meeting some of the concerns raised by this committee in

January.

We've increased provision of public car parking by over 50%.

We've included a car club which is intended to reduce the demand for residents parking.

We've moved the residential building to the west of the station two metres away from the platform.

We've focused on the materials and signage to further enhance the heritage appeal of our station.

And we've provided a greater number of three bedroom shared ownership homes.

The position now reached is a proposed development which is not only compliant with the requirements

of the Outline Planning Commission but in our opinion is now the optimum in both policy

and design terms.

We are pleased to see that your Chief Planning Officer recommends approval of the application.

If approved we will be required to pay over £5 million for the balance of the overall

Section 106 obligation as it relates to plots F, G and H.

We've been working on this regeneration project for some 20 years.

We now need approval for this reserve matters application so that we can continue our regeneration

work.

A reserve matters application for PLOS FGNH is not only of great importance to us but

we believe important for the ongoing regeneration of Folkestone and its economy.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:34:43

Thank you very much.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:34:49

So, thank you very much.

We've had the presentation from Andrew.

We've had the floor speakers, so I know.

Open it to the floor.

Thank you.

Councillor Lockwood.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:35:06

Could I ask for a point of clarification just to sort of kick things off?

It is switched on, is it?

Apologies for that.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:35:18

I don't know why my mic's fuzzing.

Yeah, just a point of clarity, please.

Refusal point number five relates to design harmful

to visual amenity.

And in the report at paragraph 8 .65,

and I'll read this bit out so I don't make a mistake,

given the relatively small changes made

to the current application around the Harbour Station,

the assessment on overall appearance

in the January Committee Report

remains relevant to this application.

So refusal reason number five remains relevant.

In the presentation, there was a picture shown

from Martello Tower number three,

the pitch and putt golf course,

So the comment was made that in the advice circulated today,

that point was covered.

Could you please elaborate on that?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:36:26

I don't, you can take that.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:36:33

Yeah, certainly, sorry, just let me get back to the image.

Okay.

So the images that members were shown, this is the image of the scheme subject to the

Reserve Matters application and this is the image of the development and the visual assessment

that was provided at the development at outline planning permission stage.

And at the point of granting outline planning permission, the council were obviously satisfied

that the scale and visual impacts within those parameters would be acceptable.

So taking into account the fact that the scale of the buildings sits within those development

parameters and that the impacts, the visual impacts from, I mean this is obviously just

one particular viewpoint, there are other viewpoints as well, but the impact from that

viewpoint is essentially the same then officers are of the view that there is no greater harm

caused by the scheme that is in front of members under reserve matters approval then has already

been assessed under the outline application and considered to be acceptable in terms of

that quantum of bulk and scope.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:38:03

Councillor Lockwood you'll give us.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:38:07

So that hasn't changed since January.

I'm a bit confused by paragraph 8 .65 then which says that refusal number five basically

remains.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:38:19

Thank you chair, good evening councillors, thank you councillor Lockwood.

Paragraph 8 .65 states that in light of the limited changes our assessment of the development

as set out in the previous committee report remains as is.

So our view is the development is acceptable in design grounds.

As we explained at the previous planning committee,

officers are satisfied and set out in both reports with the design.

Members took the view the design was not acceptable.

We remained that the changes had gone some way to address members' concerns,

but ultimately both schemes are perfectly acceptable

within the bounds of the Outline Planning Commission and the Planning Policy

and that the impact, as Andrew has set out,

when viewed from up on Martello,

is within the envelope from the landscape vision assessment.

So what 8 .65 does not say is that reason for refusal five

would stand up to scrutiny.

What it says is our assessment of things

is largely the same.

The rest of the paragraph then goes on to talk about

what has changed and to assess those in individual detail.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:39:29

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:39:34

Okay, anybody else like to speak on this?

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:39:39

Could I just clarify there with Mr Byrne, please?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:39:46

Sorry, Tony, could you use the microphone?

I beg your pardon.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:39:52

That blue design there, the outline of the original

guidelines, etc.

What happened before the Planning Committee

when this was decided ten years ago, do you know?

And there's a reason I'm asking that question.

Because if you look at page 45,

much of page 45 of the report,

there's an illustration which is similar to what we're deciding tonight.

And what my concern is this.

Is that correct or otherwise?

Because if that didn't have been revealed ten years ago,

I would imagine the community would have been up in arms then,

rather than that.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening,

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:40:28

Councillor to confirm that is an image

taken from the Outline Planning Commission's

visual landscape visual impact assessment.

It sets the outer envelope and parameters

of the scheme and that is the massing

which leads to parameter plans.

So that image,

which actually includes more

development in the foreground

along the harbour key itself,

because there are units missing

from the current proposal,

was what was originally considered

as the complete scope of development at outline both in 2015 and then actually in 2017 -18

when it was approved.

So that is the volume.

The developer has then worked within that volume as currently presented and has set

out in our report a paragraph of page 46 as you've highlighted.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:41:15

Councillor Spieper.

Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:41:17

Yeah, I think it links very closely I think with Councillor Cooper's point.

Page 45 of the report says image 2 illustration of site in design

guidelines submitted with outline application which looks remarkably like

the current application. That is correct is it? That is actually what was

submitted. That particular illustration is the design of a building as submitted.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:41:48

Yes so that illustration was submitted as part of the design guidelines and

under the outline findings application,

under the suite of documents that were submitted

for that application and subsequently approved.

Anybody else?

Councillor Cooper.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:42:02

Thank you, Chair.

Here's a quick one from Mr Byrne.

The first lady, I think it was Ms Baker,

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:42:08

said it was a different design

when this came before committee for the outline application.

So what design was she referring to?

Did we know?

Please.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:42:22

Without talking directly, and can't do that in this forum, I'd imagine that the scheme

that's currently before it is different, probably to the original outline, when there was then

a revision to the scheme that's illustrated on page 45 of the application.

This reserve matter is related to the 2018 section 73 approval, and that diagram indicates

how it was envisaged to come forward within the set parameter plans which fit within the

blue boxes as you can see on the previous image.

Clarification.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:42:57

Councillor Shub.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:42:59

Thank you.

I'm glad to see that there have been various amendments to the scheme.

They are, you know, they're not huge amendments but amendments nonetheless and that the applicant

has taken on board some of the committee's concerns from the January meeting.

I'm particularly glad to see the commitment to a car club so that resident parking can

be reduced and I think that's a real step forward to reduce baked in residents car dependency

from the start.

And I hope that that kind of approach, I think it should become a sort of norm for any new

development, particularly in town locations.

Clearly there are a lot of concerns, public concerns about reduction in visitor parking.

The previous scheme and this act, I have to acknowledge that this application has sought

to address those concerns by shifting the balance towards the visitor parking.

I want to stress that while I welcome this as a short to medium term measure,

it's obviously no substitute for good public transport and active travel.

I do have real concerns about the affordable homes still.

Clearly they tick the box in legal speak.

They are affordable, in inverted commas,

but they are clearly going to be out of reach

for a great, great many people and unlikely to have

any impact whatsoever on our waiting list.

But as I said, I don't think we can refuse

on the grounds of affordable housing.

It's within the parameters.

But I would, if others like -minded,

I would welcome if officers could explore the possibility

of off -site provision of the affordable element.

I think that would be welcome.

If we could have some exploration of whether there's a possibility

of delivering something that would truly be more affordable in reality.

So for me, this is a really difficult decision.

I think it will, it's clearly, it's a major development for Folkestone.

It will have a permanent, significant visual and economic impact on the town.

But in terms of what was agreed at the outline planning application,

permission and bearing in mind that the the the amendments that have been made

and I think also the fact that our housing target numbers you know we don't

have that five -year supply anymore when I weigh up the different elements in

terms of public benefits and planning harms, I would struggle to find any reason now to

refuse this application.

I do remain skeptical about the overall scale of it, the visual appearance, but I think

It goes back to in terms of what's already been agreed.

A decade ago, I don't think there's

any sort of wiggle room.

The public benefits on offer, I think

it does now tip in favor of, for me,

going with the officer's recommendation.

Yeah, that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:10

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:47:11

So do you want to reply to that?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:12

So are you actually recommending?

Office that we go with officers approval.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:47:21

I would like to.

I was have to say.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:47:26

Well, just to reply to see my first.

Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:47:32

I think if the question is about

the affordable housing as Councilor

Schubert highlighted the level of

affordable housing was determined

back in 2018 when this approval was secured. The scheme is compliant with that.

Clearly members of the council have expressed their concern with that level of affordable

housing and the type because I think it's shared ownership of everything else. But at the moment

the occupant is not proposing to change anything and as an officer I wouldn't suggest that any

recommendations this evening made by members is pursuant to securing a different outcome.

That said, we could note that members would like us to explore separately outside of any

decision taken this evening to whether there's opportunity to perhaps commute the money that

may be invested into the buildings themselves into alternative social housing provision

in Folkestone and see if the applicant is amenable to that.

But I would be very much stressed that wouldn't be party to any decision this evening.

it would have to be a completely separate process.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:48:39

Councilor Davidson was next, thank you.

Yeah, it was just some clarifications at this stage.

Cllr Laura Davison - 0:48:47

You talked about the setting back

of the building by two metres.

Can you just talk us through the balconies

in relation to that?

And also you talked about disabled parking.

Can you just clarify the differences

between the previous application and this one

in terms of the balance of disabled parking.

And then the supplementary sheet,

which is on our desks this evening,

I would find it difficult to read it at the same time as we're talking.

So could we either have a few minutes to read it

or could you take us through it? That would be helpful. Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:49:25

Sure, thank you for that. Andrew?

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:49:27

Yeah, thank you.

So I brought up the slide again with the

plots F and G in relation to the railway station.

So as under the refuse scheme,

plots G, which is this side,

that at ground floor level,

commercial units have a facade onto the station itself.

and then the building steps back two metres.

So at upper floor levels the building is set further,

further away from the station.

Under the review scheme plot F,

the elevations again at ground floor level,

the facade was hard up against the station wall

as a frontage to the commercial frontage to the station

and the building then followed that vertically

with no setback. Under the scheme that is now proposed, essentially Plot F has copied

Plot G. So the upper floors of the building have been set back two metres. So the building

itself is set further away from the station. In terms of the balconies, what's happened

is that so the balconies were inset into the building under the refuse scheme.

So they all formed part of the main frame of the building.

Under the current application they are projecting balconies which sit beyond the frame of the

building.

I think that they're shown in this image.

If I can work out how to increase the size of this image I might be able to show you

that

come out of that

and then do it now

how do I do it?

well completed

yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Apologies for my poor IT skills, but this is the blown up image.

So members can see the main frame of the building has been set back, but the balconies project

beyond the main frame of the building.

So can I just clarify that the two metre setback, the balconies are the two metres, stick out

two metres in that front.

Yeah.

They take up that space.

The balconies project beyond the building within that zone,

but the mainframe of the building sits back behind,

two metres behind the ground floor.

I just wanted that to be clear. Thanks.

Councillor Goddard was next. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening.

Yes, unfortunately I didn't make the first meeting with a cleaviest refusal.

I'm not going to bang on about a refusal. No point in looking back.

Look through all the words from the table tonight.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:53:10

I agree partly with Councillor Shue with the positives with the car club.

The 910 spaces, 50 % more with the visitor spaces up to 500.

And the station, bang on time with the station, with all the changes there.

The positives, I think there is a lot of positives, like Councillor Shue said,

with the housing mix I think that's more suitable.

Like the Wellington said, perhaps we could go back and different meet on a different day

and talk to the applicant about the social housing aspect,

but apart from that, that can happen any time, any place.

Plot F is copying Plot G, what the council just said here, by two metres.

That's an improvement there as well.

So I think from the previous application, there is a lot more positives

and I think Daniel, the manager, resident of Folkestone,

you know, his three minutes were excellent,

talking about the businesses, how that will help them.

So I do think that the applicant's gone away with the agent.

They have obviously looked at the concerns from my colleagues in January,

come back and made some really positive changes.

So just interested more of my other colleagues, Mr Chairman.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:54:37

Thank you. I'd like to go back to Councillor Davison first because she did indicate that

she wanted to continue that. Thank you.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:54:43

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I think your second question, Councillor, was with regard to parking and

disabled parking. If I could refer members to page 17 of the committee report. There's

a table at the bottom of that page which then goes on to page 18 as well. Members can see

the disabled parking is set out in that table.

So the proposal will provide 27 disabled

resident parking spaces.

And it will provide 25 disabled visitor parking spaces

with the five further unallocated disabled spaces

that are in plot G at ground level.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:55:40

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:55:48

So, in terms of the update, today's update paper, was there something in particular that

you wanted me to talk you through?

No, because I've not had the chance to read it.

Oh, OK.

So that was my point really, is either can we have a few minutes to read it or can you

take us through it?

Okay, thank you.

If you wouldn't mind, Andrew, thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:56:08

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:56:14

So I'd like a proposer to adjourn for five minutes, so we go through that.

Council in adjourn.

Councilor Goddard, all those in favour?

Okay.

We'll adjourn for five minutes.

Thank you.

5 25/0158/FH - Former Rotunda Amusement Park, Plots F1,F2,G1,G2 and H, Marine Parade, Folkestone

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:56:29

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:56:33

Back to you, Andrew.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:56:39

Unless Councillor Davidson had anything to ask on the update paper.

I did have one question, if that's okay, Chair.

If you could just clarify the point about the national landscape and its location at

its closest point approximately 275 metres from the site extending in a narrow finger

westwards along East Cliff. Could you show us that?

Um...

Yeah, I don't have an image of that.

Or explain it?

Um...

Just about there when I come out.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:57:46

Probably the best way to illustrate it is if members turn to page 47.

At the top of the page there is an illustration of the site and you can see the backdrop of

Folkestone behind it.

If you see where the Grand Burston Hotel is and you can see the trees and vegetation behind

the Grand Burston that extends eastwards, that's essentially the finger of the national

that runs in towards Folkestone.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:58:29

I've got Councillor Speakman and then Councillor Godfrey.

Thank you, sir.

Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:58:37

Sorry, I hope this won't be a bit of a ramble, but again, I wasn't at the last meeting,

but I just wanted to say that I've lived in Folkestone, all around Folkestone,

for the best part of my life.

I've seen folks go through various different iterations.

Some not so salubrious.

And speaking personally, and purely personally,

I have to say I find this kind of contemporary development,

really, I suppose to coin a phrase, just not my cup of tea at all.

And I can understand why it arouses strong feelings.

However, I can also remember what the site used to look like.

and can equally understand the point of view

of those who support the regenerative potential of the scheme.

Key to me is the design guidelines,

which is why I clarified on page 45

what the illustration which was submitted

and subsequently accepted at the outlier planning stage,

and it clearly shows a comprehensive contemporary approach

to the harbour development.

and that was accepted whenever it was, 2015 or 2017, I'm not quite sure.

But anyway, that was the outline stage.

Concerns that have been raised since I gathered around car parking,

the housing mix, appearance and heritage issues have also been addressed.

So really I find it extremely difficult,

despite the fact that it is not to my personal taste,

I find no real substantial grounds to sustain any material objection

to the application.

I did have some concerns around the social housing aspect,

but it sounds to me as though there could be some flexibility around that,

which I would strongly welcome.

I welcome it. Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:00:30

Councillor Goddard was next. Thank you.

Oh no, sorry. Councillor Godfrey, do you have one of yours?

You're right. We're interchanger, I think.

Miss Weems.

Cllr David Godfrey - 1:00:37

Thank you, Chair.

If you'll indulge me, just stepping back in time a little,

I wasn't on any of the committees that previously saw this,

but when I first saw it in 2015, I was quite sceptical,

and I think that's because it was such a shock, it was so different.

I grew up on the marsh, I commuted to Harvey,

and back in the 60s and 70s, every weekend I could get to,

I got to Folsom because it was the go -to place.

It was buzzing, it was great.

We had ferries discharging French visitors

who were buying up at Marks and Spencers, we had day trippers after that.

But the economy has changed, everything has changed, the world changed, the ferry has stopped.

All of the businesses on the front, I remember fondly, the swimming pool, the boat in the pool,

very much the rotunda and the little skating rink I used to love on a Saturday morning.

They all went, they were totally unsustainable and as has already been mentioned,

folks who went into a steep decline, it was a mess.

I was lucky I went to board to work, but when I came back,

I was disappointed in what I saw, but in the past 15 years,

I've seen some real green shoots of recovery.

I've seen a lot of good work being done around Folkestone.

I've seen the creation of Creative Quarter,

the current regeneration project,

linking up the station through Brouverie Square

and down right through to this new development of the harbour.

And I'm now quite excited.

Now, clearly,

When we look at some of the subjective things like appearance, everyone's going to have

a different view, a totally different view, and I think the moves that the developers

made to try and help with that have been very good.

I actually think moving the commercial units into the back of the railway station is genius.

All those small businesses we've got around the market square now will be able to operate

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:02:32

365 days a year, bringing income and prosperity to all of them and others.

I agree there are some concerns that always it's about affordable housing.

But let's be honest about this.

Any place with a maritime view is going to command a high price, whether you like it

or not.

It's just a fact of life.

So not many people could afford those.

And it's not up to the developer to fight them all.

He's trying his best, but he's also got to have a reason for building this stuff.

So I think that the 106 monies, maybe we could look at that, and future income from council

tax that will come from these newcomers coming into those buildings can certainly be used

to look at building not just affordable housing but what we know as social housing, which

is different.

But this government is very keen to promote.

So maybe that money could be taken and perhaps used to build the social housing elsewhere.

There has been talk about the transportation, I agree parking is still an issue and it's

not that, it's going to be transport issues around it and there are indications there

may be improvements to that and additional parking.

Actually if I could just put in a plug for the Remembrance Line Association who wish

to use the railway line to give a green walkway down from the top to the harbour and ultimately

ultimately a hydrogen powered tram, I think would be brilliant.

However, I digress.

I am not too upset by the architecture.

I think the moves to improve it are very welcome.

And I would actually move now that we accept the recommendations of the officers and pass this through.

Thank you.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:04:20

Is the Councillor Fuller?

Yes, I was just going to second that.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:04:25

Briefly ramble as it were.

Firstly, I don't actually hate the design.

I've seen something broadly similar in, I think it was Cardiff,

and it doesn't look terrible, it looked reasonably popular, it was doing alright.

But even if I did absolutely hate the design, that's not how planning works.

One of the first things you're told when you sit on a planning committee

is that the planning law is what matters.

We can read all the stories about we're not building enough houses

and it's planning committee's fault, or it's developers' fault, or it's the government's fault.

Well, I don't think it is planning committee's faults because we've got a very strict set

of guidelines we have to stick to.

And that's even without an outline planning application like this that has already gone

through and has restricted us even further.

We were reminded in January to refuse, but realistically I don't think I've been correct

saying that had to be

uh... developer taking it to appeal

uh... we would have got our proverbial sanded to assess it would not have gone

well

as somebody that has

proposed an objective or second did actually an objection in the past

uh... which was strongly felt where we were listening to the public and so on

and that was overturned at a pill uh... there is an element of once bitten to

Australia to this as well.

Yes, we have to be mindful of the thoughts of the public,

we have to be mindful of their concerns,

we have to be mindful of the lack of social housing,

but unfortunately, none of those things

are things that we have the power to change in this room.

If I were the Prime Minister, God forbid, nobody wants that, trust me,

but if I were, then I might be able to change some of those things,

but I'm not. I'm just a

councillor sitting on a planning committee

presented with, effectively, a cast iron case for building

something that, yeah, a lot of people are not going to like.

But there are no

viable legal grounds for refusal

and I'm not willing to count on costing

hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to feel better about the fact that I've

listened to members of the public and to sort of play to the gallery for one of the better

things. On that basis, the second being, sorry, Councillor Godfrey will be supporting the

officer's recommendation.

Councillor Jones.

Cllr Anita Jones - 1:07:26

Thank you, sorry I did try and speak earlier but I don't think I was, put my hand up enough.

So, it's a tricky one, it's very contentious, we are in a really tricky position and I think

Councillor Fuller outlined that very well. We have to adhere to planning law. This has been agreed,

we're just looking at the bits within that agreement now and unfortunately our hands, I feel, are very tied on this.

So I hope that the public understand that when decisions

are made.

And I don't want to cost the taxpayer a lot of money

if it went wrong.

I've looked at all the residents' concerns.

I understand them.

But I also understand the other side, the economic development.

I've lived in Folkestone and High

for pretty much most of my life.

And I've seen it in many different shapes.

And it's in a lot better shape than it used to be.

It's really starting to be a vibrant place to live.

And people are moving here.

So that is exciting for businesses and exciting for the future.

And, you know, we do want to encourage people to stay in the town

and and for it to become more exciting place

to bring up families and all kinds of things.

So I think we have to look at that balance.

I mean, I'm really pleased, obviously, following the January decision

that the developers did go back to the drawing board

and actually consider what we've said.

More parking spaces, that's great, but there's an amazing amount of cycle parking.

I was really impressed with how many bike spaces are up on there.

I think it's over a thousand, isn't it?

I hope I got that one right.

Yeah, it's extraordinary. You don't see developments like that normally.

The car club is, again, a really good thing, and we really should be encouraging this with other developers.

We can't keep having more vehicles, so it's one thing having more vehicle spaces,

but we've got to look at the bigger picture and the long term view on this.

So that's a really positive. The heritage of the station is good that

they've looked at that more, really pleased about that. So the station

was going to be demolished I think originally so actually they've made a

real thing of it and it will be good for businesses. The housing mix, yes they've

adjusted it. I am really keen that we look at perhaps that community some and

doing some better housing elsewhere, if that's possible.

But again, as you said, that's for a different meeting.

So I think there's a number of us in the room

who have expressed that that would be a good thing to do.

So it is a tricky one for every councillor.

But we have to obviously make a decision

based on planning law this evening.

And with that in mind, I will be supporting.

Thank you. Councillor Wayne.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:10:09

Thank you very much, Chair.

Cllr John Wing - 1:10:13

Going back a long way, I've been a resident of the district for a long time.

And like my colleague behind me, I can remember Marks & Spencers,

I can also remember the Sunday Market and the Brizzian,

that's a very different subject.

But anyway, going forward with this, and I can remember it falling apart,

and I do know how bad it was.

And I do wish this was a bit more sympathetic,

but it's not, this has been agreed and we can't change that.

I fully understand that.

I do have one problem though.

That is referring to the Environment Agency comment.

Though they start off saying no objection, it goes on to say about the Beach Management Plan.

I've already contacted the planning department about this and apparently the Beach Management Plan was agreed ten years ago.

I have major concerns about Plot F basically, which is in the front line now.

I went down on Saturday, spent quite a bit of time down there on Saturday,

had a good walk around and I've noticed they're moving quite rightly,

moving the shingle up the beach to protect where they've raised on plot 2, I believe it was,

which is now being built.

They've raised it up with silk from the harbour, down on the harbour, moved it up

and put a lot of shingle on top of it, which was a good idea.

Unfortunately, we've got a longshore drift now that is being moved down

and I've seen scarring there, which has been exposing the silt,

which could erode.

So quite rightly they've moved the shingle back down again,

the same as they do elsewhere on the beach.

But I believe that in my mind that has exposed clock F,

because water's a funny thing, it will find a weak spot.

And because we've raised the beach that side, the weak spot now,

I believe I'm no expert, it's in front of Plot F.

There are no material considerations in planning law I can sit here and say,

refuse.

But my mind, I just can't...

I'd hate to be sitting somewhere in 20 years' time and find out it's been flooded

because of this rising sea.

I don't know if there's any way we could do a site visit or something

just to clear this in my mind.

But I actually understand when this committee tonight

is looking for material considerations

to accept or refuse the application.

I love the idea of affordable housing

and I encourage the LPA to go to the developer

and try to find a way around it.

I like the idea of a possible car club, I noticed.

It's not definite, it's a possible exploring possibility.

And the parking's a little bit better.

And I can't find, in all honesty, a mysterious consideration to refuse this application,

but I have grave concerns about the flood protection, the beach management plan, and

I'd like to see how they've protected.

And I know it's all been agreed, and if you say it's been agreed, I can't do nothing about

it.

I'm sitting here in my hands tied.

I just have concern that this committee should be looking at all aspects and that's one aspect.

That's where I sit at the moment.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:13:32

Thank you Councillor Wing.

I don't know who's going to take that.

Thank you Andrew.

Thank you Councillor.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:13:40

So requirements for a beach management plan are set out as you say in the Outline Planning

Commission conditions 35 I think requires a beach maintenance, sorry beach management

plan the 36 requires then an ongoing maintenance plan.

The conditions have been discharged on a plot by plot basis which means that there will

be a requirement for details of a management plan to come forward for plots F, G and H.

So that will be covered under the terms of the outline planning conditions.

Thank you.

I'm just re -reading it again.

Cllr John Wing - 1:14:25

Has that got to be done before any development takes place?

This re -looking at FG, what you just mentioned about...

Sorry, I don't have the condition in front of me,

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:14:37

but from recollection, when I looked at it this morning,

it was prior to commencement of the phase.

OK. And that leads me to another question.

and unfortunately or fortunately,

Cllr John Wing - 1:14:50

would that be delegated responsibility

or would that go in front of a new committee

to say yes or no?

Officers would have delegated powers normally

to deal with planning conditions.

Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:15:04

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:15:07

As a matter of course, Councillor Wing,

technical conditions are discharged by officers

as opposed to members because we would consult

to the Environment Agency and our own flood consultants

on anything submitted by the applicant.

So what would come in as being a technical document,

we would go out to flooding, drainage

and beach management teams.

We would probably also consult

with our own internal colleagues who are responsible

for the beach management plan up and down

the rest of the seafront outside of this site.

Just to reassure you on the flooding point more generally,

as required by the outline planning application,

all of the habitable accommodation is set above the flood zone and part of the

works that have already been done at the beach have re -profiled the beach into an

active zone which needs constant maintenance and a more fixed zone and

that's in the beach management plan as Andrew has already set out and then when

the reserve matters actually comes to be implemented one would expect a new

detailed plan to pick up updates to that management plan as originally agreed.

At the moment that would be something that officers would determine.

It wouldn't be beyond things for members at the time to call that in when it appeared on the list.

Cllr John Wing - 1:16:28

When you say call it in, what do you mean the local council could call it in to planning?

Is that correct or not?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:16:33

Yes, the ward member could call us in.

I would caveat that the current government are exploring a new national delegation agreement

seeking to address exactly Councillor Fuller's point around speeding up the planning process.

I haven't had sight of that new delegated agreement.

What it would say goes to Planning Committee, the inference is that the smaller, more technical

stuff would be dealt with by officers because the government would currently prefer the

larger scale things to come to Planning Committee, such as the seatings.

but it would be open to the ward member to call in the condition application as it was submitted.

Cllr John Wing - 1:17:12

Okay, so I'm looking over my shoulder now at the ward member, that's something we can think about in the future.

Before any development takes place, he could put a word on this application,

it stands a possibility that the Beach Management Plan for F particularly

may possibly be called Dean, is that too wordy?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:17:38

Yeah, I think that will be minuted anyway, Councillor Wing -Soth, it will be included in the minutes.

Cllr John Wing - 1:17:43

Yeah, and would it be included if I say approve this application, could that be part of it?

I forget what I mean.

A caveat, shall we say?

Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:17:58

In theory no, Councillor, because tonight we're dealing with a Reserve Matters application

and the beach management and maintenance conditions are part of the outline planning condition.

They already require the applicant to submit that information prior to doing any works

on a phase by phase basis and in accordance with the original beach management plan.

So, we couldn't attach a condition to this reserve matters for something that's already

a condition in place to do the same job.

So, there's already a condition in place which achieves what you're trying to achieve.

As I said though, it would be open to the ward member when the application is submitted

to actively call it in themselves as well.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:18:46

Sorry, I've got Councillor Cooper and then Councillor Frummer.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:18:54

We all know as part of a job of being elected into office of Councillor is that we make

difficult decisions.

And I'm going to make a difficult decision tonight and I'm not changing my mind from

January.

Basically, this whole thing, reading through the lot from the reports in January also now,

press reports and everything else, it's all jammed tomorrow.

It's Gibberish today, Jam tomorrow. Let me give you a clear example of that.

On page 19 of the report it says quite clearly, Car Club.

The application includes provision of a Car Club, but any developments

adjacent to the townhouses on airport F1.

That there would be future use by a Car Club operator if commercially viable to do so.

So that's Jam tomorrow. Gibberish application, you can have a Car Club, but only if it's viable.

Now, I take on board, people say, well, for example, well, we can get extra council tax

in.

That's got to be predisposed with every one of those units actually being manned.

If not occupied, there's no council tax coming in.

So that, again, is a joke tomorrow.

And as I say, I mean, my whole view of this is there's no provision there.

There was nothing done and any excuse and everything else.

For example, bits and pieces in respect of the telecotta and everything else.

I don't like telecotta.

One of the biggest things that was objected to with the first consultation was the culinary buildings.

You should be meeting with telecotta.

I'm not happy with the number of car parking spaces.

I'm not happy about the note.

What's known as affordable housing for shared housing is not shared or affordable housing in any way.

Because the first thing you notice on a shared housing development is you've got to pay a service charge.

Some of the service charge you'll pay make this charge,

and then you'll pay this, that and whatever.

So basically, no.

My whole view with this, this is my personal view, mind,

is would I live there? No.

Would I like people in a place that I lived at

being on the bottom of the ground floor, as per shopping, etc? No.

There would be a lack of privacy for people in my view.

And whilst I might not live there,

there were a few other people who wouldn't.

And how would you be marketed?

I'd say on board one of the speakers said the area needs investments etc.

No arguments with that.

But what we've got to bear in mind is, I understand, about 90 % of the businesses in this area employ less than 10 people.

Also bear in mind that there's a lot of vacancies.

If you've got vacancies in the current labour markets and we can create extra employment with this,

where are the people going to work? Where are the people going to come from?

They're not insistent. As I say, in my view, this is jammed today, or jammed tomorrow,

and as I say, I will not be supporting it, I'm afraid.

As regards to the £5 million that's supposed to be going elsewhere,

what I would say is this. If the £5 million is going to go elsewhere,

why hasn't it been done now? What's happening now?

That £5 million will not improve things, because if it's going to go towards, for example, health facilities,

those health facilities will have to provide for the residents at the city's buildings.

So what about the existing people who live here?

And as I said, I'm afraid not. I can't support this and I won't.

And also, there is no justifiable grounds in my view for a change.

Since we've met in January and it's now June, it's been a quick six months, mind.

There's no real changes there.

You're just infusing up a car price in space, reducing them to units by four, and away you go.

No, I'm afraid not. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Do you need a response from an officer for that, Councillor Cooper?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:22:32

So, as you say Chairman, I don't mind either way, but that's my own personal view.

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:22:36

And as I say, to me, it's jammed tomorrow, and I think the people of this folks and the district would be badly let down if we'd say a night and said,

away you go, because it won't be doable.

And also on top of that, given in the original design and access statement from the January meeting,

I asked Mr Lloyd, if he remembered from the meeting, how long will it take? He said he didn't know.

Because if you redesign an access stairs, what it basically says is this would be built piecemeal.

So you'd have a continuous and permanent building site down there the next 25 years until it was done.

That's going to create excess traffic, dust, noise and in effect, weather people's health.

So, we thank you Chair anyway.

Thank you. Councillor Fuller.

Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:23:22

Thank you, Chair. I was just going to add to Councillor Wing's point about calling

that a ZIN. If memory serves, you can actually sign up for email updates on specific applications,

so it's not that hard to get an update when a non -material change comes in, as it were,

and then if you're a Councillor you can then call it in if you feel minded to, and if you're

still allowed to under a government's new rules.

We'll see.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:23:50

OK, thank you, Councillor Davidson.

Thank you.

Cllr Laura Davison - 1:23:59

Yeah, well, I was in the meeting in January where we discussed it, and so the way that

I've been thinking about it is thinking about that discussion that we had and what has changed

in the interim in terms of the application that's in front of us this evening.

And so I've gone through that in terms of the different strands of that discussion.

So we talked about the car parking and one of the concerns raised was about the number of spaces.

It's the same number in this application, albeit the balance has changed.

And I think we've clarified this evening there's less disabled parking in the new application

than there was in the original application.

The balance has changed between the visitor spaces and the resident spaces.

I acknowledge that.

One of the significant concerns raised in our January meeting was about the impact on

heritage and the change that there is in this application is about the setting back of the

building.

And I think we've clarified that there'll be balconies in that space, albeit that was

a change to the visual appearance.

However, I think all the feedback that there has been, and my own kind of view of it, is

that that doesn't materially change the impact on the heritage.

And the changes in terms of the glazing and the signage, again, they don't seem to me

to be fundamental changes, more almost window dressing, I suppose, because they are to windows,

in terms of an alteration on that particular aspect.

The affordable housing was a really significant concern

for councillors when we discussed it in January.

Again, the changes that have been made,

they don't address the fact that it doesn't meet

the policy that we have in place

in terms of the range of the affordable housing

that's being put forward.

and the point's clearly been made that it's shared ownership rather than affordable rent

that's being proposed.

And in fact, it's topically, there's been a lot of concerns raised about shared ownership

just over the last few days.

Taking a step back from that, I think everybody has made the point that the development isn't

going to address the actual housing needs that we have in the town.

and I appreciate that that's not a material consideration

for this evening in that respect.

However, it's an important point, I think,

that needs to be made.

And then I think the key things that were discussed

alongside the heritage impact were the massing

of the design and the relationship between the buildings

and the landscape, the character of the town,

and I think we've discussed there are no changes in that respect between the

application that we discussed in January and now the scheme remains the same in

design and form I think are the words that are in the report. So for me taking

that in the round I appreciate there's been mention of a car club I'm all in

favour of car clubs but it's if it's viable and I don't think for me that

would be enough to swing my views.

There's also been some discussion

about what could be done around affordable housing going

forward.

But again, I think we have to be really clear that we've

got to put that aside because we're making decisions

on what's in front of us this evening,

and we have to be clear that we're doing that.

And we wouldn't want there to be different perceptions going out

to members of the public about why decisions have been made.

So I mean, it's pretty clear from the comments that

have been made which way the vote is going to go this evening and clearly there have

been some councillors who have changed their view between January and today in terms of

that but my view is that there isn't enough change here for a change in my vote this evening

so I'll be voting against it.

Thank you councillor.

Councillor Lockwood.

Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:28:20

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:28:21

Sorry my mic is still fuzzing, I don't know why, but I'll use Tony's.

So I'm new to the planning committee and I'm, what a start to, this is my second meeting

and I'm faced with possibly the most difficult decision

this committee's made in a generation.

However, we're elected to make these decisions.

It's been said before this meeting is reserve matters

and obviously a previous administration has agreed

what we've seen in terms of height, scale, massing,

and I think that has a bearing on some of the objections

made in the previous meeting,

which I wasn't involved with.

And we've seen what that looks like in theory

with the picture with the greeny blue blocks on.

So whatever we decide tonight, whatever decision we make tonight,

the one thing none of us can do is block the blocks.

The blocks are agreed. They will be built.

So going back to tonight,

We're just faced with those details that are outlined in this report.

Can I just take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleagues that during those previous,

some of the colleagues are here and some are watching at home, that have put a lot of effort

and work into questioning this application,

the outline application, scrutinizing, objecting,

and even the objection that this committee made in January

has brought forward a scheme with some improvements in it,

and I particularly welcome the extra public parking spaces.

that's quite a significant swing in favor of visitors.

And for me, that objection number one

said a significant fall in visitor parking,

I think you could probably change that

to just a fall in visitor parking.

I think the drop from 550 now to 500

is not a significant drop.

So I think we can say that that is an improvement.

from January. If we lived in an ideal world, we'd keep what's been approved,

we'd keep what's there. We love the goods yard, we love the beautiful historic

station that's been restored, all the listed elements in the viaduct,

all of these things we love. People flock there, it's hugely successful.

I do have concerns about taking those highly successful elements and

particularly things like street food stalls, the screen, the big screen, the

street market. You know by its nature if you take street food indoors it's not

street food anymore. If you turn market stalls into shops they're not market

stalls anymore. I fear we're going to lose some of the amazing things that have

been done and credit should go to the development for the investment so far

in what's there and how hugely successful that's been and I think we'll

lose some of those successful elements with this development. Having said

all of that none of that is material in this application tonight and I echo what

Councillor Wing said I cannot see any reasons for material reasons for how I

as a Councillor also professionally as a building surveyor could honestly in good

conscious refuse this application based on what's presented.

I take on board the points made by my colleagues here,

but I just personally,

professionally and under my civic duty cannot see how I

could refuse this application and potentially subject

the discounts onto legal action.

On the point of affordable housing,

I think the provision that's in the outline planning

and what would be approved tonight is compliant.

I think most people would agree it's called affordable,

but it's not affordable.

There's issues with shared ownership,

as Laura's described.

I'm glad you've seen that in the news this week.

If there is an option to commute the value of those out

and a discussion that could be had after this,

personally I would like to see council housing

delivered somewhere in Folkestone

so that we get people off the waiting list

for council houses.

I would be pleased to see that.

I appreciate that would not be a condition of this application, it would be something

to discuss afterwards.

So that's my position.

No points.

Clarify all my points.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Lockwood.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:34:46

So again, is there any other...

Sorry.

Oh, Councillor Goddard.

Well, Mr Chairman, just a quickie.

Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:34:55

Councillor Cooper, I wrote down building sites and Councillor Cooper reminded me, usually

it can be sometimes in the report how much work there be for the construction industry,

you know builders building this scheme.

Unfortunately it's not in the report.

But talking about the report I must give credit to the report to Andrew.

I've sat here for 18 years and this is probably one of the best reports that's come to this

committee so well done and credit to Andrew for a good report.

But again, going back to the construction side of it,

you think of all the hundreds of construction jobs

starting from surveyors, architects,

a mile up to tradesmen, labours, etc.

There's a massive amount of construction workers

live within the district and I think this is a big, big plus.

It hasn't been said tonight, I just wanted to say that as well.

We haven't honed in on the construction side of it.

Councillor Cooper said 25 years this could be being built,

So there's 25 years of work for the construction industry as well Mr Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:35:58

Anything from other members?

So we have one proposal in front of us.

So proposed by Councillor Godfrey, seconded by Councillor Fuller and that's to move the

officers recommendations.

I'll just read that out.

Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report

and the delegated authority, begin to the Chief Planning Officer to agree and finalise

the wording of the conditions and add any other conditions that he considers necessary.

So that's the recommendation that we're going forward with.

So we'll move to the vote now.

So can I ask for that?

Yes, Councillor.

Is it a recorded vote?

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:36:38

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:36:38

We need...

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:36:40

Can I please request a recorded vote?

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:36:44

OK, so we need five members to agree to a recorded vote.

Which we have. OK, thank you.

We can certainly do that. OK.

Gemma, if that's OK?

Ms Jemma West - 1:36:59

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Cooper.

Councillor Davidson. Against.

Councillor Fuller.

For.

Councillor Goddard

Councillor Godfrey

Councillor Jones

Councillor Lockwood

Abstain

Councillor Shue

Councillor Speakman

Councillor Thomas

And Councillor Wing

Abstain

Ms Jemma West - 1:37:43

I make that seven in favour, two against and two abstentions so therefore the motion is

carried.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:37:50

Okay thank you members so that motion is carried.

Before we finish there is one note which was discussed as we were going around so I don't

how you want to deal with that, Norman?

Thank you, Chair. Obviously there's a discussion this evening about potential changes to Section

106. We will note that we will go away and explore that. As I said, it's not part of

tonight's decision. You've made your decision in the absence of that. But we will explore

it and report back to members as and when we have any information on that point.

Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:38:34

On that, thank you very much.

Members, the meeting is now closed.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Folkestone & Hythe District Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 17 June 2025, 7:00pm - Slides Tab - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting