Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday 9 September 2025, 7:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Planning and Licensing Committee
Tuesday, 9th September 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
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone A
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Jackie Meade
  3. Microphone Forty
  4. Cllr Jackie Meade
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Microphone Forty
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Cllr Jackie Meade
  9. Microphone Forty
  10. Cllr Jackie Meade
  11. Cllr Jackie Meade
  12. Cllr Paul Thomas
  13. Llywelyn Lloyd
  14. Llywelyn Lloyd
  15. Cllr Paul Thomas
  16. Llywelyn Lloyd
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Clive Goddard
  19. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  20. Llywelyn Lloyd
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  23. Llywelyn Lloyd
  24. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  25. Llywelyn Lloyd
  26. Cllr Anita Jones
  27. Llywelyn Lloyd
  28. Cllr Anita Jones
  29. Llywelyn Lloyd
  30. Cllr Jackie Meade
  31. Llywelyn Lloyd
  32. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  33. Llywelyn Lloyd
  34. Cllr Jackie Meade
  35. Cllr Clive Goddard
  36. Cllr Jackie Meade
  37. Cllr Jackie Meade
  38. Cllr Paul Thomas
  39. Cllr Jackie Meade
  40. Cllr Jackie Meade
  41. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Mr Robert Allan
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Microphone Forty
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Microphone Forty
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Microphone Forty
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Gary Fuller
  11. Llywelyn Lloyd
  12. Cllr Gary Fuller
  13. Llywelyn Lloyd
  14. Cllr Jackie Meade
  15. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  16. Cllr Jackie Meade
  17. Mr Robert Allan
  18. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  19. Llywelyn Lloyd
  20. Cllr Jackie Meade
  21. Cllr Paul Thomas
  22. Mr Robert Allan
  23. Llywelyn Lloyd
  24. Cllr Jackie Meade
  25. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  26. Mr Robert Allan
  27. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  28. Mr Robert Allan
  29. Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee
  30. Mr Robert Allan
  31. Mr Robert Allan
  32. Cllr Jackie Meade
  33. Cllr Tony Cooper
  34. Mr Robert Allan
  35. Cllr Tony Cooper
  36. Mr Robert Allan
  37. Cllr Tony Cooper
  38. Mr Robert Allan
  39. Cllr Jackie Meade
  40. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  41. Cllr Jackie Meade
  42. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  43. Cllr Anita Jones
  44. Cllr Jackie Meade
  45. Cllr Anita Jones
  46. Cllr Jackie Meade
  47. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  48. Mr Robert Allan
  49. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  50. Mr Robert Allan
  51. Cllr Jackie Meade
  52. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  53. Cllr Jackie Meade
  54. Cllr Jackie Meade
  55. Cllr Jackie Meade
  56. Microphone A
  57. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Mr Robert Allan
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Microphone Forty
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Microphone Forty
  7. Cllr Jackie Meade
  8. Microphone Forty
  9. Cllr Jackie Meade
  10. Cllr Gary Fuller
  11. Llywelyn Lloyd
  12. Mr Robert Allan
  13. Mr Robert Allan
  14. Mr Robert Allan
  15. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  16. Cllr Gary Fuller
  17. Cllr Jackie Meade
  18. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  19. Cllr Jackie Meade
  20. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  21. Cllr Jackie Meade
  22. Cllr Tony Cooper
  23. Cllr Jackie Meade
  24. Cllr Tony Cooper
  25. Cllr Jackie Meade
  26. Cllr Tony Cooper
  27. Cllr Jackie Meade
  28. Cllr Jackie Meade
  29. Cllr Tony Cooper
  30. Cllr Clive Goddard
  31. Cllr Jackie Meade
  32. Cllr Paul Thomas
  33. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  34. Cllr Jackie Meade
  35. Cllr Gary Fuller
  36. Llywelyn Lloyd
  37. Cllr Gary Fuller
  38. Cllr Gary Fuller
  39. Llywelyn Lloyd
  40. Llywelyn Lloyd
  41. Cllr Jackie Meade
  42. Cllr Anita Jones
  43. Mr Robert Allan
  44. Cllr Anita Jones
  45. Mr Robert Allan
  46. Cllr Anita Jones
  47. Mr Robert Allan
  48. Cllr Jackie Meade
  49. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  50. Cllr Jackie Meade
  51. Mr Robert Allan
  52. Cllr Jackie Meade
  53. Cllr Paul Thomas
  54. Cllr Jackie Meade
  55. Cllr Tony Cooper
  56. Llywelyn Lloyd
  57. Cllr Tony Cooper
  58. Llywelyn Lloyd
  59. Cllr Tony Cooper
  60. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  61. Cllr Jackie Meade
  62. Llywelyn Lloyd
  63. Llywelyn Lloyd
  64. Cllr Jackie Meade
  65. Cllr Adrian Lockwood
  66. Cllr Jackie Meade
  67. Cllr Tony Cooper
  68. Cllr Jackie Meade
  69. Cllr Jackie Meade
  70. Cllr Jackie Meade
  71. Cllr Jackie Meade
  72. Cllr Jackie Meade
  73. Cllr Jackie Meade
  74. Cllr Jackie Meade
  75. Cllr Jackie Meade
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jackie Meade
  2. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  3. Cllr Jackie Meade
  4. Cllr Clive Goddard
  5. Cllr Jackie Meade
  6. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:00
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:00:02
of the Planning and Licencing 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 viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you. Would anyone with
a mobile phone please switch it to silent as they can be distracting. I would like to
I remind members that although we all have strong opinions or 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 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 will move on.

1 Apologies for Absence

Do we have any apologies for absence please?
Microphone A - 0:01:18
Thank you chair, yes we have apologies from Councillor King and Councillor Walker is here
at this substitute.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:22
Thank you, welcome Councillor Walker.

2 Declarations of Interest

Do we have any declarations of interest please Councillors?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:29
Councillor Hinsby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 0:01:31
Yes thank you Chair.
231413 FH Lander Elmsbury Farm.
I will not take part as my son and in fact his in -laws live right adjacent to the site.
So I will move to the back during that debate.

3 Minutes

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:01:50
Thank you. Do we have any others, please? I'm not seeing any others, so we will move
on. You have before you the minutes of the meeting held on the 12th of August, 2025.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:09
For you to consider and approve as a correct record, may I sign them, please? Thank you

4 Minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee

very much. You also have the minutes of the licencing subcommittee, which was held on
19th of August 2025. May I sign them as a correct record please?

5 Minutes of the Licensing Act Sub-Committee

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:22
Minutes of the Licencing Act subcommittee of the 19th of August 2025. May I also sign

6 23/1413/FH - Land At Elmtree Farm, Main Road, Sellindge, Ashford, TN25 6JY

Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:34
this as a correct record please? Thank you very much councillors. So we'll
which is the land at Eltrie form in Main Road in Selling.
Do we have any updates please?
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:02:52
No updates, Chair.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:02:54
Thank you very much and we have three speakers on this this evening.
May I remind speakers that you have three minutes.
At the end of three minutes I will mention to you to finish the sentence that you are
on.
Thank you.
So our first speaker this evening is Lisa Itwissen who is a local resident to speak
against the application if you'd like to come forward and good evening.
Microphone Forty - 0:03:23
Good evening. This application is being considered on a tilted balance basis. So first a clarification
please. Paragraph 195 of the NPPF has been dis -applied and the tilted balance applied
because you have concluded there will be no adverse effect of the development on Stodmarsh.
You are certain of that fact today.
However, the officer's report refers to some differing standards of certainty
stating there will be no significant adverse effect
or there will be no likely significant impacts
or that nutrient neutrality should be achieved.
Can you please clarify the report therefore at 7 .136 and 8 .17 and page 130?
The Regulation 63 assessment allows you to look forward and impose conditions, but does
paragraph 195 and have you concluded no adverse effect?
Thank you.
That aside, the Planning Office's recommendation does not mean that your voting in favour is
a foregone conclusion.
Members of the committee, you can still act to preserve the integrity, identity and shape
of our village.
You see the obvious adverse impact of imposing further large -scale development on Selinch
and that on a site with such history, recorded in the planning system since 2000, categorised
now as a windfall.
But it's been previously accessed and excluded from the current core strategy for site characteristics
which remain the same today as they did then.
The site outside the settlement boundary, in the setting of a national landscape in
open countryside.
What has changed?
And these same constant material planning considerations are enough for you to refuse
the application.
and let's look at paragraph 73 of the MPPF. Please read it. A windfall site must be both
suitable and within the existing settlement. This is neither. The Planning Officer's
report can't and therefore does not say that the site is within the settlement, just
that it adjoins the edge of Selinge. Members of the committee, is that sufficient? And
Shouldn't this application site be decided upon within the new development plan process
which has already started with a call for site rather than a site of this size being
approved now as a departure from the current one?
An outline application, an unknown timetable for nutrient neutrality inserting itself into
the landscape.
Adverse impact, most definitely.
A benefit, a tick today in the box marked housing targets.
but this site is not suitable.
Other councils have acted to protect rural environments and communities.
Will you?
Once it's gone, it's gone.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:06:33
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:06:38
Just to remind you, as you weren't here at the beginning, that you can't vote on this
one.
Thank you.
So our second speaker this evening is Councillor Samuel Instance on behalf of Sellingage Parish
Council to speak on the application.
Good evening, sir, and you will have three minutes.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:06:59
Thank you.
Good evening, committee.
I represent Sellingage Parish Council.
You will have seen the many applications and objections raised by Sellingage residents.
This is an outline application and not the full planning application as recommended by
the planners in July 2024.
Other than the A20 access points, nothing is guaranteed.
So there is no guarantee on layout, no guarantee on design quality, no guarantee on delivery
of the required infrastructure, drainage, southern water reinforcement, no guarantee
on building heights and therefore no guarantee on the impact on the visual landscape.
no guarantee on the ancient woodland on Wollstock Lane,
no guarantee on heritage assets or the housing mix.
These are not minor details.
They are fundamental issues for the community.
So whatever the outcome, the parish council requests
that the reserve matters, which are so material in this case,
must be referred back to committee.
This application is being considered under the MPPF,
which states the core strategy review in 22
remains relevant and is the starting point for decision -making. This site was
not included because of landscape and heritage constraints. None of these
constraints have changed. The officer's report records that the housing supply
is 3 .1 years and that therefore the tilted balance applies. But paragraph 11
D2 of the MPPF requires refusal of Planning Commission where the adverse
impacts of a proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and they do.
The parish council submit that this is not proportionate growth.
Sellinge has a local plan which allocated 600 houses.
This was scrutinised and approved at national level by the Planning Inspector.
This application represents a further 17 .5 increase over Selinger's local plan allocation.
This risks breaching the settlement hierarchy by overwhelming a rural centre.
The parish council is concerned that the so -called material considerations here are not secured.
They are aspirations, deferred to conditions or illustrative drawings.
And how will the parish be in a position to assimilate this further development?
Will SIL contributions be guaranteed towards services and facilities?
For example, for walking and cycling routes to reduce car dependency or to promote connectivity,
to a new parish office to facilitate engagement, expanded village hall facilities, measures
to promote pedestrian safety.
The parish council do not support this further large -scale development.
We urge members of the committee to properly weigh the objections noted and to refuse this application.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:10:00
Thank you very much, sir.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:10:02
And our third speaker this evening is Quinn Estates agents.
Sorry I don't have your name.
To speak in support of the application, good evening and you will have three minutes.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:10:23
Good evening members.
The application before you seeks permission to create a highly sustainable landscape led
community extension to Selinch.
It would comprise a range of high quality, highly energy efficient homes from larger
family houses to much needed smaller properties for first time buyers and down sizes.
The proposal is entirely policy compliant in terms of affordable housing, contributing
towards significant local need.
Crucially, this scheme delivers game -changing community benefits for the village.
We have worked with the GP practise to create the opportunity for the local doctors to establish
an expanded, brand new, state -of -the -art surgery.
We have worked with KCC to provide land for the primary school to grow.
And we have worked with our delivery partners to provide opportunity for a new dental surgery
and a larger shop serving the villagers' day -to -day needs.
The Council's planning policy is clear in its encouragement for appropriately planned
extensions to existing settlements.
Indeed, the Local Plan expressly relies on suitable windfall development to meet housing
targets.
Early in the submission process, our team entered into a planning performance agreement
with the Council to evolve and finesse our scheme in line with their advice and their
requirements.
As a result, our proposal, while outlined in nature, secures a level of character, detail
and design quality significantly above the norm for schemes at outline stage.
This gives the Council full control over the detailed design of the scheme, from layout,
architecture, character areas and generous landscaping, down to finer detail such as
the bricks, tiles and doors and windows used, the road and driveway surfaces, the fencing
and walls and the boundary treatments.
The Officer's Report sets out a full review of planning considerations informed by statutory
consultees including Natural England, National Highways, the Environment Agency, the NHS,
KCC Highways and KCC Ecology. In terms of highways impact, they conclude that the scheme,
which includes enhancements to local footpaths and connectivity, can be safely accessed from
the local road network. In terms of landscape impact, they conclude that the proposal would
sit sympathetically within the wider surroundings and would provide generous areas of public
open space. And in terms of impact on the Stobmarsh Lakes, an issue that has stalled
delivery for thousands of homes across the district, they conclude that our draining
strategy can achieve nutrient neutrality, ensuring no delay in delivery.
Indeed, in terms of all material planning considerations, this proposal is accepted
by every technical consortee.
Coine Estates is an award -winning, locally -based developer with a proven track record of delivering
low -carbon, EPCA -rated housing nearby at our growth park scheme in Selling.
This proposal began with community engagement and it has evolved through collaboration with
officers to create a complementary village extension of the highest quality that meets
the rigorous requirements of the District's windfall policy.
It is a scheme we are really proud of.
We are delighted to receive a recommendation for approval that we hope you can endorse
tonight.
Thank you for listening.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:28
Thank you very much.
Those are the three speakers this evening on this application so over to you Councillors,
anyone needing clarification or needing to ask any questions please.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:13:49
Councillor Thomas.
Thank you chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:13:55
Yeah there's a couple of things that I wanted to ask this evening that sort of struck a
little bit of a chord with me.
The first of those was the proposed buffer zone
between this development as set out
against the existing infrastructure and sellings.
So I just wondered if we could elaborate on that a little bit
in terms of how big it is, does it meet the standard?
But also, and as we've seen in Hawkins
in this last year or so,
How would that buffer zone be protected at some time in the future to prevent
gardens from expanding into that zone for example? Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:14:46
Councillor Thomas, I have to make sure I give you the best answer possible.
Could I understand what the second question is? Will I look for the information within the report?
Because I know it's covered in the report, so I'm going to find a relevant paragraph for you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:14:57
Do you want to go on to the second point while we do some quick research for you?
Yeah, sure.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:15:07
And, sorry, and secondly, just in terms of where this is cited and the current classification
of the agricultural land, I believe that is currently classified as Grade 2 agricultural
land.
So again, how is that justified, the use of that land for development of this type?
Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:15:33
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
If I could refer to paragraph 7 .85 of the committee report, there's an image in there
which talks about the buffer zone being in the area where the house is back onto the
neighbouring property, it's 10 metres deep.
That's secured by the land use plans.
There is no fixed standard for what a buffer is, but it's been arrived at through place -making
and achieving an appropriate sense of separation and the ability for gardens to flex.
The exact nature of any gardens in relationship with that buffer zone would be determined
at the reserve matters stage.
Tonight, councillors are approving the principle of housing up to the number of houses.
They're approving the principle of some commercial and community facilities.
but you're not approving the layout.
The only thing you are approving
is the access of the A20.
There are the other matters of precise
detail of that buffer will be a matter
for this Council to determine when
reserve matters applications for layout,
design, landscaping are specifically
applied for, but at paragraph 7 .85
the buffer of 10 metres would be secured
as part of the outline planning application.
That would obviously be aligned with
Bear with me while I scroll back to the top of the report, which is in the proposal section.
The proposed character areas at paragraph 3 .30 and we do have a land use plan at paragraph,
above paragraph 3 .8 at figure point 3, which sets out the areas of land subject to the
buffer in the green.
The areas where the housing would be allowed to come forward and the areas of strategic
open space and potential wet tension basins.
Hopefully that answers the question about how would it be secure.
How would it be secure in the long term?
There would be a management arrangement I'm sure which I'll look to colleagues to see
if that's in the, that would be in the section 106 and in conditions.
and the final point around the BMV,
yes the site is best and most versatile agricultural land.
Officers have had to balance that
with the requirements of the MPPF
and the government's objectives to meet a housing need.
The points made by the speakers tonight are well heard.
This is a balancing exercise for all of us.
It's not an easy decision for officers nor for councillors.
We have a development plan for a reason,
but we are not meeting our need.
we have slipped into the tilted balance scenario
and we now have to give great weight
to approving housing applications
unless there are very strong cases for not approving it.
And that is the acid test
and that will be the balance for yourselves
as councillors tonight
as to whether you think this contribution
towards meeting the council's housing need
overrides the protections of the BNP.
As officers we've come to the conclusion that although finely balanced it does weigh in
favour of housing provision given the government's direction for the need to deliver that and
recent appeal decisions across the country in this matter.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:18:51
Thank you.
Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:18:56
Thank you Chair and I tend to agree with Llewellyn.
It is a balance obviously.
I think what froze it was obviously the developers building infrastructure with the houses in
the shape of Doctor Surgery, the village store, dentists, all contributions towards nursery,
expansion to the primary school.
So it's quite a small number of houses, you know, but the infrastructure is done with
it.
The word I like, and it's popped up,
I've not seen it before since I've been here,
is a community extension.
Now, I've not heard that, but I like it.
I think you've got a community
and you just want to put an extension of the community.
Yeah, I can go with that.
But in the near 120 years I've sat here,
I've never heard that before,
but that's interesting, perhaps that's the new government in Drosette,
which is fine.
Like I say, Quinn Developments, they've done a lot of work in the settings.
I remember giving permission for 250 several years ago.
That went well.
I think they're a good neighbour to sell in on a pretty sound developer.
So like the Wennings said, it is a balance and act.
Whether we're not meeting this target, that target.
But I think what does swing is infrastructure as well.
With the shop, I think I missed that out as well.
everything's getting built with it, the facilities and the community as well.
So happy to move the recommendation.
Thank you, Councillor Goddard. We have a proposer. Do we have a seconder please?
Councillor Thomas.
Happy to second.
Thank you. Would any other councillors like to speak?
Sorry, I could hardly see your hand.
Councillor Polly Dykemore.
Thank you, Chair.
So one of the principles in the master plan is sustainability and it's obvious how hard
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:21:02
officers and the developer work together in order to get it there in terms of the layout
and the green spaces and the setting in the landscape.
But I'm concerned about public transport.
I'm not seeing any evidence of the enhanced public transport referenced in that sustainability
bullet point in that early paragraph.
I think it's 3 .6.
So and I'm paraphrasing here, the MPPF makes it clear that extensions to existing villages
and towns in the countryside must be supported by the necessary infrastructure, including
a genuine choice for transport modes.
And we read that at various points within the report, that all sustainable travel modes
must be considered rather than just walking and cycling.
But I have concerns around that because I know the number 10 bus goes through there.
To my knowledge, it's once an hour.
And we all know how long the number 10 or the circuit which is the number 10 bus takes.
Maybe an occasional 18 comes through on a school day.
but I don't know how well it's been served by that.
It's a 50 minute cycle to Western Hanger Station,
by my reckoning that's about an hour's walk along the A20,
and the cycle will be along the A20, and that's not fun.
So I'm just not convinced that in terms of
leaving the car behind, it's there.
I think the car would still be king
for people who are living there.
I can't imagine people would move there without a car.
And I don't think these sustainable modes are going to be convenient or accessible enough
for the future residents.
And I also noticed that in the section 106 table we were given, there's no reference
to transport, no funding provision made for transport.
So I wonder why not, whether that's something we can change, along with cycling facilities
along the A20 just to make it more, it's all very well being able to cycle around the development
but you've got to be able to get out of it and get to work and get to other places.
So I just wondered if those two issues could be looked at for the section 106 agreement
please.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:18
To deal with the bus issue first, obviously the site does lie on the existing bus routes.
So the Inspectorate and others would take that as having access to bus services.
I'd take the point that the 10 runs through there and Kent Highway services would be the
default people that we would turn to and who would be requesting contributions to enhanced
bus infrastructure.
I think the application makes reference to moving the bus stop to be relocated to be
in a better location and of course, Selinge as part of the wider master planning work
that took place as the developments to the south of the A20
has seen enhancements to traffic infrastructure historically through there.
So we haven't requested a bus contribution because we've not had a request for one
from the High Lease Authority or the bus provider and no justification for it has been provided.
What I can say is it is accessible by a bus stop.
It runs, it's adjacent, easily accessible to a bus.
The site is connected to a sustainable settlement identified in the core strategy as being suitable
for residential development to support the needs of the district and on that basis I
think we would find it very difficult to argue that greater bus provision and rather sustainability
measures are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
I understand your concern but I think the point about the number 10 service is a wider
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:24:51
issue as opposed to what this development in and of itself would result in.
Councillor Mike Maitland.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:24:57
Yeah, Councillor Thomas raised the question of the rates of agricultural land and I'm
glad to hear that it's a difficult decision and so it should be because we have that policy
of not building on financial property land for good reason, including as it says in the
impact of importing food that we should be growing here and many people are concerned about
solar panels being built on agricultural land for the same reason. So I think that is a really
difficult one and it does feel a little bit like we're always going to find in favour of housing,
possibly should always find in favour of solar panels too because that's just as urgent for me
as far as I can see for clean energy. So that's a really really difficult one but what we haven't
talked about here is also the impact on the natural landscape and I think that's also an
important consideration but it robs up against the national landscape doesn't it?
And I wonder if just whether Oscar to talk to that and about why we feel it's acceptable
in its proximity to the national landscape.
I also think it's very difficult for us in these situations where we're presented with
what is a very very high quality scheme.
I mean you can't really fault it in terms of the layout, the sustainability elements,
the support for infrastructure but we're told we're actually just have to agree this on
basically at 105 homes and not take any of that really into account.
So that's very difficult to make that decision not to be swayed by the fact that this is a high quality development
and some of that is mitigation for building on agricultural land and building close to the national landscape.
I had one other specific question which it mentions in 7 .79, the development also provides pick up and drop off facilities to the school
and I was just curious as to what facilities you could provide that.
Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:26:42
I'll try and pick up this but I'll defer to the case officer when I get everything wrong.
Invariably I will.
To pick up on the national landscape in its proximity, it is close to but it is crucially outside.
And we have both in consultation with the national landscape unit who have raised no objection,
who have said it needs to be knitted into the development and it needs to be of the right material qualities
needs to pay reference to their colours and materials guide.
Officers concerned with assessing this application, which is why it's taken as long as it has,
was if we are going to in any way recommend approval of development here, we need to be
satisfied that it wasn't just about providing housing numbers, that whatever councillors,
if they ever decided to approve it, was of the highest quality possible.
And a lot of effort on officer timing to ensure that the material pallets, the density of
the right amount of landscaping and additional planting
has been put into the scheme to make sure that when it comes forward
we have the best possible chance of ameliorating the development
into not only the view from the AONB,
or the National Landscape back towards Selinge,
but crucially the views and the appreciation of the National Landscape
when looking towards the National Landscape from within the development.
So those have been paramount to our thinking
and it's why parts of this development have arrived in the way they have.
So I think that's quite crucial.
The BMV point has very much been part of that,
as has the fact that it's outside the settlement boundary.
It hasn't been a very simple decision, it's been a very complicated one of,
we need housing, yes, but it has to be the right housing in the right location
and that ties into Councillor Polybaker's point about sustainability,
this is in the most sustainable location.
So we have given high regard to protecting the national landscape and ensuring that putting
controls in place around materiality and design to ensure that it knits into that longer term.
You'll have to forgive me, there was a secondary point which has eluded me while I was answering
the first point, sorry, Councillor.
Paragraph 7 .79 I believe.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:28:50
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:28:50
Part of the discussions, if you look at the application, it sort of connects to the A
next to the primary school.
The scheme as currently submitted as detailed
was in a different format.
We recognised that this was close to a primary school.
Primary schools I know, being a parent, become quite busy
and how could you make it better for parents and children
and people in a sort of sense of place.
The space that's in front of the triangle of land,
in front of the potential doctor surgery,
potential offices and flats,
part of that would be detailed up as part of the reserve matters, but that could allow
for pick up and drop off for parents to alleviate some of the peak traffic problems.
Councillor Jones.
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:29:43
Just a couple of points. Firstly, I noted that in the plan there was no EV charging
points but it's been referred to in the conditions for the houses. I wonder
whether consideration being given to if it's going to be sustainable why aren't
we looking at solar panels I didn't find that in the application unless I've
missed it it was a big application. The other question just will come to that as
well in a minute is also I noted obviously residents concerned about the
speed limit through the village and whether that should be considered as
part of that and obviously that's a KCC issue but whether there can be some influence just
to reduce the traffic around there particularly as there is a primary school.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:30:31
Thank you chair, thank you councillor.
So yes EV charging points are required by the condition to make sure they take place
but of course we can't specify where they are because we don't have a particular layout.
The application includes part of the package of sustainability measures, air source heat
pumps. What's also crucial is the Council's policies, I believe it's CC1 and CC2 or 3,
it requires all developments to be 10 % better than building regulations of the day as built.
Similar to the scheme at Rhodes House, this scheme would have to comply with that. So
this scheme is the embedded mental air source heat pumps and that might include solar panels
longer term, it might not, depending on what the best technology of the day is to achieve
efficiency of the properties.
What we are seeing across the district
is more properties putting solar panels on,
but also putting their source heat pumps in.
And we are seeing more new properties
with the charging points as a standard
within those properties.
Hope that addresses that.
Thank you and then I mentioned this speed
Cllr Anita Jones - 0:31:38
limit through the village because that was
a concern by some of the residents.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:31:43
At the moment you're right,
The site is currently 30 miles an hour as you come into the village.
Obviously with additional things there, there might be a motion for Kent to think about reducing that further.
We're not in control of that and we wouldn't not be able to put a further burden, or not burden, a further control on any planning application requiring that as the standard.
Because of Kent and the authority in consultation with the police don't think it's enforceable.
They wouldn't be able to put it in place.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:32:17
Thank you. I've just got two questions if I may. The barrier. We've had problems before
down the line where we've had a barrier between residential gardens, the barrier and then
the landscape and residents have gone in and taken the barrier as their garden. None of
want this, that barrier would be there for a reason should the committee be so minded.
I'm just wondering what we can do to ensure that that does not happen at this site.
And secondly my question is, this is obviously for the overlying planning, can we absolutely
guarantee that should the committee be so minded to agree to this, that the design and
out will actually come back to this committee for agreement. Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:33:13
Thank you, Chair. On the buffer and sort of it being incorporated, yes, it's a very unfortunate
event where some residents take control of that. I think one of the most notable ones
recently is where the management company for that space, decision taken some time ago,
was maintained and owned by the residents themselves or one or two of the residents,
which makes obviously that external management of it.
As previously highlighted,
the buffer would be controlled by a management company,
secured within the planning commission.
As the final details of that negotiation,
the section 106 would be required,
as we have done with other developments,
it would not be completely inappropriate
to see if that land wishes to be maintained
by the parish council,
giving a further level of distinction,
but not every parish council wants to take on
the responsibility for maintaining buffers.
but there would be a controlling place for that.
Thank you. Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 0:34:17
I'm conscious that this is just for outline planning,
so we're looking at number of units and principle of commercial and so on,
and I appreciate this is really difficult,
building on farmland,
building such a number of houses,
in an area with a relatively small population.
The effect that has on the current residents and so on,
always very difficult.
And we'll have to weigh that up this evening.
I have my usual bugbears around these types of developments
that have bendy roads and particularly twisty dead ends.
I could see at least one of the secondary roads where gardens, rear gardens back onto the road,
so you just have a fence, you just walk along a fence.
But having said that, there's lots of trees in the plan,
lots of talk of it being green and thoroughfare.
That's all welcomed and actually becoming more important as temperatures rise.
You know, tree -lined streets are literally cool.
But that will come back, I'm assuming, to a later meeting to talk about those kind of
details.
But, yeah, 105 houses on this site.
Difficult but much needed.
Thank you, Chair.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:35:56
Thank you, Councillor.
Just a couple of points. I'm remiss I didn't answer Councillor Neat's point around reserve matters.
We could at this moment in time say that it should come back, I'm sure it would.
The difficulty is the Government is currently consulting on a standard scheme of delegation across the country,
which when inputted would insist that all reserve matters are dealt with at a delegated stage.
So any resolution we put in place I'm not sure would hold legally because we'd be legally required to determine it.
But if it is still within our gift, yes.
We will bring it back if that's a recommendation
as part of the motion.
Just quickly on the point about fences backing onto roads,
it's an interesting point and something that actually
colleagues and myself have picked up with the developer
and it's actually quite an early point of discussion
as part of their indicative proposals.
Because I, like you, am not a big fan of fences
backing onto roads. However, in a rural context, in villages, you tend to see ragstone walls,
brick walls backing onto rural lanes, and this scheme is very much, as I've read it,
based on it being more of a rural context. So part of this document, which I'll talk
about with members tonight, but they are on the website, talks about boundary treatments
to some of those key spaces, and one of the crucial details to make sure that where we
have walls backing onto public spaces, be that roads or car parking areas, that those
are walls rather than fences so that they have some solidity and some quality to them.
Closed boarded fences have their place in more domesticated areas but back and forth
roads so it's a point that's heard but it's shared very much by officers and has been
part of some detailed discussions with the applicants and their designers over the last
couple of years.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:37:49
I'm not seeing any other Councillor wishing to speak.
Councillor Goddard, you proposed, would you be prepared for, and I think it comes under
a condition that the material matters, e .g. the design, the layout, etc., come back to
committee as part of your proposal?
Cllr Clive Goddard - 0:38:13
Okay, yeah.
Well reluctantly because like I think, Councillor, I forget which one it said now, you know this
will be a quality design.
You know I don't think we have to worry about the matters but like I say we've had it here
at the beginning, the government may push through the new rules and regulations that
the weddings spoke about, but if they haven't then, you know, to be honest I'd like to
see it come back and I'd like to see the designs because like I say I think it's
going to be an excellent design, good quality and so I don't think there should be any
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:00
issues.
Thank you.
So planning your allowing.
I think just to clarify, Councillor Goddard, you're amending your original motion to approve
subject to a requirement that reserve matters applications for the layout, design, external
appearance and landscaping are brought back to the Planning Committee for determination
should the delegation agreement allow it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:39:34
And Councillor Thomas, do you agree with that?
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:39:41
I do, but again I just share concerns about
we've had outline applications in the past
and then 70 homes becomes 80 homes
and the layout changes and it's a done deal.
So again, that's why I would like the reserve matters to come back here as well.
Most definitely, thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:02
Certainly, I think that's an agreement on that.
So we have one proposal in front of us and that's to agree to the officer's recommendation
with the understanding that the material matters come back to this committee.
All those in favour, please raise your hand.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:22
And I can see that those that are allowed to vote, that was unanimous.
Thank you very much, that has passed.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:40:29
Thank you.

7 22/1122/FH - Little Woodland Farm, The Workshop, Woodland Road, Lyminge

If people were here just for this application, I'd give you a couple of minutes to leave
if you don't want to stay for the rest of the meeting.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:41:10
Thank you.
And so on to our second application of the evening, which is 22 -1122 -FH, which is Little
Woodland Farm, the workshop, Woodland Road in Limingwich.
Do we have any updates, please?
Mr Robert Allan - 0:41:28
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, I do, actually.
As members are aware, or may be aware, obviously we have two applications on the agenda tonight,
and they are linked by virtue of being at the same site.
and officers have looked closely at obviously the situation
and the conditions we've put on and we'd like to within the
delegated authority, though it does give us room to amend
conditions, we thought it would be worthwhile being very
specific about some of them.
So looking at condition four on page 150, we'd like to take into
account obviously subject to member debate and whether or not
they choose to go with officers recommendation.
We'd like to this to reflect condition
three on the latter application,
which is on page 166 to allow the
any lighting to operate.
Obviously in conjunction with the
out of hours access, obviously.
Not predetermined anything.
This application should be taken
on their own merits.
Should members approve that?
Also condition five,
which relates to the proposed
mitigation in the form of the acoustic fence.
We'd like to expand that to include
an aspect of it that requires
submission of verification report.
Once the acoustic fence is installed
to so that the applicant would
have to demonstrate prior to
operating the training facility
to demonstrate that the fence is
meeting the requirements and the
specifications set out to be
within the acoustic report that was submitted with the application.
I hope that wasn't too much of an information download.
Obviously, I'm open to questions on that as we go through.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:43:30
I apologise for that.
I think an officer will be giving you a hard copy for you.
So we'll continue.
Thank you.
Right, so we have three speakers on this and you all have three minutes please.
And our first speaker is Colin Sterling who's a local resident to speak against the application.
Good evening sir and we have three minutes, thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:44:12
When Councillors approve this B1 light industrial building they set conditions to protect the
residents and the AONB.
My garden is next to Fuswell site and I share two boundaries with them and I can tell you
the approval of this application would have an irreversible significant adverse impact
on residents and the AONB.
There has been some use of the track for training already,
and the noise of the tools, the banter, the swearing,
the misogyny heard was totally unacceptable.
But this is the railway industry,
you expect that sort of stuff.
But you don't expect it next to your garden,
and we had to go in with the children
because it's just fundamentally unacceptable
and shouldn't be in that environment.
Three points I want to make.
The only two planning approvals
that have ever been given to this site
both have strict no industrial processing outside
and working with closed doors.
This must be maintained for the protection
of residents and the AONB.
Residents qualified and well evidenced
a technical rebuttal to the noise assessment,
and this has been withheld from you
in the officer report, isn't it?
Comfortable requirements, the noise impact
was not assessed in the residents' gardens
or on the NOB ride -away, where sound levels
are at their highest, and the impact
may at times be fundamentally greater
than the council's own acceptance criteria.
We've already told the planning officer
any approval based on this noise assessment
will be challenged and residents as a failure of process.
So there's actually no need for this facility.
It's a planning application of track facility
that's been put in already without planning
to train Fusrell's own staff.
With it said it was 17 half days per year
purely to save them from going to a nearby
training facility they already use.
The sole justification for this report is that it will reduce pollution used by their
vehicles from the fuse rail to the training centre, which clearly makes no sense, as this
would be on average four movements a week, on average, which is a drop in the ocean compared
to traffic generated fuse rail.
It would mean it would be the same visits anyway, because their staff would be coming
to that site.
The reason it also makes no sense is because the applicant has misled the planning committee
in a serious and material way.
We've today discovered that the Little Woodland Farm training track is being publicly advertised
as a facility for training for other organisations.
So all of the information and numbers you may be given in the planning office report
are wrong.
There is a potential for unlimited use of this track facility by customers who buy this
service from an organisation called Richardson Rail, who are the people that are advertising
the location.
I believe this means that the planning application has not been submitted in good faith.
It is clearly invalid and it shows the extent to which the applicant has been willing to
mislead the Planning Committee on this matter.
If it were to be approved then residents would directly and immediately challenge this decision.
We believe this situation means that this application must be refused in full and without
further delay.
I've got copies of the information about the training company which I can provide to you
to take forward and investigate.
Also in terms of lighting, when the lights are on the garden is flood lit.
I'm sorry sir, you've run out of time.
Can I just give you a last sentence?
I'll just say it's flood lit, it's flood, it's significantly flood lit and it looks
like that.
That's a picture of what it looks like, which has also been excluded from the report.
Thank you sir.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:47:42
And our next speaker is Councillor Gillian Heywood on behalf of Minninch Parish Council
to speak on the application.
Good evening and you have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:48:08
I'm not ready but there we are.
I'm Gillian Heywood from Liming.
The parish council has considered the impact on the village
and the surrounding areas this proposed retrospective planning application,
i .e. they've done it anyway.
There's no doubt that we are proud of our Kent Council,
Kent Downs National Landscape AONB,
where people come to walk, ride and enjoy the tranquillity of the area.
The National Landscape reminds us that in December 2023,
there was a change which requires all relevant authorities
to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing
the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty,
as a statutory duty.
The word duty in legislation meaning that it is something
which planning authorities must do.
It is not discretionary.
I don't think approving an external rail track training facility which would introduce loud,
harsh, intermittent industrial noise that would shatter the peace for residents, startle
horses on the bridleway and ruin their day out for visitors. Just so Fuserail doesn't
have to send six members of staff two miles down the road to Eurotunnel where they've
already got that training track.
I don't think that this is taking it seriously at all
and I don't believe that the Planning Committee could
if it were to approve this application claim
that it had exercised its statutory duty on this matter.
Because to date only two planning applications
have been approved at Little Woodland Farm,
both of which had big B -word use, no working outside and outside doors,
door doors closed sorry,
conditions which would protect the residents.
Both the rail track and the lighting of which you were shown vaguely a picture,
that the lighting shoots right across the valley to Bredy Road,
that's over half a mile away,
and it is completely not the right sort of thing in an AONB.
And the planning authority has not even been consulted
and shown the pictures we can show them.
And the owners of the applicant to have consulted
the planning authority to ensure that this lighting
has a negative impact on the residents and the AONB alike
and it doesn't.
It's absolutely horrific, both the lighting and the noise.
Thank you, you're three minutes up if you'd just like to finish your sentence.
So again, the parish council asked you to refuse the application on this count,
as well as the count of the fact that there was a track in the first place.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:51:56
And we have our third speaker, which is Alice Beekham, who is the agent to speak in support
of the application.
Good evening.
And you have three minutes for when you start.
Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 0:52:12
Thank you, Chairman.
I would first like to highlight that this application, whilst being at the same site,
is in no way intrinsically linked to the other application on tonight's agenda.
and therefore they should be assessed independently of one another on their own planning merits
as they relate to different matters entirely.
From reviewing the comments on the application, concerns primarily relate to noise, lighting
and traffic impacts.
A noise impact assessment has been submitted with this application.
I note that concern has been raised over the efficacy of this report as it didn't test
from the parameters specified by local residents.
To this I would highlight that the noise impact assessment was carried out by a member of
Institute of Acoustics, which is the relevant professional body, and the methodology is
in accordance with the British standard. This is sufficient for the purposes of considering
noise impacts in line with the MPPF. The report recommends the installation of acoustic fence
across the north -western perimeter. Given the concerns over the alleged noise at the
site, such an initiative should be welcomed, as presumably it would not only assist in
noise mitigation during the 17 times a year that the track is used, but on a permanent
an everyday basis. We have no objection to the other recommendations or the proposed
condition restricting the use of the rail saw. In terms of lighting, it's not unreasonable
for external lighting to be required at a commercial premises and this would be the
case if the building was still in agricultural use. The use of the lighting between the hours
of 7 .50 to 6 .15, Monday to Friday, cannot be considered excessive and we struggle to
see how this would adversely impact neighbouring amenity from a distance. The control on the
hours of use would also ensure that light spill is limited in the national landscape
context.
The applicant has in the past made amendments to the lighting following discussions with
the local resident, who despite being invited never returned back to discuss the matter
further.
In terms of traffic movements, there is a condition limiting the use of the facility
to 17 times per year up to six trainees at a time.
This in no way represents an over intensification of activities at the site such that traffic
concerns would arise.
It seems that a lot of the objections relate to legacy issues with the site as well as
vehicle movements which are unrelated to the activities of Fuserail.
Perhaps a route forward would be to set up a community liaison group between neighbours,
the parish council and Fuserail staff to meet a few times a year and discuss concerns.
This works well in a lot of rural communities where there's a commercial presence and it
can be secured by a condition.
We summarise in that the Environmental Health Officer raises no objection and all of the
concerns are clearly capable of being dealt with by a planning condition, none of which
we object to. Therefore we politely request that members grant planning commission in
line with the Office of Recommendation. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:54:48
Thank you very much. And that is our last speaker.
Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:54:57
Thank you, Chair. I'm going to ask what I suspect Lou Enliven has been discussing. Can
secured by condition, such a group.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:55:08
Thank you, Chair. It's a difficult question having not had the opportunity to review the case
law as to whether it can or it can't. Our initial feeling is it can't, but that wouldn't stop it being
open to both residents of the Clash Council and the Israel themselves from establishing said
community areas. It happens on many different building sites while developments take place in any
event that could be put in place without the need for a planning condition.
How about an informative?
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:55:37
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:55:37
It could certainly be added as an informative as the authority encourages one to be set
up.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:55:46
Councillor Maitland.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:55:49
So several concerns have been raised by the first two speakers tonight, so I just wondered
whether to pick up on some of those and I know the previous planning approval was separate
to this one but nevertheless that required no industrial processing outside and working
with doors closed to protect the amenity of residents and the area that natural landscape
is at now is so first of all to be what's changed why are we now allowing that work
work to take place outside.
The noise impact, so I hear what the church speaker said about this is carried out by
an organisation at its national centre, but why wouldn't you carry out a noise assessment
if the noise is likely to affect local residents, why wouldn't you carry out that noise assessment
from their homes or gardens?
If it's likely to affect the area of out -turning, why wouldn't you carry it out from the area
of out -turning?
That's the beauty, that just seems an obvious thing to do.
I'm interested in that.
There's also the issue around the fence and whether or not it will reduce noise levels
officially and I hear that there will be an assessment of that carried out but the report
doesn't contain the noise levels as they are without the fence. I just want to say is that
not a reporting requirement perhaps to have that information to judge what the likely
impact that's a sensible thing.
On the lighting, can it really be said
that the lighting is minimal?
We've all seen the photograph that was shared
by the speaker there, which does appear to show
slight lighting, sudden lights,
not very nice downlighters.
And finally, you'll be glad to hear,
the potential for noise and disturbance is acknowledged,
but it said it'll only be for 71 hour periods a year.
I just wonder how on earth will we enforce that?
Are we really going to be able to keep track of whether or not it's getting into that?
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 0:57:45
Thank you.
Over to you officers.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr Robert Allan - 0:57:50
I'll try and address those.
I might ask you to put my memory at any given point.
Initial point you made or question you posed was what's changed, obviously, since the original B1
permission was passed.
That condition is maintained in terms of the sort of restricting any other processes going
on outside to be inside and keeping the doors on the existing building closed.
When I wasn't involved in the granting of the original permission, they wouldn't have
known obviously what concerns, what the final end user may have been at that point.
so I imagine that was a blanket condition at the time.
As this is a specific use that has, obviously,
initially started and has been put on hold by the applicant
once we've gone to them and said,
you can't do this, has come to the fore.
They've now made an application and put together a package
that contains the information we asked for
that they feel would address our concerns.
That brings us on to the noise assessment.
I'll pose some questions about why wouldn't you stand at certain points.
The assessment, I mean, we've...
I'm not an acoustic consultant,
but it was put to our environmental health team
who have employed an acoustic consultant to review this
and said that in terms of every methodology
that's been employed in making this report
and the recommendations within it,
it meets all the standard, British standards for that,
which obviously the agent has underlined as well.
They've made specific recommendations
which relate to averaging this out.
Up to one hour of the training will be outside
per session
across
17
sessions a year
and they've specifically said that
Railsaw is a very noisy
item, you cannot use that
otherwise you would breach that
in just that one hour so that's also been
secured by the condition as well to be
you know, you can't allow that
in terms of the enforceability
It's not unusual to raise that question,
but also we specify that we've brought a log ket,
and also it's like a lot of conditions
that your members will have seen,
where you have hours of use for shops, businesses,
clubs, hubs, you know, it is a question of enforcement generally.
obviously which is part of the function of the planning team for the planning enforcement.
So we wouldn't put on a condition that we didn't think was enforceable.
And indeed, the condition that has brought us to this situation has worked, because the
application's been submitted because the applicant has been in breach of it or has needed to
an application because they are not permitted to work outdoors
without further consent or permission.
Give me a hand, read my handwriting.
Lighting.
Whilst I sort of fully on board with or understand frustrations
of the local residents, I mean the photo that we were shown
there, which may not have had an opportunity to study.
A lot of the lights that were spilling out there
was from windows, internal lights
that associate with the premises, which they can do anyway
and is not subject to this application.
The window of lighting that is proposed,
and you've seen the condition there,
which is 7 .15, sorry.
I need to get a pair of reading glasses soon,
it's ages struck.
7 .50 till light and dusk till 8 .15.
It's a small window and it is acknowledged
that that is a window where lighting would take place
but within the context of a year,
I mean through summer months there would be no lighting
at all in the winter months it would be into a small window at the start and the end of
the day.
Have I answered everything you asked is my next question.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:03:03
You have, am I able to come back to the popular thing?
So on the live stream, is it not, if we all know, some of us may have neighbours who have
sunlight that come on them, some of those lights are incredibly bright and I suspect that's what we're looking at here.
Is it not possible to look at how the level of that lighting can be restricted?
Because there's lighting and then there's lighting, isn't there?
And yes, some of it, I agree, some of it was coming from the windows of the building, but some of it wasn't.
Some of it was coming from the lighting on the side of the building.
And my other question was, I should phrase the question about who sticks everything differently.
So would it not be normal if you were looking at the noise impact for something to measure that impact from the point where people are likely to be affected by it?
Never mind what the professional standard is, is that not just common sense?
If you think this noise may bother these residents, it may find the horses on the drive -alright, would that not be the place where you would go and test that noise?
That just seems logical to me.
Sorry, I didn't mean that standard, I remember that.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:04:03
Just to touch on the lighting, Councillor.
As set out in all the plans, a lot of the lighting
is on the side of the building and the elevations facing south
as opposed to facing north towards a lot of the residents.
And as set out in paragraph 3 .5 of the report,
the hours of operation of the previously installed lights
is 8 o 'clock at night through to 6 in the morning.
This proposal would restrict the use of lights externally,
not the ones from the windows, which are no doubt
shining back towards residents and lighting up the light time from seven in the morning,
seven fifty, general sort of start of the working day through to quarter past six is
my reading of that.
So there's actually a shorter hour of work waiting for external lighting of the building
and it's that that has influenced how officers think the lighting will affect the national
landscape in the longer term and the local residents.
At the moment those controls aren't in place.
At the moment, the lighting that's evident in the picture that the resident has shown
councillors in this part of the submission is of the current situation rather than with
new controls imposed on the planning application.
On the lighting, take the point, absolutely, but the country has national standards for
a reason, British standards for a reason.
If we went to appeal, if members chose to refuse it because they haven't measured it
from a place that wasn't specified by British Standard,
we'd be asked what our evidence is
to why that's not appropriate,
given that there's a standard in place
for how noise assessments must.
And that's the basis on which we have to make the decision.
So we've gone to some of our environmental health colleagues
and said, is this the right test?
Are they applying the tests appropriately?
And their answer is absolutely,
they're applying the British Standard accordingly.
And if we were to refuse it on the basis
that yes, they're done in accordance with the National British Standard,
but we'd like something different.
We'd have to have a technical reason for doing so,
and I think we'd probably be struggling,
given that there's a sort of a way of doing this.
I hope that addresses some of that.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:06:11
Thank you. Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:06:16
I think just in terms of the question that was raised by a member of the public
about the availability of utilising facilities
off -site rather than utilising the external facilities for this test and training track.
In fact, Kenton East Sussex were actually promoting last night on TV using machines
from National Rail that they'd offered their services to support training of personnel,
which I thought was quite interesting actually.
So in terms of the need, is the need really there?
bearing in mind it's been stated by one of the residents that existing conditions are
available a relatively short distance away and whether they could be utilised or not.
I don't know how we could actually secure that.
The other thing, and just coming back to lighting, is there potential for impact on bats or birds
for example with the way that the lighting is set out at the moment?
because I know we've covered the impact of external lighting
in rural areas in the past.
And specifically, it included types of lighting
which would not interfere with that, for example,
which again would have the double effect
of actually shielding neighbours from extraneous light from the site.
Thank you.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:07:46
Thank you, Councillor.
In terms of the question of need,
I don't think we'd substantiate a ground for refusal on that.
It's...
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:08:01
No, I've corrected by colleagues, but I don't think that's...
We'd have to substantiate material planning harms as opposed to need.
There's no policy that says you can't have this here.
We've passed that Rubicon by allowing a industrial unit in the site,
Mr Allen has already explained,
that condition was for a broader use
and it put some controls in to make
sure this Council had control over
any changes to that external use.
So in terms of need,
no, I don't think we can substantiate
or generate a defendable reason for
refusal on that. On the point of the
lighting and impact on ecology,
absolutely, lighting can definitely
have an impact on ecology,
but I think I come back to the response
given to Council Mike Blakemore.
We have a series of external lights
on the building already, which don't have the same controls that we're now limiting
the building to in terms of light spill. There are new lights going in, which I understand
to be bollard lighting around the car parking area, which are much more from a low level,
but once again those are limited from 10 to 8 in the morning through to, he double cheques
the condition as he reads, quarter past six in the evening versus eight at night through
to six in the morning which is a different beast altogether which is
probably when there would be far more impact from lighting on flight paths of
bats and other birds moving at the night time.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:09:28
Thank you. Councillor Worsby.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:09:34
Thank you Chairman. Actually a lot of what I was going to raise has already been raised
particularly by Councillor Mike Blaightmore.
One question I would ask though,
is what the residents have asked me
in terms of the data for the noise level,
that our data, and I think you've explained why,
is different to their data.
I think you've explained why,
but I would just like it clarified
in terms of the noise level.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:10:09
When the residents wrote in and raised the technical concerns with the submitted acoustic assessment,
their information was given to our environmental health team and the acoustic consultant may have from a view,
to see if, you know, how, whether it would be substantiated or could be substantiated,
substantiated so easy for me to say.
And without specifying the figures,
because I don't have them to hand, they were satisfied.
And they said the acoustic assessment that was submitted
had been carried out in accordance with the BS standards
and was a fair assessment and aligned with the interpretation
or aligned with the direction within the MPPF
and their planning practise guidance.
That's what officers base their recommendation upon.
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:11:05
Thank you very much. Can I just come back?
So in terms of the noise, the barrier,
will that... I mean, if it doesn't meet the criteria,
what happens then? They can't use that machinery,
they can't use the track?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:11:28
Yeah, we're proposing with the condition which someone clumsily sort of said at the start
of it of the meeting that for this particular application the intent is to obviously it
has to meet the requirements set out within the report but there is we're proposing that
also to extend that condition to say there must be a verification phase.
So once erected and installed, there will be testing.
And it must meet the requirements of the report,
or they have to beef it up, to use a layman's term.
But it should, when erected, produce the results that
is within the acoustic assessment and the mitigation
that it sets out would work there.
So there is that sort of double catch
before they actually use the site for the first time
should members grant permission,
Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee - 1:12:24
results grant permission.
Thank you, can I just come back in terms of,
and I think again Councillor Flatemore has raised it,
is the conditions, is actually monitoring the conditions
and I think, I mean I've had that discussion several times,
in fact quite a lot of times,
is that also it is down to the general public
to report on the matters if the conditions are not met
and they don't feel that they're met,
they should inform the enforcement here.
Just wanted to cheque and clarify that that's what happens.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:13:15
Mr Robert Allan - 1:13:20
I'm off, I'm back on again.
The obviously, when Miss Bailey was just identifying to me there that within one of the conditions
which controls the duration and frequency of the events, it's sort of written into that
I forgot when I was going to the back, sorry.
The person running the site has to keep a record
to make the evaluation system.
Yeah, so the person, whoever's running the site,
it's not allowed to run a company that has FuseRail
at the moment, it is, they have to keep a record,
which is obviously part of the system,
as well as, as you're quite right, members of the public
actually, I think there's something a bit remiss here.
In terms of monitoring, for example, the fence,
because fences can deteriorate across time,
it's a physical asset, so that is easier to come up and go with,
actually, as a slat missing from there,
or that slat is not the 10 kilogrammes per square metre,
I think, quoted in the report,
a density or required density that would actually
meet the needs to perform adequate mitigation.
So that's easier in a long term capacity to monitor.
And obviously, if there was a steady liaison, which
as we've said, we're unsure we could secure that
by condition, but it's informative.
And with the buy -in for the site operator
as well with the local residents and parish councils
to have an ongoing narrative to make sure
that there are no ongoing issues or if something is pointing the wrong way and they say your
lights being knocked can sort that out, for example, that is something that would obviously
help with that ongoing reporting.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:15:15
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:15:22
Thank you, Chair. Can I ask a couple of questions here? The first question is going to be this.
Did the residents submit the noise assessment information to the council, if it did, why
wasn't that information in the report before us?
And can it comment on the applicant's assertion that because for example the person who carried
out the noise assessment was a member of XYZ association and therefore it should be OK.
That doesn't necessarily mean to say it is okay,
because you just don't, as has been mentioned previously,
give an assessment away from the people who are going to be affected.
And what are we going to do about the immunity of the people who live there
who are going to be affected by this?
Thank you. That's three questions up here.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:16:14
Thank you, Councillor.
The in terms of the the noise rebuttal,
the rebuttal to the noise assessment
submitted by by neighbours as Council
have seen on committee reports,
we don't put verbatim response.
Or put each response in verbatim that
comes in as a representation and
summarised and within the summary
on the report it sort of says there
are because questions about the
adequacy of submitted information.
As I mentioned to one of the other Councillors, I apologise, that information was passed to
our Environmental Health team for review by the Acoustic Consultant and they said, you
know, we understand the concerns of neighbours but the report that has been submitted does
meet the required standards.
In terms of the amenity of neighbours,
I mean, as we sort of set out within the report,
we proposed a raft of conditions that we,
as officers, feel would address the operational,
or curtail the operational activities to a level
that is acceptable for the acoustic side of things
and therefore the impact upon residents and the national landscape.
And also in terms of the lighting,
given that it actually reduces the hours of operation for the lighting currently,
we felt that would better the situation
and those opposed to the sort of controls we have proposed.
Thank you for that.
Can I just ask you a question?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:18:03
Have you had any reports of any features of the planning, the existing planning now?
And if we have, how many reports have you made and what happens when it's taken?
Anybody?
Thank you.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:18:15
During the course of the application, the applicant has ceased operation of the test
and training track and I have personally checked with Environment Agency if we've received
any complaints.
I cannot tell you with any certainty
what date that cheque was made, but it is within the life of the application.
I'm not aware of any. I haven't checked in the running committee if we've had any complaints
in this sort of period. I'm not aware of any.
Thank you.
Can you also
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:18:53
answer the following question in the sense of
what is happening with the immunity?
For example, if you stop working, everyone living in that area is OK.
Now all of which would be grant permission,
the immunity is going to be affected.
And another interloping question here,
the next applicant we have got is in respect of children's liberty signs.
Why wasn't that brought forward first before we considered this?
Because it just seems counterintuitive to me
that if this is approved or rejected,
what happens in the next application?
Because that's going to be a surprise to needs, isn't it?
For example, if it is now approved,
and the next application is for approval or otherwise,
it makes no difference, because this one's going to go through, isn't it?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:19:45
I mean, as the applicants agent also stated at the start of the discussion,
they are separate and distinct applications, albeit linked by virtue of being at the same
site, but they are separate considerations and they can be considered separately as members
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:20:09
Councillor Shoop.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:20:15
Thank you.
Noise is such a difficult issue.
It is obviously really distressing
if it's constant or even intermittent.
Whatever form it takes, I just want to acknowledge
that it can be really distressing for people.
for residents.
I think if we agree it, it's good to have that condition
that the mitigation measures are actually
tested for effectiveness.
I think that makes sense.
I think the idea of resident liaison group
does sound sensible.
It's not nice to hear about the swearing and banter,
and I'd hope that that could be something that would be addressed immediately
without the need for any further action
or residents having to take that up.
I wanted just to... On the lighting, it's quite interesting, I think,
the amount of light potentially coming from windows, I guess, again.
That could be something maybe the residents could take up separately.
I'm assuming that we can't put in conditions for shutters or blinds.
But I think it is...
We spend a lot of time...
..thinking about the...
..planning the external lighting schemes
to reduce their impact on people and wildlife.
But, yeah, we have so much glass in buildings now that, yeah,
I think it's important for everyone to sort of remember and take account that,
you know, all that good work on the exterior of buildings,
if we're then flooding light out through all the glass that we have now,
That's, yeah, it doesn't...
You're wiping out, presumably, some of that good planning
that's being done on the outside.
So, yeah, it's a difficult decision,
but, yeah, it's...
Yeah, I would struggle to go against the Office's recommendations,
I think, particularly with that condition,
that the effectiveness would be properly tested.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:22:58
Do you wish to propose, Councillor Sheehan?
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 1:23:06
I'd like to see if anyone else has anything to say.
Fine. Councillor Jones?
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:23:14
I'm struggling with this one because I think noise is really hard to deal with.
I would not be happy if I had industrial noise next to my house.
and when I moved there it was a condition that they wouldn't have external noise.
So I'm unminded to object because of that.
It would be really awful for families living next to that.
The part of this application I do like, there is the external lighting,
that they are improving the conditions there.
So, but obviously as Councillor Shube says,
it's no good having great external lighting
if you've got the windows blazing anyway.
So there's a kind of a lot of things to think about here.
So the noise to me would be a real issue.
And I don't think that it's fair to residents
when there was a previous condition
that it wouldn't be external noise.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:24:12
So that's where I'm going with this at the moment.
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:24:14
Is that a proposal, Councillor Jones?
I'm still listening to everybody else.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:24:20
Well, we have one more and I'm not taking any others because we've been on this for
nearly an hour, which is great because it shows how seriously we're taking this.
Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:24:32
Three questions, if I may.
I think one of the contentions with the acoustic report
was non -compliance with BS 4142.
I understand that the council is satisfied
that that standard has been met,
but if we could just put that on the record,
that that standard was met by that report.
Secondly, just to conclude...
Sorry, Councillor, that was or wasn't... Sorry, I didn't quite hear you.
BS 4142 is a requirement to be met and the contention from the residents
was that it wasn't met by that report.
But it sounds to me like the Council believes it was.
So if we could just confirm that is the case.
And secondly, I understand that operations have seized in lieu of this planning application.
So could we confirm that no activity will take place?
If this application is agreed, that no activity would take place until the acoustic barrier
is built and tested and that my request would be that that's tested from the point of view
of the residents and thirdly could we not have the same condition put on the lighting
that the operations do not take place until the lighting is assessed from the point of
of the residents.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:26:30
Thank you, counsellor.
In terms of the acoustic assessment.
The council is satisfied that the
relevant business standard was met.
Terms of the trigger trigger for the
condition being that you know no training
activity should take place in the city.
until the acoustic fence has been erected and tested and found to be satisfactory.
That is the intention of the condition.
In terms of testing the lighting,
because there is existing lighting there, or was existing lighting there,
that has been replaced,
It is a situation that we can't, I don't think we can go through a situation where it's ping -pongs
back and forth between a third party, you know, local residents and the applicant because
it's indeterminate as a condition.
It would be imprecise.
We couldn't put on a condition in that respect.
Well, we couldn't impose an imprecise condition.
It's also then therefore not tied to a specific point.
So where we talked about the acoustic assessment being based around a British standard in terms
of the lighting, the applicant has put forward that they need a level of lighting which for
which as I've set out in the report isn't a material consideration
or you're not given significant material weight here
that's their requirement for separate legislation
they're saying we need to have the bollards
and some of the lighting around some of the access points
the lighting controls as they are proposed would
is better lighting or more directional lighting than was previously installed.
The mission would have been at a time when there was a lot more halogen lighting, which is very bright.
The LED lighting equally can be very bright. It is all now directional.
The applicant has taken out, I think, 19 lights on the access road.
and there's, it's detailed in the report, I think it's,
yeah, 16 bollards have been erected,
17 directed floodlights and eight emergency lights,
and the eight emergency ones are the ones that come on
when the generator or electricity goes out to a very dim,
like you would get in a building
just to allow people safe navigation.
I don't know if I'm answering your question
on the lighting or not, I do apologise.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:29:36
So as I understand it we can't attach a condition to the lighting because it's...
sounds like it's improving anyway.
And just confirmation that the sound test post the installation of the fence
is done from the point of view of the residents.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:30:03
In terms of that, it would be a case of,
as long as they met the standards,
the British standards again, that is,
that would address the terms of the condition.
If the applicant is, you know,
as part of their submission for that condition,
should permission be granted, results be granted.
If they said, we would like our acoustic consultant
to meet with residents, and we will measure from this point,
then that would be ideal.
But again, modelling can be done.
If the president, for example, said,
no, we don't want you in our gardens,
I wouldn't have thought that would be the case,
but I can't talk for them.
The similar situation, Hainbarn wedding venue,
which members may be familiar with,
they had a, as part of their proposal,
they had a music and they set levels according to,
they modelled it, but they also took the opportunity
to go into local residents' houses and set a volume
and say, you know, it's not reaching a certain level
at certain times, and this was obviously something
that happened more frequently throughout the year,
the wedding and also the sort of hours of use
were much more antisocial in terms of being
late into the evenings.
That's so it can be done.
But in terms of insisting on that,
it would be outside of, I think, our remit
to do that because it may not being an acoustic consultant.
I couldn't say that that may conflict
requirements of BS standard, for example,
if this it will actually you've asked us to do this,
but the measurement we need to take is from there.
So it could lead to a situation later.
So I'm reluctant to sort of say that, you know,
specify that within a condition that
apart from saying it would have to leave the BS 4142.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:08
Well, that concludes the debate.
Does any Councillor wish to make a proposal for or against please?
Councillor Lockwood.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:32:25
Well based on the limits placed on this Council as to how much we can control factors around this site,
It sounds to me like we've gone as far as we can.
So on that basis I'm happy to propose.
Thank you.
Do you have a seconder?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:32:50
Councillor Goddard.
All those in favours, please raise your hand.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:04
Thank you.
All those against?
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:10
Thank you, any abstentions?
Microphone A - 1:33:15
Thank you, Chair.
That's seven in favour, four against and one abstention.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:20
Thank you.

8 25/0038/FH Little Woodland Farm, The Workshop, Woodland Road, Lyminge

So that has passed and we'll move on to the second one on this side.
Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:30
So we'll move on to the next application, which is on the same side, which is 25 -0038 -FH,
Little Woodland Farm, the workshop, Woodland Road, Liming.
Do we have any updates, please?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:33:51
Thank you chair, no updates.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:33:55
Thank you and we have three speakers again on this one.
Tristram Bruce who is a local resident to speak against the application.
Microphone Forty - 1:34:07
Good evening sir, we have three minutes from the restart.
Thank you.
Good evening members, I live at Fairview Farm which sits above the Fuse Rail site.
We have a clear view of the parking and working areas to the south and west.
During the day I can clearly hear the use of vehicles with reversing alarms and the
loud clattering noise of material being loaded.
The vehicles and shouting of workers are audible and the vehicles can clearly be heard entering
and leaving the car park.
This is especially noticeable on occasion when fuse rail has breached planning condition
8 and accessed the site at night.
Unless you visit the neighbourhood during the night it would be hard to appreciate the
and darkness of the countryside that surrounds us.
The noise and clatter of the gates and roller shutters being opened alone is audible from
nearby houses, even with windows closed.
I've experienced these road staff coming in after 9pm and causing excessive noise as they
load equipment into the van with clearly audible voices and I can assure you they're on site
much longer than 5 minutes.
Added to the noise is the fact that the light disturbance is not confined to the exterior
the lighting.
Staff coming into the building and special internal lights
contributes to the way this would suddenly and unexpectedly
light up the area, polluting dark skies,
and be visible from all sides of the valley.
The windows mentioned in these applications are connected.
The windows mentioned in the previous application,
which the council fails to recognise,
were installed recently.
We've realised in the last 24 hours,
those high -level windows were installed
without planning consent at the start of future as tenure.
They are, so there's lights shed from there
causing pollution, clearly visible from around the site
and my property and they make a stark
and unpleasant contrast to the dark skies
so they become a focal point when looking out.
So the reality is that it would not be possible
for the site to be accessed without waking us
and civil neighbours up.
Once the van leaves and the site falls dark
and silent again, we would be the ones left awake,
hoping to get to sleep before morning,
wondering when the next disturbance might come.
The applicants claim that this activity could be limited
to 12 times a year, is unworkable,
because they will be collecting equipment
to work on their customer's site,
so it is the customer's emergencies
that drive the frequency, not their own.
And you have already seen the applicants' willingness
to flat out conditions, which they do time and time again.
The fundamental point is we are residents living in a residential area next to a site
where the conditions have been set for our protection and the protection of the AOMB.
None of us should be exposed to the possibility of this egregious level of disturbance, any
time or at all.
Fuze Rail is already selling this service to customers and should continue to store
their equipment in a suitable location off site.
Therefore we ask you reject this planning application in full.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:37:04
Thank you.
Thank you very much. And our second speaker on this is Councillor Gillian Howard on behalf
of New England Parish Council to speak on the application. Good evening again. Be careful
Microphone Forty - 1:37:24
of the steps there. And you'll have three minutes from when we start. Thank you.
Good evening again. Yes I agree with the previous speaker that we should not be allowing access
any more than necessary. It says that they want access for emergency. Emergences where?
Within Folkestone and Hives? Anywhere over the country? That they can come roaring in
in the middle of the night, dark skies that's gone,
and noise and disturbance to not only them,
but all the other people who are on the route from N20,
Coakfokston and Hives, wherever that happens to be,
all the way up through our village,
right up the hill into the Woodland Farm site,
and then lights blasting everywhere.
It's a nonsense.
This is the sort of thing that should be happening
on an industrial site, not out there in the woodlands.
So I really want that you can understand that the damage it is doing to our AONB, we just
can't cope with things like this.
We shouldn't have to cope with things like this.
We're doing everything we can to protect our AONB.
We ourselves as people in the villages are keeping down the dark skies.
We're not blasting round the countryside with lights blaring and everything else.
If we walk out in there we will have a small torch or a small light on your bicycle.
And then these people come along, think they can do what they want
with their headlights blaring all the way through the village and the noise.
I get woken up at 3 o 'clock in the morning with this sort of thing happening
because I happen to live on Woodland Road,
but right at the bottom, right in the middle of the village.
Should this happen? Of course not.
So I expect you, I ask you, I plead with you,
that you will refuse this application as such.
There is another site, you know how far away Eurotunnel is,
they have got a site, they're the thing, do all this thing,
and Eurotunnel is lit up for 24 hours a day, we all know that.
So please refuse. Thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:39:54
Thank you very much.
And our next speaker is Alice Beacon, the agent to speak in support of the application.
Good evening again. And you'll have three minutes from when you start. Thank you.
Microphone Forty - 1:40:08
The operations of Fuserail include repairs and maintenance to railway lines, which are
a form of strategically important infrastructure.
The nature of this work means that occasionally repairs are needed outside of normal business
hours.
Therefore, visits need to be made to the site to pick up the necessary equipment and carry
out the vital repairs.
We are requesting that the wording of the relevant conditions be amended to allow for
scenario. The seldom nature of such an event is reflected in the wording we have agreed
with the officer, where it states that this can happen no more than once a month. I wish
to make absolutely clear that no operational works are proposed, no additional operational
works are proposed as a result of this and no extension is sought to the working hours
at the site. The amendment allows a medium sized van to access the premises, collect
equipment and leave as quickly as possible. The vehicles would not be fitted with any
tonal reversing alarm and this can be specified in the condition along with the vehicle type.
We understand that there is a significant local objection to this minor proposal, however
I must highlight that the planning system should not be used to resolve ongoing disputes
or issues within the locality.
The assessment of the application must be based on the material planning matters.
To this I note that the vast majority of neighbour objections to this application are not relevant
to what is actually being proposed.
I would also politely request that members be mindful of the fact that this is a former
agricultural site. Such uses are completely unfettered in terms of hours of use, types
of machinery, vehicle movements or indeed activities such as livestock or dairy farming
would see animals introduced to the site. Ultimately, noise can be very much a part
of rural life and it cannot be avoided altogether. On the contrary, the operations run by Fuserail
who operate Monday to Friday are managed by planning controls. One owner needs to visit
the site or indeed view the aerial imagery to appreciate how tidy and well managed their
especially compared with some of the historic uses.
Ultimately, if Fuse Rail cannot operate in a manner which is viable to them,
they will be forced to move on.
In this scenario, the local authority and community would have no say in who it would be sold to
and the resultant land use or ambitions of the new owners
could be something wholly incompatible with the neighbouring properties
or the landscape character of the area.
This would also be hugely against the spirit of the local and national planning policy
which encourages proliferation of the rural economy.
and they're open to working positively with the community
going forward to resolve matters in a pragmatic manner.
We've already suggested establishing a liaison group.
Again, no planning harm has been identified by the officer
or the local authority environmental health team,
and we would conclude that the variation sought
is proportionate, necessary, and in accordance with policy.
We therefore respectfully request
that members grant planning commission
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:42:51
in line with the officer recommendation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Fruinagh.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:42:57
Same again. We had a suggestion that we could condition vehicles in some way there.
Could the officers respond as to whether that's possible? I suspect I know the answer.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:43:11
Mr Robert Allan - 1:43:13
Officers have specified that the vehicle should be limited to a certain site, light goods vehicles.
Are you referring to the reversing?
I am indeed.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:43:28
Allow me a moment.
Mr Robert Allan - 1:43:45
Yes, we can.
That's a pleasant surprise.
In which case...
I think I'm going to move the officer's recommendation, but with a request that we add a condition on the...
I'm not even sure how to word this to be honest.
On how the noise that the vehicles make when they revert.
I might throw it to officers to give me a slightly better wording.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 1:44:23
It would be something along the lines of that the vehicles would be required to have removed reversing sensors
or noise associated with reversing sensors but we can work out something like that.
That makes sense to me.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:44:41
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:44:42
Do we have a seconder?
Not at the moment.
Can I have some mike, Greatwell?
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:44:54
We discussed a lot in the previous application the effects of noise on local residents and of light on them
and part of the litigation for that, part of the justification for approving that was that that would be very limited
for certain times of day for certain generations.
But here we are agreeing something that can happen at any time during the night.
Yes, a limited number of times over the course of the year, which yes, the reversing noise
has passed a bit, but from what we've heard from residents, the disturbance is much greater
than that, it's much wider than that.
And I fully, a Prefect Councillor Shue earlier talked about just what the impact of noise
can be, and the idea that you're going to be woken up in the night, you don't know when,
you don't know for how long, my vehicle is passing your house and going in and out.
I'm slightly irritated by the suggestion that some fused rail will disappear if we don't
and I don't like the feeling that I'm being held to ransom over this because I don't think
for a minute that that's the case. We've heard that there are alternative facilities at Euro
Tunnel where equipment could be stored for emergencies and that seems to me like a much
more fitting location rather than the middle of a residential area. We've agreed to previous
applications but I don't think that means we have to agree that they have 24 access
in the middle of the night to collect equipment to serve the residents as they do so.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:46:08
Councillor Pennington.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:46:12
It seems to, if this was to go ahead,
it would be all down to enforcement of conditions again.
I'm just picking up on what the first speaker said
about yes, we're told this wouldn't happen
more than 12 times in a calendar year
but emergencies happen more than 12 times
in a calendar year and it would have to be
so closely monitored.
And it's almost the spontaneousness
of how this can happen at any given time.
But more than that, I think another issue
that came up from the speakers was how long they're on site.
So we're saying it will only happen
four times a year or once a month.
But how long, should we also be limiting
how long they're actually on site?
Should we just say in and out within half an hour?
I don't know if this is even possible,
but presumably if it's an emergency they're in a hurry anyway.
But it sounds to me that there have been incidents
where they've been hanging around and chatting overnight in the small hours.
So I just wonder if we need to look at this a little bit more closely,
just to manage it for those local residents really.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:47:27
Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:47:32
Thank you, Chair. Can we put this in context for you?
We've got a group of houses, people have lived there for 10, 15, 20 years
and all of a sudden there's been this building put up with this condition that need not be destroyed.
On the application and on the websites there's a number of comments
and there's a good one there from Mr Lisser to represent my residents.
We're quite clear in the States this is not relevant.
Therefore I can't see what you're discussing here.
We've got residents who live there, who live there on a condition that they won't be disturbed
and all of a sudden this firm wants to open the floodgates.
And you're not going to guess, as Councillor Frank Knowles said, you're not going to get 12 or 13 times a year
and next thing you'll be three or four times a week and then they'll go on and go on and go on.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:24
Now I mean I won't support this I'm afraid. Thank you.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:48:26
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:28
Is that a counter proposal Councillor Cooper?
It is, it is, thank you.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:48:35
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:36
I will need your reasons for refusal. I do have other people. Do you have a seconder?
Oh, okay. Sorry, we need the reasons for refusal first. So if you'd like to put them together,
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:48:44
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:48:44
I will come back to you, Councillor Cooper.
Councillor Goddard.
Cllr Clive Goddard - 1:48:50
Thank you, Chair. Apologies. I want to just go back to Councillor Friller. I was going
through some notes. I'm happy to second Councillor Friller because the reverse in tones has gone
obviously it's not just beep, beep, beep, it's also voice which is this green box vehicle
reversing. Obviously other skip companies are available.
So it is variable as well as beep, beep, beep. So now that's gone I'm quite happy to support
Councillor Fuller's and also I think it's important this Fuse Way or Liaison group.
You know I think a lot of these issues can be sorted out at future meetings with like
the agents suggested, refused rail, the residents and local councillors and even district councillors
can talk and get together and hopefully a lot of these issues can be resolved out of
this meeting in a sensible manner. I think that's an excellent idea and I think if a
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:49:52
lot more people come up with that we would have quicker meetings. But I'm happy to go
with Councillor Curtis.
Thank you, Councillor Goddard.
Councillor Thomas.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:50:00
If you look at the planning statement submitted by the applicant under neighbouring amenity,
it says vehicle movements can have the capacity to adversely impact neighbouring amenity.
However, in this case, the top vehicles which would be accessed at the site out of hours
what the HGVs or any vehicle fitted with tonal reversing alarms as clearly stated in the
planning statement.
The type of vehicle used would be medium sized vans, the staff members would enter the building
to obtain equipment and then leave.
It also says that the duration would be short but nowhere have we been provided with any
kind of data from the applicant that supported that particular part of the planning statement.
So again I think for me I don't think there is sufficient data to justify the timings
and the number of visits and the duration of the visit that underpins this particular
application.
So again, I think for me, the planning statement is very light in the area and perhaps should
have additional information that would allow us to properly assess the impact on neighbouring
amenity.
We have heard from the residents here about some of the issues to do with all the lights
coming on in the building, the vans, roller shutters going up and down, we heard about
we know how noisy they can be.
But again, the planning statement is saying
that's not how the site is going to be utilised for emergencies.
But it doesn't give any data to support that.
So again, what I would like to see somewhere
is the data that supports the submission
that's in the planning statement about
the use of the site, the duration
and maybe even some kind of method statement
or procedure that people would use when they were accessing the site for emergency use.
I think that would give us some comfort then, knowing that what could be sent to us would
address some of the concerns from local residents.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Councillor Lockwood.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 1:52:29
I agree with what Councillor Thomas has just said and I would add to that, that as much
as we can legislate for reversing alarms and size of vehicle and so on, what we can't
put a planning condition on is who's driving the vehicle.
We've heard earlier accusations from a resident that some of the language and so on that's
used around the site is unacceptable.
We can't confirm if that's true or not, but if that is happening and adding to the point
that Councillor Shue made about not knowing when this might happen, I would find that
too much if I lived nearby.
So all of it's adding up to something that I can't agree to, basically.
I think the measures that Councillor Thomas has mentioned
would go some way in allaying some of that.
And also if it were to come back at a later date
and there was a better relationship between the applicant and the parish,
that would also be encouraging to hear.
but at the moment it all just adds up to too much for me.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:53:59
Thank you. I'd like to put my two pence worth in before we go.
Just for a bit of clarification,
I actually worked on the railways for 20 years,
both operationally and as a project manager.
When is an emergency not an emergency?
It's whenever they don't have that piece of equipment
that they need there and then.
That then becomes an emergency.
So how someone can say that they would only have an emergency once a month doesn't actually
add up to me.
I'm sorry.
The very fact that we already know that the lighting as it is presently is causing concerns,
so any time that a vehicle goes in there, and if it's in engineering times which would
will only be between one and four o 'clock in the morning, those lights will come on
and I do believe that they will cause neighbourhood anti -amenity.
The last thing I think I'd like to add on this particular thing is if a small van can
pick up the equipment that is needed for these emergencies, it's not a large piece of equipment
and therefore I do believe that it could be stored in a more reasonable area.
So I am personally with Councillor Cooper.
I believe that there are problems with this particular application personally but I will
now hand over to Councillor Filler.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:55:35
I just had a quick question off the back of what Councillor Thomas mentioned about providing
a method statement effectively.
And what levers, if any, we have as a planning committee to add that as a condition.
Although I don't know if the officer said.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:55:56
Thank you, Chair.
Sorry, Councillor, I was in the middle of an audit question with some colleagues about
the taking of which votes we take first.
I have to repeat the question.
Yeah, Councillor Thomas effectively raised the idea
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:56:06
of effectively a method statement
to outline the process for picking up these
things that are needed in an emergency.
Is that something we can condition as part of this?
I think also it's specifically around the duration,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:56:27
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:56:28
the amount of time that it would take
to pick up the amount of what they would be.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 1:56:33
You won't pick up a piece of equipment, I'm telling you.
I think the difficulty is you could, but what would it mean, because how long is a piece
of string, how long is a duration on site, you don't know how big the equipment is or
how long it's going to be.
Officer's recommendation to date is based on the limited times of taking on board all
points raised by the discussion this evening.
I think members will have to consider this whether they think there's enough protection
in place with particularly other measures that have been outlined around reversing sirens
etc being controlled or is actually not acceptable in terms of the impacts on makers.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:57:15
Councillor Jones.
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:57:20
So I have a few questions.
Obviously I'm really concerned that we want to again remove a condition which residents
assumed would be in place when they moved to their houses.
Surely the first question is how long
have Fuserail been operating from this site
and why the sudden change of needing this condition removed
if there's been emergencies before?
What have they done?
Have they just breached the condition
or have they stored the equipment
elsewhere in such emergencies?
So do we have any answers to that?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:57:56
In terms of the removal of the condition,
just minus sort of pedantry here,
but they're not proposing to remove it entirely
because the standard working day would
in year the condition there.
It is this release condition if you want
for the up to 12 times across a year
that they are seeking.
So that's just to clarify on that point.
Sorry, you're...
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:58:27
So, I mean, they've presumably been operating from this site for quite a while,
so why the sudden need to change this condition?
I mean, surely they've had emergencies before,
what's happened in those emergencies?
Has the equipment been stored elsewhere previously,
or have they been breaching this condition
to come in the middle of the night to get equipment?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:58:51
I don't know how long exactly they have been at the site and I've got no information as
to whether we've had any breaches of or untoward activities through the night in terms of people
accessing the site at antisocial hours to meet this sort of emergency.
Cllr Anita Jones - 1:59:09
So presumably they could store emergency equipment elsewhere and it's not necessary to disturb
the residents in the middle of the night.
And again, as Councillor Mead says,
once a month can you predict that as an emergency?
So perhaps, and I don't like to be held to account
by saying they might leave the area as a business.
I just think they've been operating obviously on that site
without this condition being removed.
So is that something we should be held to account by?
Mr Robert Allan - 1:59:42
Just going to cheque on the enforcement history for the site if you can bear with us for a
short moment.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 1:59:47
Whilst they're looking at that, we have one more councillor that wishes to speak again,
which is Councillor Thomas.
However, just to set out how we will hear the proposals, we had a proposal from Councillor
Fuller with a seconder to accept with conditions. However, we need to come back to Councillor
Cooper once the officers have answered the question as to his reasons why he's going
against the officer's decision and he will need a seconder. We will then go back for
the vote and that will start with Councillor Fuller because he put his proposal in first
and then we will take it from there. I just want to make it very clear and we...
Excuse me, painting on myself. We have checked that that is the correct way.
Sorry, is this pertinent, Councillor Lockwood?
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 2:00:45
I was happy to second, Councillor Cleaver.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:00:46
You have to wait for the reasons, please. Thank you.
.
Mr Robert Allan - 2:01:31
Thank you members and thank you
for cancel chance.
We can't see that the application
was submitted off the back of
enforcement plate blank complaint.
Having looked at the application form.
In terms of the sort of.
Alternatives that you talked about,
I mean we we we're considering on
the basis of what's been submitted
and what they have they have requested of us.
Obviously, our recommendation is based upon our interpretation of the situation and the
controls that we consider we could impose at this point and members are entitled, as
you're well aware, to take an alternative stance and that's been re -met of the discussion
here and how they fill the material considerations for this application, dictate to them and
should be weighed.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:02:28
Councillor Thomas, then I'm coming to you, Councillor Cooper, for your reasons.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 2:02:37
I was just going to throw into the mix.
I'd like to propose that we defer the application for the reasons that I stated earlier with
regard to the planning statement and the lack of information, lack of data in there for
us to make a decision about this, whereby the impact on local amenity, particularly noise
and lighting as we discussed across this evening.
So again I think for me it is understanding how procedurally that could be minimised,
set out by the applicant, where as I say they've already said they're not going to use tonal
alarms, they've already said in here that they're only going to use security lighting
and they've already said in here it's only going to be for five minutes at a time.
So again for me I'd like to see some data that relates to how many times in maybe the
last two years have they had to access the site for emergency reasons and what is their
procedure for adhering to those issues on lighting and noise that's specifically referenced
in their planning statement.
Thank you chair.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:04:13
Does Councillor Thomas have a seconder please?
Councillor Breakmore.
Councillor Cooper I'm coming back for your reasons to go against the officer's recommendation
please.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:04:29
Thank you chair it's quite simple it's quite good to this.
All planning applications are opposed to improving people's lives and in this particular case
it doesn't improve the rest of the lives and that's contrary to paragraph 131 of the MPPF
paragraph F. Thank you.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:04:48
Thank you, Councillor Cooper. I understand you believe it would harm the resident community
of neighbouring residents. I think for the purposes of assisting with any reason for
refusal or defending it therein and understanding the public understanding the reasons is what
do you think gives rise to that harm because you've identified a harm but not stated what
would cause it.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:05:14
Basically Mr Lloyd, the harm would be the light pollution and the disturbance of residents
overnight and outside the arms of the operation of the site.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:05:31
Sorry, Councillor Cooper when we're talking about noise what noise do you perceive would
there be?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:05:44
Right and first of all the noise I'm referring to is basically the disturbance from any vehicles,
entrance and exit the sites and opening and shutting doors, loading of equipment.
Then we've also got a residence who runs locally and what is quite clearly stated
in the objections is that if there's any noise etc is dogs bark that disturbs other
dogs and any lice that comes through basically is disturbing other people's
sleep because once light comes on it goes through people's bedroom windows etc etc
That's why I mean it is not beneficial to people's health.
Thank you Councillor Cooper.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:06:33
Thank you Councillor Cooper.
Good evening members.
Just so I'm clear, and I'm not trying to put words into your mouth Councillor Cooper, but
understanding of your reason for
refusal, correct me if I'm wrong,
is that the use of the site for the
purposes set out in the application.
And outside the hours specified by the
planning Commission would give rise to
noise and disturbance harmful to the
residential amenity of the occupiers
to nearby dwellings and similarly the use of lights at the site would give rise to light
pollution harmful to residential amenity and the special scenic character in dark skies
of the national landscape.
Yes, that's in a nutshell, yes, thank you.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:07:39
Do you have a seconder please?
We've got two seconders but I know Councillor Lockwood wants to come through so as a seconder,
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:07:51
bear with me one second please, Councillor Lockwood.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 2:07:55
Sorry, Councillor Kilgore, as part of your recommendation would you be happy for officers
authority to tweak the wording to finalise it.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:07
Councillor Lockwood, you're willing to second on this?
Cllr Adrian Lockwood - 2:08:14
I'm happy to second. Can I add to that as well, that paragraph 135 F mentions resident's well -being.
And one of my big concerns here is not knowing when it's going to happen.
So it's a constant harm to nearby residents not knowing if this is going to happen.
Thank you, Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:44
So it's damaging their wellbeing as stated in paragraph 135f.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 2:08:47
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:48
Councillor Cooper, do you agree to that within your proposal?
I certainly do.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:08:53
So the first proposal we had was to go with the officer's recommendation with the condition
to ensure that the vehicles don't have reversing sounds, etc.
And that was proposed by Councillor Fuller.
All those in favour of that, please show your hands.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:09:10
All those against.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:09:15
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:09:19
Any abstentions?
I'm afraid that proposal has fallen.
So we go to Councillor Cooper's proposal which is to go against the officer's recommendation
with the conditions or the agreements for wording by the officers regarding wellbeing,
noise, light, etc. etc. All those in favour of going against the officer's recommendation,
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:09:51
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:09:58
please show your hands. Thank you. Those against. And any abstentions? That application has
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:10:06
Thank you very much.
We have one more application this evening.

9 25/0893/FH/CON - Offices, Bus Station, Bouverie Square, Folkestone, CT20 1BA

You are welcome to stay, but if you'd like to go,
I'll give you a minute or so to be able to exit.
Thank you.
.
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:11:20
Right, councillors, we're on to the last one of the evening, please.
And this, excuse me, is 25 -0813 -FH -CON, which is the officers at the bus station at Broom,
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 2:11:43
put my teeth back in, Boonvery Square in Fodson.
Do we have any updates please?
Yes, Chair, we do.
We've received advice today from the Councillor's contamination consultant that the remediation
strategy submitted is acceptable and sufficient for approval of part C of condition 5, which
is the one that relates to the contamination. This was the only outstanding matter not covered
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:07
in the report and means that the recommendation for tonight can now be to approve the details.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. And we have no speakers on this particular one. This is obviously
to do with conditions surrounding this particular application. It has been moved by Councillor
Goddard to agree and a flurry of hands has gone up. I'll go for Councillor Himes being
this evening. Would any Councillor like to speak on this?
Cllr Clive Goddard - 2:12:32
They're doing a fine job there at the moment. They're every day watching them and some really
Cllr Jackie Meade - 2:12:41
good construction going on in that area.
Fine. Now all the councillors want to speak. All those in favour of the officer's decision,
please raise your hand. And I can see that that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank
you for a great debate and a thoughtful debate this evening. Safe journey home everyone and
we'll see you next time. Thank you.