Transcript

Lovely to hear everyone laughing on this lovely summer's evening. Good evening and welcome to the meeting of Planning and Licensing. I would remind members that we are presently in the pre-election period and therefore please do not make political statements, references to candidates or the general election this evening. For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting so everyone shuffles around. So members, as chair of this committee I would like to make a statement for the benefit of all councillors at this meeting and for members of the public. The applications before you tonight and indeed any applications you consider in the future must be considered on planning merits only. It is essential that members adhere to this principle and ensure that their decisions tonight are based on the papers before you and any information provided to you during this meeting. This is not the forum to discuss any ancillary issues relating to the planning applications before you. So we'll move on. Do we have apologies for absence? Thank you chair. We have received apologies from Councillor Thomas and Councillor Walker and Councillor Lockwood is here as a substitute for Councillor Walker. Thank you very much and welcome Councillor Lockwood to the committee. Thank you chair. Do we have any declarations of interest this evening please? I'm seeing none so we'll move on. Excuse me. You have before you the minutes of the 21st of May 2024. May I have a vote to approve as a correct record these minutes? Thank you. I will sign them after the meeting. So we move on to our first application this evening which is 240168-FH which is unit 1 Riverside Industrial Estate in West Wythe Road. Do we have any updates please? Yes we do chair. We have two updates for this application. Firstly there is an error in part 11 of the committee report which makes reference to the refusal of the application for clarity. This application is recommended for approval with conditions. And the second update is that we have received one additional comment in support of the application. And it doesn't have any additional comments above those already considered in the committee report. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we'll move on to our speakers. Our first speaker tonight is Mr David Bateman who is to speak against the application. Are you here sir? Wonderful if you'd like to come forward. And sir you'll have three minutes from when you start. Thank you. Before I start can I just say that I assume that councillors have read the Planning Office's report and are familiar with the Riverside layout in figure 1 and its aerial view in figure 2. Sir we all go through the papers believe me. OK. It's my first time. OK. I am speaking on behalf of a few of Unit 1's neighbours who experience an increase in noise pollution from Unit 1's outside space. The appraisal in section 8.1c of the Planning Office's report considers outside noise under the heading whether the proposal would harm neighbouring residential amenity. Local planning policies state that decisions should not have an adverse impact on the amenity of current or future occupants of neighbouring properties. My understanding of residential amenity is that people have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their home and garden and that planning decisions should avoid any increase in noise to reduce potential adverse impacts on the quality of one's health and wellbeing. Paragraph 8.12 states that the use of the outside area does create an increase in noise levels beyond that of the internal space. 8.14 states that the increase in noise from the outside space could have an adverse impact not only on the direct neighbour but other residences in the wider area. A consultee response from Environmental Health claims that by restricting outside space, opening hours and preventing amplified music or entertainment the impact on neighbouring properties would be mitigated and the application made acceptable. However, the 10pm daily closing time they suggest is identical to the current inside restrictions. The 9pm closing time recommended in the Planning Officer Report suggests that both authorities believe that there is little or no detrimental impact to the use of the outside space. Unit 1 is the right facility but in the wrong location because of its proximity to residential properties. The nearest being to the west and south of Unit 1. There are no dwellings to the east of the Riverside site and dwellings to the north are at least 90 metres and the gardens at least 60 metres from the site. If Unit 1 could relocate to the east of the site, its nearest residential neighbours would be at least six times further away. Parking spaces currently along the east boundary could be reinstated at the site front as one of the planning conditions from 2015 required. Sir, your three minutes is up, could you just finish your last sentence please? I ask the committee either to refuse to grant permission for use of Unit 1's outside space because of the additional harm to residential amenity or to defer its decision today so that a more suitable site location option for Unit 1 and its outside space can be investigated. Thank you sir. Next up we have a local resident to speak in support of the application and that's Mr Luke Warr. Are you here sir? Good evening and you will have three minutes from when you start. Hello ladies and gentlemen, committee. I'm a local resident of Hive or West Hive. I actually live three houses down. I'm actually on some of these pictures to be fair. I'm also speaking on behalf of 34 other local residents and what I'm saying today. I'd like to highlight some of the problems or the negative press that's been given towards Unit 1 and the beer garden. One being lights, two being noise and traffic. As a local resident, I live three houses down from Unit 1. I've never experienced this. Just to explain a little bit about my house as well and my set up. I have bifolds that open to the rear which opens the elements from my living room. Again, I've never found it to be noisy. You'll hear the occasional chatter on a Saturday or a busy summer evening but that's about it. I don't deem it necessary to have any negative thoughts on it. Just a positive side of Unit 1, especially as a resident, I've been there for three and a half years. It's made me meet people who are local to the area, either with dog meat, paddle boarding, where we can have a beverage or a drink afterwards. It doesn't have to be alcoholic, it can be coffee. There's plenty of variety of drinks to hand. As a local as well, I've always found that the timings are sociable hours as well which I find important. Especially as it is a quiet area and I did move to this area for that reason but it doesn't seem to spoil it. The hours are Thursday, Friday, Saturday. That's 2100 hours which I think is quite reasonable. And then before that, Sunday to Wednesday is 1900 hours which again I think is quite reasonable for the area that we live in. I've never seen it or deemed it being a problem at all. And I've said as Unit 1, I feel and my partner is a safe haven. It's a nice meeting place. We go on dog walks, we've got a number of dogs. If we fancy a drink, it's just nice to go to and it's a friendly environment. I don't deem or I haven't experienced any antisocial behaviour. Again, I do live in that picture three houses down. I've never experienced that or witnessed it. So yeah, that's about what I have to say really as a local resident. That's fine. Thank you very much. Alright, thank you. Thanks for your time. Could you just turn the mic off for us please? Thank you. And we have a third speaker this evening which is Kenza Bowman who will speak on behalf of the applicants. If you'd like to come forward, you'll have three minutes from when you start. I'm speaking to you today as a part owner of our small business Unit 1 in Hive. Our vision for Unit 1 was to create a family and dog friendly community space serving locally sourced food and drinks, as well as offering employment to local people. The location of the unit alongside the canal path means we attract customers arriving by foot, bike, paddleboard and even horse. These are difficult times for small businesses and we have been grateful for the ongoing support over the last few years from local residents who feel Unit 1 is such a vital part of their community and they do not want to lose it. The outside space has been used for casual customer seating since 2018 and began to be used more formally after the pandemic when restrictions were in place for customers to sit outside. At this time we use moveable planters and temporary fencing to enable social distancing. The fencing has since developed to separate the seating area from the road into the industrial estate, ensuring customer safety. The use of the outside seating is the capacity we need to meet our customer demand. Without this we would lose trade and ultimately the required income to maintain our current staff levels and commitment to supporting local suppliers. Many of these suppliers are independent businesses who are reliant on our trade for their income. Other businesses within the estate also benefit from the footfall created by us. Unit 1 has become a real community hub for the residents of West Hive. We host charity events as well as sponsoring local sports teams. The wooden barrels in our seating area are currently growing hops in partnership with the community group Hive Hops to create the most locally grown beer we could ever sell. These are growing alongside wildflowers and bug hotels, encouraging nature in the otherwise concrete space. Our outside area allows those with mobility issues to visit without concern and our disabled toilet is a unique facility on the canal path. We are available to anyone as a place of safety along the canal who need assistance. Many walking, running and cycling groups use the unit as a pit stop. They appreciate the availability of outside seating, especially given the muddy and sweaty nature of their activities. We have been overwhelmed by the support we have received in relation to this application. To hear how the unit has had such a positive impact on people's health and wellbeing has been humbling. People appreciate the option to sit in the fresh air. Tourists particularly enjoy coming from nearby campsites to sample our local ales and use the cycle path to Hive. Without our outside seating, it is inevitable that customers who wish to sit outside will continue to do so on public land and away from our bins and amenities. There has never been any reason for us to believe that the use of our outside space for seating has had a negative impact on the local area. We monitor noise closely and would never allow any antisocial behaviour. We pride ourselves on a relaxed, family friendly atmosphere and this is reflected in our early closing times. Without the trade that the outside seating brings us, we would be faced with some very difficult decisions about the future of Unit 1. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Councillors, over to you. Would anyone like to ask a question or have any clarification on anything? Councillor Blakemore. Thank you, Chair. So Unit 1 as an independent business supporting lots of other independent businesses would appear to be the kind of set up we would be looking to encourage in the district. I can see from the report that there is an awful lot of support. However, I have heard what the first speaker said about the noise issues. Reading the report, it seems like the last environmental health complaint was back in April 2022 and that no further action was taken from that. I can see that the opening hours are restricted and the prevention of amplified music and so on. But on the issue of complaints, is it correct that there hasn't actually been any upheld complaint and indeed no complaints since April 2022? I believe that is true from the environmental health side. Sorry. Yes, that's what we have had reported from environmental health and that's been done since. Thank you. Councillor Jones. I'm very happy with the recommendation from the officers. I think it's a really good business. It's very good for highs and I really love the fact that it's encouraging other local business. And as far as I can tell, I see with no formal noise complaints, it doesn't seem to be a problem, particularly with the opening hours and with the obviously the restrictions on music outside. So I would like to go with the recommendation from the officer. Is that a proposal, Councillor Jones? Yes. Is that a proposal? Do I have a seconder? I think Councillor King got there first. Sorry. Councillor Cooper. Can I ask you a question, please? There's issues about parking, or supposed to be issues with parking. Has there been any issues regarding our enforcement team actually moving cars on? Because every time I've gone past this place, it's always been clear and any car parked just around the corner obviously appears to be full. I'm not aware of any parking issues. Has there been any issues regarding the parking that we know of, please? Are we aware of any? We wouldn't necessarily have parking. Yeah, we're not aware of any parking issues. Councillor Goddard. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, I'd echo my colleagues on the left. I was going to quite happily propose this. Obviously the first resident, they're tied up in the excellent conditions with, you know, no live or amplified music. And then 9 till 9 basically every day. And like the other residents said, that's even shorter at certain times of the week. So yeah, we need to back businesses. That's what it's all about. They've had a rough ride and, you know, back them, not sort of send them on their way. So quite happy with this and wish them all the best. Thank you, Councillor Goddard. Councillor Linsby. Yes, I'd like to go along with what's already been said. And I thought 8 4 in the report actually sets out exactly why I feel and I'm able to support it. So thank you. And again, I suppose we ought to declare it if we've had a drink in there. I have actually had a drink in there. So maybe I should declare that. But, you know, it is a nice area to go to when you're bypassing or when you're on the canal, you know, along the canal or somewhere. Or when you're jogging. Or when you're jogging, yeah. I'm afraid I'm a bit past that now. Thank you. Thank you. I'd also like to add I've never been to this venue, but it looks like a very family friendly, which we definitely need. I'm hoping the fact that the licensing hours are very strict and a part of the conditions and also that we're getting lighting conditions in place. And also the fact that there's no music outside will allay any fears that the neighbours have. Sorry. Did you wish to speak? Oh, thank you. Before we go to the vote, would anyone else like to say anything? No. So we have one proposal in front of us, which is proposed by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Keane. And that's to go with the officers recommendations for permission to be granted. All those in favour, please raise your hands. And I can see that's unanimous. Thank you. That has passed. So we move on to the next application, which is 22-2100-FH, which is the Coast Drive car park, Coast Drive in Greatstone. Do we have any updates, please? Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. I have one update for you tonight. An email has been received in support of this application from Councillor Paul Thomas, who is unable to attend this evening's meeting for which he sends his apologies. His comments are as follows. As ward member, I fully support this planning application. It will provide a very much better car parking facility than we currently have. The beach huts will encourage visitors to the area and allow new Romney residents and those from across the district to have their own facilities at the seaside. I anticipate this would be on par with those facilities currently enjoyed by residents in Folkestone. The addition of a concession café, visitor room and excellent toilet and shower facilities will further enhance tourism in New Romney, Littlestone and Greatstone. The planning application has been amended to accommodate the comments from KCC Ecology and to ensure the new facility does not compromise the operation of the sea cadet unit in the car park. I have spoken with the sea cadet chairman and they fully support the new design as it provides secure parking for the unit and access to the boat compound. The new facility will also provide accommodation for the growing watersports community. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we have two speakers on this this evening. The first speaker is Councillor Peter Coe to speak on behalf of New Romney Town Council. If you'd like to come forward, sir. And you'll have three minutes from when you start. Thank you. I'll be very brief. What was just said by Councillor Thomas really reflects what's going on. As you're aware from the timeline, a considerable amount of water was passed under the bridge since this application was first mooted. Some of it after our last published comments of the 3rd of January this year. Whilst the committee is not against the basic idea, as was shown by the initial comments of the 4th of January 2023, which was in favour with caveats. Most of these, which has subsequently been met, which was referred to the sea cadets and that sort of thing. However, there are some concerns regarding perceived lack of clarity in the response to the following agencies. The Environment's Agency's conditions. Natural England regarding the viability of Psalms. KCC's ecological comments. And Kent Police's comments, particularly number 10 regarding the ongoing security plans in light of vandalism problems. The committee's suggestion for a single row of huts still stands. There is also the matter of RM 11, which you refer to in your report. Therefore, I come back to my opening remarks that the committee considers the principle is fine, but details remain to be sorted. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And we have ward councillor, Mr David Wimble, to speak on the application. If you could come forward and you have three minutes from when you start. Thank you. Good evening, councillors. I'm very pleased to support this application, which is a hybrid revision of the scheme that has already come through the planning process. Some of you may recall this site was designated for building 20 houses that the district council wanted to develop. I, along with several other district councillors and local people, spoke out against this development as it would have put a further nail in the coffin of our district's tourism. At the time, I was told it cost the council a million pounds from the loss of land to sell to a developer. After we stopped this planning from progressing beyond the outline stage, I was part of the team that looked at the alternative proposals and put forward the idea of building the beach huts. This alternative would not only deliver much more than one million pounds over time, but also generate a yearly income and, more importantly, establish the site as a tourism destination. The current toilets and the greens are not easily accessible for anyone with disabilities. This proposal would deliver a fit-for-purpose scheme that includes a modern environmental toilet facility, classroom and kiosk, and access to the beach and huts for people with disabilities' needs via a boardwalk. While this is a smaller development than the original plan, I understand that officers have worked with the sea cadets and the water sports centre to ensure they all have the accessibility they need, not only to operate, but also to provide a better facility with a fit-for-purpose car park. This car park would have designated parking, thereby improving the current situation, which allows people to park wherever they want. Over the past five years, we've seen how popular this destination is with visitors in the district. This development will only enhance the offering in a green and sustainable way. When I was a portfolio holder under which this project fell, we stipulated that local residents should be given first choice to rent these beach huts. Although this is outside of planning, I hope this stipulation is still in place. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Councillors, would anyone like to ask a question? Councillor Goddard. Thank you, Chairman. As I start my 18th year on this committee, that's why I'm so grey, I must say that this is one of the best reports I've seen. So well done and credit to Alex for that. You know, this has been bubbling around for a couple of years, like Councillor Wimble said. It started a couple of years ago and it comes now with a much better scheme, just what the marsh wants for that neck of the woods. Ideal area, like Councillor Wimble said, and you know, it's perfect. And like I say, the report's A1, it's turned every stone on that beach, and happy to move the officer's recommendation. Thank you. I thought you were, Councillor Hinesby. Would you like to speak as well? Yes, please. It's taken my thunder in terms of the report. I was going to say, I don't think I've read such a comprehensive report for actually quite a long time. The reports are always very good, always, but this one is particularly comprehensive. And I just wanted to just say about the ordering of the area. I think that that's a really important point. And I'd just be interested to know how that can be maintained. I know the 106 will do it for a certain period of time. Is that forever? You know, how will that be financed? That's the only question I really wanted to ask. I think it's an excellent idea. I'm very happy with the beach huts. We know in Folkestone everybody wanted them. I think there's something like 700 people on a waiting list for beach huts. I think, you know, it is a good scheme and it will help the Marsh in terms of their tourism. And it can only be good for the whole district. Thank you. Who can answer? So you're picking up the point about the wardening. These are the fine details that would be secured through the section 106 legal agreement in consultation and in agreement with Natural England and KCC Ecology. They're both supportive of the idea of the wardening, particularly Natural England. And the applicant has already approached and been having several detailed discussions with the Romney Marsh Partnership, who do all of the wardenings down at Dungeness. And they've agreed in principle to continue their responsibilities along this part of the beach. At the moment, we're still in the discussions as to how far that warden might go. Because as you can imagine, Dungeness is a lot bigger than this. So it'll probably be to a lesser degree and working out what the responsibilities of those wardens will be and then the cost that comes with that. So these are the fine details that we're securing through the section 106. And, you know, that would be for the lifetime of the development. But there would probably be some sort of review mechanism within that so that we can establish how the wardening is successful. Because it could help to reduce the pressure that's there at the moment, as well as the increased pressure. And also, from that, we might be able to reduce the amount or stipulate what happens in the future through that. But it would all be secured forever, what's needed. Councillor Jones, then Councillor Mike Batemore. Thank you. No, it looks like a great scheme and a really good report, so well done. Really good for tourism, really good for the Marsh. It's good that we're going to increase the parking down there. And, I mean, it's always been a challenging car park, that one. I would just say that two EV charging spaces is not really enough for over 100 cars. Has there been any thought to increasing the amount of EV charging? Because obviously, down on the Marsh, you're a long way from perhaps a lot of other EV charging. The amount of EV charging is in accordance with Kent's requirements, KCC's requirements for that. You know, it's a council car park. They have got a strategy, the council does have a strategy for upgrades within the car parks and increasing the number of EV charging spaces. So it is something that could and probably would happen in the future. You know, we can certainly feed that back to them and that option is open for them to put more in in the future. Yeah, I think just from experience, sometimes people park their cars, plug them in, disappear off to the beach for the day, and leave other people with not much opportunity to charge their car and see if you've come a long distance to visit. That could be a problem if you plan to charge your car there. So I would have thought it would be sensible to have a few more than two, if that's a good suggestion. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the comments. I think crucially from a planning point of view, we can only go so far. The policy requires the amount. As Alex has pointed out, the applicant, which happens to be the council in this case, if they chose to go beyond, we would obviously support that. And if there is a greater demand and obviously it's financially viable, of course we would support that. We wouldn't have the ability to force that issue at this point in time. And I think this evening, we need to make a decision based on what's in front of us. And if the council wished to increase the amount of EV parking in the future to vary the application, they could do so. And we would support that as well. But we've had to determine, is this application acceptable as it's currently proposed? And it does meet the need. That's not to say I don't disagree with your points, I agree with it. But unfortunately, from a planning point of view, we could not insist on more at this moment in time. Councillor Mike Batewell. Yeah, I echo what's been said about it's a very exciting scheme and I can completely see the benefits of it. Just going back to what the first speaker said, and we've touched on some of this with the warden about, in particular, Natural England's concerns and the line in here which says that they don't have enough information. And their conclusion is that we should not grant planning permission at this stage. So my question is really, can we grant planning permission certain that Natural England will be happy with the measures that are being put in place because once we've granted that planning permission, we've granted that planning permission and then there's effectively no way back. So it's just reassurance on can we grant planning permission go against essentially what Natural England appear to be saying. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Lakewall. I think I'd refer you to paragraph 10 of the report which says that members should agree to adopt the appropriate assessment and approve planning permission subject to conditions under section 106 being entered into. So tonight, this committee will resolve to make a decision. The decision is ever made until the paperwork leaves the building and the paperwork won't leave the building. Therefore, a decision won't be made until a section 106 has been signed and agreed. And that would, of course, be done in conjunction with Natural England and KTC Ecology. So no decisions will be issued immediately until those details. But I'd also reassure members, we grant lots of planning permissions every day where there are unknown details. And the development is always you can't build it until those details are satisfied, which otherwise means they wouldn't have planning permission until those details are satisfied. That sort of addresses Natural England's point and KCC. And we're only reporting it to members tonight in the sort of confidence that we will get to a solution that everyone can live with. I hope that sort of provides the reassurance that we're sort of concerned about. So we're basically saying there isn't a scenario in which Natural England wouldn't be happy with this and we would go ahead. So basically we only go ahead if Natural England are happy. That's correct. If we can't get to a point where a section 106 can be signed, then the decision won't be issued. Thank you, Councillor Keene. Strangely enough, I'd like to echo what Councillor Wimble said. My biggest concern about this is that local people get a fair crack of the whip. And I know that's not a planning consideration. But I think we need to remember that the majority of people who live in New Romney work in New Romney. It's a local area. They work for local wages. My concern with this is these are going to cost and they're going to be very similar to what they are in Folkestone, where very few of the units are now inhabited by Folkestone people. So I'm concerned that we're building this and we're putting money into a project that doesn't actually benefit our residents. And, you know, Councillor Wimble hit it on the head, there has got to be some reserve for locals. But I do think my concern is they're going to put a lot of money into a project that isn't going to help the local economy or the local people who live there. Thank you. Is there anything we can say about the rulings on who can apply for a beach hut? Yes, certainly. So it's anticipated that the leases would be similar, if not the same, to the other leases that we have around the district. I'm not sure how much they would cost, and that's obviously a commercial decision for the Council, not a planning consideration. However, I have been told that there would be a maximum 15% allocation outside of the district. Everything else would be available for local residents. Thank you. That's actually good news. Councillor Polly Blakemore. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question about the lighting scheme, because I see Condition 17 quite rightly confirms that the lights will be switched off when the development isn't operational, which is obviously a good thing. But I can see in the report that Romney Town Council has concerns, I think, probably based on security and has asked for sympathetic lighting. So I'm just wondering how we, how we, though, square that circle, really. So the lighting condition is at the request of KCC Ecology, because this is such a sensitive location, you know, we've got breeding birds and things like that. The design has actually evolved in terms of looking at security and comments previously made on that, and they've also looked at the securing design, designing out crime, those kinds of things. So, you know, it could be that they come back with something, with some low-level lighting, but we'll have to consider that and balance that against the ecological impact. Councillor Fuller. Thank you, Chair. I think it's, the development looks great. This is more in line of a suggestion based on my experience in Sandgate of having a concession there. For many years, because the Council was expecting a very high rent for that concession, it sat empty, and we don't want to end up with that situation in Romney Marsh. So I'd actually suggest that, as the Council ended up doing in Sandgate, that they actually speak to the local parish council about having them run a concession, which might also allay some of the concerns that they have as well. Admittedly, not a planning matter, so, but a suggestion, nevertheless. Thank you, and as we have several cabinet members here, I'm sure that will be duly noted, Councillor Fuller. I'm talking to you, sir. I know you are. I'd just like to say, I'll come to you, Councillor Lockwood, in a second. I think it looks an absolutely outstanding design to help tourism in a place that needs tourism. My big issue has always been that it's so close to the SSSI, which is part of the reason that the buildings previously were refused. However, with the extra protections, shall we say, that are being put into place, that have been noted in this report, and I will say as well, an absolutely excellent report, thank you very, very much. I'm actually very minded to agree to this as well. Councillor Lockwood? Thank you, Chair. Just to reiterate what nearly everyone said, that it's a great scheme, very well-written report, thank you for that, everybody. I noted one of the objections asked if the development could be delayed until it was safe to engage in water sports on that beach. So I just wanted nothing to do with planning, but just go on the record that it's disappointing that it's not safe to engage in water sports on that beach. Noted, thank you very much. Would anyone else like to comment? No. We have one proposal that has been proposed by Councillor Goddard, seconded by Councillor Hollingsby, and that is the application in front of you with the S106 legal agreements to be put into place as recommended by our planning officers. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. And that makes no abstentions. So we have one against. Thank you, Chair. We have ten in favour, one against and no abstentions. Thank you, that application has passed. Thank you. So we move on to the next one this evening, which is 22-1347-FH, which is the land at the former Silver Spring site in Park Farm Road in Folkestone. Do we have any updates, please? Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. Yes, I do have an update. Members will have noted the supplementary sheet and the amended recommendation. Since that was drafted, the additional information requested by National Highways has been submitted and further comments have been received. National Highways raise no objection subject to an additional condition in respect of construction. Traffic management and subject to that condition may conclude there would be no significant harmful impact on the M20 and the A20. In terms of the bus service contribution, correspondence with KCC Highways and Stagecoach remains ongoing. To date, there's no real update in terms of justification for or changes to the level of contribution that's being requested. So in terms of the recommendation, that's as per the supplementary sheet, except for the addition of the condition requested by National Highways. Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr Bailey. We have one speaker on this, and that's Mr Alastair Ingram, who is the agent speaker on the application. If you'd like to come forward, sir. And your three minutes starts when you do. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Alastair Ingram and I'm the agent for the application. The former Silver Spring site is a key brownfield site in Folkestone, located in an established retail employment area, but has remained vacant for over a decade, during which has not resulted in any economic benefits for the town or district. This application is the result of carefully considered options for the site, in order to ensure that its future development is ultimately deliverable. This has resulted in the mixed-use retail employment-led scheme before you tonight, in which your officers have found to be acceptable in land-use planning terms. The application is in hybrid form, with the detailed elements subject to pre-lets and to come forward first, which in turn will drive the delivery of the remainder of the site. Most importantly, the scheme will result in a range of economic, social and environmental benefits, and I'd just like to highlight a few key points. The food store will provide improved choice and accessibility to convenience goods for local residents. The employment area will provide the opportunity for a range of new businesses to locate in purpose-built, modern facilities to suit their needs. The scheme will result in a range of social value and economic benefits, in particular significant new job creation of circa 250 new jobs overall, plus additional jobs during the construction phase. These jobs would be at a range of levels, for example administration through to management, and in a range of full and part-time positions. It will result in a significant level of biodiversity net gain, with the detailed area alone achieving a net gain of 30% in habitat area, and over 3,000% in hedgerow or linear habitat. These are based on the entire site's net gain requirements, and therefore the future outline phases will only increase this net gain further. It has been demonstrated in our submission, and supported by the Council's own independent retail advisor, that the scheme passes the Screnshaw and retail impact tests. The scheme has also been found entirely acceptable in relation to matters such as design, noise, flooding, highway impacts and reduction in carbon emissions. It will also result in improvements to the local road network outside of the site, through the riding of Park Farm Road, as well as improving pedestrian and cycle routes. Members, the applicant has worked hard to ensure that this application can be supported by your officers. This hard work has resulted in the positive recommendation before you tonight. We therefore respectfully request that you approve this application, in line with the officer recommendation, and support the future development of this key site. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. And over to Councillors, would anyone like to make a comment or ask a question? Councillor Fuller? Thank you, Chair. I mean, broadly I'm in support of this application, but there was one thing that sort of stuck out to me, possibly because my son goes to school down the road from it. And that is, that obviously, that particular road is a real thoroughfare for students, either leaving the Academy or leaving the Beacon. And I can see that there's a sort of crossing marks there, but maybe not reading deeply enough, but I couldn't see for certain if that was going to be, if that particular crossing was going to be a zebra crossing, it was going to be a light crossing or something like that. Because I mean, it's already, especially that corner, the amount of cars that go really fast around that corner is already terrible. So I'd like it, if possible, if officers could just assure me that there aren't going to be any road safety concerns for children that are going to be walking down, or mainly across the sort of the main entrance to that area, as it were. Because having walked down there myself, it can be a bit hair-raising at times. Well, when you've got hair. Mr Bailey? Thank you. Well, can County Council Highways and Transportation raise an objection? So that's in respect to the safety and convenience of all users of the highway, so people in vehicles and pedestrians. So on that basis, we're satisfied that there's going to be no harm to pedestrian safety. I understand there's a crossing slightly further down the road from the site. I mean, in terms of the off-site highway improvements, I don't think a pedestrian crossing is currently part of the scheme. But like I said, KCC Highways are satisfied that there's going to be no impact on pedestrian safety. Can I just come back on that? I'm not an expert on Kent Highways, but would they have considered the fact that the school up the road is a special educational school, and therefore some of the kids at it will be less aware of road safety issues, and therefore effectively a higher standard of road safety is needed? I think Kent Highway services are aware of everything that's in the area, and we have to take them at face value. Any new highway works would be subject to a safety audit in detail, and of course Kent Highway services would have to sign that off. They'd have to be happy with safety for all users. My child also goes to the school nearby. I do know at crossing points that further to the east, or south of this access point you raise, there is a pedestrian crossing point linking both the access to the school and also the neighbouring footpath, but also there is a lollipop man who mans that for the entire school period. As the school that you mention is further south than this development site, that person would be involved. I think you're talking about the Academy rather than the Beacon. I'm talking about the Beacon, which is just down the road, special educational school to the north of the, and actually on that road as it were. And I can say for certain that the school do, they do take the kids on effectively walking trips so that they can experience shopping into Park Farm, so they will be crossing, I presume, that main entrance into that. So that's really my only concern. Other than that, I think it's great. I actually think it might pull some of the traffic away from the McDonald's and things like that because that's where the other main pinch point in Park Farm is, and if you've got two drive-throughs here, who knows, they might be a bit, they might spread it out a bit, but I'm, yeah, I'm still concerned about that, and I'd really like that, sort of. I mean, it's not a reason to object, but it is a reason to make it very clear to Kent Highways that, you know, to look again, shall we say. For the record, I'm aware of the schools. My daughter goes to the one that abuts the Beacon, and I'm aware that there's a main access into that school off Park Farm Road, which is the third access into the site. The crossing point will have to be subject to Kent's full safety audit for all road users, both the young and the elderly, and the able-bodied as well, so I think they take responsibility for that. We can raise that with them, but I think the rest of the audit has to be to an adoptable standard for all crossing points. Thank you. Can we actually make a note on that, because I do share your concerns on that. If we could, as a planning department, contact Highways, whichever way this goes this evening, and just raise their awareness of the fact that we do have special educational needs children actually walking along and going on walking trips along this road, and there will need to be extreme safety regarding crossings. Thank you. Councillor Keene was first. Oh, sorry. Yeah, you just reminded me of something as well. It's actually a social care hub as well, isn't it, the Beacon? It's not just a school, so that's probably worth mentioning as well. Councillor Keene, then Councillor Baitmore. Air quality at peak times in that road is absolutely dire. It's diabolical, and yes, I do travel that road every day, and this morning, to travel just over a mile took me 35 minutes. There are people, the air quality, there are children walking to school, and we have got vehicles pumping out, lead, diesel. You know, that road, and I know what you're going to say, it's only peak times, it isn't, because there are times during the day where we get back to it, we're pouring lots of things into a small area, and it banks all the way back to Radan Park. And also, when we get Operation Brock or Operation Stack, the houses behind the old A20 absolutely cannot use their gardens because of the smell at the end. I mean, I just feel that we're pouring loads of stuff into that area, and no one's thinking about the four schools that sit there. I know a Councillor that had to direct traffic round there to get a school bus out, so I'm a little bit worried that the road safety, the air quality, has the full survey been done by KCC in this area, where they actually put their marshals out to check the air quality and the traffic? Well, I'm unaware whether or not KCC highways have been out in the manor, and they wouldn't be responsible for air quality anyway. An air quality assessment was submitted with the application, it's been appraised by our environmental health officer, who raises no objection. In terms of the transport information, there's been an initial transport assessment, an addendum to that, which KCC have raised no objection to. And then further information submitted at the request of National Highways, who again raised no objection. So while I appreciate your experience of the local area, unfortunately, in terms of the information that's been submitted and the response from the statutory consultees, as we often discuss at these meetings, or members often discuss at these meetings, they raise no objection to the empirical evidence that's been submitted. Councillor Lloyd just wants to come back on Council for a moment, then we'll come over to you, Councillor Breakmore. Thank you, Chair. I've refreshed my memory of the plans at the main entrance to the site. There is a zebra crossing to a central island, which is a staggered island, which allows for greater crossing time and waiting areas of safety. So I think that's already been taken into account, and then KCC Highways will then work out whether they need any safety railings or any other details on that. But there is a zebra crossing in place, away from the carriageway edge along Park Farm Road, just to reassure you that's been considered by the applicant. Councillor Mike Breakmore. Yeah, following on from what previous two Councillors have said, I was interested in 3.20, the transport assessment, that I see any projects limited. I presume they're linked to the applicant, are they? They conduct this assessment on behalf of the applicant, conclude that the result of the development would be, the traffic impact would be minimal. And I'm a bit sceptical about that, because I don't think it would be a very successful supermarket or drive-thru restaurant that attracted only minimal traffic. And as Councillor Fuller mentioned, the impact of traffic at the other end of Park Farm, where McDonald's and Sainsbury's are, I think people would say the traffic is pretty bad there. And we could reasonably assume that another supermarket and two more drive-thru restaurants, I'm not sure, by the way, a drive-thru restaurant and a sustainable transport, I think they may be a kind of contradiction in terms, but I welcome the fact that there is some nod towards sustainable transport and improved bus services. But yeah, I cannot see how the impact of a supermarket to drive-thru response is minimal in terms of impact on transport. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Blakemore. We have a transport assessment which has looked at baseline traffic flows and has modelled the development traffic flows against what they call TRX data, which is the typical transport in and out of these kinds of uses across the country, and has modelled that for the peak period, both in the AM and the PM and at the weekend. And it does show that there is an increase in traffic movements. It's not saying there's no increase in traffic movements. What it is saying, however, that it is within the capacity of the road network, and both highways, from Kent Highway Safety and National Highways, Highways England, they have also concluded there'd be no impacts. Well, there will be additional traffic. The transport assessment's quite clear about that. But one needs to bear in mind that when is it happening, how many extra traffic movements is it, and what were the queuing? Congestion and delay, and it has to be significant. It's not a reason for highway safety harm, and the governments are quite clear with us at the moment, is there has to be a significant adverse impact on highway safety to warrant a refusal. Now, I understand members' concerns from their own experiences at that junction. I experience it occasionally. I've never known it to back up all the way down to Radnor Park Road, but that's my own anecdotal evidence. Tonight, I have to urge you to base your decision on the evidence in front of you, because if you were to recommend refusal, we would have to have counter-evidence to justify a refusal. Councillor Cooper. Thank you, Mr Lloyd. Could I just ask, what is a demonstrable harm? Because I'm a little bit concerned here. We've heard about residents' lungs being affected by pollution. We've also heard that local school children due to queuing traffic, etc., may also be affected. So what would the demonstrable harm be there, and would that be a justifiable reason for refusal, please? Thank you, Chair. I think if we deal with air quality first, the applicant has undertaken an air quality assessment. They have looked at all the receptors locally. They have conducted research with the Council and the Environmental Health Team to identify and agree which receptors need to be considered. They have looked at the additional traffic this development is likely to generate in those peak periods and throughout the day, and looked at what the impact on those receptors would be, and determined that it would not be sufficient to warrant harmful impacts. In the highway safety issue, what would be demonstrable harm? We would need our own evidence, as in Empirical, or both the Highways Agency, the transport team at KCC, or Highways England, to be saying there would be a harm in highway safety terms to our network. We don't have that evidence to hand. What we are saying is there will be some extra traffic on the road, which we acknowledge. There might be some additional delay, but delay does not in itself mean harm. It's inconvenient. It might be frustrating, but it is not harmful, unless that starts to snarl up every other junction locally, which, of course, at the moment, Highways England and others are saying it wouldn't do. I urge caution. I have no more than the report has for you. You will have to come to your own conclusions on what weight you give the applicant's evidence. My advice is, with the applicant's evidence, alongside that of KCC Highways and Transport, and Highways England, weighs very much in favour against there being any highway safety harm. Councillor Lockwood? Thank you, Chair. I may be the aforementioned Councillor that was directing traffic on Kingsmead in a Turner School's high-vis jacket. We did struggle on occasions to get the buses full of school children out of Kingsmead. I could take this opportunity to thank the manager of the fast food outlet on the same site, who often came out and helped. I can see the supermarket use won't impact on that school, from my experience of using other supermarkets. That's not peak time for supermarkets. If the drive-throughs take traffic away from the current one, then it spreads it slightly. Whoever took over from me at Turner Schools hopefully would have to go out less, and often than I had to. So I take on board your points about professional opinion, and we should respect that. It looks to me like it could possibly ease the situation, albeit with additional overall traffic. Thank you. Councillor Blakemore, then Councillor Goddard? That's just a small point, but I don't think congestion or style-ups just causes inconvenience. It also helps the deterioration of air quality. Councillor Goddard? Thank you, Chairman. I think, firstly, Councillor Lockwood hit it on the head about the traffic spreading around the area because of the drive-throughs. But this is another site that the planning history is older than me. It's had so much stuff on it, it's a derelict site. And I think Mr Ingram and the applicant have got this site right now. It's all there. The master plan, looking at that, is good. The landscape plan is even better, my love for trees and greens. So I just think that the scheme is right now. The experts have told us there's no issue with air quality, with traffic. And again, Councillor Lockwood says about spreading where the drive-throughs are, sharing it about, and it could ease the traffic there. So I think it's a long-awaited employment. Always promote and want employment. I think it will revitalise the area. It needs it. And jobs right from the start, from the construction, right through to the supermarket, the takeaways, cleaning, everything. So I think there will be several jobs there as well in the future. So happy to move the office recommendation, Chair. We have a proposer. Mr Bailey would just like to say anything before I go for the seconder. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Sorry, Chair. Just to point out to members, when considering the highway's impact of this scheme, that the site is, of course, allocated in the local plan for up to 10,000 square metres of office space, which in itself would have an impact on the highway network. So the site is considered acceptable in principle for large-scale development. And as previously set out, the statutory consortees raise no objection on the basis of highway impact. Thank you. Thank you. We have a proposer as Mr Goddard, who would like to second? I'd like to second. Lovely. Councillor Fuller, do you wish to speak again? No? Councillor Polly Blakemore. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to pick up on Councillor Goddard's positivity in terms of the EV provision, which seems to be really high in contrast to where we were with Post Drive just there. I'm just trying to get it up in front of me. Well, from memory, I think there were about 14 EV charge points for the supermarket and another five for the drive-through, so that's a nice high proportion and all heading in the right direction. I just wondered if we could have some clarity around the bus improvement, because that sort of still sticks, in my mind, as a bit uncertain. And I know it's a requirement of RL11 as well, the bus contribution. So can we be sure that there will be a meaningful contribution? Because I can detect some reluctance around that on behalf of the applicant at the moment. Thank you. Well, I think, yes, the applicant doesn't accept that a contribution of £210,000 a year for four years is reasonably related in scale to the development, and I think it's a view that officers share. What that would, in effect, pay for would be an additional bus service, an additional bus per hour throughout the day, when the development itself doesn't generate a need, there isn't an entire busload of need being generated by this development. So I think we, as officers, are reasonably happy that there is a need for a contribution to bus services, and what we're pushing KCC and Stagecoach to do is to provide a figure that they can cogently justify and that we consider meets the Tesla Section Regulation 122, the seal regulations, which, amongst other things, requires the contribution to be reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and necessary to make the development acceptable. So discussions are ongoing with KCC and Stagecoach, and we hope to be in a position where we can reach agreement. But if it is impossible to do so, as set out in the recommendation, we're seeking delegated authority to achieve a reasonable and acceptable bus contribution, or none at all if agreement can't be reached. And I think it's important to bear in mind that as part of the offsite works, improvements could be made to the bus stops in the vicinity of the site, which should hopefully encourage further use of the existing service. I'll just add, of course, that by improving the bus service, we're going to cut down a number of cars clogging up Park Farm Road as well. We could only hope. Councillor Shoop. Thank you. Just a question on trees. I note, of course, that if the trees that are planted die in the first five years there's a requirement to replace them. It would be nice to see a few more trees breaking up. There's obviously masses of tarmac, and I'm just aware that I can think of at least a couple of supermarkets that did have trees, and now the trees are gone and there's just fast, bare tarmac. Is there anything we can do at planning to require the trees to stay in perpetuity as long as there's a car park there? As I said, it would be nice to see a few more because things are only going to get hotter, and trees will help to keep things cool. As I said, it's just huge amounts of tarmac there. Thank you. Well, we can't require them by condition to be retained in perpetuity. If it's the decision of the committee that additional planting should take place, then we can take that away as part of the delegated authority from the committee and seek improvements to the landscaping scheme. Thank you. Councillor Sheard, would you like to put that forward? Why not? Yeah, if everyone's happy with that, I'd very much like to. Mr Llewellyn? Councillor Goddard, as you proposed, would you be happy for us to ask for some extra landscaping within the actual cement car park area? As I always say on this committee, always support trees, and I'm more than happy for Llewellyn to have a conversation with Mr Ingram about some extra trees, bushes or similar, as long as they're green. Thank you. And Councillor Turner, would you still second on that? Yeah, more than happy to support green. Wonderful. I also live just down the road from this. I absolutely support my experience of driving down this road, especially in what we regard as prime time, which happens to be the school drop off or the school pick up time. It is a nightmare down there. I do have concerns personally regarding the amount of fumes that the children will be breathing in as they walk along, especially when it does back up. And it does back right the way up to Raglan Park. It has done previously. However, I'm also aware that this particular site looks awful. It's derelict. It's not being used. The development already has permission. They're just asking to change it from a hotel to a supermarket, which in turn may bring extra jobs, much needed jobs, I hasten to add, in the area. And also the landscaping will actually make this less of an eyesore and possibly help clean up the air. So for my personal view on this, because I cannot see any policies that this actually goes against, I will be personally agreeing with this. But we have one proposal on the table that was proposed by Councillor Goddard, seconded by Councillor Fuller with the inclusion of the extra landscaping, if you wouldn't mind. All those in favour, please raise your hand. I believe that's unanimous and has passed. Thank you. So we move on to the last application for the evening, which is 24-0466-FH, which is 25 Dimchurch Road, St Mary's Bay in Romney Marsh. Do you have any updates, please? We have no updates and we have no speakers, I believe, on this one. So over to you, Councillors. Councillor Hollingsby. Thank you, Chair. I've read this a couple of times and I really cannot see why this can't go ahead. So I'm moving the recommendation now. I was going to say straight in, Councillor Hollingsby, but thank you. Would you like to second Councillor Cooper? No, I'd like to speak against, if you don't mind, please. Firstly, do I have a seconder for Councillor Hollingsby? Councillor Goddard? Councillor Cooper? Thank you, Chair. I've asked for this to be come before the committee because primarily in St Mary's Bay we have something called a neighbourhood plan. That went through the whole village in 2017 and was adopted by the District Council in 2019. And that forms what should be happening in St Mary's Marsh until 2027. On page 11 of this local plan, it says quite clearly in paragraph 434, and I quote, In the industrial and business developments at Mountfield Road in Romney, there is no desire to replicate this form of development in St Mary's Bay. I understand there's been an objection, at least on that basis. When this came before the parish council of which I'm a member and which I did not take part in this decision, it was noted there by one of the councillors there was issues regarding parking and also for the committee to take the neighbours' considerations into account. And therefore I'm going to move refusal because it's against the local plan. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this? Councillor Mike Breakmore first. I remember rightly when this was coming to us before, when it was poly tunnels instead of a shed, it was recommended for refusal. So I'm interested in, is it simply the fact it's now inside a shed, not in a poly tunnel that has changed things? Because I have some sympathy with the neighbour who is basically saying, apart from that, what else has changed? Still sceptical about some of the things about the Fisher dispatched by post not collected, when it does still say on the website that collection can be made by appointment only, they still talk about having open days. On their Facebook, they've had 66 check-ins on Facebook, they may not all be customers, they could just be family coming round, but there clearly are people visiting the site. So I have some sympathy with the neighbour that this is a business being carried out there in a residential area and I'm interested in why we're now recommending acceptance rather than refusal. Can any officer enlighten us? Sorry, Councillor Cooper, can you turn your mic off please? Thank you. The main objection to the previous scheme was due to possible light and noise emissions coming from the poly tunnels and the fact that they are a very sort of lightweight structure. The recommendation has now changed because it is purely within the existing outbuilding and having visited the site, there was no audible noise emissions or any sort of light pollution or anything like that on visiting the site. That's the main change in the proposal. Can I just make a point? And the point I want to make is this. Basically this has gone on for a couple of years without any checks or balances. It's a part retrospective application and also it's in the middle of a residential development. And at the end of the day, as I say, it's against the local plan which went to a referendum and it's quite clear there that this type of development, and I've got every sympathy with the applicant as well as the neighbour, unfortunately it's not allowed and it should have been clamped on straight away with all due respect to the planning department by the enforcement team then. I was allowed to drag on. I mean I can't comment on that and I won't obviously in public. But the point being is it's against the local plan and please take that into account. Thank you, Councillor Cooper. Councillor Polly Blakemore? It's a reiteration what the other Councillor Blakemore said really, that it does say in the report at paragraph 7.12, customers cannot visit and no fish are sold on site. But that is in direct contradiction to their website which does advertise open days and viewing appointments. Thank you. I'd just like to ask the officers regarding the point that Councillor Cooper has raised about this not being in the local plan and in fact it's stating that this sort of development would not be allowed. Thank you, Chair. Well, I've got a copy for St Mary in Marsh neighbourhood plan on the screen in front of me. Whilst I understand Councillor Cooper's point, the paragraph in question, I think it's 4.3.4. That is really considering larger scale industrial and business development. So industrial estates, office development rather than sort of piecemeal home business use. In terms of whether the development is contrary to the local plan, well, the report examines the development in light of the policies of the local plan and concludes that it's acceptable. If members are concerned regarding visitors to the site, customers, et cetera, we could consider imposing an additional condition that would restrict when the site was able to accept visitors or indeed whether it was able to at all. I'd need to consider with colleagues how that could be enforced. But I think it's certainly a condition that we could consider applying. And obviously, in terms of enforcement action and the fact that the application is part retrospective, well, members, in terms of the weight you can give that, I would say it's very limited. So what members need to consider is the acceptability of the development, regardless of the fact that it is retrospective in nature. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this? Councillor Cooper. Can I just add this, Chair, if I may, please? If you allow the application, in my view, this is like riding a coach and horses through the planning policies. That basically is giving people in the future a license to beach planning control, then make an application later for retrospective permission. And I think the answer should be, in my view, no. What I would say is, even though it's retrospective, you have to look at it as if it was its first application today and that it doesn't actually exist. I know that sounds rather strange, but you have to look at it as if it has come forward for the application today and you have to decide whether it is acceptable or it is not. We have one proposer to accept the officer's recommendations. Did you want to put a counterproposal in? Yes, Chair, if I may, please. I was putting one forward of refusal. Second, Chair. And I have a seconder, so I will go for the refusal first. Oh, no, I'll go for the proposer. Sorry, Polly Blackmore. Can we just clarify if we're going to add that condition about visitors and open days to the acceptance proposal? Councillor Goddard. Sorry, Councillor Hinesby. Can I just get the officer's advice on that, please? Thank you, Chair. I think you could craft a condition which limited the hours of visiting the sites. There are other, you know, there is ability to do that when and what sort of new employment activity could be. We'd have to craft something and it'll take a bit more time than the sort of the couple of minutes we've had this evening. But if you have to delegate it to it, yes, we probably could craft something. Councillor King. Crafted or not, how would we police that? That would be policed like many conditions, I suspect. If it was being breached, we would hear about it very, very quickly from local residents, as we do for most breaches across the district, and then we would have to enforce. Thank you. So, Councillor Hinesby, would you be happy in your proposal to allow the officers to craft? Absolutely. Thank you. And your seconder? Yes. Thank you. So our first proposal that we are going to vote on is to accept the officer's recommendation with extra conditions to be crafted regarding visitors being able to visit and buy the fish, for want of a better word. So, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against. Any abstentions? Thank you, Chair. That's five in favour, six against, and no abstentions. Thank you. So that proposal has fallen, so I go on to Councillor Cooper's proposal, which is to go against the recommendation. However, I need some solid reasons first why you wish to go against it. Can I suggest HB1 paragraph 6, and can I also quote section 38(g) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act as well, please? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Cooper. Unfortunately, you haven't identified any material planning harm, so I don't need the policies, we can do that bit for you, but I do need to understand the material planning harms, which you think would occur as a result of this development, mindful of everything the officer's report says about noise disturbance, etc., and the ability, I might add, that the government are clear, and planning law says, where you can use conditions to make something acceptable, you should. So I think you need to identify the material planning harm, and then see if your seconder agrees with that point. OK. Can I suggest, then, for example, that we quote that it would be contrary to the local plan for a mixed-use development in respect of what this is, in respect of future use and detrimental harm or amenity to existing or future residents of the area? I think we're saying that it's harmful to residential amenity. Could you please explain why? Right. It would be harmful to future residential amenity because it is not within the neighbourhood plan, point one. Point two is it would be detrimental to future residents of the area as well, as well as being contrary to mixed-use in this area, because it's a residential area, full stop. I think what the officer's trying to get to, Councillor Cooper, is why would it be harmful? Not just the policy. Why would this actually be detrimental to neighbours? It would be detrimental in respect of the use and also future parking and visitors to the area, irrespective of the conditions, because I'm not reassured that any condition regarding limits in parking would be effectively pleased or be able to be enforced. It's simple. Thank you, Chair. My suggestion to members is that, as Mr Lloyd has said, where harm can be successfully mitigated by condition, the government advice is clear that planning permission shouldn't be refused. So I would suggest that if members clearly set out what their concerns are in respect to this development, we can explore whether conditions can be imposed to address those concerns, but we can also look closer at the neighbourhood plan. Because, like I said, I don't think, in my view, based on the text in front of me, the neighbourhood plan doesn't set out that businesses that are run from residential dwellings are unacceptable as a matter of principle. The plan does set out that the main focus for industrial and business development is at Mountfield Road in New Romley, and there's no desire to replicate that form of development at St Mary's Bay. Now, I think it would be very difficult to argue that this application seeks to replicate that form of development at St Mary's Bay. It's a very small-scale business run from a, albeit large, but from a domestic outbuilding. So I think we would struggle to defend that on appeal. So that's my suggestion to members, is whether it might be worth considering deferral of the application, setting out the issues that members want further information on, and sending officers away to explore that and come back to the committee with an updated report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Bailey. Councillor Cooper, would you be happy to defer at this point? I'd be happy for that, because at the end of the day, I feel what we would be doing here is we would be endorsing retail use of premises in the residential area. Thank you. Councillor Keene is the seconder. Would you be happy to defer at this point? Fine. So we have a new proposal, and that's to defer, to have a look at the conditions, have a look at the plan, et cetera, and for the officers to come back and give us some more information and some clarity. All those in favour of deferral, please? Thank you. Those against? Abstentions. Thank you, Chair. That's seven in favour, zero against, and four abstentions. Thank you. So we're going to defer this, and it will come back with further information and clarity. Thank you very much. So thank you very much for that, Councillors. We have one last piece of business, so to speak, which is the appeals monitoring report that we have at the back of your report, which will give us an update on how we're doing, basically, whether we're making good decisions. Would anyone like to talk us through it very briefly? Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Councillors. We've been sending you monthly updates on appeals, month by month, showing you how we're doing in decisions and how the Inspectorate, whether they're agreeing with us or not. This report tries to capture the last year or so and looks back at previous years to see if we're getting better, because we've had an internal drive to try and improve our success rate. In conclusion, we are winning a greater proportion of our appeals, and we're being supported by the Planning Inspectorate, which is good news. I think that's a trend that we hope to continue over the next 12 months or so, and we will keep working with you and applicants to ensure that trend continues. We are within the Government's targets as a Council, so we're not at risk of planning special measures because we're failing to defend enough appeals. The Government require us to win at least one in every ten, and we're doing that comfortably at the moment, so any questions on the report are open to the floor. Thank you. Any questions, Councillors? No, I think it looks very clear to us that we are definitely moving in the right direction. Can I thank everyone, including the Officers this evening and the members of the public that stayed till the end. Have a safe journey home, everybody, and we'll see you next time. Thank you very much. [Applause] [End of session] [End of session]

Transcript