Request support for Folkestone and Hythe
We're not currently able to provide detailed weekly summaries for Folkestone and Hythe Council. We need support from the council to:
- Ensure we can reliably access and process council meeting information
- Cover the costs of processing and summarizing council data
- Maintain and improve the service for residents
You can help make this happen!
Contact your councillors to let them know you want Folkestone and Hythe Council to support Open Council Network. This will help ensure residents can stay informed about council decisions and activities.
If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate to support this service, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday, 21st May, 2024 7.00 pm
May 21, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
The site did not have running water, an electrical supply, or any sewerage, wastewater, disposal route. I believe that this is still the case today. The access route to the site is owned and maintained by Southern Water, but the applicant has never shown any documents relating to its use by the applicant. The applicant has also extended this road by means of a 30-meter track composed of rubble and other building waste. There is no evidence that the applicant is approval from the landowner to install this access to the site. Southern Water and FHDC and Environmental Services have commented on this site not being suitable for occupation. The Planning Policy for Showman's Ground Traveler sites has criteria that requires all of these points to be addressed, and it is a view of the new Romney Channel Council Planning Committee that that criteria has not been met. This application should not be approved until that criteria is satisfied. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have our second speaker, which is Mr. Paul Skinner, the agent, speaking in support of the application. If you could come forward, sir. And you'll have three minutes from when you start speaking. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Councillors. I'm here to support the approval of the application of Y18 Stroke 0156 Stroke SH. This is a retrospective, retrospective change of use of land and stables and paddock to showman's winter's quarters. As a report states, this started with a pre-app in 2016, following the purchase of the land with stables as advertised. The application site has access rights to the site in the deeds. This is shared right with two other parties. The route into it has been suggested that stroke approved by Kent County Council. The local district council have recognised that there is an additional need for this purpose and you do need to demonstrate there is a need for a showman's quarters. Due to being evicted from a previous location, the family had no choice but to relocate. The district council were informed throughout. The site comprises of a former grass field that has had hard cold laid over it over a large part, a necessity with the rain of 2019 and 2020. The two metre closed board fence has erected one metre away from the northern boundary and three to four metres away from the western boundary adjacent to the railway line to provide a straight fence line and natural cover for wildlife. The closed board fence finishes on that of paddock one, the southern boundary is open. There has been evidence of badger activity past that in the fire paddock and there are no plans for further fencing. The Harrisons have a keen interest in wildlife and domestic animals and intend in future to keep horses. I confirm that since 2021, the time of the office of visit, there have been no changes to the hardcore or the fencing. I am the manager Jim Agara, who is the madness manager, who was present at that time. A number of SNCC tests were conducted. The older effects are judged not to be significant from the sewage station. This is in line with complaints, data and metrological data that is available. It is interesting that the southern water do not have an odour map showing where the predominant winds are. Most companies would have that information available. As part of the permission, Traven Sherman's wagon will be recited as the plan and the levels will be increased. Harlequin, hydrochloroquine, a wastewater treatment and an aquifer, a tank for harvesting rainwater will be installed to build in regulations. It is noted that southern water has been contacted several times about sewage connection, no response has been received. Your three minutes from up, sir. Can you finish your sentence? Thank you. The site is outside the settlement boundary and well away from residents. The applicant seeks to place the call home. The Harrison's are well known supporting charities, especially veteran causes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. So we've had two speakers. Over to you, Councillors. Councillor Thomas. Thank you, Chair. As you've heard from John tonight, he's laid the position now that New Romney Town Council has seen for a number of years. I think there's a couple of points we still need to clarify with regard to what's actually in the office's report as well that might be contrary to what we've heard from the agent. In section 3.2 of the report, it says a statement submitted in support of the application states that the applicants have the right to use the concrete access path. Well, this has actually been overlaid recently with Tarmac. It's probably the best road in New Romney at this moment in time, I have to say. And it says with the erection of a close, sorry, and together with the owners, the horsebone's farm in southern water. The applicant was asked to serve notice on the owners of the concrete track, but no evidence has been provided they have done so, and that's in the officer's report. What it doesn't state and what's not clear from the drawings or the photographs you've seen up there is that the concrete road itself, as it was, which services the southern water site, has an additional track, as John's mentioned, of about 30 metres, which crosses land, which the applicant doesn't own to get to the site gates. So again, I think one of the things that both the officer has called out in the report, and something which we've said previously at New Romney's own council, is that we haven't seen any evidence of permission to use that particular road. Just in terms of the site itself, as you've heard from the agent and is written in the report, this has been kicking around for a number of years and first came out in 2018 to New Romney's own council. In that time, we've actually issued a new local plan. The new local plan for folks in the heart came out in November of 2020, and the applicants didn't take the opportunity, hadn't taken the opportunity, of including this site in the local plan at that time, which he had a perfectly reasonable chance to do, had a couple of years to be able to do that. I accept that we have to, in our plan, have facilities for showman's grounds and for travellers' sites, and I think we've all accepted that. The officer's report says currently the accepted travellers' site within the district is actually in Swan Lane in Selinge, and there's adequate room on that site to accommodate additional space. That's what the officer's report says. That's not to say, as the officer says, that we can't consider the site if we believe them to be suitable. I note from what Rob said at the start of the meeting that there was going to be conditions laid over the occupation of this site. This site is occupied all year round and has been for the last seven years, and that's something that local residents have raised with us on more than one occasion. Southern water actually objected to this development. In their note on the 27th of June, 2023, they make it clear that they don't support development on this particular site, and they state the reasons why. And as Rob has already said, the environmental protection people from First and Hard District Council have said that this land should not be used for permanent residents, and that was a view formed on the 18th of May 2023. The Environment Agency asked for a couple of conditions. The first of those were surface water drainage scheme and a wastewater drainage scheme. The site is outside of the settlement boundary, so it isn't part of the New Bromley settlement boundary. If you look at the FHD policy, HB 14, which covers showman's, grounds and the traveler's sites, there are a number of criteria in there which have to be met. The first of those is that the site is in a sustainable location, but as we've heard and it's stated in the report, this site is outside of the settlement boundary. This issue is over whether there is access to this site, approved access to this site. Criteria three states that adequate vehicle access is required, but as already stated, the concrete road has this additional 30 metre piece of ground, which hasn't been made up, and there's nothing in the report that says that that's been approved by the landowner. And finally, and most importantly, criteria one talks about safeguard in health of the occupiers on the site, which includes disposal of refuse and foul water. So one of the things that Southern Water have put in their report, and in fact it's on section 7.23 of the officer's report, is that the precautionary principle associated with wastewater should be adopted for this site. And 8.1 in the report also says that this is for winter quarters only, although it is occupied all year round. So I have some real difficulty with what's been presented as a retrospective case. You would normally expect retrospective to mean that as it is at the moment, as it's going to be in the future, when I visited the site today, there were far more vehicles on that site that is included in the site plan. And I have real concerns, and I know Rob said that there's going to be a condition associated with aligning that with the plan that's been presented, and to do that within six months. But as I say, I have real concerns about that. The other thing on wastewater, and this is my final point now, Chair, if that's okay, is this is a very sensitive area. This is adjacent to the sewage plant. If you look at the diagram, I don't think it's very clear on there. Immediately behind this site is a ditch that runs round and eventually goes into what is the new Romney sewage arm. And you're probably all aware that we have problems with sewage getting into the sea, this causing Little Stone Beach to be declared in those swim zone as it is in St Mary's Bay. So we have to be very, very careful about how we manage facilities around the sensitive areas such as this. So that's my point. I think there's a few things there that would have to be satisfied before I would be prepared to support this. And in fact, I'm actually going to recommend that we defer this application to a future meeting so that we can actually get a handle on what vehicles are actually on site and how that alliance with the plan has been submitted. And I think more importantly, how the wastewater, I know the Harlequin hydrochloric system has been identified and has been the means of achieving satisfactory wastewater from the site. The southern water don't approve that particular unit on this particular site. So again, I would recommend that we go against the officers' recommendations tonight and I would ask this committee to consider deferring this until we can get a satisfactory answer for site layout and for wastewater treatment from this site. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, officers, there were quite a few points raised there. Are there any that you would like to come back on before I ask Councillor Thomas whether he's actually proposing a deferral and ask for a seconder? Well, yes, I wasn't sure whether Councillor Thomas wanted a response on most of them. I think the notable point Councillor Thomas made was the difference between what's been applied for and what's on site and obviously what's on site at the moment is unauthorized. And if planning permission is granted subject to conditions, the applicant would be required to comply with those conditions, one of which, as I said out in my update, would be to lay out the site in accordance with the submitted site layout drawing, which has been going on rotation above members' heads. So I think members should, whilst members are entitled to give weight to the fact that there is unauthorized development on the site, actually what is before members tonight is something different to what is currently on the site. And the key question is whether or not in granting planning permission, the development, the subject of the application can be achieved on site. I'm very confident that it can be. If it isn't, then that becomes a breach of planning condition and is subject to enforcement action in its own right. In terms of the location of the site, at my previous authority, I've dealt with lots and lots of applications and appeals for gypsy and travel the sites, which is different to travelling show people's sites, but the broad thrust of government guidance is the same, which is that gypsy and travelling show people's sites are not unacceptable in the countryside. The government guidance is that they should be strictly controlled, but in excess of 20 years experiences of planning officers, I've yet to see any such site come forward within settlements because of the particular requirements of gypsies and travelers and travelling show people, and government guidance reflects that. So I urge members to exercise a significant degree of caution when considering the merits of the location of the site outside the settlement boundary. In our view, it's well located to the existing settlement, and you've run the others out there yesterday and it's a short walk before you actually reach the settlement. So I have dealt with sites that are one, two miles away from the nearest settlement, which have been considered acceptable by planning inspectors on sustainability grounds. So, like I said, I'd urge members to exercise a degree of caution in that respect. I'm not sure if there's anything else I should come back on immediately members, but I hope that's useful. Councillor Thomas. Yes, so just to just confirm, it would be my proposal that we defer this application, and again, I think Rob's alluded to, it would be useful to have an inspection of the site and just a clarification of what's there against what's in the plan, because again, I think we might need to be fair to the applicant as well in making sure that what is put forward to us at any time in the future is also something which meets their need as a business. So again, I think we need to be fair to the applicant and we need to be mindful of the fact that we do have, there are some issues with the way this has been presented. So my proposal is deferral subject to officers inspection and clarification of the requirements for the removal of wastewater and foul drainage from the site. Thank you. We have one proposal, do I have a seconder? Councillor, can you put your wish to speak? Yes, I'll second that on the basis of what was already said, and it was also a public meeting recently in New Romney, where southern water said among other things, that's the other five-year plan to invest into the area, but we don't know what those details are. I think to be fair, it would be reasonable, not to refuse this, and to defer the information, because what we don't be doing basically is to be fair to be both sides there, to be sure that any plans that come forward, that I'm not going to be compromising the future, works on the treatment sites, etc. So I'm happy to second that proposal. Thank you. Would any other Councillor I like to speak on this? Councillor interjecting. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Well, Selin just mentioned, and I have to say that I sat through the places in policy or policy in places inquiry, and initially, our plan was not sound, because we did not have sites for gypsies or travelling showmen, and that's one of the reasons it had to go back and there was some amendments, and we had to look for a site. So, you know, I think we need to bear that in mind. Secondly, the family in Selin's, and the site actually, is about 200 yards from my house, is amazing. It's a family, one family with four children, travelling showmen, and they have an absolutely, well, I don't know about wonderful, but from the outside, it looks really, really nice. Trees are all growing up around, and I'm sure this site could be made the same, although I understand that it's only for winter residential. You know, it's very difficult when you've got people. I mean, what happens if we then turn it down? It comes back with further information. I mean, from what Mr Bailey said, we've got, and of course, which is correct, is that we have to base our decision on what this planning application says, not what is there, or shouldn't be there, or whatever. So, I'm a bit on the fence here. I can see some of the reasons why perhaps people want some further information, but there are so many conditions on here, and as long as these conditions are adhered to, and as a district council, we check up on these conditions, I'm tempted to go with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Is that a proposal, Councillor? Yes, then. It is a proposal. Thank you. Do you have a seconder? I'm seeing no one second. Would anyone else like to speak on this particular item? Okay, well, we have the first proposal, which was to defer in order for a site visit and for more information to come forward regarding the waste water. On those in favour, can you please show your hands? Those against? Any abstentions? I believe that's carried. So, we're going to defer that to gather some extra information and sign it, most certainly. Thank you, Chair. Just for clarification members, I understand it's been deferred for a further site visit by officers to establish how the site is going to be amended, whether the site is capable, and how it's going to be amended to reflect the development, shown on the approved plans, and also to seek further information regarding the disposal of foul sewage, particularly having regard to the comments of southern water, is that correct? Councillor, as long as you've brought the deferment, is that your understanding of why we're deferring? That is my understanding, those two items, I think, would deal with it, as I say, to be fair to all sites. Thank you. Thank you. So, that item is deferred, and we will move forward on to our next application, which is application 230003 stroke FH, which is Port Flour, Coom Wood Lane in Hawkins. Do we have any updates, please? Thank you, Chair, good evening members. One small update, I've just spotted, as we sat here at Paragraph 2.1, it says the application site is partially within the divine system of boundary. It is not partially within, it's fully within. Thank you very much, and we have one speaker on this, Mr. Roger Joyce, who is the agent to speak in support of the application. Good evening, and your time of three minutes will start when you start speaking. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, thank you, Councillors, for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the application on behalf of my clients, the ASH family. Mr. and Mrs. Ash Sr. and their daughters' family, the Lejeans, and their two children, some of whom are here tonight. One of the grandchildren is, as well, anxious to hear the outcome of this application, but is, by the way, recommended for approval in the way I shouldn't be here. Family first consulted me about three years ago, having realised the potential their site offered, having seen what was on the other side of the lane, which is three houses in a row, either built or with planning consent. And I hope you'll see that plan in the Office's presentation. Portflare has been in the family home for over 20 years, and it's to be put into trust for the grandchildren, because it's now too difficult to maintain by Mr. Mrs. Ash Sr. where they have extended this house over the years as the children grew and all the rest of it, and it's now very large and, say, unsustainable. And you'll serve as collateral to raise the necessary funding to build the new dwellings. When they first came to see me, by the way, the grandchildren were only 10 and 6 years old. We received positive pre-application advice very early on, and after refining the designs to suit the two family's needs, we submitted this application one year and five months ago. The boys are now 13 and 9 when everyone's here. The Office's very full and detailed report, nothing less due to expect from Rob. It describes all the hopes we've jumped through, including paying for a licence to register the site for greater-crested nudes, as part of the process of getting to where we are today. But it importantly notes no objection from all but one of the statutory consultees. Which is why we're here tonight. This is a story, really, of a close family who aspire to live side by side in the interest of spending quality time together. The boys are frequent visitors to their grandparents, both of whom suffer medical conditions. And Mr. Mrs. Ash's daughter, Mrs. Legerne, is anxious to be on hand should her parents need help. It's a classic model of multi-generational living. We've also discussed sustainable living building techniques, off-site construction, highly insulated building efficient eco-homes built for the future. This is a family wanting to self-build. They're not developers. We hope you'll be inclined to support the officers' recommendation to approve and let them get on with their plans before the boys are too old to take advantage of it. Thanks for listening. Thank you, sir. Over to you, Councillors, Councillor Goddard. Thank you, Chairman. Good evening. Yes, I totally agree with Mr. Joyce. This report by Mr. Allen, excellent covers, all the hoops, loops and everything else. Everybody's jumped through. No issues until everything's ticked off. I recommend going to the officers' recommendation. Thank you, Councillor Goddard. I've already had a seconder here from Councillor Kean. Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Councillor Batemore? Yes, just to say supportive as well, I think it's very good to make use of such a large garden space for additional housing. I just have one question which one of the objections from the town council was about the narrowness of the access lane. And it does appear very narrow, and just whether there's any comment from officers on that. But on the face of it, it looks like a very good application. Apologies, my memory is not what it was, so I'd like to write things down. Yes, it's already used as an access to serve property to the rear, and having looked at it, we consider it would be acceptable for the two additional properties. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this? Councillor Hansby? Yes, thank you. I'm too supportive of the application. I was just looking at it, looking at the fact that in some ways we used to call it back garden or background development. I looked up the policy and I realised that these days, that's not an issue. But I was also concerned about the access, but from what I've read and from what I've heard, that's fine. But the other point I'd just like to make, and I'd like perhaps Mr Bailey's comments on it, is that the reference to family issues is not a material planning consideration. I just wanted that confirmed because we do have a number of applications that talk about family, and we're usually told that. But in certain circumstances, I think that may not be the case, but I'd be keen to have your view on it, please. Certainly. I mean, in general terms, I would say no, it's not a material planning consideration. The implication of this being for multi-generational living for the same family, if members were based in their decision on that, they would then have to impose a condition specifying who can occupy the buildings, which wouldn't meet the test set out by government for planning conditions. So I would say to members, you're not entitled to give that weight in the decision-making process. But regardless, as set out on the report, officers consider this development wholly acceptable, regardless. Thank you. Thank you. Councillors, Thomas? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think it's an excellent application, excellent report. The one thing that I would ask, which is, again, when the poor Halkins Town Council's concerns, is regarding delivery management of materials. It's the officer satisfied that the arrangements that would be in place to gain access to the site for materials during construction. It is adequate. I know we talked about vehicular access being adequate, but are we OK? We'd be able to get everything down that lane to be able to build it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. In terms of the access, I mean, it would be, I mean, it would be, obviously, if there's a vehicle that couldn't get down there, it wouldn't be able to get down there. Obviously, in terms of construction, if members were minded, we could request a construction management plan as a condition. It wasn't felt necessary at this point because it is quite a large site, and it's highly unlikely that any sort of materials and vehicles would be left on the lane, but considering they own the whole site, there's a large front garden area as well that I'm sure could be utilized for the duration of the works, that that potentially could be an option if members felt it suitable. I'm seeing a shake of head, and also I believe that if a large lorry came up that couldn't get down the lane, they probably used some smaller lorries and offload it and then just take it down, sorry, just being rather practical on these things. Would anyone else like to speak on this one? No, in that case, we have one proposal, and that is to accept the officer's recommendation for this to be granted, subject to the conditions. All those in favour, please raise your hands, and I can see that unanimous. That has passed. Thank you. So we move on to our next application, which is 270108FH, which is the rear of 120 Sandgate Road in Folkestone. Do we have any updates, please? Thank you, Chair. Yes, there is one. Members may have had this emailed round to them already, actually a revised application pack, because the description that's on the report is incorrect. It should actually read proposed new residential block of flats, providing two one-bedroom flats and two two-bedroom flats. So the application has been advertised correctly, and all notifications made with the correct description is just purely when I was putting the report together. Thank you. Thank you very much, and we have one person to speak on this, Mr Christian Lawrence, if you'd like to come forward, who is the agent to speak in support of the application, so you have three minutes from when you start. Good evening, members of the Planning Committee. I'm Christian Lawrence, the architect and the agent for the application. This site forms the only undeveloped rear yard to the shops and commercial units that form the terrace, this section of terrace on Sandgate Road. This application is also resubition. The original scheme was a larger one with five flats and covered a greater area and plan in section and a greater mass. So we reduced this application to four flats with two one beds, as I mentioned earlier, and two two beds. Each of these flats is accessed off of a central courtyard that subdivides the original shop at the front of the site to the new block of flats at the rear. It gives us about seven and a half to seven and a half meters subdivision between the two and enables natural light to get into the existing flats above the shop and plenty of light into the new flats within the new block. We've looked to reduce the mass and form of the building by separating the materials as they rise up through the building. So we've got a brick plinth on the ground floor, render to the first and second floor, and then we've recessed the top floor, and this is clad in timber cladding, again, to reduce the mass and vision impact of the building. Each of the flats is fully compliant with the space standards and enjoys its own private amenity space with terraces and balconies. We've developed the scheme in close consultation with the planning department, and prior to this formal submission, we submitted a pre-app where we agreed the broad principles of the scheme, which we've developed in further detail. We're conscious that the application was called in by the town council and the focus and society due to their concerns about parking and mass and bulk. Our meal parking strategy is fully compliant with the council's own strategies. It's a town centre location, so great links to shops, the bus station, and local amenities, or within a short walk. We also included a detailed daylight and sunlight analysis report within the planning application. This demonstrated that there's no sort of detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or the host building that sits in front of it. To conclude that the project provides four affordable, high quality flats in a town centre location. There's a shortfall of rental units in the town at the moment, which has led to high rents. The plans and reports demonstrate that the project is in a sustainable location, which provides much needed accommodation, again, that's fully compliant with the council's own policies. The planning department supports the application, has recommended for approval, and we urge you as a planning committee to support the planning team. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Councillors, over to you. Would anyone like to raise any issues, ask any questions? Councillor Goddard. Thank you, Chair. Again, it sounds like it ticks all the boxes. Can't see too many arguments. It obviously doesn't look very nice there, but it looks nice in the plans. But like the architect says, it is a town centre development, so parking, I don't seem to mind that there isn't any. So, yeah, it ticks all the boxes and can't really put it apart for rental places, which is needed in the fine town, the host, and so move the recommendation. Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Councillor on this thing, would you like to speak? No. Thank you. Thank you. I've got to speak one. Councillor— Councillor King? Yes, Councillor— My biggest concern is there is no parking, and there is no buses, and the town centre isn't a good place to shop for families. There's no, well, I think you've got Sainsbury's there. So, my concern is people who live in these places, they're not going to have parking, but they are going to need cars, if they go to work. So, where are those cars going to go? You can't live in the town centre anymore and rely on public transport, because there is no public transport as such. And I know a lot of people commute up and down to London, but I can't see that we can say a new development can have no parking. It's got to be important considering we've got no transport links in the town to get out to other shops. And the shopping centre in folks, and unless people haven't been there recently, it's very poor. So, my concern is people who live in these places are going to need cars, or at least one or two cars, and we're saying it doesn't need parking. That's odd to my way of thinking. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this? Councillor probably vote more than Councillors. Thank you, Chair. I just had a question about fire safety. So, given the urban density that will result in the development, and I understand that the fire escape from the back of the original building is going to be removed, is the single escape route onto Sandgate Road? Is that sufficient? And what criteria are used to reach that conclusion? Councillor interjecting. Thank you. That issue was obviously raised as within some of the representations, and it's a fair one. I reverted to the architect who, in view of the building regulations, said that it would be possible to achieve a fire escape out the front of the property as it currently stands to meet the regulations. Obviously, if they couldn't do that, then they wouldn't, they would be in breach of building regulations, which obviously sit outside of the planning forum. But they would then, obviously, they would run the risk then if they couldn't do that, of having the flats condemned at the front. So, it would, you know, buildings are designed, obviously, by a group of architects to be able to meet the building regulations. So, it's a consideration outside of the planning forum, but yes, it has been discussed and accepted. Thank you, Councillor Thomas. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Well, if you look at page three for the gross internal area, it may have certainly sharpened the pencils with regard to meeting the policy requirements, I think it's fair to say. It meets them, but that's all it does do. The concern I've got is on page five in the second paragraph in relation to daylight and sunlight assessment in that only eight of the ten rooms meet the guideline values. Just in terms of other applications for similar developments in the recent past, has that been acceptable to accept that the two of the rooms wouldn't meet those guideline values, and just don't be officers responsible, that's all. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, not all applications require a daylight sunlight application, and we sort of put it to the applicant that it would be very good exercise to carry out here. The guidelines are that they're not, they're not sort of a binary rule in terms of saying yes, or no, you know, it says no, you fail it, that's it. It's an assessment of the situation when it comes to, I think there's a factor of previous light levels and also how the property as a whole would shape up. So, although, for example, you may have a house with four rooms, maybe one has a poorer quality of daylight and/or sunlight. If the rest are exceedance or meet it, then it is overall an assessment that is made that on balance, it's going to be an acceptable unit of accommodation. I appreciate, yes, it's very sort of fair of or astute observation that, you know, this is, you know, the way you did sharpened the pencils and sort of met the light over the line on sort of three of the units, certainly one of them goes over. But in officer's view, given the information that was provided with the application and from looking at this and previous experience, we think this would be acceptable. Thank you. Will any other Councillor like to speak on this? I think what I'd like to say is, obviously, from the previous application, we've actually gone down a flat, which has obviously enabled the sizes to, even though they've been with the sharpened pencil, actually meet all the criteria. I do understand totally about parking, however, our policy is a maximum up to a maximum, it's not a minimum, and therefore we can allow units within the Teal Centre to not have parking, but it does have cycle stores, I believe. Thank you. So that's my little bit on this one. So we have one proposal, and that's to accept our officer's proposal to grant permission, subject to the conditions on this. Can everyone who is in favour please raise their hands. Those against? And no abstentions. I can see from the numbers that has passed. That has passed. Thank you. So we move on to the next application, which is 23-1384-FH, which is 18 Seaworld in Church in Womney Marsh. Do we have any updates, please? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. One correction in the report. It should say there have been eight objections, rather than the six stated. Thank you, that's all. Lovely, we have two speakers on this one. Our first speaker is Amanda Robins, who's a local resident. Speak on the application. Would you like to come forward, please? Good evening, and you have three minutes from when you start. Sorry, wrong glasses. Good evening, members of the committee, Madam Chairman. I am speaking as a trustee of the Oval and a long time owner. This is certainly not a nimby objection, as we're quite happy to have a property built there, but feel it is most probably at the moment too big. To begin with, the Oval was nearly all holiday debts, but it is now 99% residential. A small property, a small building on this site may be possible, but this is a large holiday debt with four bedrooms, and will result most probably in four cars being parked there. And at the moment, there's only room for two off-roads. And no parking is allowed in the roads, so where are these other cars going to go? The Oval is a quiet residential area, and the destruction and extra traffic, both in the building and afterwards, if let continually, will cause a great deal of disturbance and damage to the road, which is kept up by the residents, so will cost us more money. The objections by Mr. Mises Rich and the others in October 23, and also sum up the problems that will be faced. The objections by the parish council ought to also point out the problems. There's a report from the Heritage Department, so I'm not sure I can add any other points, except to say the objections have all been seen by you, and we wait for your approval or not. Thank you. Thank you very much. And our second speaker is Mr. Adam Hawker, who's the applicant to speak on the support of the application. Good evening, sir, and you have three minutes from when you start. Thank you. Good evening. I apologise my architect was unable to come this evening, so I've been dropped in at the very last minute. I think he only really wanted to get across was we had planning for a larger property on this site approved six years ago. I decided that that was too large, and it was not in a great spot within the property, although it is a very big garden. And after a rethink, we decided we'd put a smaller property on the footprint of what is a three-birth garage, so there is plenty of parking. We've set back a little bit from the footprint, and we've made the house. We're trying to keep it in keeping with the other houses on the oval. It's got good access, and as I say, it's got good parking. If you look at the photos that the whole front area would be parking, not without an issue at the moment. But I think that's the only point he wanted to get across really. Thank you. Thank you very much. Over to your Councillors, would anyone like to speak on this? Councillor Cooper? Could I ask you a couple of questions, please, as the officer. In the report itself, it says this has been subject to an inspector's appeal. Now, that was way back in 2017, I believe. And I thought, paragraph three of that quite clearly states that the appeal was subject to, or the approval was subject to work being commensurate in three years. Now, I don't believe any work has been commensurate in that three-year period. Would that have any bearing on the matter? So you're correct. I mean, the three-year period would have expired, so that's the reason for the new application. They would need to go through the process again. But the inspector's decision is still a material consideration because something comparable has been considered before. I may ask you a question in relation to the flooding. What is the current size of the footprint of the garage that's going to be demolished? And what will be the current size of the proposed new building? I don't have the floor spaces, but I think we can see that the new property will be larger than the garage in terms of... Okay, and can I ask that in relation to, I mean, for example, in the last couple months, we had 26 inches of rain. What provisions in place to prevent any water from enough? So do you join in properties? Is there anything there that we know of? [silence] In terms, I mean, this has obviously been to the, as it said in the report, into the environmental agency who have not raised any objections. So in terms of the flood risk assessment, there were some mitigation measures that outlined, mainly involving the finished floor levels and sleeping accommodation on the first floor. Look at... We've also got a condition requiring further information with regards to surface water drainage on condition 11 as well. And further information will come in on that. Thank you, Mr Campbell. Can I also ask, then, in that respect, then, the size of the building, I mean, it's a large building, as you can see there. It's obviously bigger than the footprints of the existing garage. Now, I, although this might not be large, what would the size of the basement be before this was actually deemed to be flood safe? Because I'm thinking of enabling property just on the road, which is so well prepared and it's unbelievable. And I understand there's a bit of concern there, given the size of the building, in respect of what that would look like, in respect of the visual and the city area. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? I don't think I quite got it. Yeah, of course I'm right. The points I'm making basically use this. Given the size of the, or the footprints of the proposed new building, what would that look like in respect of the street scene? I mean, okay, I can see we've got the diagrams on the screen. But I'm thinking about, say, development that we've got down to the Elden Dim church there, which is so overbearing, because we've been done in the garden, it's unbelievable. And that's cause flooding everywhere else. So I'm just wondering, would this building actually fit in with the existing street scene? So we believe so. I think it's worth pointing out that the appeal scheme, which you can see the front elevation on there, was when we lost the appeal was larger. So in terms of size of this one, we don't feel that we'd be able to defend it and appeal if we were to review that again. So in terms of visual appearance, that's been assessed in the report and found to be, we believe it's acceptable. If this was to go too late this evening, could there be any conditions being put on the sides and just peppered the trees, and maybe a tree preservation or et cetera, because there's obviously concern that there's any building here. Any screening from the existing shrubbery or trees, et cetera, would be removed and that would obviously distract from the area. Yeah, but just draw your attention to condition 15, which is about protecting damage to existing trees. So that's the one that's the one we're proposing to protect trees. So it's that deficient in your opinion in any way. So we've asked the trees to be preserved to be marked on site and protected. Also, no fires, root protection areas, and no roots over a certain diameter being cut. That's our condition to protect the trees on site. Welcome your views on it. I mean, okay, I mean, it's already in there. I mean, it should be strengthened in my view because once it's gone, it's gone. And it's never going to come back, obviously. And given the special character of this area, I'm a little bit concerned that if this was to go through, what would happen is that this whole area would be ruined. And I've got my doubts and I've got my reservations on that to be frank, to be frank. I mean, when you say it should be strengthened, do you have anything in mind as to? Well, what I'm thinking about basically is this. I mean, you can have as many conditions as you want in respect of any proposed ground with it, et cetera. And it's referenced there to where trees may be being severed, et cetera. I mean, that needs to be strengthened. I mean, is there going to be an attachment to that or the condition to touch to that in respect of, for example, any potential construction? And what are we going to be doing about the size of the road? Because the road is sewn out of everything else that this is going to distract from people using it. And obviously, in respect of that, if there's any heavy plans on materials, given that the road does not actually maintain the public expense of the climate road, that's going to have a disproportionate effect on the neighbors. So in terms of the road, obviously, this has been to appeal before and has been deemed acceptable for that. And I said, in terms of the conditions, we've got the one to do a tree protection. We've also got a construction management plan, which talks about the parking of vehicles loading and unloading, as you mentioned. That's under condition 13. So in our opinion, between the two conditions together, we felt that that would hopefully protect the trees on site. And also, we get some additional info for the construction in the management plan as well. My eye suggests it's great that we've put the tree protection in. Would it be possible to put in a condition that should any of the trees be damaged during the construction phase, that they be replaced, like for like, and any trees that die within the first five years are replaced? Because that is a condition that we use at KCC. Yes, we could go with the landscaping one. So we could do existing and proposed planting and then anything. So it would be the three standard landscaping conditions. Yeah. Okay. That's looking. And that's a private legal matter on the phrase non-material planning. But I think it should be that if everyone's got a pay that that should be part of the agreement, maybe that wouldn't be such a big appeal for people now. Well, like I said, it's not a material planning consideration. They're for some form part of members deliberation on the application. Councillors, Thomas. Thank you, Chair. The first is an observation, just in terms of condition six. I don't think I've ever seen a condition associated with a flood warning and an evacuation plan before. I think that's simply pretty unique, actually. But what a good idea is in this area is, Councillor Kupa's already alluded to the fact that it is something that we might need to see a little bit more regularly in the future. So, yeah, I think it's a great condition. Thank you. I think secondly, if I may. But the one thing that I looked at here is, this is a holiday let. And in a recent planning application that came through New Romney, 230925, it did have a condition associated with it, which stated that the holiday accommodation here by permitted should only be used for bona fide holiday purposes and should not be used by any person or group of people for more than 28 days of the year. I just wonder whether that would be a valid condition to be placed on this holiday let, and whether that's something that, again, we would see more of as holiday let's come through the planning committee. That's all. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so just to pick up on your two points, in terms of the flooding, the evacuation plan, that is often in a flood risk assessment, so it's not always go through into a condition. But it's, yeah, I'll tell you point one, maybe that we should note again. And in terms of the holiday let condition, it should be noted that we can impose them where a dwelling would be unacceptable. So, in the built up area where a dwelling would be acceptable, we don't always. Now, with this application, the inspector didn't impose it when he made the previous decision. So, we've made a conscious decision to follow that same pattern. So, we haven't put one on here. That was fine. Thank you. If it's this, members, as Mr Campbell said, we don't impose a holiday let condition and occupancy condition where I'm restricted residential use of a building would be unacceptable. So, that could be, if it was out in the middle of the countryside, in the middle of nowhere, could be if it had a tiny garden, could be if the floor space was markedly below the accepted normal standards. It could be if it was overlooked significantly by the host property on the site. This is a curious application to my mind. It's within the settlement. And the construction of the dwelling on this site would be acceptable in principle as a matter of planning policy. So, the fact that it's described as a holiday let is surprising to me. Now, granting planning permission for a house doesn't preclude its use as a holiday. The same as any other house pretty much in the country. They can be rented out as Airbnb's. So, the fact that this condition isn't imposed doesn't mean it couldn't be used as a holiday. But what it does mean is that there is no justification in planning terms for imposing that condition here. Do any other Councillors like to speak? Councillors interjecting. Thank you, Chair. Well, I've listened to the debate and listened to the responses. We do actually have— Councillor Thomas, I've seen a lot of applications where an escape plan has been in place. So, I don't think it's as unique as perhaps you might think. I'd like to move the application. Thank you. Councillor Hoosby is proposing. Do I have a second to please? Councillor might like more seconding. If no one else wishes to speak on this, we have one. Sorry, they're asking about the landscaping conditions that I asked for earlier. That was regarding if any of the trees that are currently there are damaged during construction, they are replaced like for like. And with the new landscaping, any trees that die within five years are replaced like for like, and that includes the age of the trees. Does that help? Wonderful. So, we have one proposal with the additional condition. Can I see all those in favour, please? Those against? Any abstentions? That has passed. Thank you. And we move on to the next one, which is Planning Application 23-1591-FH, and that is Land West of Ashford Road, New Romney. Do we have any updates, please? Yes, we do, Chairman. Good evening, members. We have an additional representation received concerning raising concerns about pedestrian access to the town, parking and surface water drainage. Kent Highways still have concerns about the access to the five self-build plots, which is the outline part of the proposal. So, in order to overcome the concerns, I propose an additional section 106 obligation requiring the location of the five self-build plots to be identified. And an additional condition stating that no development shall start in the vicinity of the self-build plots until the reserve matters approval for the access and boundaries to the self-build plots have been approved by the LPA. The final details of this to be agreed with and delegated to the Chief Planner. I'd also like to clarify that the proposed affordable housing mix is 19 two-bed apartments, two three-bed houses and one four-bed house. This is 22%, which is policy compliant, and the approach has been agreed by the Council as a housing manager. I'd also just like to clarify that the house type on plot 58 has been changed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. And we have several speakers on this one. Our first speaker is Mr. Richard Crooks, who's a local resident to speak against the application. Could you come forward, sir? I don't think you'll ever go on your assistance. I'll take it for a moment. Okay, I'll speak louder. Well, you have three minutes from when you start, sir. Good evening. Okay, I've lived in New Romney for the last 20 years. My wife has actually brought up in New Romney, and so she returned to live there with me after 40 years. Our property borders the development as our back garden shares a boundary with the well-established natural pond and a corner plot of the development as plots 40 to 47. My first concern relates to flooding and contamination risks. I've taken photos over several wet seasons, showing flooding over two feet of water, extending from my back garden into the corner of the field, where two story flats will back on to. So what will be the impact of runoff from the hard surfaces, especially regarding contaminating this historic pond? Secondly, and my main objection, out of character, three story flats still remain in the proposal. Well, why indeed? When the neighboring Pendleton development across the Ashford Road fits well with existing housing, and this development is of two story dwelling. Thirdly, and from major concerns of many residents, impact on our infrastructure. Already stretched in so many respects, even before numerous housing developments in New Romney come on stream. Namely, additional traffic on poor roads and lanes, leading to much frustration and higher risk of serious accident. My lane, being spittle for your lane, is a classic example. Next, sewage system. Barely coping with demand from new housing and excess rainfall being experienced more and more. By the way, somewhat ironically, the only improved road surface I know of, and mentioned by Councillor Paul Thomas earlier, is the fairly recently tarmac track leading from station road to the sewage works. Why? It's because tankers are needed more and more. Next, our medical facilities, stretched to the limit with new health centre, but really needed. And finally, schools. Can the current schools' facilities handle the likely increase of pupils on the Romney mark? Surely, is it not time to address these important matters before any further developments? And developers must contribute meaningfully. I mean, not just a few plants in wooden tubbets. Thank you very much for the opportunity to raise my concerns and concerns of my fellow residents. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. And our next speaker is Councillor John Rivers on behalf of New Romney Town Council to speak against the application. If you could come forward, sir. Good evening. And you have three minutes from when you start. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you very much. New Romney Town Council Planning Committee felt it was over development and didn't meet FDHC suggested housing weeks as per the comments on 7th of March 2024. New Romney Town Council Planning Committee has a number of concerns about this application, and these have been reflected in the resident comments we have received. The site is in the local planners policy RM4, and it says it is suitable for 60 dwellings. The currently approved planning application for this site is for 87 homes, and the Council did work with the original developer, Gladman Associates, on the application, and our concerns were addressed. The current application, Y-stroke 20, stroke 2060, stroke FH, was only approved in March 23. I was not called in to the Planning Committee. This application is for 91 dwellings and five self-build, the RM4 policy only states three self-build, so 96 dwellings in total. The major change is the inclusion of a three-storey block of flats, which in our opinion is not in keeping with the street seat, is not consistent with other buildings in New Romney, as in over intensification of the site. We also have to bear in mind that these additional dwellings were put Australian on the existing wastewater and surface drainage systems, which failed in this area during the heavy rainstorms in November 23, resulting in flooding of properties. The Romney Town Council Planning Committee proposed that this application is refused on the grounds already stated, and that Pentland commit to build the dwellings in the already approved planning application. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. And our next speaker is Lucy Wilford, who's the agent to speak in support of the application. Good evening, and your three-minute starts when you start. Thank you. Good evening, members, and thank you. As members are aware, the site is allocated for residential development in the adopted local plan and benefits from Outline Planning Commission for 87 new homes. The principle of residential development is therefore established, and these proposals seeking 96 new homes are within the development parameters approved as part of the outline. This application seeks to make the most efficient use of this greenfield and sustainable site in New Romney, which the adopted crawl strategy identifies as a main town and prominent centre for the New Romney area. The uplift in the number of homes makes the most efficient use of this site in accordance with the MPPF, reducing pressure on the need to release other greenfield sites for development to meet identified housing needs. Overall, the proposal provides for a mix of accommodation to meet a range of needs and response to the local context. Following the submission of the application, the number of homes has been reduced from 99 to 96, and includes policy compliant levels of affordable housing and five self-built properties. The density of the development remains low, with a gross density of just 28 dwellings per hectare and provides an 0.91 hectares of open space in excessive policy requirements. The proposals respond sensitively to site locations both in respect to both layout and appearance, and have been subject to design evolution, finding feedback from your officers. In particular, the proposed apartments have been re-elevated, with building heights reduced to two stories at the site boundaries. There are three story apartments at the centre of the site, and these continue to fall within the parameters established under the Outline Planning Commission. Changes also incorporate additional new tree planting within areas of open space, and particularly within the streets. Based on the changes, your officers agree that the amount of development is acceptable in character and design, and would not harm the landscape character or the visual amenity of the local area, contributing to creating a strong sense of place. All homes satisfy building regulations, provide EV charging, and incorporate renewable energy technologies. All homes are in DSS compliant and provide private amenity space. KCCology has confirmed it is satisfied from a quality perspective, as has KCC drainage in the EA in respect to drainage. Parking levels are compliant with KCC and the Council's standards, and KCC confirmed that the proposals can be accommodated in the highway network. Under CIL, the development contributes 450,000 towards infrastructure provision, and a 533,000 towards Under Section 106, principally for education, which was not secured under the Outline Commission originally. There's also contributions to the NHS. Flowing discussions with your officers, the proposals secure the delivery of a highly quality development, which makes the most efficient use of this allocated and sustainable site. Thank you. Thank you. Spot on for time. Well done. Thank you very much. And our last speaker is Councillor David Wimble, if you'd like to come forward. Good evening, and you have three minutes from when you start, sir. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, Councillors. I'm here today to passionately articulate why this development must be reconsidered and ultimately rejected. This is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a critical issue that affects the whole fabric of our community. Firstly, this development falls within my ward. Over the past few months, I've had 12 constituents approach me during my monthly surgeries, which each express in deep concerns about this greenfield development. Actually, having said that, they've already started digging it up, so the greenfields have gone. Their voices echo a border sentiment in our town. To be clear, I had no grudge against pendant homes. In fact, I actively supported their phase one development at the brownfield site of the Monmouth Potato Company. However, phases two and three have ventured into greenfield sites, a move that's causing considerable distress and concern. Phase two was particularly contentious, being built on top of what was designated as Saxon Fort. At the time, the archaeological reports seem to be disregarded. The current phase is being built on what is well known to have been a historical monument of an ancient priory. What concerns me about what we're debating tonight is that there has already been major earthworks, despite the Council not having given any formal decisions. This is a blazing case of putting the carp for the horse. This site, unlike phases two and three, lies outside the town boundary of New Romney, and actually, I believe, is in hope, not in New Romney. And that's outside the designated development zone. We face a similar issue with the proposal for ten holiday chalets on nearby land, and it's clear that we was told that no such development should happen again and set a precedent. Let me address the notion of nimbism. This is not merely that people object into the development in their backyard. The concerns here are substantial and rooted in factual evidence. The town council was informed in 2009 that New Romney's sewage plant was operating 20% over its design capacity. Since then, we've had over 1,500 new homes being built in and around New Romney, yet there's been no visible impact from any of the Section 106 funds. Our doctors are still having long waiting lists for appointments. You're struggling to get an NHS dental appointment, registration, NHS dental registration, and school classroom sizes capacity. Pendant homes themselves are committed to installing a payment along well-flaying, but nearly a decade later, this has not been fulfilled. Consequently, pedestrians are at risk with speeding cars and was become a dangerous rate-strack. We've also had sinkholes in well-flaying that took 14 months to rectify since they started building. The main thing for me is the flood risk. I'm jumping forward because I see we've only got 30 seconds. Wallingham sewer is where the water is supposed to drain into, and yet for the running water site next door, we've also told that any further development into sewer would increase the chance of flooding and the key reason for wanting to reject it. Thank you Mr. Last sentence. I implore the Council to reject this application. The views of our ratepayers who elected us to represent their interests must be listened to until we have necessary infrastructure in place. New Romney cannot sustain more large developments. Let's restore this to a Greenfield site. Thank you. Councillors, Councillor Thomas. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to echo the concerns raised by Richard John and David this evening. It has been said the R&4, the policy R&4, for this particular site originally said 60 homes, and we're now 50% greater than that. I was pleased that we actually had confirmed tonight's the affordable housing scheme. Again, when you have a look at it, the three-story flats that have been built as part of this particular planning application, most of those are going to go towards affordable housing. Again, it's doing it on the cheap, in my opinion. Pentland tried to get this through as a non-material amendment, which was refused, which I was really pleased about. If you have a look at the consultations that have been had and the objections have been raised, pretty much all of those objections follow along from what we've heard from John and Richard and David this evening. The design and access statement says that there are other three-story flat-ed developments in the area. Well, there is only one, and that's a residential care facility spring would cause. At the end of church road and station road, that particular development replaced an existing three-story building that was there as a shop, actually. So again, I think to claim that there are other three-story developments in the area is stretching the point slightly. Just in relation to flooding, that's been identified tonight in terms of the impact that was felt by residents further along Ashford Road, following the once-in-30-year rain event that we had last November. And I can tell you from personal experience, we were distributing sandbags to houses along that particular on Ashford Road to prevent their properties from flooding. So I have real concerns that the way that the development has increased and where these particular flats are proposed to go is not going to help that situation. And there's already been stated, and as we said earlier on in a previous application, that the whole issue about managing wastewater in New Romney is at a critical stage. You know, we are and have been suffering multiple storm overflows where raw sewage is discharged to the sea. And that happens on a very regular basis, particularly in the winter. So anything which pushes that over and above what we currently have cannot be acceptable. So again, I'd like to make the recommendation that this application is refused on the basis that the three-story flats that are included within this particular design are not within the street scene and don't line up with the arrangement, self-swear in New Romney. And my second concern is around management of wastewater from the sites and the impact that's likely to have bearing in mind. There is actually a sewage pumping station. As part of this development, you'll see it around the red line. And that pumping station actually failed in November last year, along with a number of others in New Romney. So the infrastructure is pushed to the limit, and it's failed at critical times, which is not an acceptable situation. So my proposal chair is this application is refused, for those reasons. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thomas. Councillor Cooper. I'm more than happy to second that, not a problem as well. Thank you, Councillor Cooper. Councillor Goddard. Yes, in fact, I was going to support my colleague from New Romney and second his proposal. They seem to have, like it's been said by older speakers, phone these three-story buildings, as I don't just phone them in the middle. And lots, I agree with those in the comments from New Romney, town council and the three speakers. I'd say Pentland and have hammered New Romney in various cases, but won't go into that. It's not relevant tonight, but we'll support my colleagues from New Romney. Thank you. Would any other Councillors like to speak? Councillor Hoynes be? Yes, thank you, Chairman. Can I just ask? So if this application is refused, the developers still have planning permission for 87 houses. Is that correct? They could, yes, Councillor Hoynes be, they still have, well, they have outline permission for 87 houses. And if I can just talk about the two grounds of refusal, this is an allocated site, and it has outline planning permission for 87 dwellings. The outline planning permission did have some parameter plans, which showed that central core part of the development is being three stories. So that is what they're proposing, is in accordance with the parameters of the outline planning permission. And in terms of the second ground, the wastewater treatment, we would have to have that based on a technical objection. And the application has been assessed in terms of its flood risk assessment, and it's been assessed by the Environment Agency, KCC as local lead flood authority, and southern water, all of whom have no objection. So it would be very difficult to sustain an objection on that refusal on those grounds, that there is an impact on flooding or in terms of wastewater. Thank you, Councillor for that. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions. One of the requirements of the MPPF is around sort of mixed and balanced communities, isn't it? I know Councillor Thomas mentioning that effectively the centre of the development is going to be where all of the affordable housing goes. Does that fit with that requirement for mixed and balanced developments? The idea being that developments are going to be egalitarian, as it were, and everyone's going to live everywhere with each other. And then the second question, just around, and forgive me, I'm not an expert on S106, but I've seen previous ones where things like library provision have been mentioned, and I think even potentially local democracy type provisions around pressure. Why weren't those included in this case? Is that just because they can be delivered under sale or is it because they're not important? Thank you. Firstly, in terms of the affordable housing, there are affordable housing in the blocks in the centre, but that's not the only place that there is affordable housing. It is spread out on parts of the site. And in terms of library provision, what we've agreed is that education, so secondary primary and send can be sought through Section 106, but that the other requirements that KCC used to ask for will seek contributions for are paid through sale. Thank you. Councilor Mike Blakemore. In the interest of us not going on to midnight, I won't repeat everything that other Councillors have said, but I do agree to echo what Councillor Thomas said and other speakers this evening raises a lot of concerns. This development, I think we hear a lot about efficient use of a site, but I don't think it's an efficient use of a site if it is increasing the risk of surface flooding and it's increasing the strain on infrastructure. That's not the definition of efficient in my mind. I have one question, but in 7.97, it states that the site falls within the triple S.I. impact risk zones for Dungeness, Romney, Martian, Rye Bay. There is potential for likely significant effects to these areas, and then nothing is said about what that actually means or how that can be mitigated, so I was just interested in if there is a likely significant impact, what is it and what are we doing about it or why are we approving something if there is. Thanks. Just coming back on that, triple S.I. point, it is simply due to this whole area is in the risk zone, and the additional people will put extra pressure visiting the triple S.I. We have to assess it as to whether it's direct impacts or indirect impacts. This is an indirect impact, so the Psalms contribution can be taken from CL in which to mitigate against those indirect impacts from those additional people, and that will be projects that the Council are working on as part of their Psalms action plan. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor King. Yeah, I'd like to support my colleagues from New Romney because the area is overcrowded. You know, when you drive there, you're sitting in traffic, there's petrol pumping out into the atmosphere, that's the seaside area, and it's stinks of petrol. We're taking away everything from that area. They're going to have flooding. It's just overbearing too much. Can these developers not think about what they're doing to an area that is already overcrowded, where the roads are absolutely chock-a-block? In the summer, it takes about an hour to get from folks to Dim Church, which should be a 20-minute trip. Our roads in this area are chock-a-block, and they're never taken into consideration when developments are put into place. And I think KCC needs an answer to why they're not looking at that. Thank you, Councillor Polybreaking. Thank you, Chair. We've heard much about these three-story blocks of flats, and it was interesting to hear that they were also part of the Outline Commission that the site already benefits from. So I saw how I got 3.5 references to the changes made to the apartment blocks in line with the feedback consultation and indeed officer feedback. Can you tell us what those changes have been to improve the appearance of those blocks? Yes, originally, or as part of the application progressed, there were some two-and-a-half story flats in the southern southwestern part of the site, which had windows at a three-story level overlooking the properties at the rear. And we asked the applicant to change those to two stories so that they would have had less of an impact on the neighbouring properties. And we also pulled them away from the boundary. Sorry, we also changed, missed that part of your question, sorry. We also changed the design in the central part of the, or the flats actually, but maybe in the central part of the site, as we didn't feel that they were in keeping and the two generica design. So we asked for some additional detailing, which they provided, and we're now satisfied with those. Would any other Councillors like to speak? Councilor Chiu? Thank you. Just on a note that there was some requirements suggested by the fire and rescue that appear to be met, and then it mentions Kent police making suggestions about improvement. In terms of crime prevention, have those been addressed? I believe they have been, and we will add those as an informative to if crime permission was approved. Would any other Councillor like to speak? I'll say my bit now. Remembering that they already have outlying crime permission, I just feel that this is trying to just eke that extra little bit over the edge to put the extra five or six properties in. I totally agree. I don't feel that the infrastructure is there to support it. I'm incredibly worried that the sewage pumping station failed recently, and yet we want to put another estate form for a better word in there. That worries me. I'm worried that the residents are already saying that they know for a fact that this field floods. I'm not convinced with the surface water drainage flyaway not causing further problems down the line. I myself also have some concerns. I'll ask one more time. Would any other Councillor like to speak on this? No? Sorry. If you'd like to go forward? Thank you, Chair. I hear what people are saying, but I think I have to remind you that it has outlying planning permission for 87 dwellings, and what we're talking about here is an increase of nine dwellings. I haven't heard, as I've said, the technical issues in respect to the application. There is not one of the consultants who have got raised any objections. The flooding, they've demonstrated that it will actually provide a betterment for properties outside the site. In every other aspect, in terms of sewage disposal, surface water disposal, all the statutory consultees are satisfied, so it would be very, very difficult to sustain an objection on those grounds. If not impossible, I suspect we would have an ward of costs against us. In terms of the increase in density, I haven't really heard what is the demonstrable harm, and you, as the decision-making authority body, have to show what is the demonstrable harm from the 87 that has got outlying planning permission to the 96 that is now proposed in front of us. Councillors, I believe you're going forward with the proposal? Yeah, again, I think, as we've heard from local residents and from the town council, it's the fact that that particular block, which is up there at the moment, is completely out of keeping with everything else which is in the area. And that is what is going to be used to deliver the vast majority of the affordable housing. And Councillor Fuller has already alluded to that in his comments, I think it was earlier on, to say, you know, this is not a mix, this is not a spread. And I know in a previous application, when we were dealing with, I think it was on the top of Sandgate Road, where we said, do you actually put everything together or do you have a pepper pot approach to it? Again, here, we're putting everything in one place. That's the intention. And that, whether we like it or not, is the easiest and cheapest fix from the developer to deliver the affordable housing on this site. So, again, just in terms of the things that I personally disagree with and I think many of the committee members around here, the fact that we've actually got a street scene, which is very different to anywhere else in New Romney, the fact that we've actually got this three-storey block set in the middle of this development is outside of, well, certainly what I believe to be an acceptable street scene. And so I don't believe it complies with our policy associated with that, particularly those associated with, you know, quality through design and then providing the right mix for the site. We were able to do it, as Sue's already said, with the existing mix, and the work that the Gladman Associates did with the town council was very welcome, actually. We've had no such communications with Pentlands at all. So, again, I think from our perspective, we've not been included in any of the developments, because I think we would have made our opposition known sooner. So, again, I think it's trying to squeeze every pound out of this particular site. But again, going back to the planning reasons is because the three-storey block is out of keeping with the rest of the site and with the rest of the area. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for stepping in, members. I understand members very strongly sincerely help concerns about the development of this site. However, as Mrs. Head has said, it's an uplift of nine units over something that already has permission on the site that is allocated in this council's local plan. In terms of the scale of buildings on the site, as you've heard from Mrs. Head, the existing, the extant outline permission allows for the erection of three-storey units. So, if members were to refuse Planning Commission on that basis and it went to appeal, the first question the council would be asked by the Appellents would be, is three-storey is permitted by the outline permission that's been granted? And we would say yes, and that would be that. So, I would urge members to give very serious consideration to not progress in that reason for refusal, because in my view, I think it would not stand up scrutiny on appeal bearing in my planning history of the site. In terms of drainage, whether it's surface water or foul drainage, again, the report sets out that we've got no objection from southern water, no objection from the environment agency, no objection from KCC in their capacity as the local flood authority. So, again, if planning permission were to be refused on that basis and it went to appeal, we would have to provide technical evidence to demonstrate that those statutory consultees, the advice they have given us, is incorrect. Now, I haven't heard any such detail coming from members tonight and, you know, to be fair, I haven't expected, but the statutory consultees that required to comment on these issues relating to planning applications have all raised no objection. So, again, I would urge members to give very careful consideration as to whether or not planning permission should be refused on that basis, because, again, I don't think it would stand up scrutiny appeal. The key issue here, I think, for members to grapple with is what harm arises from the uplifting numbers on the site and uplifting nine, I understand. So, where does the harm arise from that? I think that is the key issue that members need to consider. We, as officers consider, there's no significant harm arising from it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have recommended approval. But just in broad terms, the density of development is not so significant as to warrant refusal. In terms of the layout, that's considered acceptable. And, like I said, we've received no objections from statutory consultees. I think members need to be very, very careful when considering voting to refuse this application that the reasons for refusal are going to stand up scrutiny appeal. And because, I think, on the basis of the reasons put forward, I think we would lose an appeal and I'm fairly certain we would probably lose costs as well. Thank you. Thank you. Council knows me. I move the officer's recommendation. Chair. Do we have a second? We don't appear to have a second. Councillor Thomas, I'm only correct that you brought a proposal forward to refuse. And that is correct. Was that yourself? Yes, correct. So, we have one proposal with a seconder. And that is to... Excuse me, Chair. Yes, certainly. Could I just interrupt? Sorry. Could I just suggest that instead of refusing it tonight, you vote to defer it? And we can discuss with the applicant whether or not they're willing to amend the proposal. I know the agent is sitting here, so we'll have listened to what you said. And I don't know whether they are willing to do that or whether they're willing to pursue a refusal. But if I could have a chance to discuss it with them and see whether or not any amendments can be made. Councillor Thomas, would that be acceptable? I think, based on the advice we've received from Rob, if I'm allowed to, am I allowed to amend my proposal to defer all? I would, of course, allow you to make it. Thank you very much. And I'm sure Councillor Cooper would second that. So, again, I think, based on soon and Rob's advice that we go for the defer on and see if we can get anything else from the developer. Thank you. So, can I just clarify? That would be purely on design because of the advice that we've given you or layout or numbers because of the advice we've given you in terms of the statutory consultees and the impact on flooding and everything. If I may, I still have concerns of the sewage system. So, again, I think it's a question of how do we word that because, again, and as we've heard from Richard, who actually lives on the boundary of this, the people who have actually done these reports and said this is acceptable weren't there in their welly boots when we had a once in a 30-year reign event, and they weren't there when people had their houses flooded with sewage, either, which we had in New Romney. And certainly, I had two residents who had to leave their homes from November until April because the house was flooded with sewage. So, I still have real concerns about that, and maybe that's a wider issue that I know the leader of this council has actually said on a number of occasions, including on Radio Kent last week, about his concerns for how foul water and sewage is dealt with in the whole of the Ronnie Marshall, not just in New Romney. But, again, maybe that's a question we need to take out further, but, again, that the fact is that in November last year, the existing systems couldn't cope, and adding more to it, even if it is 10% increase, which is what's been proposed in this planning application, will severely test those systems, and I don't believe they fit for purpose. Thank you. But I will accept that we will defer the application. I'm fine with that. Thank you. Thank you. I do also share your worries. I think what we have this evening is we have very clear policies. We have a planning application that has gone through that stands, but we have local knowledge that doesn't always give you all the technical background, but it's the lived experience of what actually happens in this area. And I think it's not that we are rejecting the officer's advice per se. It's just we do know that there are other issues around this, but we have one proposal, and that's to defer it so that we can actually go back to the developer and maybe speak through the actual design, especially the three stories seems to be giving quite some concern, and maybe we take behind the scenes a further conversation not to do with this application, maybe with the leader regarding the work that he's been doing regarding the sewage pumping in the area. Sorry, Councillor CASSIDY, could you just say something? Okay, thank you. So we have one proposal, and that's to defer for those reasons. All those in favour, please. And I can see that's unanimous. Thank you very much. That is the last application of this evening. Thank you very much. Some very good debate.
Transcript
evening and welcome to the meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee. This meeting
will be webcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed
you will need to leave the chamber. For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting
it is important that the microphones are used so that viewers on the webcast and others
in the room may hear you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode
as they can be distracting. I would like to remind members that although we all have
strong opinions 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 to know it 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 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 now move
on. Do we have any apologies for absence please?
Thank you Chair. We have one apology from Councillor James.
Thank you very much. Any declarations of interest? Councillor Cooper?
I have got one Chair and it is in relation to 23/1, 3, 8, 4, FH that I call happy for
the Committee. I also give planning reasons as per the Constitution for this but I want
to record it in the minutes if it is all possible. I have come here today with a clean mind
and I will make my mind up after hearing everything from everyone else before I make a decision.
Thank you. Thank you Councillor Cooper.
Thank you Chair. I am not sure I can say I have a clean mind. But just to mention on
item 5 the applicant mentions in the application that they have worked for San Gate Parish Council
of which I am a member although I am not a member of the Sea Festival Committee that
makes decisions on that kind of thing so I do not believe it counts as a pecuniary or
anything like that. Thank you. Both of those are noted. Anyone else wish to make a declaration
this evening? I seem done. Wonderful. Moving on to minutes. You have before you the minutes
of the meeting of the 16th of April 2024. May I consider them and can you approve them
as a correct record for me to sign off please. Thank you. You also have before you the minutes
of the licensing subcommittee of the 6th of March. Can you approve them and allow me
to sign them as a correct record please. Thank you very much. So we move on to our first
application. What I would say tonight panel is we have quite a few applications in this
evening. I have allowed some late speakers because I believe it is very important that
we actually hear as much debate from the speakers in order for us to make our decisions. So
I would ask that when we are asking questions, raising issues, concerns or any ideas that
we keep them short and sharp otherwise we will probably be here till 12 o'clock tonight
which I do not think we want to be. So if we can have an update please on Y18-0156-SH
which is the land adjoining the sewage treatment work station approach Little Stone.
Thank you Chair. Good evening members. I do have something of an update here. Hopefully
members have had a chance to read the supplementary sheet and know to be additional comments from
KCC ecology. I have had the opportunity to review the committee report and in my view
some additional conditions are required and others need tightening up somewhat. So the
recommendation tonight remains for approval but the following additional conditions are
recommended. Firstly, a lighting scheme to be submitted to an approved and writing by
the Council and then implemented on site. Secondly, restricting the number of touring
caravans to three and another number of travelling show people wagons to three has set out on
the submitted drawings. Thirdly, restricting occupation of the site to October to March
only other than in association with an emergency. The reason for this is the reason for the
condition is to accord with the description for proposed development which refers to winter
quarters. It also accords with the findings of the SNF tests in relation to the adjacent
sewage treatment works and the comments of the Environmental Health Officer at Council
together with the comments of the agent has set out in the supporting statement accompanying
the application which sets out that the site would only be occupied over the winter months.
Fourthly, a condition relating to the storage of fuel, oil etc within the site. I would normally
expect a condition to require storage of such things to be an abundant, sealed area so that
there is no leakage into the ground. Finally, condition one on page 39 of the agenda. I
note that the layout of the site at present doesn't accord with the layout shown in the
submitted drawings. Then condition one will potentially split it out into two conditions
requiring the site to be laid out in accordance with the approved drawings within, I would
say, six months of the date of approval would be reasonable. Thank you, Members.
Thank you very much. We have two speakers on this item this evening. Can I first speak
to Councillor JOHN RIVERS? Please come forward to speak on behalf of new Romney Town Council
against the application. You have three minutes from when you start speaking. Thank you.
Yes, thank you very much. New Romney Town Council recommended refusal because we felt
it contravened planning policies, SD1, BE1, DSD, SS3 and non-conformance with condition
two of the original application. The original application was submitted in 2018 with the
applicant and have been established themselves on site in 2017. The Romney Town Council Planning
Committee originally deferred comment and asked for some additional information which
was not in the planning application. However, when the application was considered in 2018,
we expressed several concerns to the planning team in Folkestone. We have contacted the
planning team of Folkestone several times over the years to ask about the progress of
the application. As we have had a lot of local residents, ask the Council what was going
on. Firstly, the site was originally for horses and had a stable block which was erected
via an approved planning application. Condition two of that application stated that it had
to be returned to agricultural land once the horses were no longer using it and that the
stable block had to be demolished. This condition was never followed up, hence the after this
application per change of use. Our major concerns were that this development was outside of the
settlement boundary. It was not part of the local plan which is still the case today.
The site did not have running water, an electrical supply or any sewage, wastewater, disposal
route. I believe that this is still the case today. The access route to the site is owned
and maintained by Southern Water but the applicant has never shown any documents relating to
its use by the applicant. The applicant has also extended this road by means of a 30-metre
track composed of rubble and marble building waste. There is no evidence that the applicant
is approval from the land owner to install this access to the site. Southern Water and
FHDC and environmental services have commented on this site not being suitable for occupation.
The planning policy for showman's ground travel aside has criteria that requires all of these
points to be addressed. It is a view of the new Romney Channel Council planning committee
that that criteria has not been met and this application should not be approved until that
criteria is satisfied. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. We have our second speaker which is Mr Paul Skinner, the agent, speaking
in support of the application. If you could come forward, sir. You will have three minutes
from when you start speaking. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen Councillors. I am here
to support the approval of the application of Y18 Stroke O156 Stroke SH. This is a retrospective
change of use of land and stables and paddock to showman's winter's quarters. As a report
states this started with a pre-app in 2016 following the purchase of the land with stables
as advertised. The application site has access rights to the site in the deeds. This is shared
right with two other parties. The route into it has been suggested stroke approved by
Kent County Council. The local district council have recognised that there is an additional
need for this purpose and you do need to demonstrate there is a need for a showman's
quarters. Due to being evicted from a previous location the family had no choice but to relocate.
The district council were informed throughout. The site comprises of a former grass field
that has had hard cold laid over it over a large part, a necessity with the rain of 2019
and 2020. The two-metre closed board fence has erected one metre away from the northern
boundary and three to four metres away from the western boundary adjacent to the railway
line to provide a straight fence line and natural cover for wildlife. The closed board
fence finishes on that of paddock one, the southern boundary is open. There has been
evidence of badger activity past that in the far paddock and there are no plans for the
fencing. The Harrison's have a keen interest in wildlife and domestic animals and intend
in future to keep horses. I confirm that since 2021 the time of the office of visit there
have been no changes to the hard cold or the fencing. I and the manager Jim Agara who is
the madness manager were present at that time. A number of SNCC tests were conducted
the over the older effects are judged not to be significant from the sewage station.
This is in line with complaints, data and metra-logical data that is available. It
is interesting that the southern water do not have an odour map showing where the predominant
winds are. Most companies would have that information available. As part of the permission travelling
showman's wagon will be recited as the plan and the levels will be increased. A hard
equivalent hydro-clear wastewater treatment and an aquifer harvest tank for harvesting
rainwater will be installed to building regulations. It is noted that southern water has been
contacted several times about sewage connection and no response being received.
You are three minutes from Oxford. Can you finish your sentence? Thank you.
The site is outside the settlement boundary and well away from residents. The applicant
seeks to place the call home. The Harrison's are well known supporting charities especially
veteran causes. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
We have had two speakers. Over to you, Councillors. Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair. As you have heard from John tonight, he has laid the position out that
New Romney Town Council has seen for a number of years. I think there is a couple of points
we still need to clarify with regard to what is actually in the officer's report as well
that might be contrary to what we have heard from the agent. In section 3.2 of the report
it says a statement submitted in support of the application states that the applicants
have the right to use the concrete access path. This has actually been overlaid recently
with Tarmac. It is probably the best road in New Romney at this moment in time, I have
to say. It says with the erection of a close, sorry, and together with the owners, the
horse bones farm and southern water. The applicant was asked to serve notice on the owners of
the concrete track but no evidence has been provided. They have done so and that is in
the officer's report. What it does not state and what is not clear from the drawings or
the photographs you have seen up there is that the concrete road itself as it was which
services the southern water site has an additional track as John has mentioned of about 30 metres
which crosses land which the applicant does not own to get to the site gates. So again,
I think one of the things that both the officer has called out in the report and something
which we have said previously at New Romney town council is that we have not seen any
evidence of permission to use that particular road. Just in terms of the site itself, as
you have heard from the agent and is written in the report, this has been kicking around
for a number of years and first came out in 2018 to the New Romney town council. In that
time we have issued a new local plan. The new local plan for folks in the house came out
in November of 2020 and the applicants didn't take the opportunity, hadn't taken the opportunity
of including this site in the local plan at that time which had a perfectly reasonable
chance to do, had a couple of years to be able to do that and I accept that we have to in
our plan have facilities for showman's grounds and for travellers sites and I think we have
all accepted that. The officers report says currently the accepted travellers site within
the district is actually in Swan Lane in Selinge and there is adequate room on that site to
accommodate additional space. That's what the officers report says. That's not to say
as the officer says that we can't consider the site if we believe them to be suitable.
I note from what Rob said at the start of the meeting that there was going to be conditions
laid over the occupation of this site. This site is occupied all year round and has been
for the last seven years and that's something that local residents have raised with us on
more than one occasion. Southern water actually objected this development in their note of
the 27th of June 2023. They make it clear that they don't support development on this
particular site and they state the reasons why. As Rob has already said, the environmental
protection people from First and Heart District Council have said this land should not be used
for permanent residents and that was a view formed on the 18th of May 2023. The environment
agency asked for a couple of conditions. The first of those was surface water drainage
scheme and a wastewater drainage scheme. The site is outside of the settlement boundary
so it isn't part of the New Romney settlement boundary. If you look at the FHD policy,
HV14, which covers showman's grounds and the travel sites, there are a number of criteria
in there which have to be met. The first of those is that the site is in a sustainable
location but as we've heard and it's stated in the report, this site is outside of the
settlement boundary. This issue is over whether there is access to this site, approved access
to this site. Criteria three states that adequate vehicle access is required but as already
stated, the concrete road has this additional 30 metre piece of ground which hasn't been
made up and there's nothing in the report that says that that's been approved by the
landowner. Finally and most importantly, criteria one talks about safeguard in health
of the occupiers on the site which includes disposal of refuse and foul water. One of
the things that Southern Water have put in their report and in fact it's on section 7.23
of the officers report is that the precautionary principle associated with wastewater should
be adopted for this site and 8.1 in the report also says that this is for winter quarters
only although it is occupied all year round. I have some real difficulty with what's been
presented as a retrospective case. You would normally expect retrospective to mean that
as it is at the moment, as it's going to be in the future. When I visited the site today,
there were far more vehicles on that site that is included in the site plan and I have
real concerns and I know Rob said that there's going to be a condition associated with make
aligning that with the plan that's been presented and to do that within 6 months but as I say,
I have real concerns about that. The other thing on wastewater and this is my final point
now, Chair, if that's okay, is this is a very sensitive area. This is adjacent to the
sewage plant. If you look at the diagram, I don't think it's very clear on there, immediately
behind this site is a ditch that runs round and eventually goes into what is the new Romney
sewage arm and you're probably all aware that we have problems with sewage getting into
the into the sea that's causing Little Stone Beach to be declared in those swim zone as
it is in St Mary's Bay. So we have to be very, very careful about how we manage facilities
around the sensitive areas such as this. So that's my point. I think there's a few things
there that would have to be satisfied before I would be prepared to support this and in
fact, I'm actually going to recommend that we defer this application to a future meeting
so that we can actually get a handle on what vehicles are actually on site and how that
aligns with the plan that's been submitted. And I think more importantly, how the wastewater,
I know the Harlequin hydrochloric system has been identified as being the means of achieving
satisfactory wastewater from the site. The southern water don't approve that particular
unit on this particular site. So again, I would recommend that we go against the officer's
recommendations tonight and I would ask this committee to consider deferring this until
we can get a satisfactory answer for site layout and for wastewater treatment from this site.
Thank you, Chair. Sorry, officers, there were quite a few points right there. Are there
any that you would like to come back on before I ask Councillor Thomas whether he's actually
proposing deferral and ask for a seconder? I wasn't sure whether Councillor Thomas wanted
a response on most of them. I think the notable point Councillor Thomas made was the difference
between what's been applied for and what's on site and obviously what's on site at the
moment is unauthorised and if planning permission is granted subject to conditions, the applicant
would be required to comply with those conditions, one of which, as I said out in my update,
would be to lay out the site in accordance with the submitted site layout drawing which
has been going on rotation above members' heads. So I think members should, whilst members
are entitled to give weight to the fact that there is unauthorised development on the site,
what is before members tonight is something different to what is currently on the site
and the key question is whether or not in granting planning permission the development
the subject of the application can be achieved on site. I'm very confident that it can be.
If it isn't, then that becomes a breach of planning condition and is subject to enforcement
action in its own right. In terms of the location of the site, at my previous authority I dealt
with lots and lots of applications and appeals for Gypsy in Traveller sites, which is different
travelling show people sites but the broad thrust of government guidance is the same,
which is that Gypsy in Traveller and travelling show people sites are not unacceptable in
the countryside. The government guidance is strictly controlled but in excess of 20 years
experience as a planning officer I've yet to see any such site come forward within settlements
because of the particular requirements of gypsies and travellers and travelling show
people and government guidance reflects that. So I urge members to exercise a significant
degree of caution when considering the merits of the location of the site outside the settlement
boundary. In our view it's well located to the existing settlement and you've run the
others out there yesterday and it's a short walk before you actually reach the settlement.
So I have dealt with sites that are one, two miles away from the nearest settlement which
have been considered acceptable by planning inspectors on sustainability grounds. So like
I said I'd urge members to exercise a degree of caution in that respect. Not sure if there's
anything else I should come back on immediately members but I hope that's useful.
Councillor Thomas. Yes, so just to confirm it would be my proposal that we defer this
application and again I think Rob's alluded to it would be useful to have an inspection
of the site and just a clarification of what's there against what's in the plan because again
I think we might need to be fair to the applicant as well in making sure that what is put forward
to us at any time in the future is also something which meets their need as a business. So again
I think we need to be fair to the applicant and we need to be mindful of the fact that
we do have, there are some issues with the way this has been presented. So my proposal
is deferral subject to officers inspection and clarification of the requirements for
the removal of wastewater and foul drainage from the site. Thank you.
We have one proposal, do I have a seconder? Councillor CUMMING for do you wish to speak?
Yes, I'm second that on the basis of what was already said and the results were probably
meeting recently in New Romney where southern water said among other things after the other
five year plan to invest into the area but we don't know what those details are. I think to be fair
it would be reasonable not to not not to refuse this and to defer it for further information
because what we don't be doing basically is to be fair to be both sides there to ensure that
any plans that come forward that we know that I'm not going to be compromising the future
works on the treatment sites etc. So I'm happy to second that proposal.
Thank you. Would any other Councillor I like to speak on this?
Councillor interjecting. Yes, thank you, Chairman.
Well, Salinger's mentioned and I have to say that I sat through the places in policy or
policy in places inquiry and initially our plan was not sound because we did not have
sites for gypsies or travelling showmen and that's one of the reasons it had to go back
and there was some amendments and we had to look for a site. So I think we need to bear that in mind.
Secondly, the family in Salinger and the site actually is about 200 yards from my house
is amazing. It's a family, one family with four children travelling showmen and they have an
absolutely, well I don't know about wonderful but from the outside it looks really really nice.
Tree is all growing up around and I'm sure this site could be made the same
although I understand that it's only for winter residential.
It's very difficult when you've got people, I mean what happens if we then turn it down,
it comes back with further information, I mean from what Mr Bailey said, we've got
and of course which is correct, is that we have to base our decision on what this planning
application says, not what is there or shouldn't be there or whatever.
So I'm a bit on the fence here, I can see some of the reasons why perhaps people want some further
information but there are so many conditions on here and as long as these conditions are adhered
to and as a district council we check up on these conditions, I'm tempted to go with the
officer's recommendation. Thank you, is that a proposal councillor always be?
Yes then, it is a proposal. Thank you, do you have a seconder?
I'm seeing no one second. Would anyone else like to speak on this particular item?
Okay well we have the first proposal which was to defer in order for a site visit and for more
information to come forward regarding the waste water. All in those in favour can you please show
your hand screen? Those against? Any abstentions? I believe that's carried so we're going to
defer that to gather some extra information and site visit most certainly.
Thank you Chair. Just for clarification members, I understand it's been deferred for
a further site visit by officers to establish what's on the site, how the site is going to be
amended or whether the site is capable and how it's going to be amended to reflect the development
shown on the approved plans and also to seek further information regarding the disposal of
foul sewage, particularly having regard to the comments of southern water. Is that correct?
Councillor, as long as you've bought the deferment, is that your understanding of why we're deferring?
That is my understanding. Those two items I think would deal with it as a say to be fair
to all sites. Thank you. Thank you. So that item is deferred and we will move forward onto our
next application, which is application 230003 stroke FH, which is Port Flour, Coom Wood Lane in
Hawkins. Do we have any updates please? Thank you Chair. I believe in members.
One small update, I've just spotted we sat here at Paragraph 2.1. It says the application site is
partially within the divine system of boundary. It is not partially within, it's fully within.
Thank you very much. We have one speaker on this, Mr Roger Joyce, who is the agent to speak in
support of the application. Good evening and your time of three minutes will start when you start
speaking. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillors for giving me the opportunity to speak
in support of the application on behalf of my clients, the ASH family. Mr and Mrs Ash Sr. and
their daughters family, the Lajournes and their two children, some of whom are here tonight.
One of the grandchildren is, as well, anxious to hear the outcome of this application,
but is, by the way, recommended for approval in a way I shouldn't be here. Family first
consulted me about three years ago, having realised the potential their site offered,
having seen what was on the other side of the lane, which is three houses in a row,
either built or with planning consent. And I hope you'll see that plan in the officer's
recommendation. Portflare has been in the family home for over 20 years, and it's to be put into
trust for the grandchildren, because it's now too difficult to maintain by Mr and Mrs Ash Sr,
where they have extended this house over the years as the children grew and all the rest of it,
and it's now very large and, I say, unsustainable. And you'll serve as collateral to raise the
necessary funding to build the new dwellings. When they first came to see me, by the way,
the grandchildren were only 10 and 6 years old. We received positive pre-application advice very
early on, and after refining the designs to suit the two family's needs, we submitted this application
one year and five months ago. The boys are now 13 and 9, one of them is here. The officer's very
full and detailed report, nothing less with respect from role, describes all the hopes we have
jumped through, including paying for a license to register the site for greater-crested nudes,
as part of the process of getting to where we are today. But it importantly notes no objection
from all but one of the statutory consultees, which is why we're here tonight. This is a story
really of a close family who aspire to live side by side in the interest of spending quality time
together. The boys are frequent visitors to their grandparents, both of whom suffer medical
conditions. And Mr. and Mrs. Ash's daughter, Mrs. Legerne, is anxious to be on hand should her
parents need help. It's a classic model of multi-generational living. We've also discussed
sustainable living building techniques, off-site construction, highly insulated building efficient
eco-homes built for the future. This is a family wanting to self-build. They're not developers.
We hope you'll be inclined to support the officer's recommendation to approve and let them get on
with their plans before the boys are too old to take advantage of it. Thanks for listening.
Thank you, sir. Over to you, Councillors, Councillor Goddard.
Thank you, Chair, and good evening. Yes, I'm totally agree with Mr. Joyce. This report by Mr.
Allen, excellent covers, all the hoops, loops and everything else. Everybody's jumped through,
no issues at all. Everything's ticked off. I recommend going to the officers' recommendation.
Thank you, Councillor Goddard. I've already had a seconder here from Councillor Keene.
Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Councillor Beakmore.
Yeah, just to say supportive as well, it's very good to make use of such a large carbon space
for additional housing. I just have one question, which one of the objections from the town council
was about the narrowness of the access lane, and it does appear very narrow, and just whether
there's any comment from officers on that, but on the face of it, it looks like a very good application.
Apologies, my memory is not what it was, so I'd like to write things down. Yes, it's already used
as an access to the property to the rear, and having looked at it, we consider it would be
acceptable for the two additional properties. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak on this? Councillor Hansberry.
Yes, thank you. I'm too supportive of the application. I was just looking at it, looking at the
fact that in some ways we used to call it back garden or background, back development.
I looked up the policy and I realised that these days, that's not an issue, but I was also concerned
about the access, but from what I've read and from what I've heard, that's fine. But the other
point I'd just like to make, and I'd like perhaps Mr Bailey's comments on it, is that the
reference to family issues is not a material planning consideration. I just wanted that
confirmed because we do have a number of applications that talk about family, and we're usually told
that, but in certain circumstances, I think that may not be the case, but I'd be keen to have
your view on it, please. Certainly, I mean, in general terms, I would say no, it's not a material
planning consideration. The implication of this being for multi-generational living for the
same family, if members were based in their decision on that, they would then have to impose
a condition specifying who can occupy the buildings, which wouldn't meet the test set out by government
for planning conditions. So I would say to members, you're not entitled to give that weight in the
decision-making process, but regardless, as set out on the report, officers consider this
development wholly acceptable, regardless. Thank you.
Councillors Thomas? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think it's an excellent application,
excellent report. The one thing that I would ask, which is, again, would apply for how
Kinchtown Council's concerns is regarding delivery management of materials. It's the
officer satisfied that the arrangements that would be in place to gain access to the site for
materials during construction. It is adequate. I know we talked about vehicular access
being adequate, but are we okay? We'd be able to get everything down that lane to be able to
build it. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. In terms of the access, I mean, it would be, I mean, it would be, obviously,
if there's a vehicle that couldn't get down there, it wouldn't be able to get down there,
obviously, in terms of construction. If members were minded, we could request a construction
management plan as a condition. It wasn't felt necessary at this point, because it is quite a
large site, and it's highly unlikely that any sort of materials and vehicles would be left on the
lane, but, because, considering they are in the whole site, there's a large front garden area as
well that I'm sure could be utilised for the duration of the works, that that potentially
could be an option if members felt it suitable. I'm seeing a shake of head, and also, I believe
that if a large lorry came up that couldn't get down the lane, they probably used some smaller
lorries and offload it, and then just take it down, sorry, just being rather practical on these
things. Would anyone else like to speak on this one? No, in that case, we have one proposal, and that
is to accept the officer's recommendation for this to be granted, subject to the conditions,
all those in favour, please raise your hands, and I can see that unanimous, that has passed, thank you.
So, we move on to our next application, which is 270108FH, which is the rear of 120 Sandgate Road
in Folkston. Do we have any updates, please? Thank you, Chair. Yes, there is one. Members may have
had this emailed round to them already, actually, a revised application pack, because the description
that's on the report is incorrect. It should actually read proposed new residential block of flats,
providing two one-bedroom flats and two two-bedroom flats. I can confirm that the application has
been advertised correctly, and all notifications made with the correct description is just purely
when I was putting the report together. Thank you. Thank you very much, and we have one person to
speak on this. Mr. Christian Lawrence, if you'd like to come forward, who is the agent to speak
in support of the application, so you have three minutes from when you start.
Good evening, members of the Planning Committee. I'm Christian Lawrence, the architect and the
agent for the application. This site forms the only undeveloped rear yard to the shops and commercial
units that form the terrace. This section of terrace on Sandgate Road. This application is also
resubmission. The original scheme was a larger one with five flats and covered a greater area and
plan in section and a greater mass, so we reduced this application to four flats with two one beds,
as Rob mentioned earlier, and two two beds. Each of these flats is accessed off a central courtyard
that subdivides the original shop at the front of the site to the new block of flats at the rear,
that gives us about seven and a half to seven and a half meters subdivision between the two,
and enables natural light to get into the existing flats above the shop and plenty of light into
the new flats within the new block. We've looked to reduce the mass and form of the building by
separating the materials as they rise up through the building, so we've got a brick
plinth on the ground floor, render to the first and second floor, and then we recess the top floor,
and this is clad in timber cladding, again to reduce the mass and vision impact of the building.
Each of the flats is fully compliant with the space standards and enjoys its own private
amenity space with terraces and balconies. We've developed the scheme in close consultation with
the planning department, and prior to this formal submission we submitted a pre-app where we
agreed the broad principles of the scheme, which we've developed in further detail.
We're conscious that the application was called in by the town council and the focus
and society due to their concerns about parking and mass and bulk. Our meal parking strategy is
fully compliant with the council's own strategies. It's a town center location, so great links to
shops, the bus station, and local amenities all within a short walk. We also included a detailed
daylight and sunlight analysis report within the planning application. This demonstrated that
there's no detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties or the host building that sits in
front of it. To conclude that the project provides four affordable high-quality flats in a town
center location. There's a shortfall of rental units in the town at the moment, which has led to
high rents. The plans and reports demonstrate that the project is in a sustainable location that
provides much needed accommodation, again that's fully compliant with the council's own policies.
The planning department supports the application, has recommended for approval,
and we urge you as a planning committee to support the planning team. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir. Councillors, over to you, would anyone like to raise any issues,
ask any questions? Councillor Goddard.
Thank you, Chair. Again, it sounds like it ticks all the boxes.
Can't see too many arguments. Obviously it doesn't look very nice there, but it looks nice in the
plans. But like the architect says, it is a town center development. So parking, I don't seem to
mind that there isn't any. So it ticks all the boxes and can't really put it apart for rental
spaces which is needed in the fine town of Folkestone. So move the recommendation.
Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Councillor MURPHY, would you like to speak?
No. Thank you. Councillor interjecting.
My biggest concern is there is no parking, and there is no buses, and the town center
isn't a good place to shop for families. There's no, I think what Sainsbury's there.
So my concern is people who live in these places, they're not going to have parking,
but they are going to need cars if they go to work. So where are those cars going to go?
You can't live in Folkestone Town Center anymore and rely on public transport because
there is no public transport as such. And I know a lot of people commute up and down to London,
but I can't see that we can say a new development can have no parking. It's got to be important
considering we've got no transport links in the town to get out to other shops.
And the shopping center in Folkestone, unless people haven't been there recently, it's very poor.
So my concern is people who live in these places are going to need cars, or at least one or two cars,
and we say it doesn't need parking. That's odd to my way of thinking.
Thank you, would anyone else like to speak on this?
Council will probably vote more than Councilor Dors.
Thank you Chair. I just had a question about fire safety. So given the urban density that
will result in the development, and I understand that the fire escape from the back of the original
building is going to be removed. Is the single escape route onto Sangeit Road? Is that sufficient?
And what criteria are used to reach that conclusion?
Councillor interjecting.
Thank you. That issue was obviously raised as within some of the
representations, and it's a fair one. I reverted to the architect who, in view of the building
regulations, said it would be possible to achieve a fire escape out the front of the property
as it currently stands to meet the regulations. Obviously if they couldn't do that, then they
wouldn't—they would be in breach of building regulations, which obviously sit outside of the
planning forum, but they would then, obviously, run the risk then if they couldn't do that,
of having the flats condemned at the front. So it would, you know, buildings are designed,
obviously, by a breathful architect to be able to meet the building regulations.
So it's a consideration outside of the planning forum, but yes, it has been
discussed and accepted. Councillor interjecting.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
Councillor interjecting.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Well, if you look at page 3 for the gross internal area,
they've certainly sharpened the pencils for regard to meeting the policy requirements.
I think it's fair to say it meets them, but that's all it does do.
The concern I've got is on page 5 in the second paragraph in relation to
daylight and sunlight assessment, in that only 8 of the 10 rooms meet the guideline values,
just in terms of other applications for similar developments in the recent past.
Has that been acceptable to accept that the two of the rooms wouldn't meet those guideline
values, and just don't be officers responsible? That's all. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Not all applications require a daylight sunlight application, and we sort of put it
to the applicant that it would be a very good exercise to carry out here. The guidelines are
that they're not a sort of binary rule in terms of saying yes, or no, you fail it, that's it.
It's an assessment of the situation when it comes to—I think there's a factor of previous light levels
and also how the property as a whole would shape up. Although, for example, you may have
a house with four rooms, maybe one has a poorer quality of daylight and/or sunlight.
If the rest are in exceedance or meet it, then it is overall an assessment that is made that,
on balance, it's going to be an acceptable unit of accommodation.
I appreciate, yes, it's very sort of ferrobs or astute observation that, you know, this is,
to put it, you know, the way you did sharpened the pencils and sort of met the light over the
line on sort of three of the units, certainly one of them goes over. But, in officer's view,
given the information that was provided with the application, and I'm from looking at this and
previous experience, we think this would be acceptable. Thank you.
Will any other Councillor like to speak on this? I think what I'd like to say is, obviously,
from the previous application, we've actually gone down a flat, which has obviously enabled the
sizes to, even though they've been with the sharpened pencil, actually meet all the criteria.
I do understand totally about parking. However, our policy is a maximum up to maximum. It's not
a minimum, and therefore, we can allow units within the Teal Centre to not have parking,
but it does have cycle stores, I believe. Thank you. So, that's my little bit on this one.
So, we have one proposal, and that's to accept our officer's proposal to grant permission subject
of conditions on this. Can anyone who is in favour please raise their hands? Those against?
And no abstentions. I can see from the numbers that has passed. Thank you.
So, we move on to the next application, which is 23-1384-TH,
which is 18 Seewaldim Church in Romley Marsh. Do we have any updates, please?
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Good evening, members. One correction in the report.
It should say there have been eight objections rather than the six stated. Thank you. That's all.
Lovely. We have two speakers on this one. Our first speaker is Amanda Robins,
who's a local resident. Speak on the application. Would you like to come forward, please?
Good evening, and you have three minutes from when you start.
Sorry, wrong glasses on. Good evening, members of the committee, Madam Chairman.
I am speaking as a trustee of the Oval and a long time owner. This is certainly not a nimby objection,
as we're quite happy to have a property built there, but feel it is most probably at the moment too big.
To begin with, the Oval was nearly all holiday debts, but it's now 99% residential. A small property
on a small building on this site may be possible, but this is a large holiday debt with four bedrooms,
and will result most probably in four cars being parked there, and at the moment there's only room
for two off-roads, and no parking is allowed in the roads, so where are these other cars going to go?
The Oval is a quiet residential area, and the destruction and extra traffic, both in the building
and afterwards, if let continually, will cause a great deal of disturbance and damage to the road,
which is kept up by the residents, so will cost us more money. The objections by Mr Mrs Rich
and the others in October 23, and also sum up the problems that will be faced.
The objections by the parish council ought to also point out the problems.
There's a report from the Heritage Department, so I'm not sure I can add any other points
except to say the objections have all been seen by you, and we wait for your approval or not.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, and our second speaker is Mr Adam Hawker, who's the applicant to speak on
the support of the application. Good evening sir, and you have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you.
Good evening. I apologise my architect was unable to come this evening, so I've been
dropped in at the very last minute. I think he only really wanted to get across was we had planning
for a larger property on this site approved six years ago. I decided that that was too large,
and it was not in a great spot within the property, although it is a very big garden,
and after a rethink we decided we'd put a smaller property on the footprint of what is a three birth
garage, so there is plenty of parking. Set back a little bit from the footprint,
and we've made the house, we're trying to keep it in keeping with the other houses on the oval.
It's got good access, and as I say, it's got good parking. If you look at the photos that the
whole front area would be parking, not with an issue at the moment, but I think that's the only
point he wanted to get across really. Thank you. Thank you very much. Over to your councillors,
would anyone like to speak on this? Councillor Cooper.
Could I ask you a couple of questions, please, to the officer. In the report itself, it says this
has been subject to an inspector's appeal. Now, that was way back in 2017, I believe,
and I thought Paragraph 3 of that quite clearly states that the appeal was subject to or the
approval was subject to work being commenced in three years. Now, I don't believe any work
has been commenced in that three-year period. Would that have any burning on the matter?
So you're correct. I mean, the three-year period would have expired, so that's the reason for the
new application. They would need to go through the process again, but the inspector's decision
is still a material consideration, because something comparable has been considered before.
I may ask a question in relation to the flooding. What is the current size of the footkins of the
garage that's going to be demolished, and what will be the current size of the proposed new build?
I don't have the floor spaces, but I think we can see that the new property will be larger than the
garage in terms of... Okay, and can I ask that in relation to, I mean, for example, in Alaska,
I'm going to be at 26 inches of rain, what provisions in place to prevent any water from
and off? So do you join the properties? Is there anything there that we know of?
In terms... I mean, this has obviously been to the, as it's said in the report, into the environmental
agency who have not raised any objections, so in terms of the flood risk assessment,
there were some mitigation measures that outlined mainly involving the finish floor levels and
sleeping accommodation on the first floor. We've also got a condition requiring further
information with regards to surface water drainage on condition 11 as well, so
and further information will come in on that. Thank you, Mr Campbell. Can I also ask then,
in that respect then, the size of the building, I mean, it's a large building, as you can see there,
it's obviously bigger than the footprints of the existing garage. Now, although this might not be
Lawrence, what would the, the size of the basement be before this was actually deemed to be flood
safe? Because I'm thinking of enabling property just on the road, which is so overwhelming,
it's unbelievable. And I understand there's even a concern there given the size of the building
in respect of what that would look like, in respect of the visual immunicity area.
I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? I don't think I quite got it.
Yeah, of course, right. The points I'm making basically is this, given the size of the, or the
footprints of the proposed new building, what would that look like in respect of the street scene?
I mean, okay, I can see we've got the diagrams on the screen, but I'm thinking about, say,
development that we've got down at Elden Dim church there, which is so overbearing,
because we've been done in the garden, it's unbelievable, and that's cause for them everywhere else.
So I'm just wondering, would this building actually fit in with the existing street scene?
So we, we believe so. I think it's worth pointing out that the appeal scheme, which you can see,
the front elevation on there was, when we lost to the appeal was larger. So in terms of size
of this one, we don't feel that we'd be able to defend it at appeal if we were to,
were to review that again. So in terms of visual appearance, that's been assessed in the report,
and found to be, and we believe it's acceptable.
If this was to go too long this evening, could there be any conditions being put on the sides
in respect of the trees, and maybe a tree preservation or et cetera, because there's obviously concern
that there's any building here, any screening from the existing shrubbery or trees, et cetera,
would be moving, and that would obviously just track in the area.
Yeah, but just draw your attention to condition 15, which is about protecting damage to existing
trees. So that's the one, that's the one we're proposing to protect trees. So
is that deficient in your opinion in any way?
So we've asked the trees to be preserved, to be marked on site and protected.
Also, no fires, root protection areas, and no roots over a certain diameter being cut.
That's our condition to protect the trees on site. Welcome your views on it.
I mean, okay, I mean, it's already in there. I mean, it should be strengthened in my view,
because once it's gone, it's gone. And it's never going to come back, obviously.
I'm given a special character this area. I'm a little bit concerned that if this was to go through,
what would happen is that this whole area would be ruined. And I've got my doubts,
and I've got my reservations on that, to be frank, to be frank.
When you say it should be strengthened, do you have anything in mind as to?
Well, what I'm thinking about, basically, is this, I mean, you can have as many
conditions as you want, in respect of any proposed ground, whether it's etc.
And there's reference there to where trees may be being severed, etc. I mean, that needs to be
strengthened. I mean, is there going to be an attachment to that, or the condition to
do that, in respect of, for example, any potential construction? And what are we going to be doing
about the size of the road? Because the road is sewn, and everything else, that this is going
to distract from people using it. And obviously, in respect of that, if there's any heavy plans
on materials, given that the road is not actually maintain the public expense of the climate road,
that's going to have a disproportionate effect on the neighbours.
So in terms of the road, obviously, this has been to appeal before, and it's been deemed
acceptable for that. And I said, in terms of the conditions, we've got the one to do a tree
protection. We've also got a construction management plan, which talks about the parking of
vehicles loading and unloading, as you mentioned, that's under condition 13. So in our opinion,
between the two conditions together, we felt that that would hopefully protect the trees on
site. And also, we get some additional info for the construction in the management plan as well.
My eye suggests it's great that we've put the tree protection in. Would it be possible
to put in a condition that should any of the trees be damaged during the construction phase,
that they be replaced, like for like, and any trees that die within the first five years are
replaced? Because that is a condition that we use at KCC. Yes, we could go with the landscaping one,
so we could do like existing and proposed planting and then anything. So it would be the three standard
landscaping conditions. That would be, yeah, okay. Councilor King?
And that's a probably legal matter, I'm afraid it's not material planting.
No, it's not material planning, but I think it should be that if everyone's got a pay that
that should be part of the agreement, maybe that would be such a big deal for people now.
Well, like I said, it's not a material planning consideration. There are some form part of members
deliberation on the application. Councilors, Thomas? Thank you, Chair. The first is an observation
just in terms of condition six. I don't think I've ever seen a condition associated with a flood
warning and an evacuation plan before. I think that's simply pretty unique actually, but what a good
idea is in this area, as Councillor Coopers already alluded to, the fact that it is something that
we might need to see a little bit more regularly in the future. So, yeah, I think it's a great
condition. Thank you. I think secondly, if I may, the one thing that I looked at here is this is
a holiday let. In a recent planning application that came through New Romney, 230925, it did have
a condition associated with it, which stated that the holiday accommodation here by permitted
shall only be used for bona fide holiday purposes and shall not be used by any person or group
of people for more than 28 days of the year. I just wonder whether that would be a valid
condition to be placed on this holiday let and whether that's something that, again, we would
see more of as holiday let's come through the planning committee. That's all. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, so just to pick up on your two points, in terms of the flooding and evacuation plan,
that is often in a flood risk assessment, so it's not always going through into a condition, but it's,
yeah, I'll tell you point one maybe that we should note again. In terms of the holiday let
a condition, it should be noted that we can impose them where a dwelling would be unacceptable.
So in the built-up area where a dwelling would be acceptable, we don't always.
Now with this application, the inspector didn't impose it when he made the previous decision,
so we've made a conscious decision to follow that same pattern, so we haven't put one on here.
That was right. Thank you. If it's just members, as Mr Campbell said, we don't impose a holiday
let condition and occupancy condition where unrestricted residential use of a building would
be unacceptable. So that could be, if it was out in the middle of the countryside, in the middle of
nowhere, could be if it had a tiny garden, could be if the floor space was markedly below the
accepted normal standards, it could be if it was overlooked significantly by the host property on
the site. This is a curious application to my mind. It's within the settlement and the
construction of the dwelling on this site would be acceptable in principle as a matter of planning
policy. So the fact that it's described as a holiday let is surprising to me. Now granting
planning permission for a house doesn't preclude its use as a holiday let. The same as any other
house pretty much in the country, they can be rented out as Airbnb's. So the fact that this
condition isn't imposed doesn't mean it couldn't be used as a holiday let. But what it does mean
is that there is no justification in planning terms for imposing that condition here.
You don't need any other Councillors to speak? Councillors interjecting.
Thank you, Chair. Well, I've listened to the debate and listened to the responses.
We do actually have Councillor Thomas. I've seen a lot of applications where
an escape plan has been in place. So I don't think it's as unique as perhaps you might think.
I'd like to move the application.
Thank you, Councillor homesby is proposing. Do I have a second to please?
Councillor might like more seconding. If no one else wishes to speak on this, we have one.
Sorry, they're asking about the landscaping conditions that I asked for earlier. That was
regarding if any of the trees that are currently there are damaged during construction, they are
replaced like for like. And with the new landscaping, any trees that die within five years are replaced
like for like, and that includes the age of the trees. Does that help? Wonderful. So we have
one proposal with the additional condition. Can I see all those in favour, please?
Those against?
Any abstentions? That has passed, thank you.
And we move on to the next one, which is Planning Application 23-1491-FH.
And that is Land West of Ashford Road, New Romley. Do we have any updates, please?
Yes, we do, Chairman. Good evening, members. We have an additional representation received
concerning, raising concerns about pedestrian access to the town, the parking and surface water
drainage. Kent Highway still have concerns about the access to the five self-build plots,
which is the outline part of the proposal. So in order to overcome the concerns,
I propose an additional section 106 obligation requiring the location of the five self-build plots
to be identified. And an additional condition stating that no development shall start in the
vicinity of self-build plots until the reserve matters approval for the access and boundaries
to the self-build plots have been approved by the LPA. The final details of this to be agreed with
and delegated to the Chief Planner. I'd also like to clarify that the proposed affordable
housing mix is 19 two-bed departments, two three-bed houses and one four-bed house. This is 22% which
is policy compliant and the approach has been agreed by the Council as a housing manager.
I'd also just like to clarify that the house type on Plot 58 has been changed.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. And we have several speakers on this one. Our first
speaker is Mr Richard Crooks, who's a local resident to speak against the application. Could you come
forward, sir? Okay, I'll speak louder. Well, you have three minutes from when you start, sir.
Good evening. Okay, I've lived in New Romney for the last 20 years. My wife was actually
brought up in New Romney and so she returned to live there with me after 40 years.
Our property borders the development as our back garden shares a boundary with the well-established
natural pond and a corner plot of the development as plots 40 to 47. My first concern relates to
flooding and contamination risks. I've taken photos over several wet seasons showing flooding
over two feet of water extending from my back garden into the corner of the field,
where two-story flats will back on to. So what will be the impact of runoff from
the hard surfaces, especially regarding contaminating this historic pond?
Secondly, and my main objection, out of character, three-story flats still remain in the proposal.
Well, why indeed? When the neighbouring Pendleton development across the Ashford Road
fits well with existing housing and this development is of two-story dwelling.
Thirdly, and from major concerns of many residents, impact on our infrastructure.
Already stretched in so many respects, even before numerous housing developments in
New Romney come on stream. Namely, additional traffic on poor roads and lanes leading to
much frustration and higher risk of serious accident. My lane being spittle for your lane is
a classic example. Next sewage system, barely coping with demand from new housing and excess
rainfall being experienced more and more. By the way, somewhat ironically, the only improved road
surface I know of, and mentioned by Councillor PAUL Thomas earlier, is the fairly recently
tarmac track leading from station road to the sewage works. Why? It's because tankers are
needed more and more. Next, our medical facilities stretch to the limit with new health centre,
but really needed. And finally, schools. Can the current schools facilities handle the likely
increase of pupils on the Romney Mart? Surely, is it not time to address these important matters
before any further developments? And developers must contribute meaningfully. I mean, not just
a few plants in wooden tubbets. Thank you very much for the opportunity to raise my concerns
and concerns of my fellow residents. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Our next speaker is
Councillor John Rivers on behalf of new Romney Town Council to speak against the application.
If you could come forward, sir, good evening, and you have three minutes from when you start.
Thank you. Good evening. Thank you very much. New Romney Town Council Planning Committee
felt it was over development and didn't meet FDHC suggested housing mix as per the comments
on 7 March 2024. New Romney Town Council Planning Committee has a number of concerns about this
application, and these have been reflected in the resident comments we have received.
The site is in the local planners policy RM4, and it says it is suitable for 60 dwellings.
The currently approved planning application for this site is for 87 homes, and the council
did work with the original developer, Gladman Associates, on the application, and our concerns
were addressed. The current application, Y-stroke 20, stroke 2060, stroke FH, was only approved in
March 23. I was not called in to the planning committee. This application is for 91 dwellings,
and five self-build, the RM4 policy only states three self-build, so 96 dwellings in total.
The major change is the inclusion of a three-storey block of flats, which in our opinion is not
in keeping with the street scene, is not consistent with other buildings in New Romney, as in over
intensification of the site. We also have to bear in mind that these additional dwellings
were put Australian on the existing wastewater and surface drainage systems,
which failed in this area during the heavy rainstorms in November 23, resulting in flooding
of properties. The Romney Town Council planning committee proposed that this application has
refused on the grounds already stated, and that Pentland commit to build the dwellings in the
already approved planning application. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir, and our next
speaker is Lucy Wilford, who's the agent to speak in support of the application.
Good evening, and your three-minute starts when you start. Thank you.
Good evening, members, and thank you. As members are aware, the site is allocated for residential
development in the adopted local plan and benefits from Outline Planning Commission for 87 new homes.
The principle of residential development is therefore established, and these proposals seeking
96 new homes are within the development parameters approved as part of the outline.
This application seeks to make the most efficient use of this greenfield and sustainable site in
New Romney, which the adopted crawl strategy identifies as a main town and prominent centre for the
new Romney area. The uplift in the number of homes makes the most efficient use of this site in
accordance with the MPPF, reducing pressure on the need to release other greenfield sites for
development to meet identified housing needs. Overall, the proposal provides for a mix of accommodation,
to meet a range of needs and respond to the local context. Following the submission of the
application, the number of homes has been reduced from 99, sorry, 96, and included policy compliant
levels of affordable housing and five self-built properties. The density of the development remains
low, with a gross density of just 28 dwellings per hectare, and provides an 0.91 hectares of open
space in excessive policy requirements. The proposals respond sensitively to site locations
both in respect to both layout and appearance, and have been subject to design evolution,
finding feedback from your officers. In particular, the proposed apartments have been
re-elevated, with building heights reduced to two stories at the site boundaries. There are three
story apartments at the centre of the site, and these continue to fall within the parameters
established under the Outline Planning Commission. Changes also incorporate additional new tree
planting within areas of open space, and particularly within the streets. Based on the changes,
your officers agree that the amount of development is acceptable in character and design,
and would not harm the landscape character or the visual amenity of the local area,
contributing to creating a strong sense of place. All homes satisfy building regulations,
provide EV charging, and incorporate renewable energy technologies. All homes are in DSS compliant,
and provide private amenity space. The ecology of ecology has confirmed it is satisfied from a
ecology perspective, as has KCC drainage in the EA in respect to drainage. Parking levels are
compliant with KCC and the council standards, and KCC confirmed that the proposals can be accommodated
in the highway network. Under CL, the development contributes 450,000 towards infrastructure provision,
and of the 533,000 towards under section 106, principally for education, which was not secured
under the Outline Commission originally. There's also contributions to the NHS.
Flying discussions with your officers, the proposal secured the delivery of a highly
high quality development, which makes the most efficient use of this allocated and sustainable
site. Thank you. Thank you. Spot on for time. Well done. Thank you very much, and our last speaker
is Councillor David Wimble. If you'd like to come forward, good evening, and you have
three minutes from when you start, sir. Thank you, Chair, and good evening Councillors.
I'm here today to passionately articulate why this development must be reconsidered
and ultimately rejected. This is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a critical issue
that affects the whole fabric of our community. Firstly, this development falls within my ward.
Over the past few months, I've had 12 constituents approach me during my monthly surgeries, each
expressing deep concerns about this greenfield development. Actually, having said that, they've
already started digging it up, so the greenfields have gone. Their voices echo a border sentiment
in our town. To be clear, I had no grudge against pendant homes. In fact, I actively supported
their Phase 1 development at the Brownfield site of Rodney Marshall Potato Company. However,
Phase's two and three have ventured into greenfield sites, a move that's causing considerable
distress and concern. Phase 2 was particularly contentious being built on top of what was designated
as Saxon Fort. At the time, the archaeological reports seem to be disregarded. The current
phase has been built on what is well known to have been a historical monument of an ancient
priory. What concerns me about what we're debating tonight is that there has already been major
earthworks despite the Council not having given any formal decisions. This is a blazing case of
putting the carp for the horse. This site, unlike Phase's two and three, lies outside the town
boundary of New Romney. Actually, I believe is in hope, not in New Romney, and that's outside
the designated development zone. We face a similar issue with the proposal for ten holiday shallays
on nearby land, and it was clear that we was told that no such development should happen again
and set a precedent. Let me address the notion of nimbism. This is not merely that people object
into the development in their backyard. The concerns here are substantial and rooted in
factual evidence. The town council was informed in 2009 that New Romney's sewage plant was operating
20% over its design capacity. Since then, we've had over 1,500 new homes being built in and around
New Romney. Yet, there's been no visible impact from any of the Section 106 funds. Our doctors are
still having long waiting lists for appointments. You'll struggle to get an NHS dental appointment,
registration, NHS dental registration, and school classroom sizes capacity. Pent and homes themselves
committed to installing a payment along well-flaying, but nearly a decade later, this has not been
fulfilled. Consequently, pedestrians are at risk with speeding cars and was become a dangerous
racetrack. We've also had sinkholes in well-flaying that took 14 months to rectify since they started
building. The main thing for me is the flood risk. I'm jumping forward because I see we've only got
30 seconds. Wallingham sewer is where the water is supposed to drain into, and yet, for the running
water site next door, we've told that any further development into this sewer would increase the
chance of flooding and the key reason for wanting to reject it. The application... Thank you, Mr.
Last sentence. I implore the council to reject this application and the views of our ratepayers
who elected us to represent their interests must be listened to. Until we have a necessary
infrastructure in place, we cannot sustain more large developments. Let's restore this to a
Greenfield site. Thank you. Thank you. Councillors, Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to echo the concerns raised by Richard John and David this evening.
As being said, the RM4, the policy RM4 for this particular site originally said 60 homes,
and we're now 50% greater than that. I was pleased that we actually had confirmed tonight
the affordable housing scheme. Again, when you have a look at it, the three-storey flats that
have been built as part of this particular planning application, most of those are going to go towards
affordable housing. Again, it's doing it on the cheap, in my opinion.
Pentland tried to get this through as a non-material amendment, which was refused, which I was really
pleased about. If you have a look at the consultations that have been had and the objections have been
raised, pretty much all of those objections follow along from what we've heard from John and Richard
and David this evening. The Design and Access Statement says that there are other three-storey
flat-ed developments in the area. Well, there is only one, and that's a residential care facility
Springwood Cause at the end of Church Road and Station Road. That particular development
replaced an existing three-storey building that was there was a shop, actually. So again, I think
to claim that there are other three-storey developments in the area is stretching the point slightly.
Just in relation to flooding, that's been identified tonight in terms of the impact
that was felt by residents further along Ashford Road following the once-in-thirty year
rain event that we had last November. I can tell you from personal experience, we were distributing
sandbags to houses along that particular on Ashford Road to prevent their properties from flooding.
So I have real concerns that the way that the development has increased and where these particular
flats are proposed to go is not going to help that situation. There's already been stated,
and as we said earlier on, in a previous application, that the whole issue about managing wastewater
in New Romney is at a critical stage. We are and have been suffering multiple storm overflows
where raw sewage is discharged to the sea, and that happens on a very regular basis,
particularly in the winter. So anything which pushes that over and above what we currently have
cannot be acceptable. So again, I'd like to make the recommendation that this application is
refused on the basis that the three-storey flats that are included within this particular design
are not within the street scene and don't line up with the arrangement elsewhere in New Romney.
My second concern is around management of wastewater from the site and the impact that's likely to
have bearing in mind there is actually a sewage pumping station. As part of this development,
you'll see it around the red line, and that pumping station actually failed in November
last year, along with a number of others in New Romney. So the infrastructure is pushed to the
limit and it's failed at critical times, which is not an acceptable situation. So my proposal
chair is this application is refused for those reasons. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas, Councillor Cooper. I'm more than happy to second that's another problem as
well. Thank you, Councillor Cooper. Councillor Goddard.
Yes, in fact, I was going to support my colleague from New Romney and second his proposal.
They seem to have, like it's been said by all the speakers, phone these three-storey buildings,
as though they just phoned them in the middle, and lots I agree with those in the comments from
New Romney, town council, and the three speakers, last Ii, Pentland, and have hammered New Romney
in various cases, but won't go into that. It's not relevant tonight, but we'll support my colleagues
from New Romney. Thank you. Would any other Councillors like to speak? Councillor Hoinsby?
Yes, thank you, Chairman. Can I just ask? So if this application is refused,
the developers still have planning permission for 87 houses, is that correct? That they could?
Yes, Councillor Hoinsby, they still have, well, they have outline permission for 87 houses.
And if I can just talk about the two grounds of refusal, this is an allocated site,
and it has outline planning permission for 87 dwellings. The outline planning permission
did have some parameter plans, which showed that central core part of the development
is being three stories. So that is what they're proposing, is in accordance with the parameters
of the outline planning permission. And in terms of the second ground, the wastewater treatment,
we would have to have that based on a technical objection. And the application has been assessed
in terms of its flood risk assessment, and it's been assessed by the Environment Agency,
the KCC as local lead flood authority, and southern water, all of whom have no objection.
So it would be very difficult to sustain an objection on that refusal on those grounds
that there is an impact on flooding or in terms of wastewater.
Thank you, Councillor for that. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions. One of the requirements
of the MPPF is around sort of mixed and balanced communities, isn't it? I know Councillor
Thomas mentioning that effectively there's the centre of the development is going to be where
all of the affordable housing goes. Does that fit with that requirement for mixed and balanced
developments? The idea being that developments are going to be egalitarian, as it were, and
everyone's going to live everywhere with each other. And then the second question, just around
and forgive me, I'm not an expert on this, 106, but I've seen previous ones where things like
library provision have been mentioned, and I think even potentially local democracy-type
provisions around pressure. Why weren't those included in this case? Is that just because they
can be delivered under sale, or is it because they're not important?
Thank you. Firstly, in terms of the affordable housing, there are affordable housing in the
blocks in the centre, but that's not the only place that there is affordable housing. It is spread
on parts of the site. And in terms of library provision, what we've agreed is that education,
so secondary primary and send, can be sought through Section 106, but that the other requirements
that KCC used to ask for, or will seek contributions for are paid through sale.
Thank you, Councillor Mike Linkwell.
In the interest of us not going on to midnight, I won't repeat everything that other Councillors
have said, but I do agree, do echo what Councillor Thomas said and other speakers this evening
raises a lot of concerns. This development, I think we hear a lot about efficient use of
a site, but I don't think it's an efficient use of a site if it is increasing the risk of surface
flooding and it's increasing the strain on infrastructure. That's not the definition of
efficient in my mind. I have one question, though, in 7.97, it states that the site falls within the
triple SI impact risk zones for Dungeness, Romney, Martian, Rye, Bay. There is potential for likely
significant effects to these areas, and then nothing is said about what that actually means,
or how that can be mitigated, so I was just interested in if there is a likely significant
impact, what is it and what are we doing about it, or why are we approving something if there is?
Thanks. Just coming back on that triple SI point, it is simply due to this whole area is
in the risk zone, and the additional people will put extra pressure visiting the triple SI, so
we have to assess it as to whether it's direct impacts or indirect impacts. This is an indirect
impact, so a Psalm's contribution can be taken from Sill in which to mitigate against those
indirect impacts from those additional people, and that will be projects that the Council
are working on as part of their Psalm's action plan. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor KEN. Yeah, I'd like to support my colleagues from the Romney because
the area is overcrowded. When you drive there, you're sitting in traffic, there's petrol pumping
out into the atmosphere. That's the seaside area, and it's stinks and petrol. We're taking away
everything from that area. They're going to have flooding. It's just overbearing and too much.
Can these developers not think about what they're doing to an area that is already overcrowded,
where the roads are absolutely chock-block? In the summer, it takes about an hour to get from
folks then to Dimchurch, which should be a 20-minute trip. Our roads in this area are chock-block,
and they're never taken into consideration when developments are put into place,
and I think KCC needs to answer to why they're not looking at that.
Thank you, Councillor Polybreaking.
Thank you, Chair. We've heard much about these three-story blocks of flats, and it was interesting
to hear that they were also part of the outline commission that this site already benefits from.
I saw Paragraph 3.5 references to the changes made to the apartment blocks in line with the
feedback and consultation and indeed office of feedback. Can you tell us what those changes have
been to improve the appearance of those blocks? Yes, originally, or as part of the application
progressed, there were some 2.5-story flats in the southern southwestern part of the site,
which had windows at three-story level overlooking the properties at the rear,
and we asked the applicant to change those to two-stories so that they would have had less
of an impact on the neighbouring properties. We also pulled them away from the boundary.
Sorry, we also missed that part of your question. We also changed the design in the central part
of the—or the flats, actually, but maybe in the central part of the site, as we didn't feel that
they were in keeping and the two generica design, so we asked for some additional
detailing, which they provided, and we're now satisfied with those.
Would any other Councillors like to speak? Councillors should.
Thank you. Just on a note that there was some requirements suggested by the fire and rescue
that appear to have been met, and then it mentions Kent police making suggestions
about improvement in terms of crime prevention. Have those been addressed?
I believe they have been, and we will add those as an informative to if crime permission was approved.
Would any other Councillor might speak? I'll say my bit now. Remembering that they already
have outlying crime permission. I just feel that this is trying to just
eke that extra little bit over the edge to put the extra five or six properties in.
I don't agree. I don't feel that the infrastructure is there to support it.
I'm incredibly worried that the sewage pumping station failed recently, and yet we want to
put another estate form for a better word in there. That worries me. I'm worried that the
residents are already saying that they know for a fact that this field floods. I'm not convinced
with the surface water drainage fly away, not causing further problems down the line. So I
myself also have some concerns. I'll ask one more time. Would any other Councillor
like to speak on this? No. Sorry. If you'd like to go forward.
Thank you, Chair. I hear what people are saying, but I think I have to remind you that it has
outlying planning permission for 87 dwellings. What we're talking about here is an increase of
nine dwellings. I haven't heard, as I've said, the technical issues in respect to the application.
There is not one of the consultants who have got raised any objections. The flooding,
they've demonstrated that it will actually provide a betterment for properties outside the site.
And in every other respect, in terms of sewage disposal, surface water disposal,
all the statutory consultees are satisfied. So it would be very, very difficult to sustain an
objection on those grounds, if not impossible. And I suspect we would have an award of costs
against us. So in terms of the increase in density, I haven't really heard what is the
demonstrable harm. And you, as the decision-making authority body, have to show what is the demonstrable
harm from the 87 that has got outlined planning permission to the 96 that is now proposed in front of us.
Councillors, I believe you're going forward with the proposal?
Yeah, again, I think, as we've heard from local residents and from the town council,
it's the fact that that particular block, which is up there at the moment, is completely out of
keeping with everything else, which is in the area. And that is what is going to be used
to deliver the vast majority of the affordable housing. And Councillor Fuller has already alluded
to that in his comments, I think it was earlier on, to say, you know, this is not a mix, this is
not a spread. And I know in a previous application, when we were dealing with, I think it was the
top of Sandgate Road, where we said, do you actually put everything together, or do you have a pepper
pot approach to it? Again, here, we're putting everything in one place, that's the intention.
So, and that, whether we like it or not, is the easiest and cheapest fix from the developer
to deliver the affordable housing on this site. So again, just in terms of the things that
I personally disagree with and I think many of the committee members around here,
the fact that we've actually got a street scene, which is very different to anywhere else in
New Romney, the fact that we've actually got this three-storey block set in the middle of this
development is outside of, well, certainly what I believe to be an acceptable street scene.
And so I don't believe it complies with our policy associated with that,
particularly those associated with, you know, quality through design, and then providing
the right mix for the site. We were able to do it, as Sue's already said, with the existing
mix, and the work that the Gladman Associates did with the town council was very welcome,
actually. We've had no such communications with Bentlands at all. So again, I think,
from our perspective, we've not been included in any of the developments, because I think we
would have made our opposition known sooner. So again, I think it's trying to squeeze every
pound out of this particular site. But again, going back to the planning reasons, it is because
the three-storey block is out of keeping with the rest of the site and with the rest of the area.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for stepping in, members. I understand members very
strongly, sincerely, help concerns about the development of this site. However, as Mrs. Head has said,
it's an uplift of nine units over something that already has permission
on the site that is allocated in this council's local plan. In terms of the scale of buildings on
the site, as you've heard from Mrs. Head, the existing, the extended outline permission
allows for the erection of three-storey units. So if members were to refuse planning
permission on that basis and it went to appeal, the first question the council would be asked by
the appellant would be, Is three-storey is permitted by the outline permission that's been granted?
And we would say, Yes,
and that would be that. So I would urge members to give very serious
consideration to not progress in that reason for refusal, because in my view, I think it would
not stand up scrutiny on appeal bearing the planning history of the site. In terms of drainage,
whether it's surface water or foul drainage, and again, the report sets out that we've got no
objection from southern water, no objection from the environment agency, no objection from KCC,
in their capacity as the local flood authority. So again, if planning permission would be refused
on that basis and it went to appeal, we would have to provide technical evidence to demonstrate
that those statutory consultees, the advice they have given us, is incorrect.
Now, I haven't heard any such detail coming from members tonight, and to be fair, I wouldn't
expect it. But the statutory consultees that required to comment on these issues relating to
planning applications have all raised no objection. So again, I would urge members to give very
careful consideration as to whether or not planning permission should be refused on that basis,
because again, I don't think it would stand up scrutiny at Peel. The key issue here, I think,
for members to grapple with is what harm arises from the uplifting numbers on the site
and uplifting nine, I understand. So where does the harm arise from that?
I think that is the key issue that members need to consider. We, as officers consider,
there's no significant harm arising from it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have recommended approval.
But just in broad terms, the density of development is not so significant as to
warrant refusal. In terms of the layout, that's considered acceptable.
And like I said, we've received no objections from statutory consultees.
I think members need to be very, very careful when considering voting to refuse this application,
that the reasons for refusal are going to stand up to scrutiny at Peel.
Because I think on the basis that the reasons put forward, I think we would lose an appeal,
and I'm fairly certain we would probably lose costs as well. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Osby. I move the officers' recommendation, Chair.
Do we have a second? We don't appear to have a second.
Councillor Thomas, I'm not correct that you brought a proposal forward to refuse.
Was that yourself? Yes, correct.
So we have one proposal with a seconder, and that is to...
Excuse me, Chair. Could I just interrupt? Sorry. Could I just suggest that instead of refusing
it tonight, you vote to defer it, and we can discuss with the applicant whether or not they're
willing to amend the proposal. I know the agent is sitting here, so we'll have listened to what
you said. And I don't know whether they are willing to do that, or whether they're willing to pursue
a refusal, but if I could have a chance to discuss it with them and see whether or not any amendments
can be made. Councillor Thomas, would that be acceptable? I think, based on the advice we've
received from Rob, if I'm allowed to, am I allowed to amend my proposal to defer all?
I will of course allow you to make. Thank you very much, and I'm sure Councillor Cooper would
have the seconder. So again, I think, based on soon and Rob's advice that we go for the
defer on and see if we can get anything else from the developer. Thank you.
So can I just clarify, that would be purely on design because of the advice that we've given you,
or layout, or numbers, because of the advice we've given you in terms of the statutory
consultees and the impact on flooding and everything? If I may, I still have concerns
of the sewage system. So again, I think it's a question of how do we word that? Because again,
as we've heard from Richard, who actually lives on the boundary of this, the people who have
actually done these reports and said this is acceptable weren't there in their wellie boots,
when we had a once in a 30-year rain event, and they weren't there when people had their houses
flooded with sewage, either, which we had in New Romney. And certainly I had two residents who
had to leave their homes from November until April because the house was flooded with sewage.
So I still have real concerns about that. And maybe that's a wider issue that I know the
leader of this council has actually said on a number of occasions, including on Radio Kent
last week, about his concerns for how foul water and sewage is dealt with in the whole
of the running marsh area, not just in New Romney. But again, maybe that's a question we need to
take out further. But again, that the fact is that in November last year, the existing systems
couldn't cope. And adding more to it, even if it is 10% increase, which is what's been proposed
in this planning application, will severely test those systems. And I don't believe they fit for
purpose. Thank you. But I will accept that we will defer the application. I'm fine with that. Thank you.
Thank you. I do also share your worries. I think what we have this evening is we have very clear
policies. We have a planning application that has gone through that stands, but we have local
knowledge that doesn't always give you the technical background, but it's the lived experience of
what actually happens in this area. And I think it's not that we are rejecting the officer's advice
per se. It's just we do know that there are other issues around this. But we have one
proposal, and that's to defer it so that we can actually go back to the developer and maybe speak
through the actual design, especially the three stories seems to be giving quite some concern.
And maybe we take behind the scenes a further conversation not to do with this application,
maybe with the leader regarding the work that he's been doing regarding the sewage
pumping in the area. Sorry, can I say something?
So we have one proposal, and that's to defer for those reasons. All those in favour, please.
And I can see that's unanimous. Thank you very much.
That is the last application of this evening. Thank you very much. It's some very good debate.
safe home and we'll see you next time.
Summary
The meeting focused on several planning applications, with significant discussions on a proposed development in New Romney and a holiday let in Church in Romney Marsh. The council deferred a decision on the New Romney development to address concerns about infrastructure and design, while approving the holiday let with additional conditions for tree protection.
The most significant topic was the planning application for land west of Ashford Road, New Romney. Local residents and council members raised concerns about overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, and flooding risks. The site already had outline planning permission for 87 homes, but the new application sought to increase this to 96 homes, including three-story flats. Councillor Paul Thomas and others argued that the three-story flats were out of character with the area and that the local sewage and drainage systems were already overburdened. Despite officers' advice that the application met technical requirements and that refusal could lead to an appeal and costs, the council decided to defer the decision. This deferral aims to discuss potential amendments with the developer, particularly concerning the design and layout of the three-story flats.
Another significant topic was the application for a holiday let at 18 Seawall in Church in Romney Marsh. Local resident Amanda Robins and Councillor David Wimble expressed concerns about the size of the proposed building, potential flooding, and the impact on local infrastructure. The applicant, Adam Hawker, noted that the new proposal was smaller than a previously approved plan. The council approved the application but added conditions to ensure tree protection and replacement if any trees were damaged during construction.
Other applications discussed included:
- A residential block of flats at the rear of 120 Sandgate Road, Folkestone, which was approved despite concerns about parking and fire safety.
- A development at Port Flour, Coombe Wood Lane in Hawkinge, which was approved with conditions to manage construction and protect existing trees.
Overall, the meeting highlighted the council's efforts to balance development needs with community concerns, particularly regarding infrastructure and environmental impact. The meeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee for Folkestone and Hythe was held to discuss several planning applications. The key topics included a proposal for a new residential block of flats, a holiday let in Dimchurch, and a significant development in New Romney.
Land adjoining the sewage treatment work station approach, Littlestone (Y18-0156-SH):
- The proposal was for a retrospective change of use of land and stables to showman's winter quarters.
- Conditions included a lighting scheme, restrictions on the number of caravans and wagons, occupation limited to October to March, and storage of fuel and oil.
- New Romney Town Council opposed the application, citing non-conformance with planning policies and concerns about the site's suitability.
- The applicant's agent argued the need for the site and compliance with planning requirements.
- Councillors debated the site's compliance and the need for further information.
- Decision: Deferred for a site visit and further information on wastewater management.
Port Flour, Coom Wood Lane, Hawkinge (23-0003-FH):
- The application was for two new dwellings on a large garden plot.
- The proposal was supported by the planning officer and councillors, noting the need for family housing and sustainable building techniques.
- Decision: Approved unanimously.
Rear of 120 Sandgate Road, Folkestone (23-0108-FH):
- The proposal was for a new residential block of flats providing two one-bedroom and two two-bedroom flats.
- Concerns were raised about parking and fire safety, but the planning officer confirmed compliance with regulations.
- Decision: Approved with conditions.
18 Seawall Dimchurch, Romney Marsh (23-1384-FH):
- The application was for a holiday let on a site currently occupied by a garage.
- Concerns included the size of the building, flood risk, and impact on the local area.
- Councillors debated the need for tree protection and the impact on the street scene.
- Decision: Approved with additional conditions for tree protection and landscaping.
Land West of Ashford Road, New Romney (23-1491-FH):
- The proposal was for 96 new homes, including five self-build plots.
- Concerns were raised about overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, and flood risk.
- The planning officer noted that the site already had outline permission for 87 homes and that statutory consultees had no objections.
- Councillors expressed strong concerns about the three-story flats and the impact on local infrastructure.
- Decision: Deferred to discuss potential amendments with the developer and further review of design and infrastructure concerns.
Attendees
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents