Author: Lesley

This post includes a video of Councillor Roger Wilkins who is a member of the district council planning committee saying that Princes Parade will go ahead. Clearly he has fettered his discretion. You would think that with the District council being both applicant and planning authority that they would be more careful to show that everything is being done by the book. Instead he has shown, as many people already believe, that the decision to grant planning permission has already been made.

https://shepwayvox.org/2018/05/26/cllr-roger-wilkins-princes-parade/?cn-reloaded=1

In last week’s edition of the Folkestone & Hythe Express David Monk was quoted as saying (in connection with the proposed development on Princes Parade) “we will probably need to pay about £2 million initially , but the homes will pay for the leisure centre and we’ll see a return.”

However, from the limited amount of information we can see in the redacted financial viability calculation, it is clear that the claimed cost figure of £2 million is after the revenue from the sale of the houses has been taken into account and so will not be recouped let alone produce a return.

This heavily redacted document has just been posted to the FHDC’s planning website. Very few figures have been left unredacted but we have passed the document to our experts to see what they can make of it. Read it here:

additional – financial viability report

 

Following the publication of the additional planning documents KWT commented that the applicant should review the scheme design in view of the close proximity to the canal which is a Local Wildlife Site. They stress the importance of the Maritime Grassland. They say that the applicant should not be asking the ecologist to defend the design but instead should adjust the scheme to better reflect the ecological constraints.

additional – KWT comment

In their original comment the Environment Agency requested a condition that their be a 25m buffer zone along the canal to protect the canal. When the applicant stated that they could not meet this condition the EA disappointingly backed down and have now said that a 20m buffer would be acceptable where the 25m cannot be achieved.

Historic England do not feel that the additional information addresses their existing objection so the objection still stands. Read the full letter here:

additional – HE comment

At the planning meeting for the Folkestone Seafront Development on Tuesday Councillor Hollingsbee said that there will be a swimming pool and leisure facilities on Princes Parade.

So another cabinet member who doesn’t seem to understand that they still need to get planning permission. Given that the district council will be making the decision on it’s own planning application you’d think they would be more careful not to predetermine the council’s position. About 1h9mins on the video below.

Having considered the additional documents Sandgate Parish Council continues to object to the planning application. additional documents – sandgate comments

In their letter which you can read here Historic England UA18 – Detailed response

Historic England say:

“In summary, in general terms while we accept that the draft local plan has the potential to
provide a good basis for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and
heritage assets as required by the NPPF (para 126) and could provide a strategy for enhancing
the historic environment (para 157), this is seriously undermined by the lack of a sound
evidence base for the historic environment and, in particular, by the inclusion of policy UA18
that promotes development that is fundamentally harmful to a specific, nationally significant
and unique heritage asset. On this basis Historic England cannot support the Shepway Places
and Policies Submission draft Local Plan and believes it to be inconsistent with national
policy and to be unsound.”