Author: Lesley

In today’s Express David Monk is repeating his claim that this is probably the last chance for a new pool and states that they need the return from the houses to build the leisure centre. But have they actually tried to meet the funding gap any other way? (Most of the cost of the new leisure centre will be met from the sale of the existing pool site and the s106 money from Nickoll’s Quarry). And in any case building the leisure centre on NQ would be cheaper because not so much land preparation would be required.

The key argument in the decision as to whether or not to grant planning permission for Princes Parade will be whether the public benefit of the leisure centre (and the other benefits claimed by the council) outweigh the harm to the scheduled ancient monument; the loss of open space; the harm to the visual amenity; the risk of building in a flood risk area etc Of course Hythe needs a new pool but has the case for a leisure centre really been made? Are the council right to have ruled out other sites such as Nickoll’s Quarry? Is there really no other alternative to meet the funding gap other than to build 150 new homes on our precious open space?

Will the affordable housing actually be delivered? Without access to the financial viability calculations how can we be sure? It’s going to be a very expensive site to develop and moving the road won’t be cheap.

And are the other “public benefits” really that great? Will the new promenade be  that much better than the one we have already? Will the “improvements” to the canal really make up for the harm to the setting of the canal or is this just maintenance work that the council should have been doing anyway?

The ecology report (one of the many documents in the planning application) includes a timetable for the works. It has site clearance starting in June 2018 (a tad optimistic perhaps?). Construction of the leisure centre, diversion of the road and construction of the new promenade from June 2019 to Nov 2020. The building the houses on the eastern end from June 2020 to Dec 2021 and on the western end from Jan 2021 to 2022. Just think of the years of mess, noise and general disruption!

The Plans & Works Committee of Hythe Town Council will be meeting at 9.30 on Tues 10th October to consider the Princes Parade planning application. Their decision will only be advisory as it is Shepway District Council who will make the final decision (on an application by themselves to themselves!) but we need as many of our supporters to be at the meeting as possible.

The meeting will be held in Hythe Town Hall and the agenda will be posted here:

http://www.hythetc.kentparishes.gov.uk/agendas-and-minutes/

 

It is on record that historically there was japanese knotweed on the land at Princes Parade.

On 8 Feb 2017 the Folkestone & Hythe Express published a claim by council officials that the knotweed was “removed from the site more than 10 years ago”.

But when proof of this was requested via a Freedom of Information request the council said they did not hold the information.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/control_or_eradication_of_japane#outgoing-623534

Questions were asked about the knotweed at the cabinet meeting on 7 February 2017. You can watch the video here – knotweed comes up at 4 mins 33 secs:

Council Meetings

At the meeting it was confirmed that japanese knotweed was present between 2002 and 2005 but had been subject to a programme of control. More recent survey work has not find any knotweed on the site.

However in August 2017 a member of the public spotted a japanese knotweed plant on Princes Parade.

On 25 August 2017 the chief executive said in an email to a member of SPP “With regards to the specifics of Japanese Knotweed – I can assure you that officers from the Council carry out regular checks on our land and undertake an eradication programme for invasive plants. The programme includes addressing any incidences of Japanese Knotweed, which is usually dealt with via stem injection.”

In the Sept 6 2017 edition of the  Folkestone & Hythe Express a council spokesman admitted that a small amount of japanese knotweed had been found in bushes adjacent to the development site (note not proposed development site) and said that any knotweed discovered on the site itself would be treated and the site cleared before any homes were built.

The council claims that “Princes Parade has been thoroughly walked by grounds maintenance officers and no other plants have been identified.” But the site is currently very overgrown with nettles and brambles so it is hard to believe that the officers have been able to thoroughly inspect the site.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to the hard work of some of our supporters we have now obtained a further 9 documents via FoI/ERI request – see the link below.

We would particularly draw your attention to the two fee notes from Tibbalds which say:

“Shepway is not yet certain about the range of uses that the site could accommodate, although it is clear that the principal use would be residential. Other uses could include a leisure centre and the relocation of the Hythe and Saltwood Yacht Club. Open space will need to be incorporated, especially to protect the setting of the Royal Military Canal, Initial soft market testing with a developer has confirmed a positive view of the site’s potential for residential.”

and

“A primary school and a sports centre have both previously been considered for the site, but it is now thought unlikely that these will come forward.”

No doubt Shepway will argue that things have moved on since then since clearly they are now working on plans for a leisure centre but given that they still have not proven that the facility will be financially viable it is understandable that some people still believe the leisure centre won’t materialise.

We would also draw your attention to the Historic England letter dated 2.6.16. This raises similar points to their response to last November’s local plan consultation which Shepway seem to have more or less ignored in the latest draft of the local plan

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/princes_parade_briefinstructions?nocache=incoming-1022456#incoming-1022456

As we don’t like Shepway DC holding secret meetings about Princes Parade we want to be upfront about the fact that a couple of us and our Planning Aid adviser this morning had a meeting with some of the planning officers at Shepway. The discussions were quite technical about things such as the interaction between the determination of the planning application and the examination of the Local Plan. The way things are looking the two are likely to be taking place at more or less the same time which could be interesting.

Japanese Knotweed has today been spotted on Princes Parade despite Shepway DC’s denials of it’s presence earlier this year.

 

There was an interesting story in this week’s Express. Residents of Densole have launched a judicial review over plans to build an eco holiday park on the Kent Downs. Planning officers recommended refusal but the councillors overruled them. The residents claim that the councillors did not properly address planning policy considerations designed to protect AONBs. We will be watching this case carefully as we may have to consider a JR for Princes Parade if Shepway don’t follow the proper process. JRs are expensive so if you are able to pledge any money towards the costs please send us an email info@saveprincesparade.org. We won’t be collecting the money unless and until we know exactly what the legal action would be.

A new Facebook page has been set up – Princes Parade Now – which is very much in favour of the development. Although it doesn’t say so, it is clear that the page has been set up by either the council or its PR consultants as the website address is Shepway’s Princes Parade website. When we posted a comment about this it was deleted and we were blocked. Fortunately someone else has repeated the comment so visitors to the page will know the truth. But how can it be right that Shepway is using council tax to pay for this propaganda? Where is the transparency? And given that they are both landowner and planning authority how can it be right that they can put something this biased in the public domain?