Hythe

Our recent representations are posted here.
Updated 28th May 2010

The Society has submitted the following comments concerning to Planning Application Y10/0436/SH - Fishermen's Beach, Hythe.

· We have noted that this is the last remaining stretch of undeveloped sea frontage in Hythe and we believe that insufficient attention has been given to the possible alternative uses for this unique site. We envisage that such alternative uses could be of inestimable value to the residents of and visitors to the Town and could include a proper swimming pool/lido style of installation accompanied by seasonal shops, cafes and other attractions of benefit to the whole community.

· It is quite probable that such a development could not be funded right now but we should consider the needs of future generations BEFORE disposing of this high social value site for short term financial gain. Morally it belongs to Hythe and its future development should take account of this. A referendum would be in order for such an important development.

· In our view this does not preclude an accompanying development of private properties but on a much smaller scale – indeed it would be sensible to use such to provide some of the funding for the public facilities.

· We do not think that any irrevocable disposal of this site should be allowed at least until the future of the existing swimming pool site is determined and its successor provided for in reasonable walking distance of the town centre.

· We also object to the overall height of the two main buildings which at 19 metres above ground level is totally out of keeping with all the other properties at the western end of the seafront and will simply create a precedent for the re-development to a similar height, of other properties situated there.

We reserve the right to make further representations when we have had time to consider the plans in greater detail.

Back to the top of the page.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Society has submitted the following objections to Planning Application Y08/1145/SH
RETENTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE (AMENDED SCHEME TO THAT APPROVED UNDER Y08/0408/SH)
THE PINES CANNONGATE ROAD HYTHE CT215PT
dd 30 Dec 2009

We wish to register our deep concern about this application and recommend it is refused. The applicant appears to have disregarded the planning conditions on the project and does not explain the reasons for the deviations in the actual build from the conditions laid down in the approved project. This seems rather disrespectful of the Planning process which the Planning Control committee should, in our view, take very seriously. To be clear, our issue at present is with the bulk and height of the building, not the relocation of doors and windows.

Based on the material available in the public domain, the facts appear to be as follows:

Comparing the scale drawing Street Scene Elevation dated 12 January 2009, the basis for the approved application, and the Street Scene Elevation dated 30th December 2009, which shows the dimensions of the actual construction:
The height of the guttering actually built vs. authorized is 50 cm higher; the roof height is 20 cm higher and the top of the roof is 30 cm longer. The extra height of the building is clear from the Street Scene Elevation when the tree behind the garage is viewed. More of it is now obscured when viewed from the road. We find it extraordinary that the actual construction does not comply with the proposed levels. It must be noted that the Designer actually reaffirmed adherence to the approved plan using the Street Scene Plan “marked up to demonstrate compliance of the proposed levels” (see submission dated 12 January 2009, Y08/0408/SH).

The Planning Officer will be aware that there were representations from local residents about this proposed construction (Officers Report dated 28th May 2008 – page 2). We believe these mainly concerned the mass and possible future use of the building. In this report the Officer noted that the design is “slightly taller and larger in scale”, and considered the design acceptable. Nevertheless, the Planning Decision (Y08/0408/SH) posted on SDC website, 27th May 2008 set down conditions on the height of the building under conditions 10 and 12.

Condition 12 specifically addressed the height of the construction. Condition 10 addressed overall dimensions and design in the context of visual amenity. These conditions were clear and explicit, and there is no evidence from the website file that the Applicant or his agent sought to amend these conditions.

We note that there was local concern about the possible future conversion of this three storey garage into a habitable dwelling. The Planning Officer recommended (May 2008) that conditions should be imposed to safeguard against this. This was set out as condition 4 of the Planning approval. If conditions 10 and 12 can be ignored it begs the question whether any of the other conditions will be upheld.

Accordingly, the Civic Society recommends that the proposal be called in for consideration by the Planning Control committee (that is to say, not dealt with by the Planning Officer solely under their delegated powers) and that this retrospective application be denied.

Written by J. A. Hill,
Approved by and pp. Brigadier John Holman, CBE, DL,
Chairman,
Hythe Civic Society.

Back to the top of the page.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Society has made the following comments on the proposal to build a Sainsburys' supermarket on the Smith's site in Hythe.

With reference to this application, I can inform you that having taken into account all the material planning considerations, the Council has decided to grant permission subject to the applicants first entering into an agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. These agreements generally impose restrictions on the way in which developments can be carried out.

Agreements can take some considerable time to conclude and the planning permission will not be issued until the agreement has been signed. You will be notified again when the decision notice is issued.

Alan Joyce has written to the Chief Planning Officer of SDC on behalf of the Society as follows:

Mr C Lewis,
Chief Planning Officer,
Shepway District Council,
Civic Centre,
Castle Hill Avenue,
Folkestone, Kent .

As the application has now been approved I am writing on behalf of the Civic Society requesting reassurance that the conditions and recommendations set out in the submission prepared by Mr Geering prior to the Committee Meeting of 20.10.09 will be properly monitored .

In particular :
Paragraph 4.5 – The Environment Agency recommendations.
Paragraph 4.12 – Natural England ,i.e’ that measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site are secured from the applicant ‘
Para 17.4 – Conditions will be honoured , i.e £200 ,000 to be contributed by Sainsbury’s to a fund to be administered by Hythe Town Council .
Para 20.0 , 20.1- 20.44- Background documents

In addition any complaints from residents and visitors regarding noise, and general nuisance including disruption to the flow of traffic in Military Road will be dealt with promptly.

Finally at the Development meeting held on 15^th December, Mr Geering was asked by one of the Committee Members what size trees would be planted to replace the ones removed. I seem to recall that he said that they would be of a reasonable size, but did not clarify this further. We would expect the minimum to be extra heavy standard 4m to 6m, but preferably a semi mature 6m – 15 m . The latter would go a long way to reducing the impact of the eastern corner of the building ,which has been one of the major complaints from residents.

Copies to :
Harriet Thompson , Development Surveyor, Sainsbury’s South East Region .
Mrs K Belcourt, Mayor of Hythe .
Mrs J McCormick, Clerk to Hythe Town Council.
Mr & Mrs D Massie, 17 Military Terrace, Hythe.

Alan Joyce attended the Development Control committee on December 15th that approved this application. He reported:

I attended the Development Committee meeting last night . The application was approved 11 to 4 . This was despite an impassioned submission by Micheal Lyons , and an even better concise dissection of some of the important aspects by Cllr Tillson, from New Romney, backed up 2 other Cllrs. It was passed with a recommendation by Malcolm Dearden with his Transport hat ( He is not a member of the Development Control Committee ) that CCTV cameras are installed at the Scanlon's Bridge junction, to monitor the flow and have in place a system to alter the traffic light sequence .
The rest of the Councillors including Neil Mathews did not raise objections to the proposal.
I will suggest to the HCS Committee that we should seek from Sainsbury's and Shepway Planning reassurance that the recommendations (of which there quite a number ) made by the Environment Agency and by Shepway themselves are properly monitored during the demolition and construction process.

From: Alan Joyce, Treasurer ,Hythe Civic Society.
Sent: 15 October 2009 20:52

To: Geering, Ben, Shepway Planning Department.

Subject: Re planning applications Imperial Hotel & Sainsbury's

Dear Mr Geering ,

I am writing on behalf of the Hythe Civic Society We are appalled that both applications are to be heard on the same evening. Both are still very contentious and it appears to us that not sufficient time will be given to considered appraisals by the Cllrs of the pros and cons of each application . We note that perhaps the more contentious Sainsbury's is to be last .

Will Cllrs be sufficiently alert , as it is likely to be late in the evening ,to give proper attention to the concerns that have been raised .

Dear Mr Joyce

Thank you for your email.

The reasoning behind holding an extra committee to consider both applications is precisely to allow enough time for the proposals to be considered. Restricting the committee to these 2 items is also more convenient for interested groups and individuals. Councillors have been consulted on, and agree to these arrangements.

Usually applications are considered across the District (often 5+ in an evening). By adding the extra committee date we are providing greater opportunity for the 2 applications to be debated. If the Councillors find that the debate is going to continue beyond usual committee hours (which often extend until 11pm) then the decision does not have to be made on the evening. Councillors have had considerable time to read the report, which includes objections received and view the plans - they will not be approaching the committee without a considerable appreciation of the issues affecting the application.

In my opinion the Council is making a concerted effort to allow for both of these applications to be fully considered.

Kind regards

Ben Geering
Major Projects Officer
Planning & Communities

Shepway District Council, Civic Centre, Castle Hill Avenue, Folkestone, CT20 2QY

FROM HYTHE CIVIC SOCIETY – 8th OCTOBER 2009.

TO:
MR B GEERING
SHEPWAY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CIVIC CENTRE
CASTLE HILL AVENUE
FOLKESTONE
KENT.

Dear Mr Gearing ,

Subject : Sainsbury’s Application YO9 / 0627 / SH .

Further to our e mail and letter of the 12th July 2009 we have given consideration to the subsequent debate and wish to record some additional points for consideration.

Firstly we feel that opinion in Hythe is deeply divided on this matter and that there should be further consultation with the residents of Hythe , including a formal referendum.

Having reviewed the Transport Assessment study, dated June 2009, prepared by Mayor Brown on behalf of Sainsbury’s we consider certain aspects lack credibility.

Taking Section 5 first, in particular paragraphs 5.10 / 5.11.
The walk speed figures whilst probably achievable for the area in the High Street and south of the Military Canal , clearly do not take into account the steepness of the roads ( A261, Barrack Hill, Tanners Hill) and footpaths north of the proposed site .
Possibly up to half the Hythe population and all of the Saltwood residents live in that area. This has some relevance in that Hythe does have a significant number of elderly residents. The likelihood is that they and the younger residents are more likely to use a car to do any shopping.

Equally the same problem arises at paragraph 5.15. The steepness of the roads out of the Town Centre again act as a disincentive to most, the hardy professionals excepted. Some of the timing figures are also questionable for journeys to and from Westenhanger , Lympne and Dymchurch. In the case of the first 2 the access is by the A261 which is very steep coming out of Hythe , and quite dangerous on the section to Newingreen. Cyclists going to Lympne can of course use the side road that branches off the A261 just before Pedlinge, but they still have to climb the hill out of Hythe . In the case of Dymchurch no account has been taken of the prevailing winds which can seriously affect what speed a cyclist can maintain. Also cycling along the A259 can be dangerous , because of the volume of traffic particularly in the summertime. A safer and longer route would be to leave Dymchurch by the Burmarsh Road, joining the NCR 2 to Hythe at Burmarsh . This would take longer than 20 minutes but would be far safer.
It is recognised that NCR 2 provides a suitable route between West Hythe in the West and Folkestone outskirts and Sandgate in the East..
These observations are backed up by one of our Committee members who is the Sustrans ( National Cycle Network ) Liaison Ranger covering an area from Dover to Rye . He and other members of the Shepway District Cycle Forum, in conjunction with the KCC Highways Dept, have been carrying a survey of potential reasonably safe cycle routes in the Shepway District suitable for shoppers, schoolchildren , and commuters . To date the only identified safe route is the NCR 2.

Of greater concern is the Traffic Flow and Trip Generation report at Section 7.
We note the survey was carried out on 27th & 28th February 2009, hardly the busiest time of the year . The traffic flow on the A261 and A259 is significantly greater between March and September, particularly July & August . It is not only local traffic but a higher proportion of visitors not only coming to Hythe but travelling on to or coming from Dymchurch and New Romney . This causes tailbacks up the London Road( A261) and the A259 . Additionally the Military Road can also become blocked when there is a flurry of pedestrians crossing at Red Lion Square. This has a knock on effect in that it adds to the tailback both in the London Road and Dymchurch Road.
Should the proposed pedestrian crossing close to the footbridge across the canal be installed this could further exacerbate the situation.
Currently when there are tailbacks locals will seek to avoid it by accessing North Road either via Barrack Hill or Station Road. This in itself can cause problems as there are some very narrow stretches along North Road. Should the problem become more frequent motorists may resort to going via Saltwood.

The summer increase in traffic using the Military Road is also likely to affect the access to and egress from the Sainsbury’s car park. Possibly leading to frustrated motorists and possible dangerous consequences.

It is well known that Marsh residents have been avoiding using the A261 and A259 by diverting through Lympne , West Hythe , and joining the A259 via Botolphs Bridge Road. This has caused problems for the residents in both villages and traffic calming measures have had to be introduced.
But visitors who are not familiar with the area will continue to use the A261 and A259.

What is also not clear is the parking issue on Military Road, which in the summer months is fully used on both sides where permitted , right up to the London Road/Scanlon’s Bridge junction . This can be a mixture of shoppers visiting the Town Centre who do not wish to pay the high parking charges in the Military Road and Prospect Road parks, the latter being frequently full , and overspill cars from the Light Railway Station car park. Should restrictions be introduced this is likely to result in parking in Sir John Moore Avenue causing further inconvenience to the residents.
Much of these observations, as with the cycle issues , are based on first hand experience of one of our Committee members , who is retired and lives in the London Road near Barrack Hill.

With the additional traffic forecast visiting Sainsbury’s WE WOULD URGE that a further traffic survey is carried at a more realistic time of the year and for a longer period during the day, 8am to 6pm , to get a truer picture of the traffic flows.

We would also like to re-iterate our concern about the visual impact of the building itself on the built environment and would urge your officers to recommend modifications to make it less “ Industrial “ in appearance and with better arboreal screening . In this case we would refer you to the Appeal Decision ( ref : APP/L2250/H/08/2082115 ) made on 22nd January 2009 rejecting an application for illuminated signs at the BP Garage , CT21 5DD . The reasons given for this rejection are absolutely relevant to the site of the subject application and lend support to our contention that the plans should be modified to make the building very much more sympathetic both in mass , construction materials , proximity to the road , and arboreal screening.

We would agree with the HTC’s proposals that , should permission be granted the car park should be at the Town end of the site , further restrictions on store opening and delivery times , and the extension of free parking from 2 to 3 hours – all of which taken together , should help to reduce the adverse effect on town centre shops.

Yours faithfully

Hythe Civic Society

C.J.Melchers , Vice Chairman .

Ms Harriet Thompson,
Development Surveyor,
Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd,
33, Holborn,
London, EC1N 2HT

Thank-you very much indeed for your letter of 1^st July from which we are pleased to note several improvements to your outline plans. We are also pleased that you chose to have a public consultation and note the generally positive response from those able to attend. In spite of this we do have some concerns about the ability of Hythe and its immediate neighbourhood to sustain four town–centre stores and are fearful that one of these and several of the other existing businesses in our already heavily depleted High Street may eventually close as a result. We would therefore request that, at the very least, Sainsbury’s should voluntarily give a binding promise to refrain from the activities that are most likely to jeopardise those businesses. We believe that these should include: Newspapers and Magazines, Books, Electrical Goods, Adult Clothing and a Restaurant or Café. Are you able to share with us the results of any studies that you may have commissioned into your plan’s affect on the High Street?

On the appearance of the building we do not disagree that it is an improvement on the existing building. This was a major travesty in the built environment of the town and we had hoped for something more sympathetic to replace it. However, its impact could be significantly improved with additional green screening, preferably a line of evergreen trees along the whole frontage to Military Road. This may take a little more land but would be well worth while in terms of improving the visual impression of Hythe for incoming visitors and we will ask HTC/SDC to discuss this with you.

We would very much welcome a car-parking regime similar to that at the Waitrose store and will urge SDC to insist on this as well as continuation of the existing free parking on each side of Military Road. We also have concerns about the noise levels of the “outside plant” indicated to be at the East end of the site which is close to residential property and would like assurances that effective acoustic screening will be incorporated. For the same reasons we believe that the movement of delivery lorries should be restricted to “social” hours and be banned between 8.00pm and 8.00am.

We are, as requested, sending an e-mail copy to Ms Twomey and also to the Hythe and Shepway Councils for inclusion in their deliberations about your application.

Back to the top of the page.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Society has submitted the following objections to Planning Application Y08/1036/SH - Hotel Imperial.

Note: This application received approval from the SDC Development Control Committee in October.

Please reply to:
C.J.Melchers
Vice-Chairman
Lucy’s, Lucy’s Hill,
Hythe, CT21 5ES.

Mr T Ellames
Planning Department,
Shepway District Council,
Civic Centre
Castle Hill Avenue
Folkestone
CT20 2QY

Dear Mr Ellames,

Application No Y08/1036/SH
HOTEL IMPERIAL LANDS, PRINCE’S PARADE, HYTHE, KENT

We are writing to advise you that, in spite of the modifications proposed by the developers, we continue to oppose the granting of planning permission in this case for all of the other reasons mentioned in our letter of 9th January last.

Whilst the developers appear to have conceded that the plan for apartments on the banks of the Royal Military Canal is not appropriate we are concerned that they continue to ignore the impact of the proposed density of the development on the present amenities, including the golf club; the traffic circulation of this area; and the decision MOD 18 in respect of the 2004 Local Plan Review.

We also believe that the developers should be obliged to actually provide the appropriate proportion of affordable housing even if it is on another site.

Yours sincerely

Vice Chairman
Hythe Civic Society

HYTHE CIVIC SOCIETY
9th January 2009
Please reply to:
C.J.Melchers
Vice-Chairman

Mr T Ellames
Planning Department,
Shepway District Council,
Civic Centre
Castle Hill Avenue
Folkestone
CT20 2QY

Dear Mr Ellames

Application No Y08/1036/SH
HOTEL IMPERIAL LANDS, PRINCE’S PARADE, HYTHE, KENT

We are writing to lodge a formal objection to the above planning application the approval of which we and a large number of our members feel will be to the detriment of the general amenity and environment of the town and particularly the Royal Military Canal, a Scheduled Monument. Over many years the canal and its environs have developed the character of a linear park with a very open and un-overlooked nature right along its length – even in the centre of the town. This latter aspect is much appreciated by residents and visitors alike and we believe that the 4-storey flats on the North of the site will significantly detract from this. We therefore object to this under local planning policy BE7 which advises that the setting of such Monuments should not be spoilt.

We are also concerned that any development at all on this site will breach the planning inspector’s decision following her review of the Shepway District Local Plan in 2004 when it was recommended that no residential development should be undertaken on the land between the canal and Prince’s Parade. Whilst it might be appropriate – and to us, unobjectionable - to allow some limited low-rise development along the Twiss Road border of this area we fear that, without specific safeguards, any further development to the east of this line would constitute a precedent for unlimited development right across the golf course and beyond. We therefore also object on the grounds that MOD18 of the Local Plan Review has not been respected.

Finally, and directly related to the second paragraph, we object to the loss of protected open space contrary to the provisions of the Local Plan, items LR9(b) and BE13(2), that will occur if this application is approved.

Yours sincerely

Vice Chairman
Hythe Civic Society

********************************************************************************************************

August 2008
Y08/0840/SH (Revised application for an Amusement Arcade): Hythe Civic Society is mindful of the fact that PPG6 clearly states “Amusement Centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping areas….
They are unlikely to be acceptable in primary shopping areas …”
Furthermore, Policy LR15, as cited in the design and access statement accompanying the application, is not applicable to Hythe. The policy specifically refers to Tontine Street in Folkestone, as is indicated on the proposals map of the Local Plan.
Finally, Policy S5 states “Proposals for development, redevelopment or change of use of ground floor units in Hythe Shopping Area to any other class will only be allowed where it is demonstrated that they are appropriate to the character of the shopping area.” The very absence of units within this class use clearly indicates that it is not appropriate.

************************************************************************************************************

August 2008
Y08/0757/SH (Revised application for 102 North Road): Surprisingly, Highways have not objected to this application, and do not foresee a problem. The Society has however, objected to the application on the grounds of visual impact.
Policy BE12 clearly indicates that North Road is an area of Special Character. The proposed 3-storey block of flats will harm the existing character of the area as a result of greater visual impact.

************************************************************************************************************

23 May 2008.
Hythe Civic Society has cited the following objections to Shepway District Council Planning Officers with regard to Planning Application (Y08/0385/SH for the demolition of Summerhayes, Cliff Road and the erection of a four storey block of 11 Flats and associated car parking.

Hythe Civic Society object to this proposal. Of particular concern is that it will contravene policy BE12 which states that:

“Planning Permission for further development within the following Areas of Special Character as defined on the Proposals Map will not be granted Planning Permission if the development will harm the existing character of that area, by reason of either a loss of existing vegetation, especially in relation to important skylines; or a significant reduction in the ratio between developed and undeveloped space or a greater visual impact of buildings:

Where sites are allocated for development within these areas, proposals will only be permitted if the design blends in terms of scale, mass and architectural details with the character of the surrounding area.”

Summerhayes is an exceptional 1930’s property whose loss will constitute an act of vandalism.

Hythe Civic Society has cited the following objections to Shepway District Council Planning Officers with regard to Planning Application (Y08/0195/SH for demolition of 102 North Road and the construction of 12 apartments.

The proposal is contrary to the following Policies of the SDLP (Shepway District Local Plan):

BE4, which states that “The District Planning Authority will:

a. refuse Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of buildings which contribute to the character or appearance of a Conservation Area;
b. refuse proposals for infill or backland development which would adversely affect the character of a Conservation Area;
c. require the height, scale, form and materials of new development, including alterations or extensions to existing buildings, to respect the character of Conservation Areas;
d. seek to retain materials, features, and details of unlisted buildings or structures which preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas;
e. seek to retain the historic patterns, plot boundaries, building lines, open spaces, footways, footpaths, and kerblines which are essential to the character or appearance of Conservation Areas;
f. protect trees, verges and hedgerows which enhance both the setting and character of Conservation Areas.”

North Rd is within the Conservation Area.

BE12, which states that “Planning Permission for further development within the following Areas of Special Character as defined on the Proposals Map will not be granted if the development will harm the existing character of that area, by reason of either a loss of existing vegetation, especially in relation to important skylines; or a significant reduction in the ratio between developed space or greater visual impact of buildings.”

North Rd is an Area of Special Character by virtue of its low level of density. The erection of a block of 10 flats following the demolition of the existing single dwelling will destroy the existing character of the area. Furthermore, the developer has already threatened an existing badger sett by the felling of trees within the site.

TR11 states that “Proposals which involve the formation of a new access, or would result in the intensification of the use of an existing access, will only be permitted where:-

a. the access is not detrimental to the safety of vehicle traffic, cyclists and pedestrians or
b. the access can alternatively be improved to a standard acceptable to the Highway Authority or
c. the applicant can demonstrate by means of a traffic impact study that the proposal would not increase the risk of accidents or create delays.”

North Rd is often reduced to single file traffic access as a result of on-street car parking. Furthermore there is a lack of footway provision for pedestrians. Delays for both vehicular traffic and pedestrians already exist, and would be further exacerbated by the erection of the proposed block of flats, which would also set a precedent for further development of this type.

Amusement Arcade (original application).

Hythe Civic Society has cited the following objections to Shepway District Council Planning Officers with regard to Planning Application (Y07/0931/SH) for an Amusement Centre in Hythe High Street.

1) The proposal is contrary to Annex D of PPG6, which sets out the Government’s policy on the location of Amusement Centres. To quote: “Amusement centres are most appropriately sited in secondary shopping centres, or areas of mixed commercial development. They are unlikely to be acceptable in primary shopping areas.” Hythe High Street is without doubt, the primary shopping area of Hythe.

2) The proposal is contrary to Policy S5 of the Shepway District Local Plan (SDLP), which states that:
“Proposals for the development, redevelopment, or change of use of ground floor units in Hythe Shopping Area to any other class will only be allowed where it is demonstrated that they are appropriate to the character of the shopping area”; An Amusement centre is inappropriate to Hythe primary shopping area.

Furthermore, the Civic Society believes it is relevant that the proposal is contrary to Policy LR15 of the SDLP, even though this only specifically refers to Folkestone Town Centre, and not to Hythe.