Correspondence between Planning Officer and Applicant

At our request Shepway have now published the correspondence between the applicant and the planning officer ie what appears to be a note of a meeting and an email from the planning officer. You can read them on the documents section of the planning application

You can read the note here Applicant’s Note 13.11.17 and we have copied the contents of the email here:

Hello Dave,


Yes, the areas that need to be addressed are as set out in Matt Shillito’s note, alongside:


1)    Addressing the impacts upon the wider heritage asset chain (the link between the RMC, the adjacent fortifications and so on as a strategic defence). A response that deals with both HE and KCC Archaeology comments where they don’t overlap would be beneficial;


2)    The issue of lighting has been raised in communication with KCC EAS and is of concern to me also, as the site is intrinsically dark and any introduction of lighting will impact upon this and the adjacent Local Wildlife Site. Whilst the ALC site – the detailed application – has more detailed conclusions drawn due to a conceptual lighting design strategy produced by the consultant, this is the less sensitive end of the site due to the proximity to more dense urban development (flats, the A259, the PFS). I have strong concerns regarding the impact upon the outline area of the site, as within technical Annex 9, section 7.2, it is acknowledged that the long term operational impact assessment is limited:



Further, the concept exterior lighting scheme diagram (appendix 3 of the same document) only shows the eastern end of the site. I am uncomfortable with this aspect and would seek clarification of how future lighting from the houses, the likely desire to have lit public areas and also the possible desire to have highway lighting (I think I am correct in stating that this could be installed at a later date under the Highways Act and could therefore introduce the tall lighting that is expressly suggested to be avoided within Technical Annex 3: Ecology) can be addressed and mitigated for? The submitted information is not currently sufficient for us to be satisfied that the development will avoid a negative impact and this needs to be addressed prior to the determination of the planning application.


3)    The KCC EAC highlight that at least one wintering bird survey should be carried out.


4)    With regard to the local lettings plan, would it be possible to have some detail on how this would function, please?


5)    Following the additional response from NHS SKCCCG, please could you address the questions raised therein, regarding the operational specification of the leisure centre and how this would fit in with possible community health and wellbeing benefits.


6)    The additional work set out in the RPS document, beyond that required by Idom Merebrook / Pater Radmall Assocs


7)    The issues raised by the EA on foul and surface water drainage, as well as the 25m buffer zone