Updated: Nov 11, 2022
Planning application number is Y22/1192/FH at Princes Parade, Hythe. The details of the application can be found at: https://folkestonehythedc.force.com/pr/s/planning-application/a1n2o000003QAZCAA4/221192fh
The application is a reserved matters application seeking approval of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and access for 150 dwellings, hotel and restaurant, and associated works, pursuant to the outline permission granted under reference Y17/1042/SH.
In its response to the FHDC the Society:
1. Remains concerned that there is not any financial information available to demonstrate that the proposed development is viable as proposed. The Society is concerned that the development may not be completed as proposed and become an eyesore.
2. Is concerned at the visual appearance of the residential blocks (some of 4 storeys) – particularly as the floor height of the blocks being over 1m above the level of the promenade. This will have the effect of the blocks dominating the promenade.
3. Is concerned about the future long term maintenance of the landscaped areas. What are the proposals?
4. Has not been able to identify any information showing the view (and elevation) of site from the north side of the Royal Military Canal looking south into the site towards the sea. Please request the applicant for such information.
5. Has not been able to identify any information showing the view (and elevation) through the site from the promenade Canal looking south into the site towards the sea. Please request the applicant for such information.
6. Asks for confirmation that the historic Tram Shelter will remain in situ. It is unclear from the Design and Access Statement where the tram Shelter sits in the proposed development.
7. Remains concerned about the future of the golf course to the west of the proposed development as this development sets a precedent for development of the sea front. It is even more important that the golf course remains “as is” as it retains the iconic view of the Hythe hillside viewed from the promenade.
8. Questions the durability of the proposed development from its close proximity of the sea during winter storms.
9. Questions the due diligence taken by the Council in its choice of developer as the developer chosen appears not to have an unblemished record of development.
10. Asks the Council how many potential developers submitted a firm interest in acquiring the site.
The Society has asked a number of questions of the Council in its comments that require a response. Please pass on the questions to the appropriate officer/s for a response.