150 homes at Former Foxwood School, Hythe

What was proposed

The hybrid application sought 60 detailed homes and outline permission for up to 90 more, with open space, parking and enhanced green infrastructure.

“DC/26/03 Figure 3: Proposed Site Layout following the demolition of the existing former school buildings. The proposal comprises the following elements: • Full planning permission for the erection of 60 residential units, together with associated access, parking, internal roads, open space, retained and enhanced green infrastructure, landscaping, sustainable drainage systems and all associated engineering and enabling works, and;”

“Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved except for the main access into the site from Seabrook Road) for the erection of up to 90 residential units on the lower part of the site. The total quantum of development proposed across the site would be up to 150 dwellings, all of which would be market housing, with no affordable housing provision proposed. 3.4.”

Officer report

The site today

The 6.3-hectare former school site has vacant buildings, surrounding housing, steep terraces, extensive trees and tree preservation orders.

“The site itself is relatively well screened from surrounding views as a result of the existing trees and landscaping within and at the perimeters of the site. Ground levels across the site rise significantly from south to north, in a series of terraces around which the existing buildings and roads are located.”

“A number of trees are situated on the site boundaries and there are many within the site itself, mainly two large groups in the centre and north of the site. Since the site was vacated in 2016, it has not been managed and as a result, there are a number of self-seeded sycamore and ash trees within the site.”

Officer report

Earlier permission

A 2022 permission approved 150 homes, including 15 affordable units; the new scheme kept the total while changing the mix and reducing its built footprint.

“Compared to the previously approved scheme, the revised proposals would introduce a broader range of residential typologies, with a stronger emphasis on individual dwellings and a more varied housing mix, whilst maintaining a total of up to 150 units. The revised scheme increases tree retention and reduces the overall built footprint compared to the previously approved…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the allocated brownfield site suitable for housing, with acceptable effects on design, landscape, amenity, transport, drainage, heritage, ecology and stability.

“The scheme has been assessed against the detailed criteria of Policy UA17 and other relevant development plan policies. It is considered that the proposal adopts a genuinely landscape‑led approach, responding appropriately to the site’s topography, established tree cover and wider landscape context.”

“The impacts of the development in respect of landscape, heritage, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology, flood risk, land stability and contamination have been considered. Subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, these impacts are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Eleven neighbours objected, citing flooding, sewer capacity, land stability, privacy, tree loss, overdevelopment, traffic, services, parking, design and light pollution.

“Potential increase in surface water runoff and associated flooding. • Impact on existing sewerage infrastructure. • Impact on land stability. • Loss of privacy/security. • Loss of trees and potential future pressure on trees. • Overdevelopment of the site. • Flats would be out of scale with neighbouring development. • Impact of local services. • Traffic and highway safety concerns. • The pedestrian crossing on Seabrook Road should be secured. • Lack of affordable housing.”

“DC/26/03 • Concerns related to parking of construction traffic that should be provided on-site. • Non-residential areas/woodlands areas would need to be subject to long term maintenance and management. Responses are available in full on the planning file on the Council’s website:”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, a town council representative spoke on behalf of Hythe Town Council, and the architect spoke in support.

The final decision

Permission was granted subject to the report’s conditions, a Section 106 agreement and delegated authority to finalise wording and add necessary conditions.

“That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report and the applicant entering into a S106 legal agreement securing as set out in Table 1 and that delegated authority be given to the Chief Planning Officer to agree and finalise the wording of the…”

Minutes