Councillors to discuss application for ‘extra care’ scheme and housing at Jentex oil plant

How the extra care facility could look Image via planning documents

An outline planning application for a 61 unit extra care scheme, 14 retirement bungalows, 34 houses and 8 maisonettes at the Jentex oil storage plant in Cliffsend will be discussed by Thanet councillors next week.

The scheme would mean the removal of the remaining oil two tanks, out of six originally at the site, to make way for the housing.

In its submission Jentex says the storage installation is no longer required, as operational changes affecting the supply of marine oil to the Kent Ports have significantly reduced the requirement for oil storage at the Cliffsend site.

The revised submission, first lodged in 2018, adds: “Most oil distribution is now made direct from the refinery, with only two of the original six oil storage tanks remaining on site. The applicant has confirmed that only one of these tanks are now used, and never to more than 25% of its capacity. This shift in the industry means that a site of this size is no longer required, and so it is the company’s intention to relocate to a much smaller site, consisting of a small office and vehicle depot. The continued use of the land by Jentex Oil Depot is therefore no longer required.”

The Jentex site Image via planning documents

In the plans the extra care building, which has been moved to the edge of the village,  would also contain a shop, cafe and hairdressers. Proposals for a separate community hall have been removed but a meeting facility and the introduction of outreach services will be included within the building.

Currently seven people are employed on the site. The proposals will provide circa 40 jobs for local people.

Thirty per cent of properties will be allocated as affordable homes.

The design document says: “The applicants have run their business from the depot site for many years but it is now surplus to requirements.  The applicants’ wish is that, once the business has moved, the site will provide a legacy to benefit Cliffsend, and redevelopment or sale of the site for continued industrial/storage use does not meet these aspirations.

“After lengthy consideration and local consultation (in 2015) the applicants decided that they wished to use the site to meet a very clearly identified need for housing and in particular for older people in the village and the surrounding area. This is the primary focus of the proposal and was shown to be highly popular with local residents during the consultation event.

Image of housing via planning documents

“An additional important part of the concept is to create facilities for the provision of ‘outreach services’ to older people in the area who wish to continue living in their own homes. Such services are vital to large numbers of older people.”

Historic plans show that the site was open farmland until 1961 when a number of large circular sewerage tanks were constructed. Between 1972 and 1975 an oil storage depot was built on the site. Further tanks were constructed until at least 2002, however three were removed by 2010.

A contamination investigation in 2015 concluded: “The investigations demonstrate that the former uses of the site have resulted in mild contamination by polyaromatic hydrocarbons and asbestos (with respect to human health). No significant soil based source of groundwater contamination has been identified.”

The Environment Agency has advised subject to a safeguarding condition requiring the submission of a remediation strategy, the impact is considered to be acceptable.

The Jentex site

A condition is also required seeking details of the mitigation measures proposed due to the properties falling within ‘noise exposure’ from Manston airport.

The airfield is currently the subject of a Development Consent Order submission by RiverOak Strategic Partners who want to create a cargo hub at the site.

RiverOak Strategic Partners also bought the Jentex site in a deal completed in September 2018.

The site is designated in RSP proposals as the location of its airport fuel facility. If the DCO is successful Jentex will become the operators of the new fuel facility.

This means the DCO decision, which is expected this Saturday (January 18) could impact on the housing proposal,

If the housing scheme does go ahead a developer agreement will include the provision of:

£2,640.87 towards mobile library provision in Cliffsend

£158,727 towards primary education in the form of phase 2 of St.Georges Primary School,

£144,027 towards secondary education in the form of phase 2 expansion works at Royal Harbour School,

£89,820 towards the new medical centre required at Westwood,

£19,250 towards the Special Protection Area.

30% affordable housing provision on site (excluding the extra care facility)

The retail unit, hairdressers, and cafe within the extra care facility being made available for community use, –

Restriction on required level of personal care for future occupants of the extra care facility.

Planning officers at Thanet council say: “The proposal is considered to be a sustainable form of development, the need for which is considered to outweigh the loss of the employment land and the impact upon the countryside, and as such it is recommended that members defer the application to officers for approve, subject to safeguarding conditions and the submission of a signed S.106 agreement securing the heads of terms identified.”

The application will be discussed by the planning committee at its meeting on January 22.

22 Comments

  1. So what happens when Manston gets up and flying. The builders and occupiers of this home cannot complain about planes taking off when Manston flying again has been fought for since 2014!

    • Not exactly fought for . RSP are in full butter-up-the residents mode now, what wth trees aned a care home. Why bother if there is overwhelming support for their airport plans?.

  2. The site is designated in RSP proposals as the location of its airport fuel facility. If the DCO is successful Jentex will become the operators of the new fuel facility.

    But they also want to build on it ?

    I am confused RSP want to use it as fuel storage and build on it as well !!!! Or is this the first step of RSP building on manston ?

  3. We were told that the sale of the site had already been agreed and money had changed hands. This begins to sound as if we weren’t told the truth. It begins to sound as if RSP had only negotiated an option to buy the site at a later date.

  4. As usual, very little involving RSP makes sense. Who would want to be in a car home practically on the runway, next to either a small or very large fuel facility? Yet again, entirely contradictory.

  5. Now, just why would RSP, those internationally renowned and vastly experienced developers of airports, be wanting to develop housing on the site of the only fuel farm associated with the airport?

  6. I assume you mean that RSP own the site (not REP). Surprising that someone who owns the company can’t even get its name right. However, it clearly isn’t as simple as that. If RSP own the site Jentex wouldn’t be able to build the care home for which they are applying for planning permission. Makes no sense.

  7. Of course, there is a need for Care Homes and related facilities in this area, so we should not dismiss the idea. Also the promise of “affordable ” homes, though these are often promised but never delivered as the developers suddenly announce problems with funding and local Councils are too committed to the development to pull out.Or else “affordable” just means the smaller, cheaper two-bed houses and flats that many developments get anyway. Nothing special or different but the government may offer some kind of extra cash for these “affordable” homes so the developers can coin it while selling at a bigger profit.

    Will the local buses be increased along there to cater for the extra residents?
    Then again, many residents may well be London commuters who can make great use of the new Thanet Parkway railway station in easy walking distance.

    But, most noticeable, is the fact that these houses will be right on the edge of the airport, (if an airport is ever re created). I can’t see what “mitigation” would help the residents . Even triple-glazing won’t stop the noise if they want to enjoy the garden.

    Who will be flying from the airport? Flybe?

    Maybe this rather odd Planning Application is an opening ploy to see how it goes before adding more houses to the former airport at a later date.

    More a case of “Flyboy” rather than “Flybe”!

  8. The agreement between RSP and the family that previously owned the site is that in the unlikely event that Manston Airport does not get it’s DCO application (due later this week), the Jentex site will revert back to the original owners and RSP will assist them in getting these plans through the planning stage.

    • So RSP own jentex but if the manston doesnt open. The old owners of jentex have to take jentex back and obvious pay the money they received back to RSP. Seems a very odd way to do business

  9. Hello Confused, this deal was struck some considerable time before the end of the DCO process and well before any sign of a potential agreement with SHP to sell RSP the Manston site.
    It was prudent that RSP had control of the site for the airport, but also wanted to do the right thing by Jentex who had already gone a fair way down the line with this planning proposal. It was a best of both worlds scenario.

  10. I agree with Confused. The notion that Jentex would have to pay the money back is preposterous. A sale is a sale. As for the Keefogs’ supposition that the DCO is a foregone conclusion, we have only days to wait. Having sat through the hearings I wouldn’t be so sure. There were many weaknesses in the application, not least of all the lack of clarity about the business plan and the viability of the proposal. It may well be that wiser heads recognise that a freight depot is not the most promising strategy to provide employment and prosperity for Thanet.

  11. Everything depends on the result of the DCO…..As stated expected by Friday..
    The site was sold by the Jenkins family to RSP, with the proviso thst if the DCO was not granted, the pending Plsnning Application could continue….
    So dare I suggest everyone waits until the SoS gives his decisions on the DCO…

    • That just seems a bizarre sale to me. If wanted to sell my business/land I wouldnt want to have to buy it make if the new owner didnt get what he wanted from my business/land.
      The time of the planning application seems odd why not wait till Friday? Or have RSP been given a ‘hint’ that manston is no go’er and will not test the water about building on manston.

      Either way airport or no airport if it opens it will be closed again within a few years gone bust !!

      • Why would the Jenkins family want planning permission on land they supposedly don’t own any more it doesn’t make sense. Has any money actually changed hands if so how will the land return to them when the DCO fails ?

  12. As I have said for years, Riveroak have no intention of building an airport, all they want is housing and if we let this pass, it will open the doors to building houses all over the airfield. Stone Hill wanted to build when the land was their’s and were not given planning permission as there was a DPO on it. What are we playing at? Can’t build on your own land because someone else wants it so all plans are stopped?

  13. If this DCO is approved it will be in spite of the most inept business plan the planning inspectorate has probably ever received.

    Oh, and with no evidence of need.

    Oh, and with no evidence of viability.

    The UK doesn’t need a 24/7 cargo hub and if it did, it wouldn’t be at Manston.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.