Detached four-bedroom dwelling at 51 Dumpton Park Drive, Broadstairs

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling and building a two-storey four-bedroom detached home with access, landscaping and parking.

“This application is for the erection of a two storey 4-bed detached dwelling together with associated access, landscaping and parking, following demolition of existing dwelling. The dwelling would have a flat roof, floor height windows and doors on the front and rear elevation and a first floor balcony to the rear. The dwelling would be constructed from knapped chalk flint, red brick, white render, black aluminium windows and doors and white aluminium banding.”

“Following concerns raised by officers the dwelling has been reduced in depth and width during the application process.”

Officer report

The site

The site contained a detached bungalow with a loft conversion, front parking, a large rear garden and a slope from front to rear.

“The site comprises a detached bungalow with a loft conversion set on the southern side of Dumpton Park Drive. The dwelling is set down from the highway and has a front garden and parking area. There is a large rear garden and the site drops in level from the front to the rear.”

“Detached bungalows are located either side of the site in similar sized plots. Two storey dwellings of a variety of designs are located on the northern side of the road and in the wider street scene on the southern side of the road.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, subject to conditions including materials, landscaping, privacy glazing, heat-pump standards and water efficiency.

“6 The proposed heat pump shall comply with the MCS Planning Standard.”

“GROUND: Thanet is within a water stress area as identified by the Environment Agency, and therefore new developments will be expected to meet the water efficiency optional requirement of 110litre /person/day, in accordance with Policy QD04 of the Thanet Local Plan.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council, CPRE and neighbouring residents raised objections, while highways did not require involvement and biodiversity information was addressed.

“* Scale of development * Proximity to neighbouring properties * Loss of light * Sense of enclosure * Loss of privacy * Loss of outlook * Insufficient information * Lack of access for construction * Out of keeping with the pattern of development * Harm to the character and appearance of the area * Concerns about sustainability claims Following the submission of amended plans two letters of objection was received raising the following concerns: * Scale of development * Harm to…”

“Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council - The Committee unanimously recommends REFUSAL due to the overbearing nature and the close proximity to the neighbour's property.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in favour of the application, and the Principal Planning Officer outlined the report.

The committee vote

The motion to approve the officer recommendation was agreed by 12 votes, with none against and no abstentions.

“When put to the vote the motion was AGREED.”

“For: 12 Against: 0 Abstention: 0 Cllr Boyd Cllr J. Bright Cllr Britcher Cllr Crittenden Cllr Garner Cllr Makinson Cllr Matterface Cllr Packman Cllr Rattigan Cllr Rusiecki Cllr Wing Cllr Wright…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the listed conditions because the amended proposal was not considered to cause significant planning harm.

“This application would replace an existing dwelling on the site and following submission of the amended plan, is not considered to result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of the neighbouring property occupiers, highway safety or biodiversity. It is therefore recommended that members approve this application.”

Officer report