Driveway and dropped kerb at 31 Margate Road, Ramsgate

“This report concerns an application for a certificate of lawful development for dropping the kerb and taking down the existing garden wall and other works including the provision of a hard surface and potential change of use.”

“The application form sets out that the existing use of the site is as garden land associated with the application site and that a change of use is proposed for a driveway. It appears from Google Earth and Streetview images that the application site has an irregularly shaped rear garden. This backs on to land at Winstanley Crescent, and there is some evidence that a wall, fencing and trellising have previously separated this land from the garden of the application site.”

“Officers visited the site on 19 March 2026 and found that a brick pier, a set of double gates and a short length of wall enclose the site from Winstanley Crescent. Internally the remains of a brick wall closing the land off completely remained with informal stepped access to the area. Trellis had been placed along the rear boundary wall fronting Winstanley Crescent and a bin was placed in the area.”

“Google Earth images appear to show the land in question as being part of the curtilage of No. 27-29 in 2013, 2017 and 2019. Images from 2021 indicate that it may have been separated off and become a self-contained parcel of land. This appears to be the case for 2022. Images for 2024 indicate it may have been enclosed still, however not all of the perimeter of the site is evident in these aerial images and it is not clear whether there was an access between No.”

“Officers asked the applicant about the land in question and its history and when it became associated with the site. It was stated that the dwelling with the land in question was purchased last year (2025) and that the land was on separate title deeds but was purchased as garden land associated with No. Online sales particulars indicate a sale on 01 August 2025 and the accompanying images show the arrangement as it was seen on site.”

“Before the material matters can be considered, it is necessary to highlight that the submitted plans appear to be materially inaccurate based on a review of these comparative to a visit to the site and the arrangement there. The inconsistencies appear to concern the following:”

“These inaccuracies are fundamental. The Local Planning Authority cannot issue a certificate based on incorrect plans or details. In addition to the above, officers carried out land registry map searches and reviewed previous planning history for the land in question and found slight inaccuracies between each.”

“The submitted plans indicate the provision of a replacement hard surface within the rear garden of the application site. As identified above, the proposed change of use is not likely to be lawful and given that permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) (as amended) (which set out the relevant conditions and limitations on hard surfaces incidental to the…”

“The plans indicate that some rebuilding or new walls may be required. These works fall to be considered under Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) (as amended) which set out the relevant conditions and limitations on gates, fences and walls. Class A allows gates, fences, walls or means of enclosure up to 1m in height adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic.”

“The Chair proposed and the Vice Chair seconded that the officer recommendation to refuse the application for a certificate of lawful development be AGREED.”

“When put to the vote the motion was AGREED for the certificate to be REFUSED.”

“In view of the above it is recommended that a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development is refused as the plans provided are materially inaccurate and a certificate cannot be issued based on them.”

“The proposed works (from what can be understood of the plans submitted) would be lawful, however a certificate cannot be issued in part for these works as the plans are materially inaccurate and cannot be relied upon.”