Replacement dwelling and pool at Carfrae, Upper Street, Kingsdown, Deal

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Dover Planning Committee on 23 Apr 2026.

26/00109Approved

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling and building a replacement home with a swimming pool, outbuildings, heat pumps, solar panels and landscaping.

“26/00109 – Erection of dwelling and swimming pool; erection of outbuildings to include changing room/office, bicycle/bin storage, ground- mounted air-source heat pumps, solar panels to outbuilding, pergola and landscaping (existing dwelling to be demolished) (self-build) - Carfrae, Upper Street, Kingsdown Reason for report – Number of contrary views (20 letters of objection). b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be granted.”

Officer report

Design and neighbour impacts

The larger dwelling would have greater effects on neighbours, but its height, roof form, separation, landscaping and window controls were considered to prevent unacceptable harm.

“The dwelling will extend from the eastern boundary of the site and will retain comfortable separation distance to the surrounding adjacent neighbours. It shall comprise a low two storey height, extending approximately 5.5m to the eaves and 8.5m to the ridge.”

“The increased height and scale of the replacement dwelling and the land level change between the two sites has the potential to result in greater impacts to this neighbour. However, given the relatively low two storey height of the dwelling, its roof form which pitches away from the neighbouring dwelling and the meaningful separation distance together with the width of the neighbouring plot with a large area of private amenity space, the development is not considered to…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Environmental Protection raised no overall objection but sought noise details for the heat pumps; highways did not require involvement and the public footpath consultee made no comment.

“DDC Environmental Protection – EP do not object to the overall development. However, it is noted that x2 Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) are to be installed to the side of the proposed property adjacent to the public footpath and approximately 8m from the adjacent residential property, Tandridge.”

“Earlier permitted development rights existed for ASHPs under the MCS scheme to install a single ASHP provided it met a noise threshold. In May 2025, new rules on planning came into effect in England. In addition, a new version of MCS 020, called MCS 020 a), was released and has been mandatory since 20 September 2025.”

Officer report

What residents said

Objectors cited overdevelopment, visual dominance, blocked views, privacy, noise, drainage, construction traffic, access and parking, while supporters considered the redevelopment suitable and improved.

“Heat pumps could result in noise and disturbance. They should be located in a more suitable location. • The heat pumps will produce a significant amount of condensate water. Raise concern that this may spill onto the PROW and adjacent neighbour. • Concerned that the outside kitchen/dining area, outdoor lighting, swimming pool and outdoor wood stove will result in harm to residential amenities from noise, disturbance, fumes, odour and light pollution.”

“All construction traffic would be forced to use Upper Street at a narrow pinch point with limited width and poor visibility, resulting in obstruction and unsafe manoeuvring. There are no safe or practical construction access solutions. • Raise concern regarding construction vehicles using the private St James Road. • The supporting statement highways and construction does little to reassure those concerned with road traffic implications of the proposal.”

Officer report

What members debated

Members discussed the site’s scale, private access, construction vehicles, refuse collection and whether the construction management plan should be enforceable as a condition.

“The Senior Planner confirmed that the access was private but advised that the application site had rights of access over it. The applicant had provided a construction management plan which recognised the impact of HGVs and sought to serve the site with smaller construction vehicles. There was no reason to believe that these vehicles would not be able to reverse and pull into the offset provided.”

“Councillor Bates reiterated residents’ concerns about construction traffic and asked for the construction management plan to be added as a condition rather than as an informative so that there was a route for residents to complain should there be breaches. The TL reminded Members that conditions had to be reasonable and enforceable.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application with conditions covering design, landscaping, heat-pump noise, privacy, access, parking, storage and archaeology, plus an informative on construction management.

“RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/26/00109 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“(ii) Approved plans; (iii) Materials in accordance with submission; (iv) Windows within reveals; (v) Landscaping including planting of two standard size native trees; (vi) Noise and position summary statement for ASHP prior to installation; (vii) M4(2) standards; (viii) Water efficiency standards; (ix) Removal of some permitted development rights; (x) First-floor windows to east side elevation to be obscure glazed and non-opening up to a height of 1.7 metres above internal…”

Minutes

Sources

  • Dover Planning Committee minutes, 23 April 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Dover's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Dover
Date
Thursday 23 April 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

54 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →