Drive-through restaurant at Woolcomber Street, Dover

What was proposed

A single-storey drive-through restaurant was proposed with parking, electric vehicle charging, landscaping, a substation and associated works.

“24/00293 - Erection of a drive-through restaurant, car parking, car charging bays, substation, landscaping and associated works, including Customer Order Displays (COD) and a height restrictor – Land at Corner of Townwall Street and Woolcomber Street, Dover…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a former leisure centre and car park beside major roads, near the town centre, retail park, Dover Castle and St James’ Church.

“The application site contains a car park and a vacant area where the former Dover leisure centre was previously located. The site is located within the settlement confines of Dover. It is located to the east of Woolcomber Street (A256) and north of Townwall Street (A20). Dover Ferry Port is located approx.1.5km to the east of the site. There is existing vehicle access to the site from the A20 via a left in/left out priority junction.”

“The site covers an approximate area of 0.75 hectares, and it’s topography is broadly flat. The sites lies outside but adjacent to the boundary of Dover Town Centre and the primary shopping area. The area surrounding the application site contains a mix of uses including retail, commercial and residential. St James Retail and Leisure Park located to the west and a Travelodge Hotel directly opposite the site to the west.”

Officer report

Earlier decisions and history

The application had previously been approved, but that decision was quashed after a judicial review challenge and the case returned for redetermination.

“- The application for permission to apply for Judicial Review of the Council's decision of 30th January 2025 is granted, and - The claim is allowed and the Council’s decision is quashed and remitted to the Council for redetermination.”

“As such the case is now presented to planning committee again for redetermination. The grounds for the Judicial Review claim have been addressed within this new officer’s report.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the benefits of redeveloping brownfield land, creating jobs and supporting the town centre outweighed identified heritage and health harm.

“It has been explained above that the proposal is not in accordance with NPPF paragraph 97. However, the harm identified is considered limited due to the location of the site adjacent to the town centre and primary shopping area, and the site being identified for mixed uses within a town centre policy (noting that the site is not within the town centre boundary itself).”

“For the reasons set out above and addressed within the report, it is considered that on balance the social and environmental disbenefits, with significant weight attributed to impact on health, and less than substantial harm (at the higher end) identified to heritage assets, would be outweighed by the significant economic, social and environmental public benefits that will arise.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The Principal Planner and Principal Planning Solicitor explained the planning issues, while councillors debated the school, heritage, traffic and economic effects.

What members debated

Some members considered the nearby school and the restaurant’s position harmful, while others supported the jobs, brownfield redevelopment, access arrangements and town-centre benefits.

“Councillor M J Nee commented that the development’s proximity to a school was not an absolute and Members were being asked to apply weight to this. He was comfortable that the development would not create additional harm because the nearby school was a primary school rather than a secondary. The site had been vacant for a long time and had attracted no interest. Whilst St James’s Church was a heritage asset, its setting was singularly unattractive.”

“The Principal Planning Solicitor stressed that the NPPF did not distinguish between primary and secondary schools and Members should not therefore attribute less weight to the fact it was a primary rather than a secondary school nearby. Given its proximity, it was reasonable to assume that some children from the primary school would visit the restaurant at some point.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to conditions covering design, landscaping, access, parking, ecology, drainage, archaeology, heritage, contamination, noise and odour.

“RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/00293 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“(xix) Updated scheme of parking restrictions to infill missing section on St James’s Street and upgrade existing parking restrictions in the immediate vicinity to include loading ban;”

Minutes