30-home residential development at 115 Station Road, Walmer, Deal

“As such, given the above, it is considered that the proposed development would be in compliance with Policy SAP16 of the Local Plan and paragraph 116 of the NPPF, which states ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.’ Further information…”

“Overall, the addendum addresses the cumulative impact of this site and the surrounding site allocations, and it is officers view that the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of highway safety. d) Recommendation I FULL PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the required contributions, including affordable housing, and conditions: Time 2. Drawings 3. Materials 4. Landscaping 5. Landscaping retention 6.”

“One further objection has been received from a previous objector, raising the following concerns: • The distance between the houses will be the smallest between any facing houses in the Deal area, apart from the conservation area • Impact upon amenity; loss of light, overshadowing, overlooking, loss of privacy at first-floor bedroom level, overbearing and sense of enclosure impact • A 21m gap between bedroom windows should be provided as this is required for those that are…”

“Deal Town Council – Objects, raising the following concerns: • Overdevelopment of the site and not within the Local Plan • Detrimental impact upon the existing local highway network…”

“During the first round of consultation 16 objections were received, raising the following concerns: • Highway safety; narrow road, positioning of access, inadequate road and pedestrian layout, traffic during occupation and construction, parking, limited visibility • Impact upon flooding • Residential amenity; loss of privacy, outlook, overlooking, light pollution, noise and disturbance • Loss of mature trees; loss of screening • Cumulative impact with development within…”

“During the second round of consultation, 7 objections were received, raising the following concerns: • Overdevelopment; Local plan indicated 25 dwellings • Impact upon flooding • Neighbouring impact (9 dwellings fronting Station Road); Separation distance between development and neighbouring properties to the front of the site; overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light, sense of enclosure, overbearing and overshadowing • Impact upon local character; visual dominance, loss…”

“Councillor M J Nee stated that he had no issue with the principle of developing this site, and it was his view that all the junction improvements that could be done had been carried out, including widening the road by the shop. The option of installing traffic lights had been dismissed a long time ago because of the junction’s proximity to the bus stop.”

“Councillor D G Beaney noted that the applicant had supplied more information relating to transport, including comprehensive comments from KCC Highways, and had also moved the houses back to address Members’ concerns regarding separation distance. The Station Road junction would continue to be a problem, but the site was an allocated one which had been through the Local Plan process and he proposed that the application should be approved.”

“RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the required contributions, Application No DOV/25/00320 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions, legal agreements and reasons in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”