Nine homes at St Georges Parish Hall, High Street, Deal

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing buildings and erecting nine homes: four terraced houses, two detached houses and three apartments.

“25/00350 – Erection of a terrace of 4 three-storey dwellinghouses, 2 two-storey detached dwellinghouses and a three-storey corner building of 3 self-contained apartments with associated development (existing buildings to be demolished) – St George’s Parish Hall, High Street, Deal…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The corner site fronts St George’s Passage and Middle Street, lies in the conservation area, and is close to two listed buildings.

“The application site is located on a corner plot and fronts both St Georges Passage and Middle Street, with a further footpath to access the site off of High Street. St Georges Passage is a pedestrian only street which links Middle Street and High Street.”

“The hall is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), is located within the Middle Street Deal Conservation Area and the site is in close proximity to a number of Grade II listed buildings, including 71 Middle Street (Grade II listed) to the north and 69 Middle Street (Grade II listed) to the south. St George’s Hall was previously used by the Church, however in more recent years has been hired out for community uses, for example as a dance studio.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and building condition

The site previously had permission for a wooden shed, while neighbouring redevelopment applications had been approved subject to a legal agreement.

“Planning history of the site itself: DOV/9700280 – Erection of a wooden shed. Granted.”

“(Officer comment – these applications have already been presented at planning committee, and were approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement which is still ongoing).”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the housing suitable in principle, the design appropriate, and the public benefits sufficient to outweigh heritage and neighbouring amenity harm.

“The erection of 9 dwellings in this location would form a commensurate infill development within the urban confines of Deal and is acceptable in principle subject to meeting a number of criteria within the policy relating to design and scale, ensuring compatibility with neighbours whilst preserving or enhancing any heritage assets within its setting. These material planning considerations are discussed in detail below.”

“It is considered that the submitted audit (Appendix B of the planning statement) covers a sufficient distance with some venues being within close walking distance, with similar facilities (i.e. kitchen areas). Within town centres and urban areas where there is a larger quantity and wider variety of community provision, albeit there is no evidence of whether or not they have available capacity or whether they are under-utilised which is regrettable.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council objected, while ecology, highways, environmental health, fire and water consultees raised no objection subject to measures or conditions.

“DDC Ecology – Within the Ecological Impact Assessment provided, the potential for ecological impacts are identifies as well as recommendations for mitigation measures. No further ecological information is necessary at this stage and with conditions securing the implementation of mitigation measures, along with biodiversity enhancement measures, the potential ecological impacts and DDC’s biodiversity duty can be adequately addressed in the determination of the application.”

“Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. Details of this will be included in an informative. • Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul sewerage and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with southern water.”

Officer report

What local people said

Objections focused on community loss, overdevelopment, heritage harm, parking, construction disruption, loss of light and impacts on neighbouring properties.

“Loss of a building of historic interest contributing to town character. • Proposed design out of keeping with surrounding heritage. • Apartment block would enclose St George’s Passage. • Overlooking and loss of daylight to adjacent listed buildings. • Harm to listed buildings within the vicinity. • Deal Dining Club (69 Middle Street) – long-standing community venue affected by disruption. • Nearby businesses (e.g. Victuals & Co) rely on heritage setting and outdoor space.”

“Loss of light to neighbouring properties’ habitable rooms. • Close proximity to the rear wall of a kitchen at 86 High Street. • Obstructing light to several nearby properties. • Harm to residential amenity in terms of outlook and sense of enclosure to neighbouring occupants. • A proposed central south-facing window is disproportionate in size and scale to neighbouring properties, resulting in loss of privacy.”

Officer report

Who spoke and answered questions

The planning officer and technical lead answered questions, while councillors questioned the scheme’s scale, evidence on shadows, heritage loss and neighbour impacts.

Members’ concerns

Members described the proposal as overdevelopment and raised concerns about overshadowing, enclosure, cramped rear homes, loss of light and harm to the conservation area.

“Councillor Williams raised concerns about the scheme’s overbearing impact on properties in Middle Street. Moreover, she did not see how a three-storey block of flats was a commensurate replacement for a one-storey building and open yard. Referring to Policy SP9 relating to Deal Town Centre, she stated that new development should recognise its historic environment and enhance the conservation area.”

“The TL advised that if Members were minded to refuse the application, this could be on the grounds of residential amenity (contrary to paragraph 135 of the NPPF), quality of residential accommodation (contrary to policy PM2 of the Local Plan), overbearing impact on the conservation area and/or loss of an NDHA. The Planning and Development Manager asked Members to consider what harm would result from the points they had raised, e.g.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the scale, siting and design would cause unacceptable overshadowing, loss of light and overbearing harm to neighbouring occupiers.

“RESOLVED: (a) That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/25/00350 be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposed development, by reason of its scale, siting and design, would represent an overdevelopment of the site, causing unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers at Nos. 4 and Flat 2, 8 St Georges Passage through overshadowing, loss of light and overbearing impact.”

“(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary reasons for refusal in line with the issues raised and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes