Three dwellings and four flats at Former Boatyard, Sandwich

“The application site is located within Sandwich Walled Conversation Area, area of archaeological notification area, flood zone 2, with small sections to the rear of the site being flood zone 3 and immediately adjacent St Marys Church (Grade I listed building).”

“The site is currently vacant and overgrown (although at the time of the site visit, some clearance had taken place) with a post and rail fence denoting the front boundary. Within the application site are a number of sycamore trees, with a couple being TPO’s. Directly to the rear of the site (northern boundary) is the Sandwich Town Flood Defences onto the Stour. To the western boundary of the site is a close boarded fence housing the electricity sub-station.”

“DOV/25/00026 - Erection of fence and gate (retrospective) - Granted…”

“PE/25/00006 - Erection of 9 No. units (6 flats and 3 houses) with parking – principle of residential acceptable, unacceptable in terms of visual amenity, heritage impact. Other matters advice only given in terms of expectations.”

“Conclusion 3.1 The proposal due to its bulk, scale and massing would result in a discordant feature within the street scene and would result in harm to the character of the conservation area and the setting of listed building. Furthermore, the applicant has provided insufficient information in respect of flooding, ecology, archaeology and trees. As such, it is considered the overall harm of the scheme outweighs the benefits of residential development within Sandwich.”

“Councillor Back noted that there were a lot of objections from statutory consultees including Kent County Council, the Environment Agency and the Council’s Heritage Team and Natural Environment Officer. The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the Grade 1-listed church and conservation area and was contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as well as Local Plan policies SP4, PM1 and HE1.”

“Councillor Nee observed that one of the speakers had requested a deferral of the application. Deferrals were a serious step for the Committee to take and only usually appropriate when Members did not have the information they needed to make a decision which was not the case here. Councillor N S Kenton noted that the original design had tried to mirror the mill and wharf buildings along the river. However, even the applicant agreed that the original design had been too big.”

“(iv) The site lies within an area of identified archaeological potential. In the absence of an appropriate archaeological desk-based assessment and field evaluation, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to determine the presence, extent or significance of any archaeological heritage assets on the site or the impact of the development upon them.”

“(vi) (a) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with the requirements of policy CC8 in respect of tree planting, including adequate justification for the inability to provide two trees per dwelling or evidence of how tree planting has been maximised across the site. The limited provision of planting appears to result from an overdevelopment of the site.”