Two rear-garden dwellings at 98 Golf Road, Deal

The site and surroundings

The site is a semi-detached dwelling with a rear garden in Deal, opposite Courtenay Road, within Flood Zone 3.

“The application site is a 2-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a rear garden on the eastern side of Golf Road, and opposite the junction with Courtenay Road. It is of brick construction with render to part of the first floor, with uPVC windows and a tiled pitched, hipped roof. There is an existing attached flat roof, single car garage to the south of the host dwelling.”

“The proposal seeks to erect 2no. 1.5-storey, semi-detached chalet bungalows in the rear garden area of the host dwelling. Each dwelling would have 1no. allocated parking space plus there would be an additional disabled parking space. 2 further off-road parking spaces would also be provided to the front of No. 98 to offset the loss of the existing parking due to the creation of the new access to the south to serve the new dwellings.”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

An earlier application for two dwellings was refused and dismissed on appeal because of neighbour impacts, backland development and flood risk.

“Planning permission be refused. c) Planning Policy and Guidance The Development Plan currently comprises the following documents: • Dover District Local Plan to 2040 (2024) • Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2024-2039 • Kent Mineral Sites Plan (2020) • Worth Neighbourhood Plan (2015) • Ash Neighbourhood Plan (2021) In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the ‘Development Plan’…”

“A summary of the reasons for the dismissed appeal can be found below: • The development would be too incongruous with the local pattern, which typically features houses facing the main road, concluding that it would negatively impact the area’s character and appearance and conflict with national policy.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council and Environment Agency objected, while highways did not require involvement and ecology identified further biodiversity information needs.

“Deal Town Council – Object on the basis that this development will have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity, also there is an unsatisfactory access and parking on the site plan that have not been addressed in this amended application.”

“They advise that whilst the BNG assessment of the baseline habitats has been mapped accurately further information is required regarding the hedgerow baseline. In addition, it is not considered that the proposed habitat types and condition are realistic or securable within the residential curtilage and that a net loss in biodiversity is likely to occur post-development so will need to be offset through the provision of units/credits.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the proposal and responded to a statement circulated by the applicant and agent, who could not attend.

Committee discussion

Members heard that previous concerns remained, flood information was not sought, biodiversity information was incomplete, and one councillor called the proposal overdevelopment.

“The Planning Officer noted that the applicant and their agent were unable to attend the meeting to speak and had circulated a statement to members of the Planning Committee instead. Her response to some of the points made in the statement was as follows: (i) examples given of similar developments in Golf Road related to larger plots which were not back land development; (ii) it was officers’ opinion that the proposal had not overcome the inspector’s previous concerns about…”

“Councillor Friend commented that the proposal was a complete overdevelopment of the site and could see no reason to approve it.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission on six grounds covering character, residential amenity, flood risk, habitat mitigation, biodiversity net gain and strategic highways funding.

“(iv) The applicant has failed to secure the delivery of necessary measures to mitigate the recreational impacts of the proposed development on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area. Without such mitigation measures, it would be contrary to the provisions of the Habitat Regulations and Directive to grant permission for development which, on the advice of Natural England, would affect the integrity of a European Site.”

“(vi) In the absence of a vaild legal agreement or payment to secure the required Strategic Highways Tariff, the development would fail to secure the necessary financial contribution towards off-site infrastructure to mitigate the impact of new housing development on the strategic highway network, being the Whitfield and Duke of York roundabouts.”

Minutes