Four flats and two homes at 390A London Road, Deal

The site and surroundings

The site was vacant hardstanding forming part of 390 London Road, bounded by neighbouring properties and sloping down towards the rear.

“The application is positioned on the northeast side of London Road, in the settlement confines of Deal. The site forms part of 390 London Road which is a two- storey building comprising 2 flats, with parking to the southeast and garden to the northeast.”

“The site is bounded by 384 London Road to the southeast and 392 London Road to the northwest. A small section of the northern corner of the site is within Minerals Safeguarding for Minerals Brickearth.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the development acceptable in principle, compatible with the area, and unlikely to cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring or future residents.

“The principle of the development accords with Policies SP4 and is therefore an acceptable use for the application site.”

“The erection of 2 dwellings and an apartment block containing 4 flats, in this location, due to the siting, scale and design would preserve the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area. In addition, the proposals would result in no harm to the residential amenities of the surrounding dwellings and provide a good level of amenity for future occupiers. The proposals would therefore accord with the aims and objectives of the local plan and the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Highways officers had no objection after amendments, while ecology recommended conditions and the town council objected to overdevelopment.

“Deal Town Council – Object on the grounds that this is an overdevelopment of the site.”

“KCC Highways and Transportation – A number of matters were raised including the width of the access, and sufficient visibility splays to be provided. The scheme has been amended to address all the issues. KCC therefore state no objection, subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Residents raised concerns about overdevelopment, design, privacy, overshadowing, traffic, parking, drainage, trees, biodiversity, flooding and construction impacts.

“Siting – proposed flats too close to 384 • Scale – flats are too high, all properties are two storey at the front, density is too great for site, almost every square inch of site is allocated to building with exception of tiny green spaces • Highways – proposed road to the two new houses is too narrow, concerns for emergency services access, proposed road is too close to bus stop and junction of Fiveways Rise, London Road is very busy main road (concerns regarding…”

“Proposed sightlines ignore obstruction by hedges on neighbouring properties and parked vehicles either side of access. • Noise – increased traffic and noise from development will negatively affect local environment and wildlife, during construction • Trees – removal of trees impacting local biodiversity and amenity • Impact on environment/ecosystem and wildlife (including protected species and bees), long term consequences for biodiversity, consider alternative options.”

Officer report

Committee updates

The Senior Planner reported ten further objections, fire access concerns requiring a possible sprinkler condition, and removal of the samples condition.

Members’ debate

Members discussed overdevelopment, the site’s density, overshadowing, privacy, separation distances and whether extra landscaping or obscure glazing was needed.

“The Chairman asked whether concerns raised about overshadowing occurring in the morning until midday in paragraph 2.11 of the report had been addressed by the amendments, and whether overshadowing impinged on privacy. The Senior Planner confirmed that, even with the amendments, there would be partial overshadowing during the early part of the day.”

“Councillor Knight raised concerns about the proposal which he viewed as an overdevelopment of the site. He strongly believed there were overshadowing and privacy issues with the scheme, as well as overcrowding. If permission were granted, he proposed that there should be obscure glazing or additional landscaping at the rear of the site. He understood that there was no rear garden…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to a legal agreement or payment and conditions, including sprinklers, landscaping, drainage and highway controls.

“RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or online payment (to secure the required contributions), Application No DOV/25/00413 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, obligations and reasons in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes