Detached dwelling at Land Next To 95 St George's Road, Sandwich

What was proposed

The application sought a two-storey, four-bedroom detached house with a new access, parking and landscaping.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling, with associated landscaping and new vehicular access. The proposed dwelling is of traditional design and would be constructed using a combination of red facing brickwork on the ground floor and white render at the first floor, with white uPVC framed windows.”

“The dwelling would contain four bedrooms all situated on the first floor, with a kitchen/dining area, separate living room, and utility/WC at the ground floor level. The dwelling would be set back from the highway (St George’s Road) and will have off-road parking space.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was vacant school land within Sandwich, with vegetation, mature trees, a sports pitch nearby and the conservation area approximately 40 metres away.

“The site relates to a parcel of land on the northwest side of St Georges Road, located within the settlement confines of Sandwich. The site is identified in the Local Plan as open space and forms part of the south-eastern corner of the grounds associated with Sir Roger Manwoods School. To the northwest of the site lies a grassed sports pitch, used by both the public and the School, and to the immediate northeast is the residential property 95 St Georges Road.”

“The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and comprises dense mixed vegetation to its peripheries with an open area to its centre. The topography of the site is largely flat with some localised mounds of earth, with the surrounding area exhibiting a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings, community infrastructure such as the school and sports pitches, and open green space.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier identical dwelling proposal was refused and dismissed on appeal, while permissions for the sports pitch and pavilion were granted.

“25/00500 – Erection of a detached dwelling, new vehicular access, associated parking and landscaping - Land Next to 95 St George’s Road, Sandwich Reason for report – Number of contrary views (55) b) Summary of Recommendation Planning permission be REFUSED.”

“DOV/22/01341 - Erection of a detached dwelling, new vehicular access, associated parking and landscaping – Refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal DOV/23/00365 - Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) to vary sports pitch design of planning permission 21/01314 (Section 73) Construction of a sports pitch, erection of a two-storey pavilion, new vehicle access, additional 20no.”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would permanently lose protected open space without replacement, enhancement or alternative sports provision.

“Roger Manwood’s School and is protected under Policy PM5 of the Dover District Local Plan (2024). The proposal fails to comply with PM5(b) because it does not provide any replacement facility or enhancement of the existing open space that would deliver a net community benefit in terms of quantity, quality, accessibility or availability.”

“1) The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of open space. It fails to comply with Policy PM5 of the Dover District Local Plan (2024) as it does not provide any replacement facility or enhancement delivering a net community benefit or any alternative sports or recreational provision whose benefits clearly outweigh the loss.”

Officer report

Why officers objected

The sports pitch and pavilion had already been delivered independently, so officers concluded they could not compensate for the open-space loss under Policy PM5.

“On the earlier application, the upgraded pavilion and pitches could have been regarded as “alternative provision” delivering wider benefits. They represented a substantive improvement to the school’s sports facilities, which were made available to the wider community. However, those works have now been completed. They are not secured or delivered as part of this application and will continue to exist irrespective of the outcome of this application.”

“Overall, the principle of development is unacceptable. The site forms part of the school estate and is protected open space. The proposal fails to comply with PM5(b) because no replacement or enhancement delivering a net community benefit is proposed and the sports pitches and pavilion have already been delivered and will continue to serve their purpose irrespective of the outcome of this application.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council made no comment, heritage officers raised no objection, and consultees identified matters including trees, drainage, ecology and habitat mitigation.

“Representations can be found in full in the online planning file. A summary has been provided below: Sandwich Town Council – Resolved to make no comment DDC Heritage – not considered that this application requires specialist input in respect of the built historic environment. Hence, no objections.”

“Provided that mitigation is secured, Natural England raise no objection but request to be consulted on the Appropriate Assessment DDC Policy – no comments (however informal advice was sought regarding the application of policy PM5) DDC Ecology – The Ecological Impact Assessment, Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Report and Metric identify potential impacts on woodland, reptiles, nesting birds, foraging bats, badgers, hedgehogs and potentially common toads.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors cited open-space, ecological, landscape, neighbour, highway and drainage harm; supporters cited school, community, housing and biodiversity benefits.

“The wider community benefits directly from the school’s facilities, particularly its sports pitches and pavilion, which are used by local clubs, visiting teams and community groups and the school’s ability to maintain and expand such provision depends on securing new funding streams. • The proposed dwelling represents a very small-scale incursion onto the estate when set against the overall landholding of the school and the wider supply of open space in the town.”

“Development will deliver net biodiversity gain through mitigation and enhancement measures, including planting and ecological management secured as part of the scheme. • Use of the land for housing represents a better long-term outcome than leaving the site unmanaged, where it risks continued decline in ecological and visual value.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A public speaker argued that the existing sports facilities could still be enabled by the proposed development.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the open-space designation, repayment of funding for existing sports facilities and whether that repayment amounted to enhancement under Policy PM5.

“Councillor Woodgate questioned the designation of the plot as open space when it was fenced off and could not be accessed by the public. The Chairman commented that the area was defined as open space under the Council’s policy, despite the nature of the plot. The TL clarified that there were different types of open space, most obviously public parks, but also areas of land that contributed visually to the character of an area and had a positive amenity value to the public.”

“In response to Councillor Back, the Principal Planning Solicitor commented that the public speaker had argued that the fact the sports facilities had been delivered did not mean that the proposed development was not enabling funding for those facilities. The report dealt with the arguments in some detail, including the applicant’s barrister’s opinions and why officers disagreed with their conclusion.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application and delegated final refusal wording to the Head of Planning and Development.

“RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/25/00500 be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposed development would result in the permanent loss of open space. It fails to comply with Policy PM5 of the Dover District Local Plan (2024) as it does not provide any replacement facility or enhancement delivering a community benefit or any alternative sports or recreational provision whose benefits clearly outweigh the loss. The development is therefore contrary to Policy PM5 of the…”

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

Minutes