Two detached self-build homes at Land East Of Sports Pavilion, St Georges Road, Sandwich

What was proposed

The application proposed two detached, part one-storey and part two-storey self-build homes with landscaping, parking and access from the existing track.

“It is proposed to construct 2 detached dwellings with associated landscaping, both of which would be self-builds. The dwellings would be similar in design and would be mirror-versions of each other. Access is provided from the existing track from St Georges Road and would lead to a central entrance courtyard. The front building lines of the two properties would be staggered.”

“The dwellings would be part 1 and part 2-storey in scale. The front single-storey projections would have a flat roof form, whilst the main bulk of the building would have a pitched roof form. The dwellings would be finished in red brick at ground floor, off-white textured render at upper levels, with a natural stone band to define the transition between the two stories and clay tiled roofs.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a horse paddock behind homes on St George’s Road, with a stable, mature trees, a track access and a sports pavilion nearby.

“The application site comprises a parcel of land on the southeast side of St George’s Road, located behind 124-132 St Georges Road. The site lies adjacent to the settlement confines of Sandwich.”

“The site is currently used as a horse-paddock and contains an existing stable building within the northwest corner of the site. The access is via an existing gated track between nos. 122 & 124 St Georges Road. The track benefits from an existing dropped kerb.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal was acceptable in principle, compatible with its surroundings and would not cause unacceptable harm, subject to conditions.

“The principle of the proposed development accords with the development plan. Due to the design, form, scale, materials and siting of the proposed dwellings it is considered that they would sit comfortably within the context of the site with no harm to visual amenity. The development would also cause no unacceptable harm to residential amenity and would be acceptable in other material aspects, subject to conditions.”

“I PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED, subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure the development as self-build and subject to the following conditions:”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, trees, ecology and environmental health officers raised no objection subject to controls, while Southern Water and fire officers identified drainage and access concerns.

“Southern Water – Insufficient information provided. Suggested condition regarding proposed means of foul drainage disposal. Restrictions on the proposed tree planting adjacent to Southern Water sewers, rising mains or water mains.”

“KCC Highways – Whilst direct highways input is not required for a proposal of this size, comments were sought with regard to the proposed access to the site after comments received raised concerns regarding the width of the access. Initial comments received by KCC Highways suggested a plan detailing the width of the access at various points, as well as a potential revision to the layout plan.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Forty-two objections concerned amenity, overdevelopment, access, highway safety, construction, ecology, flooding, drainage, countryside character and self-build requirements.

“Third party Representations: 42 objections have been received and are summarised below: • Residential amenity; loss of light, overshadowing loss of privacy, overlooking, sense of enclosure, noise, dust & light pollution and impact upon quality of life of neighbours • Overdevelopment of the site; the scale, intensity and nature of the proposal are unsuitable for the site. The development does not respect the spatial layout and character of neighbouring properties.”

“The area is on a flood-plain with a high water-table. The application site and St George’s Road are prone to waterlogging/flooding. Surface water run-off has not been satisfactorily addressed. • No construction Management Plan has been provided; harm during construction • Nesting bats in existing buildings. Proposed buildings will impinge on the natural habitats of numerous species. • The open nature of the land contributes to the open and semi-rural character of the area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Planning Officer presented the proposal and answered questions, while councillors discussed access, fire safety, drainage, fencing and construction traffic.

What members debated

Members debated the narrow access, fire-hose distances, vehicle movements near homes and construction deliveries, while others found no material planning reason to refuse.

“The Planning Officer clarified that KFR was not a statutory consultee and it was for individual officers to decide whether they needed to consult KFR on an application. There were options that would address the fire safety issue but, ultimately, it was a Building Regulations matter. Members just needed to be satisfied that the development could be built out.”

“The Senior Planner advised that, whilst concerns raised about construction traffic were not a material planning consideration, a construction management plan would give the authority some element of control. The Team Leader (Development Management) added that the developer would need to liaise with KCC regarding road closures, etc but such matters were outside the authority’s domain.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to approve the application subject to a Section 106 agreement securing the development as self-build.

“RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the development as self-build, Application No DOV/25/01382 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

Minutes