Four affordable homes at Down Barton Road, St Nicholas at Wade

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Thanet Planning Committee on 18 Jun 2025.

OL/TH/25/0180Refused

What was proposed

The outline application proposed four two-bedroom terraced dwellings, all affordable, with appearance, access, landscaping, layout and scale reserved.

“The application is in outline form with all matters relating to appearance, means of access, landscaping, layout and scale being reserved for future consideration. The Location Plan shows a parcel of land on the north-west side of Down Barton Road, opposite Nos 1 to 7 Prospect Place.”

“The application is identical to the previously submitted application, with the only difference being that this application proposes all of the units as affordable.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The grazing and occasional parking site lies outside the village confines, in countryside and the St Nicholas at Wade Undulating Chalk Farmland Landscape Character Area.

“SITE, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site is a parcel of land on the north-west side of Down Barton Road, opposite Nos 1 to 7 Prospect Place. The site is currently used for grazing horses and occasional parking of mobile homes. To the south-west is a paddock containing a single storey stable building, and to the north-east there is a track and an area of grassland that appears to be used for grazing horses.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for one, four and six homes were refused, and the one-home and six-home applications were dismissed at appeal.

“OL/TH/18/0567 - Outline application for the erection of 6No. dwellings with all matters reserved REFUSED 13.12.2018 Dismissed at Appeal 9.7.2019”

“OL/TH/17/1412 - Outline application for the erection of 1no. detached bungalow with all matters reserved REFUSED 16.11.17 Dismissed at Appeal 29.6.2018”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal’s environmental harm was not outweighed by its housing, social or economic benefits.

“Whilst the local and national policies have been up-dated since consideration of the first development proposal, in 2017, the policy requirements in relation to the need for housing in this rural location remain essentially the same. The proposed development has not overcome the previous reasons for refusal, and there is insufficient information provided to support the application in terms of the local need for affordable housing when assessed against Local Plan Policy HO16.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised an unresolved visibility concern, biodiversity advice identified inadequate information, and Southern Water could not fully comment on foul drainage.

“Southern Water - The applicant has not provided details of the proposed means of disposal of foul drainage from the site. Southern Water is unable to comment fully on this Planning Consultation until such time as the relevant information is provided.”

“SuDS The supporting documents make reference to drainage using Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Under certain circumstances SuDS will be adopted by Southern Water should this be requested by the developer.”

Officer report

What residents said

Five representations questioned housing need and raised concerns about countryside character, road conditions, parking, drainage, utilities and sewer capacity.

“Need There are currently 12 unsold new builds on phase 3 of the Manor Road development. Perhaps this is an indication that the village does not need any more? In the last 5 years St Nicholas at wade has had several new build developments totalling several hundred houses. There is large new build sites close by in Minster, Monkton, Westwood cross and Beltinge so I do not see there is a need for any further housing stock.”

“Character Loss of village character. The plans do not address or resolve the Planning Inspector's concerns - conflict with landscape and countryside protection policies of the framework. Rural location and single track road is totally unsuitable for development.”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

The proposal lacked evidence of local affordable-housing need and was considered harmful to the landscape, protected sites, highway safety and biodiversity.

“Paragraph 1 of Policy HO16 requires development for affordable housing development adjacent to rural settlements to be supported by a survey identifying 'local need'. The application is not supported by any such evidence.”

“In the absence of a survey identifying affordable housing needs within the village, consideration is given to affordable housing supply within the village. A number of affordable units have recently been delivered through housing developments on mainly allocated housing sites within the village.”

Officer report

The committee vote

Councillor Makinson proposed and Councillor Boyd seconded refusal, and the motion was carried.

“Councillor Makinson proposed and Councillor Boyd seconded that the officer recommendation for refusal be agreed, for the following reasons:”

“3 The proposed development, by virtue of proposed off-street parking shown on the submitted plan, has failed to demonstrate it would achieve sufficient visibility splays for vehicular traffic to allow safe egress to and from the proposed dwellings, therefore resulting in an unacceptable impact upon highway safety, contrary to policy TP06 of the Thanet Local Plan and paragraphs 111, 112 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of landscape harm, pressure on protected sites, inadequate visibility splays and insufficient biodiversity information.

“1 The proposal, by virtue of its location, form and scale, would appear visually divorced and isolated within the open landscape and out of keeping with the open rural character to the north of Down Barton Road, resulting in the loss of countryside and harm to the characteristics of the St.”

“4 The application has failed to demonstrate that 10% BNG can be achieved as insufficient information has been provided to indicate the baseline level of the site, without which it is not possible to determine the requirements needed to meet the increase in BNG provision, whether on or off site, contrary to Policy SP30 of the Thanet Local Plan, the Environment Act 2021 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).”

Minutes

Councillors at the meeting

The minutes record this decision with no vote against, so each member present for this item is shown as voting for it.

Apologies John Dennis Independent, Marc Rattigan Conservative

Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.

Sources

  • Thanet Planning Committee minutes, 18 June 2025
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Thanet's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Thanet
Date
Wednesday 18 June 2025
Recommendation
Officers recommended refusal
Committee decided
Refused
Councillors
13Labour 9Conservative 2Green 2Show votes
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

16 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →