I have just seen this on Rightmove. I would have thought that piece of land was more suitable for residential rather than light industrial use being surrounded by housing on 3 sides and the railway on the other.
I think 'light industrial' refers to its current use they would need to have planning in place already to sell it as 'for residential'
I think its council land so it would probably be granted.
Arte et Marte
Thank you Reginald, I understand now.
I wouldn't want to be living on Stanhope when they start building it would be a nightmare with lorries going up and down!
Arte et Marte
Yes, and all the dust and mud. I hope it ends up being family sized homes with garages and parking. I think there is a shortage of good size, well designed, 3 and 4 bedroom family homes in Dover. This sort of accommodation would encourage families to stay in Dover when they out grow the traditional Victorian terrace rather than moving out of the town into Whitfield, River or beyond.
Absolutely, there's a lot of these small pockets of land around and they always want to cram maximum units on but more aestheticsemi's and detached properties bring up the whole feel of an area.
Arte et Marte
Looks like the expected housing application has finally begun.
Land Adjoining 74
Erection of 32no. dwellings, BK
formation of new vehicle and
associated parking and
Previous planning applications for the site
Reference Proposal Decision
CH/2/54/0126 The erection of houses Refused October 1954
CH/2/57/0039 Use of land for education purposes
No objections May 1957
CH/2/64/0075A Erection of 3 lock up garages Approved September 1964
CH/2/73/0327 Provision of a playing field No objections November 1973
DO/78/1071 Renewal of Planning Permission CH/2/73/0327
No objections November 1978
DO/83/1060 Use of land for playing field KCC resolved to carry out April 1985
DO/89/1773 Provision of playing field No objections
89/01773 Provision of playing field Approved June 1990
94/00062 Outline planning application for 29 dwelling residential development
Appeal dismissed May 1994
3.1.8 The application was considered by planning committee in March 1994 and was
recommended for approval by Officers. However, Members of Planning Committee
resolved to refuse permission and the application went to appeal.
3.1.9 The reasons for refusal were as follows:
1. The proposed development would result in an increase in the concentration of
traffic movements within the vicinity of the site which would be likely to create
additional dangers to users of the highway and be prejudicial to the amenities
currently enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties.
2. The proposal would, if permitted, result in the loss of an area of green open
space which currently provides a valuable facility for informal recreation and
which, in view of the adequacy of the housing land supply within the District,
is considered to be undesirable.
3. The site, by reason of its steeply sloping nature, is considered to be unsuitable
for the development as proposed in that it would be likely to give rise to the
movement of substantial amounts of excavated material to the detriment of
the amenities of the locality.
4. The proposal, would if permitted, result in an over-intensive form of
development in a manner detrimental to the amenities of the locality