Permission refused for ‘beach-themed’ extension cladding on Ramsgate home

The colourful property on the corner of London Road

A retrospective planning application for  ‘beach-themed’ coloured cladding on a property extension in Ramsgate has been refused.

The owners of the property in London Road, Sue Brown and husband Doug – who is a former Thanet council head of development – may now have to dismantle the cladding.

The application was discussed by councillors on Thanet’s planning committee tonight (April 14) who, by a narrow margin, backed the planning officer’s recommendation for refusal.

A report to councillors said: “The development, by virtue of the colour and finish of the cladding to the extension and front facade, exacerbated by the dwelling’s prominent corner position and location in the road results in a visually intrusive, incongruous and discordant form of development, which is architecturally unrelated to the application property, is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, and contrary to Policy QD02 of the Thanet Local Plan.”

Planners say the design is ‘intrusive’

The approved extension was proposed to be white render with grey UPVC windows and doors but is now white, grey and blue stripes alongside a with a ‘beach hut’ style silhouette.

The application received 22 letters of support and one objection.

Mr Brown’s statement to the committee said: “I live on a main road at Ramsgate seafront, the Westcliff is a stone’s throw away. I want to promote the seaside town I love. There should be colour and vibrancy and we should embrace that.”

Councillors on the planning committee were torn by the application. Cllr Brenda Rogers was in support of the design, pointing out the many positive comments that had been made while Cllr Jill Bayford said the design was ‘pretty’ but had to be judged on planning standards.

A vote on the issue had to be taken twice. The first vote resulted in a tie of four backing the refusal and four against the officer’s advice while five members abstained.

A second vote resulted in six votes to refuse, four not supporting the recommendation and three abstentions.

It is understood Mr and Mrs Brown may appeal.