A round of applause from the public gallery greeted the decision last night (April 23) to reject planning permission for a 5 storey extension at the San Clu Hotel in Ramsgate.
Sisters Hema Kanani and Rina Gandhi, who own the venue, had wanted permission for the extension and the opening up of the existing basement to create 10 self-contained residential units and nine holiday lets plus a spa, coffee shop, function room and conference facilities.
Speaking at the planning committee meeting Ms Kanani said the hotel had been in her family since 1989 and: “Over the decades (there has been) considerable investment both in the hotel and the Ramsgate community that surrounds it.”
She said the expansion would add another 20 staff to the existing 31 and would provide much needed ‘top end’ tourist accommodation and ‘good quality flats.’
But there has been a swell of opposition from neighbours who would have suffered issues including a considerable loss of light.
Residents Mark Lister and Matthew Cummings spoke passionately about how properties in neighbouring roads would be impacted.
The public gallery was packed with those who would be affected and many more had turned up but been unable to fit into the council chamber.
Mr Lister highlighted that there had been more than 50 objections lodged, 90 signatories on a letter against the plan and more than 450 who signed a petition protesting about the application.
He raised six reasons why the 5 storey ‘mass’ should be rejected.
These were:
- Breach of right of light
- Overbearing, negative impact dominating the corner and killing green space
- Damaging the appearance of the area and the loss of the pub garden overlooking the sea
- Traffic – raising the risk of accidents
- Harm to heritage and the Pugin terrace
- Increase in noise and nuisance.
Mr Cummings also spoke of a ‘significant negative impact’ on the quality of life for neighbours who would lose light if the hotel was given the go ahead to double in size.
He branded claims of benefits, such as extra jobs and addressing local housing need, as ‘posturing’ highlighting the zero number of affordable properties proposed.
He added: “It is not about improving the area, it is motivated by profit.”
Councillors also had strong objections with Cllr Corinna Huxley saying it would lead to enclosure, the loss of light and the design was not in keeping with the area.
Cllr Debra Owen-Hughes (pictured) said the applicants’ saying the site in question had been part of the hotel in 1890 was ‘spurious’ adding: “We used to push little boys up chimneys but we do not do that anymore.”
She branded the plans ‘brutal’ and ‘suffocating.’
Cllr Steve Albon said his concern was for residents in Albert Road whose properties would be just 1.3m away from the proposed extension.
Cllr Becky Wing said the location was an issue and would leave some people without light and ‘a great big brick wall to look at.’
Cllr Rick Everitt said the impact “cannot possibly be acceptable,” while Cllr Heather Keen said it was “overbearing” and took up “every single bit of space.”
Council officers had recommended refusal.
Councillors voted to reject the application, resulting in applause from the public gallery.
Following the meeting Mr Lister said: “The packed gallery of locals cheered when the Planning Committee resoundingly rejected the proposed overbearing bulk of the 5 storey extension.
“Such was the strength of local feeling that we not only filled the room but a good number had to stand outside. All on the back of the 50 formal objections, 89 who signed a joint letter and over 450 who signed an online petition in opposition.”
What a load of NIMBYs. Somebody willing to invest in Ramsgate and create jobs gets the thumbs down yet 1500 new houses two miles away on prime farmland is ok? That is what will include increase road traffic and noise!
I hope they appeal. I didn’t think there were any windows on the side wall of the propedtythat the new extension will back on to. There are some windows at the back of property, which would have been there when original San Clu building was there.
As for not in keeping with area, they’re more in keeping than flats on opposite corner of Albert Road
There’s a space for a hotel and conference centre between the pavilion and blueberry homes. If they want to expand then why don’t they build there instead?
You are joking, of course?
No, I’m not joking. There is already planning permission for a hotel and conference centre below the cliff. There is clearly no room for expansion above the cliff, so why not use the empty space below it?
https://theisleofthanetnews.com/2020/07/01/first-apartments-at-ramsgates-royal-sands-development-will-be-ready-to-move-into-by-spring-2021/
Well said Ian. Another bit of land banking at Ramsgate Sands until times change – if ever – for the better.
The proposal by the San Clu was offensive in the extreme: inconsiderate of necessary light levels for the existing residents and a pretty ill-considered design. Moreover, more bloody expensive flats for absentee landlords.
I really hope the San clue appeal’s the decision the hotel has been there longer than the moaners have lived there.
Some of the complainers, Are the same people you complained about the Granville theatre being reopened? These people complain about everything. There was a building exactly on the side next to the hotel before the company there again.
You’re the one moaning Bill. The objections were very sound indeed. It’s a pity that most of the planning and monstrous development in Ramsgate in the 60’s and beyond wasn’t challenged sufficiently. I am delighted that there are people with knowledge, intelligence and who have the ability to communicate to transcend the brown envelope developments of the past. Stick that on your ‘sans clue’ complaints list.
It seems to me that the San Clu’s application was based on emotional nostalgia and nothing else! Well done TDC and the locals in defeating a ridiculous proposal.