Plans to create an expanded “modern” café for a new housing development on the site of a vacant sandwich shop have been rejected over a lack of parking.

The proposals to demolish and redevelop the site in Pound Road, East Peckham, were submitted earlier this year.

In the past, the unit had operated as a takeaway sandwich shop called Pam’s Pantry serving sandwiches, coffees and cakes, and prior to that was a bridal shop.

It is predominantly in a residential area, adjoined to a house, with five garages at the rear.

But a decision was taken to refuse the application at a Tonbridge and Malling planning committee meeting held on August 7.

Leader of the council, Cllr Matt Boughton outlined his opposition, in which he claimed the parking provision was “not compliant with policy”.

The application submitted by OSG Architecture Ltd and contractor Hibau Group included plans for the addition of one disabled parking bay, from zero, as well as an increase in floorspace from 25sqm to 58.4sqm.

However, an objection noted a 58.4sqm site would have a parking requirement of 10 spaces, and with only one provided “the development would fall short of the parking requirement by nine spaces”.

Despite this, in the planning meeting, the agent Dan Town, said the addition of the new space “improved the current situation” and cited the layby and absence of on-street parking restrictions to argue it would not pose a risk to highway safety.

Behind the site, a new housing development is currently being built for 10 homes.

As a result the applicant said: “The preceding proposal for a new café with associated parking aim to promote a high-quality modern scheme to help meet the needs of the ever growing local area.”

But, many opposed the new business over concerns there were already too many similar outlets.

In a statement on the planning portal, a Pound Road resident said: “I have concerns over another food establishment being built in this small village which already has a takeaway hot and cold food mobile unit which is situated 50 yards away from the original shop.

“There is also a riverside cafe at the end of the village and a coffee shop in the centre of the village”.

The proposals also included plans for an open-plan dining area with a range of seating options.

An objection letter made on behalf of a neighbour said the proposals would increase the floorspace by 143%.

“Due to the change in nature of the premises from a take-away service to a café this would result in customers staying within the premises considerably longer than before.

“And by nature of the proposal would lead to increase in noise and disturbance with customers meeting for lunch” the letter said.

Concerns about a lack of parking facilities and noise and smell pollution were echoed by East Peckham Parish Council.

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

Another neighbour, on the planning portal, said: “We feel this proposal will have a significant impact on us and our property.

“We are concerned about noise, there is no provision for parking and if extraction is installed what about food smells.”

In a vote at the Area 2 Planning Committee meeting, Cllr Matt Boughton said: “We refuse this application on the basis that the parking provision on site is inadequate and not in compliance with the Kent County Council parking standards SPG 4 and on the basis that there is no parking provision other than one disabled bay.”

He also gave a second reason stating the clear effect on the noise and disturbance of the neighbouring properties.

In a vote, 10 members were in favour of refusal and three members voted against.

Cllr, Sarah Hudson said: “I personally would want to refuse the application on the basis that it’s an unsuitable development in this new street scene.”

But in the meeting, the agent Dan Town, representing the applicant, said: “The proposed building will be a single-story structure with a flat roof, similar to the height of the existing building.

“Regarding parking provision, it is important to note that the existing premises did not include any parking space and the proposal includes a new disabled parking space thereby improving the current situation.

“Given the site’s previous lack of parking, its sustainable location, the absence of on-street parking restrictions and the availability of additional layby parking nearby – the deficit of parking spaces is not considered to pose a risk to highway safety.”