Appeal 3330579

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal application was refused the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 has been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (Framework). Paragraphs 111, 126 and 130 have been renumbered 115, 131 and 135 in the updated Framework, although their content is unchanged. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the new numbering is referred to in this decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

[address] is a small modern cul-de-sac, which comprises detached and semi-detached houses occupying various sized plots. The appeal dwelling comprises one of two uniformly designed dwellings which have shallow rear gardens that back onto [address] (A259), which is a busy coastal road.

The southwestern side of [address] is characterised by a diverse range of dwellings and flats which are set back from the street behind varied sized gardens. Most of the properties along this stretch of [address] are separated from the highway by a combination of low walls, timber fences and railings, together with a range of tall hedges, shrubs and trees.

The rear boundary of the dwelling immediately alongside the appeal dwelling comprises a low picket fence and several tall shrubs/trees, which partially screen the dwelling from the street scene. The pair of dwellings to the north face towards and are set back further from [address]. They are separated from the road by a low picket fence, although the side/rear garden of one of the dwellings is separated from the main road by a tall close boarded fence. This fence sits at a lower level and is set back from the highway, which reduces its perceived height when viewed from [address].

Along the rear boundary of the appeal property is a low vertically boarded timber fence. Immediately behind this fence the appeal fence has been erected. It comprises a tall boxy profile metal fence, which, due to its form, material, finish and colour is industrial in character and appearance. It has an uncharacteristic, insensitive and degrading impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the adjacent street scene. The impact of the fence on the local environment is exacerbated by its prominent position adjacent to a bus stop and on the inside of a slight bend along a busy stretch of highway.

Whilst the appellant has stated that the fence could be painted an alternative colour, this would not address the fundamental harm caused by the form, design, finish and appearance of the metal fence.

For these reasons the proposal conflicts with policy HB1 of the Folkstone & Hythe District Council Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (PPLP). Amongst other things it requires proposals to make a positive contribution to their location and surroundings. They should incorporate high quality boundary treatments that provide a clear definition between the private and public realm. Paragraphs 131 and 136 of the Framework are consistent with this and state that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

As pointed out in paragraph 47 of the Framework planning law requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The appeal fence prevents people from looking into the rear garden of the appeal property from the pavement and the bus stop, which provides privacy for the occupiers of the appeal property. In addition, the appeal fence provides a solid barrier and to provides additional security for the property. [address] is a busy road with good levels of public surveillance, in addition to the private surveillance from the rear windows of the appeal dwelling and the adjacent dwelling. Also, there is pedestrian and vehicle access to the front of the property. It has not been demonstrated that a more sensitive boundary treatment would provide adequate privacy and security for the property.

Irrespective of this the harm caused to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the street scene materially outweighs the level of additional privacy security provided by the metal fence.

Finally, whilst the council’s decision notice refers to PPLP Policy HB8, this policy relates to the extension of buildings and so is not applicable to the proposal.

I conclude that the proposal unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the street scene. Accordingly, it conflicts with PPLP Policy HB1 and paragraphs 131 and 135 of the Framework.