Appeal 3333155

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

With both appeals the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

[address] is characterised by detached, semi-detached and detached dwellings from a limited range of designs and palette of materials. They have uncluttered front elevations and are set back from the street scene behind good sized front gardens. The majority of the gardens are open plan and Appeal Decisions APP/L2250/D/23/3333155 & APP/L2250/D/23/3335917 include generous areas of grass and other soft planting. Whilst some of the front gardens are enclosed by low walls and fences, the character is essentially open and spacious.

The appeal property is located at the end of [address] and is served off a small private drive. It comprises one of a pair of chalet bungalows with open plan front gardens and sits opposite and alongside other dwellings that similarly have open plan front gardens. Whilst there are some low side boundary walls within the area around the cul-de-sac, there are no outbuildings. The area is open and visually uncluttered. There are a number of taller boundary fences, although they surround the rear gardens of the end properties within adjacent drives/roads. They serve to illustrate how such features can have an enclosing and urbanising impact on the street scene.

Amongst other things policy HB1 of the Folkstone & Hythe District Council Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (PPLP), 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.

The proposed timber shed would be in excess of two metres wide, some 1.69 metres high and would be utilitarian in appearance. It would be located in a prominent position within the front lawn, immediately behind a bin and box storage area and close to the private drive.

Due to its size, design, external materials and location the shed would intrude into and have an unattractive and cluttering impact on the front garden environment and the street scene. The harm that it would cause to the street scene would outweigh the benefits for the appellant and their family of having a cycle storage shed in their front garden.

For these reasons I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street scene. Accordingly, it would conflict with PPLP Policy HB1.

The proposed shed would be identical to that proposed in appeal A. It would be sited adjacent to the main ground floor front window and would be contained within the hard surfaced area to the front of the dwelling. The proposed shed would be placed against two tall fence panels, one of which has already been sited between the appeal dwelling and the attached dwelling at [address].

Due to its siting the proposed shed would be less prominent than the shed, the subject of appeal A. Notwithstanding this, due to its siting between a window and fence panels, together with its utilitarian appearance the proposed shed would unacceptably detract from the simple and uncluttered appearance of the host property, the front garden environment and the immediate street scene. It would have a material degrading impact on the street scene and would, as suggested by residents, set a precedent for similar developments which would cause further harm. I find the proposal unacceptable for these reasons. Appeal Decisions APP/L2250/D/23/3333155 & APP/L2250/D/23/3335917

[name] have not been provided with details of the precise height of the shed, the council has stated that it would project above the existing fence by some 0.9 metres. If this was to be the case, the shed would look incongruous from the adjacent garden and street scene and would have a degrading impact in the outlook from the adjoining property.

I conclude that the proposed shed would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street scene, contrary to PPLP Policy HB1.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.