Appeal 3345336

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. However, I have removed the superfluous words which are not acts of development.

Policy HB18 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (LP) has been cited in the reason for refusal. The Council has clarified that the reference to this policy is a typo. The correct policy that should have been cited is Policy HB8 of the LP. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [name] and Bayle Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the [name] and Bayle Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The CA is widely drawn and includes a length of sea front with the roads leading inland. The significance of the CA derives, in part, from the high-quality tall and imposing period villas which include detailing such as bay windows, imposing chimney stacks, semi-basements and elevated front https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/L2250/D/24/3345336 entrances. Generally, the buildings are externally finished in red brick, with the occasional use of render. Where the properties have boundary treatments to the highway, these mainly include red brick walls of varying heights and/or soft landscaping.

The appeal building is a large, individually designed detached house which sits at a prominent corner plot at the intersection of [address] with [address] West. The building has a strong architectural detailing, including its materials and façade articulation. The evidence indicates that there was a hedge along the site’s boundaries which, together with the low height brick wall, would have likely reinforced the positive contribution the property makes to the significance of the CA.

The tall close boarded fence runs for a considerable length along the property’s front and side boundaries with the highway. Given its solid form, siting so close to the highway and height, the fence represents a harsh enclosure to the property that is uncharacteristic of its surroundings. As such, the fence forms an obtrusive and incongruous feature in the street scene that is markedly at odds with the prevailing character.

While there are some examples of other fences elsewhere in the immediate area, these are anomalies and therefore do not justify creating further harm to the CA, particularly as the development before me is substantial and prominent within the street scene. In any event, I have come to my decision based on the circumstances of the appeal site and the details of the development in this case.

For the above reasons, the harm I have identified to the significance of the CA is less than substantial. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that where proposals would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The fence provides privacy and security. However, I have not been provided with compelling evidence to demonstrate that this development is the sole means to achieve this. As such, these public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the great weight I must attach to the harm I have identified to the designated heritage asset.

Thus, overall, I conclude that the development fails to preserve the character or appearance of the [name] and [name]. As a consequence, development is contrary to [name] HB1 and HB8. These policies support development that does not result in unacceptable harm to heritage assets and makes a positive contribution to its surroundings with regard to scale, proportions and materials. Further, the proposal would conflict with the Framework, where it seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

The third-party comment is noted. However, the matters raised, individually or combined, do not justify allowing the development. Further, the absence of objection from any third party does not in itself render the scheme https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/L2250/D/24/3345336 acceptable and I must determine the appeal with regard to the planning merits of the case.

The appellant contends that the Council's decision to refuse planning permission takes no account of their rights or of their neighbours. The Human Rights Act is not cited, but it could be argued that my decision to dismiss the appeal would interfere with the appellant's rights under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which afford individuals rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and to a private and family life and home. However, these are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well-established and legitimate aim: the protection of the CA. In this case, I consider that it is proportionate and necessary to refuse to grant planning permission.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.