Appeal 6001616

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of one, two-bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking and landscaping at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/TH/25/0760, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 01, received 21 August 2025, and with drawing nos 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, and material details, all received 01 July 2025.

The secure cycle parking facilities, as shown on approved drawing no. 08 shall be provided within 3 months of the date of the appeal decision and thereafter maintained.

The description of development above is that which appears on the decision notice and appeal form, less the term ‘retrospective’, which I have omitted as that is not a form of development. The application form confirms that the work has started, and I saw as much during my site visit.

I have not used the description of development in the application form as it goes beyond describing acts of development. I have nevertheless noted its content.

Planning permission was previously granted for the erection of a detached dwelling at the appeal site1 (the approved scheme). This involved much the same dwelling as the appeal scheme, but with a different hard and soft landscaping and parking arrangement to the front.

It is unclear whether the approved scheme is extant, but the Council (firstly) states that in the absence of significant changes to policy the principle of residential development remains acceptable, and (secondly) has refused the appeal scheme solely due to specific elements within the landscaping. It also cites what it 1 Application Ref F/TH/20/1496. considers to be the diminishment of the approved scheme. Given all of this, I proceed on the basis that the dwelling itself, as proposed in the appeal scheme, is acceptable to the Council, and that the landscaping in the approved scheme is as well.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the hard and soft landscaping and parking arrangement to the front of the site.

The site is in a largely residential area in which architectural styles and plot layouts are mixed. That said, there is some consistency to the south side of [address] near the appeal site in that a loose but recognisable building line can be discerned, with properties set back from the road behind grass verges. A generally open, green, and spacious feel results, particularly in comparison to the more densely developed northern side of the street.

The appeal scheme includes a paved forecourt across the front of the dwelling. It is enclosed on either side by fencing, and no provision is made within it for planting. Though this does little to soften or screen the appearance of the dwelling, no harm arises in that respect; The site is not unsightly or visually discordant, as the dwelling has a broadly traditional design and is finished to a good standard. The same may reasonably be said of the forecourt.

Turning to the matters of specific concern to the Council; The green character of the south side of the street is mainly derived from its open grass verges and roadside trees and shrubs, rather than from forecourt or front garden planting. The appeal scheme maintains a wide, deep, and open grass verge upon which are found individual mature specimens either side of the site entrance. It adheres to and maintains the existing pattern of landscaping in that respect and makes a similar contribution to the public realm as its neighbours.

Paved or hardscaped forecourts are common locally, including at neighbouring properties to the west along [address] (Nos 15 to 21 refer) and on both side of the adjacent [address]. Many are fairly comprehensive in terms of coverage, and planting beds are often so modest as to make very little evident contribution to the area. Overall, neither the extent of the appeal scheme forecourt, or the absence of planting therein, are unusual or at odds with prevailing local character.

The plans do not make clear the height of fencing proposed in the appeal scheme but, as it was described by the appellant as retrospective, I presume it to include close boarded fencing at some 1.8m high, as I saw at the site. The appeal scheme includes much the same fencing as the approved one, save that it extends and returns the roadside fencing close to the dwelling on the eastern side of the forecourt, and uses taller fencing on the western side. I therefore focus my assessment on these elements.

I do not know what means of enclosure was used at the northeastern corner of the site previously, but note that the approved scheme involves taller fencing there, as is necessary to secure and make private the garden of the dwelling. Given this, it is not evident to me that there would be visual openness in that direction if not for the appeal scheme, or that it has had a negative effect in that regard.

The taller fencing to the west of the forecourt is slightly eye-catching from the road, in that it differs from the gradually lowering walls that flank the front of No [address], and the open frontage of the adjacent [name] building beyond it to the west. Nevertheless, the fencing stops some way short of the roadside, thereby maintaining the continuous grass verge which is the key element of local openness.

Furthermore, it is not without neighbouring precedent in the form of front fencing between 21 and [address]. I am also mindful that 1.5m high fencing was found acceptable in the approved scheme, so the absence of fully open views across the site frontage has not evidently been found worthy of protection. For these reasons, I do not consider the taller fencing harmful.

Whilst the Council compares the appeal and approved schemes in its reason for refusal, I have very little to explain what weight it believes I should give to the latter, or indeed to the comparison. Notwithstanding the approach I set out in the preceding section, it is not evident that any weight should accrue to either when it comes to determining the merits of the appeal scheme, particularly if the approved scheme has lapsed.

Even if I were to attribute weight to the comparison between the schemes, it would not lead me to dismiss the appeal. Whilst the appeal scheme forecourt is narrower than in the approved scheme, it aligns broadly with the width of the dwelling and, as such, adheres to neighbouring norms. The approved scheme includes areas of open grass alongside the dwelling which the appeal scheme omits, but these are small enough and far enough from the street as to play little role in the public sphere and, as I have set out above, are not a consistent local characteristic in any event. I have addressed the comparison in terms of fencing above.

The proposed development is consistent with and reinforces local character. It does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the hard and soft landscaping and parking arrangement to the front of the site. I find no conflict with Policy QD02 of the Thanet Local Plan (2020) or Policies B1 and B14 of the Birchington Neighbourhood Plan (2023) in these respects, or otherwise.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence for the [name] and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR. The submitted evidence indicates that the appeal scheme would have a likely significant effect on the SPA/Ramsar sites, as recreational disturbance is a potential cause of the decline in bird numbers.

The Council’s report further indicates that mitigation for the proposed residential unit would be required in the form of a financial contribution, as per its [name] and Monitoring Plan (SAMM), and that this has been supplied already by the appellant.

A condition to capture the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. Another to secure cycle parking facilities is necessary in support of sustainable transport aims. The Council have not suggested any other conditions and so I have not attached any.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.