Appeal 6001784

The appeal is dismissed.

As the proposal is in a conservation area and opposite a [name] listed building, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

At the time of the application one of the canopies had been installed. At the time of my site visit all the canopies were in place although, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the proposed plans before me.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed building, the [name] statue, and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Folkestone, Leas and Bayle Conservation Area (FLBCA).

The FLBCA extends over a large part of the seafront area of the town and some of the adjoining inland areas. From the limited information provided and pertinent to the appeal, the character and appearance and thus special interest and significance of the FLBCA, derives in part from the scale of buildings and the quality of their architecture and detailing. This is enhanced by the large, often formal, open spaces around them and stands as a reminder to the Victorian and Edwardian growth of the area.

A statue to [name] is located opposite the appeal property. The statue is positioned on a plinth with the figure looking out to sea. The statue derives much of its significance from its historical associations but also its prominent position in the middle of the road and at the junction with The Leas.

The appeal building is a grand, five storey villa, of the type which characterises [site address] and [address]. It occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of [name] and The Leas.

The building retains much of its architectural features and detailing. This not only gives it a historic quality but also a uniformity that is often a feature of such buildings. Despite there being some differences in design, the other historic buildings in the vicinity display similarities with the appeal site. These are notably the regular window patterns and hierarchy, as well as the level of architectural detailing, particularly around openings. This all makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the FLBCA.

The canopies have metal frames with the top part being curved with a material cover over them. Three such canopies project from entrances on [site address] frontage and a larger, stepped canopy projects from the entrance to the bar onto The Leas. The canopies are not fixed to the façade of the building. At the time of my site visit the uprights were held in place by holders that were fixed to the floor with heavy duty bolts.

The canopies represent somewhat utilitarian and simple additions, with neither their shape, material nor design reflecting anything of the building itself. They may be relatively small and lightweight features within the context of each of the elevations, but they nevertheless disrupt the look and symmetry of the building, drawing the eye to them as features that do not harmonise with the rest of the elevation.

There are various items of paraphernalia already on the terrace around the building, such as tables, chairs, parasols, planters, signage as well as the screens around the southern terrace. The canopies add to this general sense of clutter.

That the three canopies on the [site address] elevation have black covers and the one facing The Leas is blue does not assist their integration but even if they were all the same colour this would not overcome the harm I have identified.

The statue of [name] sits in the middle of the road, giving it a prominent position and spacious context which also helps to denote its importance. The buildings to either side (in [address] and [address]) frame the statue and the space around it, thereby largely defining its setting. These buildings, including the appeal building, do therefore form part of the setting of this heritage asset. That they date from a similar era to that of the statue means that they add significance to the listed building.

The canopies and statue would not always be seen in the same vista. In some cases, where they are seen together, such as when stood at the junction with [address], the background scenery diminishes the prominence of the canopies. Nonetheless, when stood to the southeast of the statue the canopies on the [site address] elevation of the appeal building can become a more prominent background context. Whilst the contrast between the bronze statue and stucco elevation of the building is interrupted by the canopies from only a limited number of positions, when this occurs it does diminish the prominence of the statue. This harm to its setting would, in a small yet discernible way, adversely affect the special interest and significance of this listed building.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed building. The proposal would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the FLBCA. This would be contrary to the requirements of sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act. In doing so it would cause harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 212 of the Framework requires that great weight should be given to the assets’ conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Given the extent and nature of the proposal, I find that the harm in this instance would be ‘less than substantial’, and at the lower end of that spectrum of harm. Whilst this is still of considerable importance and weight, paragraph 215 of the Framework nonetheless advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There will have been some economic benefit from the construction/installation work. However, four canopies are unlikely to have generated significant economic benefits.

It was suggested that the canopies would help protect the building from water ingress around the entrance doors and the deterioration of the building. However, no details have been provided as to the scale of any ingress or the level of harm to the building’s fabric. No details are provided as to less invasive options which may have been considered but rejected. I am also mindful that buildings in general need on-going maintenance and repair, and particularly historic buildings in exposed locations. Therefore, this should not be considered an unexpected or unreasonable part of owning a building such as this one. As such the weight attributable to this as a public benefit of the proposal is limited.

The proposal is said to upgrade and modernise the hotel although exactly how the canopies do this is not stated. Some guests may consider the canopies a useful addition which help protect them briefly from the weather, but it is not clear to what extent the canopies would attract guests who might otherwise go elsewhere. I am also mindful that for the past few years the hotel has not had canopies and there is no evidence before me to suggest that the hotel has suffered in some way as a result.

With regard to the previous canopies, it appears that they did not benefit from planning permission although the Council concedes they were likely to have become lawful through the passage of time. As such, whilst this does not necessarily reflect well on the Council, it is a state of affairs caused through inaction rather than being a positive affirmation that the canopies harmonised with their surroundings.

Furthermore, the previous canopies were said to have been removed some time around 2017. Thus, they were removed prior to the adoption of the current development plan and there is nothing to suggest that they represent a legitimate fall-back position. The weight attributable to them is therefore limited.

The canopies incorporate signage which advertises the hotel and some of its facilities. This may make a contribution towards the promotion and use of the hotel but there is nothing to suggest that less harmful forms of signage could not achieve similar benefits.

Taken together, the overall limited public benefits that would arise are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets.

The proposal would fail to preserve the settings of the [name] listed building, [name]. The proposal would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the FLBCA. This would be contrary to the requirements of sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets. The harmful impact on them and on the character and appearance of the area would also be contrary to Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure proposals respect the character of the host building and its location and makes a positive contribution to its surroundings.

It is suggested that the Council’s Heritage Officer and the Town Council raised no objections to the scheme. The Council has clarified that the Heritage Officer did raise an objection and that this was incorporated into the officer report. The lack of objection from the Town Council is not necessarily indicative of a lack of harm and does not absolve me from making an assessment as to the main issue of the appeal.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.