Appeal 6001851

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit I noted that development has already taken place in line with the submitted plans. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The appeal site is within the Kent Downs National Landscape (KDNL) (formally known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The statutory purpose of designation as a National Landscape is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of such an area. In making this decision, I have a statutory duty to seek to further that purpose as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended).

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the landscape and scenic beauty of the KDNL.

The appeal site forms part of a transitional edge between residential development and open fields. Except for the appeal site, the southern boundary of the adjacent residential development is largely formed of a mixture of hedgerows and trees. The landscaping along this boundary was originally secured through a condition imposed on a 1995 planning permission for the residential development, albeit I do not have the precise details of the approved landscaping before me.

The existing landscaping acts as a visual buffer between the open fields and built form associated with the dwellings. Whilst the dwellings remain visible, as do sporadic forms of development such as outbuildings, overall, the landscaping, even noting the inconsistencies in its density, visually softens the appearance of the sub-urban development.

Policy NE3 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) (the Local Plan) sets out that the impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on the KDNL, and its setting, will be carefully assessed. It goes on to state that planning permission will be granted subject to several criteria, including that the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the KDNL, and its setting, are conserved and enhanced. The special qualities of the KDNL are set out in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2021-2026.

Given the extent of the appeal site, it does not display all the special qualities for which the KDNL is recognised. Nevertheless, so far as relevant to this appeal, the area immediately surrounding the appeal site does contribute towards the well-ordered, farmed landscapes, and the contribution made by trees. Rather than being generic, these are specific and important special qualities of the KDNL.

Even in the acknowledgement of the adjacent built form in this part of the KDNL, the fence presents a stark and overly urbanised form of development which detracts from the established landscaped buffer along the southern boundary of residential built form. The result of the appeal development is that the built form associated with the residential development is abruptly exposed without the valuable mitigation afforded by dense landscaping elsewhere along the field boundary.

During my site visit I observed other boundary fences against the western boundary of the field. Notwithstanding that I do not have the status of these with regards to planning permission, they demonstrate that the erosion of the landscaped boundary has the potential to incrementally undermine its value in visually softening built form.

The appeal development, namely the boundary fence, is visible in both close and medium range views. Unlike the boundary fences along the western boundary of the field, the appeal site is more sensitive to visual receptors given the proximity of the adjacent public footpath, allowing users of the footpath to experience the visual harm of the development in close range.

I have considered whether it would be possible to mitigate the impact of the development through condition, for example by requiring further landscaping in front of the fence. However, the fence abuts the boundary of the appeal site with no remaining space to allow further landscaping to establish. Whilst in time the weathering of the fence may reduce its urbanising appearance, the reduction would not be to a degree which would fully mitigate its visual impact.

[name] find the harm to the KDNL to be localised, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) directs that great weight is to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Likewise, the statutory duty is to seek to conserve and enhance such areas, which is a high threshold. For these reasons, I have attributed considerable importance to this harm.

Based on the above, I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the landscape and scenic beauty of the KDNL. It therefore conflicts with Policy NE3 of the Local Plan. It also fails to accord with the relevant provisions of Policy HB1 of the Local Plan, particularly as it relates to development making a positive contribution to its location and surroundings.

The appellant suggests that the appeal development represents an efficient and effective use of the land which allows for easier maintenance whilst also affording the occupiers of [site address] greater privacy through use of the rear garden. [name] recognise these to be benefits of the development, they are primarily private benefits to which I have afforded limited weight.

The evidence before me does not confirm the exact nature of the appeal site prior to the appeal development taking place. However, for the reasons set out above, I am unable to conclude that the appeal development represents an improvement to what I understand to have been, at least in part, a landscaped boundary, which would have assimilated well with the remainder of the boundary between the residential development and open fields. Even if the previous hedgerow was creating an obstruction, there would have been less visually harmful means of overcoming this (for example through regular pruning).

For the above reasons, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.