Appeal 6001856

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 4 x residential dwellings with associated parking area, at [site address] , Dymchurch [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 25/0447/FH subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Folkestone and Hythe District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

An application for costs was made by Folkstone and Hythe District Council against [name]. This application is also the subject of a separate decision.

The application form originally described the proposal as “change of proposed use of the approved 4 no. holiday lets granted permission under application 22/1763/FH to 4 no. individual dwellings”. The description of the proposal was amended by the mutual agreement of the Council and the appellant to “erection of 4 x residential dwellings with associated parking area”. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Both main parties highlight that planning permission was granted in March 2024 for the redevelopment of the appeal site, reference 22/1763/FH, for the “Demolition of redundant community hall and construction of 4 self-contained holiday let units run in conjunction with the [name] along with associated parking area”. On my site visit it was clear that the community hall had been demolished although there was no evidence that any further construction work has started. The appellant states that the demolition work constitutes commencement of that planning permission, the Council does not dispute this. I have taken the extant planning permission into account only insofar as it is relevant to my assessment of the main issues in this case.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted additional material comprising 2 revised plans1, which provide details of the floor areas, the storage space for each of the proposed residential units, and details of the varying floor-to-ceiling heights, along with a revised, Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which provides further detailed information with regard to flood risk.

Applying the tests established in the Holborn Studios Ltd Judgement2, I am satisfied that the additional material does not amount to a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the scheme that was determined by the Council at the application stage, and given that Interested parties, including the Environment Agency (EA), have had an opportunity to submit comments on the additional material during the course of the appeal, there would be no injustice to any party were I to consider them. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the revised plans and the revised FRA.

The Council has confirmed that the revised drawings submitted as part of the appeal address the second reason for refusal in so far as it relates to internal space standards. I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The main issues are • Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk, including matters of safety and the potential for increased off‐site flood risk, and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of private garden space.

It is common ground between the main parties that the site lies within [name] 3, where there is a high probability of flooding. Policy SS3 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2022 ([name]) requires proposals in such locations to be supported by a site‐specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The policy further requires the FRA to demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach, which seeks to steer development to areas of lowest flood risk from all sources, and, where relevant, to show that the proposal satisfies the exception test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Insofar as it relates to these matters, Policy SS3 is consistent with the Framework.

The National Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that an FRA should demonstrate to the decision-maker how flood risk would be managed now and over the development’s lifetime, taking climate change into account, with regard to the vulnerability of its users. If further advises that the objectives of an FRA are to establish, whether the proposed development is likely to be affected by current or 1 [name] 9 - [name] & Floor to [name] for [name], and Drawing 02 [name] – [name] and Elevation 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) future flooding from any source, whether it could increase flood risk elsewhere, and whether the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate3.

A document titled Flood Risk Assessment was submitted in support of the planning application. The EA, in their consultation response at the application stage, objected to the application and advised that a revised FRA that demonstrates that the development is safe without increasing risk elsewhere, and where possible, reduce flood risk overall, should be submitted.

Having reviewed the FRA submitted at the application stage, I conclude that it did not fully address the requirements of the Framework or the PPG.

A revised FRA, produced by specialist flood risk assessors, has been submitted as part of the appeal. The Council’s statement of case states that the EA has declined to comment on the revised FRA, and consequently the Council submits that it is not able to offer a view on its adequacy or otherwise.

In the absence of representations from the Council or the [name] have reviewed the revised FRA in light of the guidance in the Framework and the PPG, the EA’s consultation response provided at the application stage, the Planning Officer’s Report, and representations made by interested parties at both the application and appeal stages. I have also taken account, in so far as is relevant, the extant planning permission which allows for a materially similar building to be constructed on the site.

The revised FRA identifies that flood risk would predominately be tidal and originate from the [name] located approximately 140 metres (m) to the south of the site. The site, and surrounding area is defended from tidal flooding by a range of sea defences, the FRA details these defences and their standard of protection. The FRA further assesses risks from other sources of flooding.

The FRA also includes a range of measures that could be incorporated into the proposed development to ensure that is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment.

Accordingly, in the absence of any substantive technical evidence to the contrary, and subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions to ensure that the proposed development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient, and that a flood evacuation plan is produced and shared with future occupants of the development, I find that it would be safe in the event of a flood and would not increase flood risk off-site.

The Council has not explicitly stated that the proposed development fails the exception test in relation to flooding. However, in light of the safety concerns they identify and their concerns about increased off‐site flood risk, I interpret their reason for refusal as implying that the exception test has not been met.

Paragraph 178 of the Framework states that, for the exception test, to be passed, it should be demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. 3 [name]: 020 [name]: 7-[phone]

Regarding the first limb of the exception test, the proposal would bring a previously developed (brownfield) site back into use for housing. I consider this to constitute a wider sustainability benefit of the kind anticipated by the Framework.

As for the second limb, I am satisfied that the development would remain safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of future occupants, and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Accordingly, the second limb of the test is met.

I am therefore satisfied that the exception test taken as a whole has been met.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk, including matters of safety and the potential for increased off‐site flood risk. It would be in accordance with Policy SS3 of the [name], which in so far as is relevant requires development to be safe in the event of a flood, and is also in accordance with national policy in the Framework and PPG, which in so far as it relates to flooding, seeks to ensure that development is safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The proposed development comprises a terrace of 4 residential units of accommodation. All units would have access to private garden space, with Units 1 and [address] than Units 2 and 3. It is common ground between the main parties that none of the gardens would achieve a depth of 10m across the width of the unit. The Council states that the proposed gardens range in depth between 5.9m deep and 5.5m deep, and these figures are not disputed by the appellant.

Policy HB3 of the Folkestone & [name] and Policies Local Plan 2020 (the Local Plan) directs that planning permission will be granted for new build residential development where the proposed scheme provides an area of private garden space for each dwelling of at least 10m in depth across the width of the dwelling.

The proposed development would fall short of the garden depth requirement set out in the Local Plan. The Council considers this shortfall to be of particular concern, noting that the two‐bed, three‐person units could be occupied by families with children who, in their view, would “suffer from a lack of private outdoor space”. [name] accept that the units could be occupied by families, I do not agree that it would represent poor quality accommodation in a manner harmful to the residential amenities of future occupiers. Private garden space would be provided, albeit at depths below the 10m standard. Nevertheless, the gardens would be of a functional size and shape, would be south‐facing, and would therefore be capable of meeting the day‐to‐day needs of future residents. I also note that the proposal includes a central bin and cycle store, which would avoid the need for such facilities within the gardens and thereby maximise the usable outdoor space available to future occupiers.

I acknowledge the Council’s position that the site lies within a suburban, rather than town centre, location; that access to local open space facilities such as the beach is not direct; and that the garden sizes of neighbouring properties are not relevant. I agree with the Council on these points. However, they do not alter my assessment of the specific level of private garden space proposed in this case.

Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of private garden space, and while the proposal would be in conflict with Policy HB3 of the Local Plan it would be in accordance with Policy HB1 of the same plan, which in so far as is relevant, directs that planning permission will be granted where the proposal does no lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers.

The site is located to the east of The Ship Inn public house, which is grade II listed.

It was clear from my site visit that the significance of the heritage asset is derived principally from its age and its architectural interest.

The appellant’s Heritage Statement includes an 1896 [name] map and an aerial photograph illustrating the historic form of the site. These show the [name] occupying a central position within the historic village, alongside the Church and [name] located to the southwest. The principal elevation of the Inn faces an open triangular area of land to the north of the appeal site (the Green), rather than towards the [address]. The Heritage Statement explains that this reflects the original road layout, with the route between Hythe and Dymchurch historically running along the shoreline before turning inland towards the [name].

While the proposed development, including the parking layout, would fall within the setting of the listed building, it would not materially impact views of the Inn or diminish the ability to appreciate its significance.

Overall, having regard to Section 66(1) of the Listed Building and Conservations Act 1990 (as amended), I conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed building.

Representations from interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of light. I have carefully considered these representations. However, given the separation distances between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties, the modest height of the development, and the limited number of openings at roof level on the southern elevation, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy, nor would it give rise to unacceptable levels of overshadowing or loss of light.

A number of interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on parking conditions in [site address] , which the Council states is a private road. Parking would be provided for each of the proposed units, together with an additional visitor space, and during my site visit I observed that further on‐street parking is available on nearby public roads. On the evidence before me, I have no basis to conclude that the development would give rise to parking congestion on [site address] .

Several representations also suggest that a wall should be required to be constructed to the rear of the development to prevent access from [site address] . However, such a requirement would not be proportionate or reasonable in the context of the scheme. I also note that the Council has not recommended such a

Representations have been received with regard to the use of the Green by future occupiers of the proposed development. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of private garden space, as such I conclude that there would be no reliance on the use of the Green.

Interested parties have raised concerns about the scale of the proposed development, noting that it would be larger than the former community hall on the site. However, I find that the design of the scheme would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not harm its character or appearance.

I also note the representations seeking the retention of the site for holiday or recreational purposes. I have not been directed to any policy requirement that would mandate such a use.

The appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk, in accordance with Policy SS3 of the [name], which, insofar as is relevant, requires development to be safe in the event of a flood. The proposal would also comply with Policy HB1 of the Local Plan, which directs that planning permission should be granted where a scheme would not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers. There is, nonetheless, a conflict with Policy HB3 of the Local Plan due to the under‐provision of private garden space at the depth required by policy. Each of the proposed units would, however, be provided with private garden space, and I have found that this space would be of a functional size and shape, would be south‐facing, and would be capable of meeting the day‐to‐day needs of future residents. Accordingly, I give this policy conflict limited weight to be considered in a wider balance.

I am also mindful of the Framework’s emphasis on making effective use of land to help meet housing needs, while balancing this against the need to safeguard and improve the environment and to ensure safe and healthy living conditions. I consider the proposed development would achieve this balance.

Having considered all matters raised, in the planning balance the overall benefits outweigh the modest level of harm associated under‐provision of private garden space at the depth required by policy.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole.

The Framework at paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the Framework and the PPG. Where necessary, I have added conditions, omitted others, and amended wording in the interests of precision, consistency and enforceability.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. I have added the additional drawings submitted with the appeal for certainty.

Given the nature and location of the development, a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission and approval of flood-resilient and flood-resistant construction measures is necessary in the interests of managing flood risk. This information must be secured before any works begin, as the approved measures will influence the form and method of construction. The appellant has agreed to this condition. A condition requiring the approval of a Flood Warning Evacuation Plan is required in the interests of safety.

A pre-commencement condition requiring a Construction Management Plan is also necessary to mitigate the potential impacts of construction activities on neighbouring occupiers. As the purpose of the plan is to manage construction activities, it is essential that these details are agreed prior to the commencement of development. The appellant has agreed to this condition.

Conditions requiring the approval of details of materials and the approval of hard and soft landscaping are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

A condition requiring the provision of parking spaces is necessary to minimise off site highway congestion, this condition requires the provision of a sustainable drainage system to minimise the risk of surface water flooding and an oil interceptor is required in the interests of pollution prevention.

Given the close relationship of the induvial plots a condition removing specific permitted development rights is required in order for the local planning authority to have control over future development both in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of ensuring a good standard of living conditions for the occupants of neighbouring properties.

A condition requiring details of refuse and recycling storage and facilities to be submitted and approved is necessary to ensure the development supports waste reduction targets.

A condition requiring details of bicycle storage is necessary to ensure the development supports the use of sustainable and active modes of transport.

The Council has suggested a condition restricting water consumption to 110 litres per person. However, given that this matter would be covered by the building regulations regime and as that I have not been made aware of any specific Local Plan policy or any site-specific justification for the condition, I consider it would not pass the tests, as such I have not included it.

A representation has been made requesting that several conditions imposed on a previous planning permission4 be replicated on this decision. However, the conditions attached to any permission must relate specifically to the development being permitted. In reaching my conclusions on this appeal, I have imposed only those conditions that are reasonable and necessary to make this particular development acceptable, considering the comments of interested parties and the conditions suggested by the Council. 4 22/1763/FH

I have found that the proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings • Location Plan 07 March 2025 • Proposed Site and [name] 03 [name] 2025 • [name] & Floor to [name] for [name] 09 November 2025 • [name] and Elevations 02 [name] 2022 • [name] and [name] 04 [name] 2022 • [name] 05 September 2022

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved a Flood Warning Evacuation Plan shall have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. Thereafter the Flood Warning Evacuation Plan shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place until details of appropriate flood resilience and resistance measures, together with a programme of implementation and a programme of maintenance for the lifetime of the development, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. Thereafter, such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and programmes and so retained.

No part of the development shall be occupied until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: i. a programme for implementation, ii. finished ground levels, iii. a planting schedule detailing the number, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs, iv. details of all boundary treatments, v. details of any external lighting, vi. details of all hard and soft surfacing; and vii. management and maintenance plan. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme. All hard landscaping shall thereafter be retained, and all soft and hard landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan. If any tree or shrub planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, or becomes seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting, it shall be replaced during the next available planting season with a tree or shrub of the same species, size and planting position as originally approved.

No development above ground level shall take place until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the type, number, specification and location of all biodiversity enhancement measures to be incorporated into the development, such measures could include (but not be limited to) • bird and bat boxes, • swift bricks, • hedgehog access features, • native species planting, and • habitat features such as brash piles for reptiles and amphibians. The approved strategy shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicle parking areas shown on drawing No. 03 [name] have been constructed and made available for their intended use. The parking areas shall be provided with a sustainable drainage system and an oil interceptor, the details of which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The parking spaces identified as spaces 1 – 4 and space V on drawing No. 03 [name] shall thereafter be retained for the parking of vehicles associated with the dwellings hereby approved only and shall not be used, let or allocated for any other purpose. The parking areas shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B, D, E, F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until secure parking facilities for bicycles have been provided on site in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained and kept available only for the parking of bicycles for the occupiers of the development hereby approved.

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until space and facilities for the separate storage and collection of waste and recycling materials have been provided in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The said space and facilities shall thereafter be made permanently available for the storage and collection of waste and recycling materials only for the occupiers of the development hereby approved.

No development shall take place until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors, ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials, iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development, iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, v. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction, vi. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works, vii. delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 4 x residential dwellings with associated parking area, at [site address] , Dymchurch [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 25/0447/FH subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Folkestone and Hythe District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

An application for costs was made by Folkstone and Hythe District Council against [name]. This application is also the subject of a separate decision.

The application form originally described the proposal as “change of proposed use of the approved 4 no. holiday lets granted permission under application 22/1763/FH to 4 no. individual dwellings”. The description of the proposal was amended by the mutual agreement of the Council and the appellant to “erection of 4 x residential dwellings with associated parking area”. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Both main parties highlight that planning permission was granted in March 2024 for the redevelopment of the appeal site, reference 22/1763/FH, for the “Demolition of redundant community hall and construction of 4 self-contained holiday let units run in conjunction with the [name] along with associated parking area”. On my site visit it was clear that the community hall had been demolished although there was no evidence that any further construction work has started. The appellant states that the demolition work constitutes commencement of that planning permission, the Council does not dispute this. I have taken the extant planning permission into account only insofar as it is relevant to my assessment of the main issues in this case.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted additional material comprising 2 revised plans1, which provide details of the floor areas, the storage space for each of the proposed residential units, and details of the varying floor-to-ceiling heights, along with a revised, Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which provides further detailed information with regard to flood risk.

Applying the tests established in the Holborn Studios Ltd Judgement2, I am satisfied that the additional material does not amount to a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the scheme that was determined by the Council at the application stage, and given that Interested parties, including the Environment Agency (EA), have had an opportunity to submit comments on the additional material during the course of the appeal, there would be no injustice to any party were I to consider them. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the revised plans and the revised FRA.

The Council has confirmed that the revised drawings submitted as part of the appeal address the second reason for refusal in so far as it relates to internal space standards. I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The main issues are • Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk, including matters of safety and the potential for increased off‐site flood risk, and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of private garden space.

It is common ground between the main parties that the site lies within [name] 3, where there is a high probability of flooding. Policy SS3 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review 2022 ([name]) requires proposals in such locations to be supported by a site‐specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The policy further requires the FRA to demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach, which seeks to steer development to areas of lowest flood risk from all sources, and, where relevant, to show that the proposal satisfies the exception test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Insofar as it relates to these matters, Policy SS3 is consistent with the Framework.

The National Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that an FRA should demonstrate to the decision-maker how flood risk would be managed now and over the development’s lifetime, taking climate change into account, with regard to the vulnerability of its users. If further advises that the objectives of an FRA are to establish, whether the proposed development is likely to be affected by current or 1 [name] 9 - [name] & Floor to [name] for [name], and Drawing 02 [name] – [name] and Elevation 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) future flooding from any source, whether it could increase flood risk elsewhere, and whether the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate3.

A document titled Flood Risk Assessment was submitted in support of the planning application. The EA, in their consultation response at the application stage, objected to the application and advised that a revised FRA that demonstrates that the development is safe without increasing risk elsewhere, and where possible, reduce flood risk overall, should be submitted.

Having reviewed the FRA submitted at the application stage, I conclude that it did not fully address the requirements of the Framework or the PPG.

A revised FRA, produced by specialist flood risk assessors, has been submitted as part of the appeal. The Council’s statement of case states that the EA has declined to comment on the revised FRA, and consequently the Council submits that it is not able to offer a view on its adequacy or otherwise.

In the absence of representations from the Council or the [name] have reviewed the revised FRA in light of the guidance in the Framework and the PPG, the EA’s consultation response provided at the application stage, the Planning Officer’s Report, and representations made by interested parties at both the application and appeal stages. I have also taken account, in so far as is relevant, the extant planning permission which allows for a materially similar building to be constructed on the site.

The revised FRA identifies that flood risk would predominately be tidal and originate from the [name] located approximately 140 metres (m) to the south of the site. The site, and surrounding area is defended from tidal flooding by a range of sea defences, the FRA details these defences and their standard of protection. The FRA further assesses risks from other sources of flooding.

The FRA also includes a range of measures that could be incorporated into the proposed development to ensure that is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment.

Accordingly, in the absence of any substantive technical evidence to the contrary, and subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions to ensure that the proposed development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient, and that a flood evacuation plan is produced and shared with future occupants of the development, I find that it would be safe in the event of a flood and would not increase flood risk off-site.

The Council has not explicitly stated that the proposed development fails the exception test in relation to flooding. However, in light of the safety concerns they identify and their concerns about increased off‐site flood risk, I interpret their reason for refusal as implying that the exception test has not been met.

Paragraph 178 of the Framework states that, for the exception test, to be passed, it should be demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk, and the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. 3 [name]: 020 [name]: 7-[phone]

Regarding the first limb of the exception test, the proposal would bring a previously developed (brownfield) site back into use for housing. I consider this to constitute a wider sustainability benefit of the kind anticipated by the Framework.

As for the second limb, I am satisfied that the development would remain safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of future occupants, and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Accordingly, the second limb of the test is met.

I am therefore satisfied that the exception test taken as a whole has been met.

Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk, including matters of safety and the potential for increased off‐site flood risk. It would be in accordance with Policy SS3 of the [name], which in so far as is relevant requires development to be safe in the event of a flood, and is also in accordance with national policy in the Framework and PPG, which in so far as it relates to flooding, seeks to ensure that development is safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The proposed development comprises a terrace of 4 residential units of accommodation. All units would have access to private garden space, with Units 1 and [address] than Units 2 and 3. It is common ground between the main parties that none of the gardens would achieve a depth of 10m across the width of the unit. The Council states that the proposed gardens range in depth between 5.9m deep and 5.5m deep, and these figures are not disputed by the appellant.

Policy HB3 of the Folkestone & [name] and Policies Local Plan 2020 (the Local Plan) directs that planning permission will be granted for new build residential development where the proposed scheme provides an area of private garden space for each dwelling of at least 10m in depth across the width of the dwelling.

The proposed development would fall short of the garden depth requirement set out in the Local Plan. The Council considers this shortfall to be of particular concern, noting that the two‐bed, three‐person units could be occupied by families with children who, in their view, would “suffer from a lack of private outdoor space”. [name] accept that the units could be occupied by families, I do not agree that it would represent poor quality accommodation in a manner harmful to the residential amenities of future occupiers. Private garden space would be provided, albeit at depths below the 10m standard. Nevertheless, the gardens would be of a functional size and shape, would be south‐facing, and would therefore be capable of meeting the day‐to‐day needs of future residents. I also note that the proposal includes a central bin and cycle store, which would avoid the need for such facilities within the gardens and thereby maximise the usable outdoor space available to future occupiers.

I acknowledge the Council’s position that the site lies within a suburban, rather than town centre, location; that access to local open space facilities such as the beach is not direct; and that the garden sizes of neighbouring properties are not relevant. I agree with the Council on these points. However, they do not alter my assessment of the specific level of private garden space proposed in this case.

Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of private garden space, and while the proposal would be in conflict with Policy HB3 of the Local Plan it would be in accordance with Policy HB1 of the same plan, which in so far as is relevant, directs that planning permission will be granted where the proposal does no lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers.

The site is located to the east of The Ship Inn public house, which is grade II listed.

It was clear from my site visit that the significance of the heritage asset is derived principally from its age and its architectural interest.

The appellant’s Heritage Statement includes an 1896 [name] map and an aerial photograph illustrating the historic form of the site. These show the [name] occupying a central position within the historic village, alongside the Church and [name] located to the southwest. The principal elevation of the Inn faces an open triangular area of land to the north of the appeal site (the Green), rather than towards the [address]. The Heritage Statement explains that this reflects the original road layout, with the route between Hythe and Dymchurch historically running along the shoreline before turning inland towards the [name].

While the proposed development, including the parking layout, would fall within the setting of the listed building, it would not materially impact views of the Inn or diminish the ability to appreciate its significance.

Overall, having regard to Section 66(1) of the Listed Building and Conservations Act 1990 (as amended), I conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed building.

Representations from interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly in relation to overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of light. I have carefully considered these representations. However, given the separation distances between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties, the modest height of the development, and the limited number of openings at roof level on the southern elevation, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy, nor would it give rise to unacceptable levels of overshadowing or loss of light.

A number of interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on parking conditions in [site address] , which the Council states is a private road. Parking would be provided for each of the proposed units, together with an additional visitor space, and during my site visit I observed that further on‐street parking is available on nearby public roads. On the evidence before me, I have no basis to conclude that the development would give rise to parking congestion on [site address] .

Several representations also suggest that a wall should be required to be constructed to the rear of the development to prevent access from [site address] . However, such a requirement would not be proportionate or reasonable in the context of the scheme. I also note that the Council has not recommended such a

Representations have been received with regard to the use of the Green by future occupiers of the proposed development. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to the provision of private garden space, as such I conclude that there would be no reliance on the use of the Green.

Interested parties have raised concerns about the scale of the proposed development, noting that it would be larger than the former community hall on the site. However, I find that the design of the scheme would be in keeping with the surrounding area and would not harm its character or appearance.

I also note the representations seeking the retention of the site for holiday or recreational purposes. I have not been directed to any policy requirement that would mandate such a use.

The appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to flood risk, in accordance with Policy SS3 of the [name], which, insofar as is relevant, requires development to be safe in the event of a flood. The proposal would also comply with Policy HB1 of the Local Plan, which directs that planning permission should be granted where a scheme would not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers. There is, nonetheless, a conflict with Policy HB3 of the Local Plan due to the under‐provision of private garden space at the depth required by policy. Each of the proposed units would, however, be provided with private garden space, and I have found that this space would be of a functional size and shape, would be south‐facing, and would be capable of meeting the day‐to‐day needs of future residents. Accordingly, I give this policy conflict limited weight to be considered in a wider balance.

I am also mindful of the Framework’s emphasis on making effective use of land to help meet housing needs, while balancing this against the need to safeguard and improve the environment and to ensure safe and healthy living conditions. I consider the proposed development would achieve this balance.

Having considered all matters raised, in the planning balance the overall benefits outweigh the modest level of harm associated under‐provision of private garden space at the depth required by policy.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole.

The Framework at paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the Framework and the PPG. Where necessary, I have added conditions, omitted others, and amended wording in the interests of precision, consistency and enforceability.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. I have added the additional drawings submitted with the appeal for certainty.

Given the nature and location of the development, a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission and approval of flood-resilient and flood-resistant construction measures is necessary in the interests of managing flood risk. This information must be secured before any works begin, as the approved measures will influence the form and method of construction. The appellant has agreed to this condition. A condition requiring the approval of a Flood Warning Evacuation Plan is required in the interests of safety.

A pre-commencement condition requiring a Construction Management Plan is also necessary to mitigate the potential impacts of construction activities on neighbouring occupiers. As the purpose of the plan is to manage construction activities, it is essential that these details are agreed prior to the commencement of development. The appellant has agreed to this condition.

Conditions requiring the approval of details of materials and the approval of hard and soft landscaping are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

A condition requiring the provision of parking spaces is necessary to minimise off site highway congestion, this condition requires the provision of a sustainable drainage system to minimise the risk of surface water flooding and an oil interceptor is required in the interests of pollution prevention.

Given the close relationship of the induvial plots a condition removing specific permitted development rights is required in order for the local planning authority to have control over future development both in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and in the interests of ensuring a good standard of living conditions for the occupants of neighbouring properties.

A condition requiring details of refuse and recycling storage and facilities to be submitted and approved is necessary to ensure the development supports waste reduction targets.

A condition requiring details of bicycle storage is necessary to ensure the development supports the use of sustainable and active modes of transport.

The Council has suggested a condition restricting water consumption to 110 litres per person. However, given that this matter would be covered by the building regulations regime and as that I have not been made aware of any specific Local Plan policy or any site-specific justification for the condition, I consider it would not pass the tests, as such I have not included it.

A representation has been made requesting that several conditions imposed on a previous planning permission4 be replicated on this decision. However, the conditions attached to any permission must relate specifically to the development being permitted. In reaching my conclusions on this appeal, I have imposed only those conditions that are reasonable and necessary to make this particular development acceptable, considering the comments of interested parties and the conditions suggested by the Council. 4 22/1763/FH

I have found that the proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings • Location Plan 07 March 2025 • Proposed Site and [name] 03 [name] 2025 • [name] & Floor to [name] for [name] 09 November 2025 • [name] and Elevations 02 [name] 2022 • [name] and [name] 04 [name] 2022 • [name] 05 September 2022

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved a Flood Warning Evacuation Plan shall have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. Thereafter the Flood Warning Evacuation Plan shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place until details of appropriate flood resilience and resistance measures, together with a programme of implementation and a programme of maintenance for the lifetime of the development, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. Thereafter, such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and programmes and so retained.

No part of the development shall be occupied until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: i. a programme for implementation, ii. finished ground levels, iii. a planting schedule detailing the number, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs, iv. details of all boundary treatments, v. details of any external lighting, vi. details of all hard and soft surfacing; and vii. management and maintenance plan. The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme. All hard landscaping shall thereafter be retained, and all soft and hard landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan. If any tree or shrub planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, or becomes seriously damaged or defective within five years of planting, it shall be replaced during the next available planting season with a tree or shrub of the same species, size and planting position as originally approved.

No development above ground level shall take place until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the type, number, specification and location of all biodiversity enhancement measures to be incorporated into the development, such measures could include (but not be limited to) • bird and bat boxes, • swift bricks, • hedgehog access features, • native species planting, and • habitat features such as brash piles for reptiles and amphibians. The approved strategy shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicle parking areas shown on drawing No. 03 [name] have been constructed and made available for their intended use. The parking areas shall be provided with a sustainable drainage system and an oil interceptor, the details of which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The parking spaces identified as spaces 1 – 4 and space V on drawing No. 03 [name] shall thereafter be retained for the parking of vehicles associated with the dwellings hereby approved only and shall not be used, let or allocated for any other purpose. The parking areas shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B, D, E, F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until secure parking facilities for bicycles have been provided on site in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained and kept available only for the parking of bicycles for the occupiers of the development hereby approved.

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until space and facilities for the separate storage and collection of waste and recycling materials have been provided in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The said space and facilities shall thereafter be made permanently available for the storage and collection of waste and recycling materials only for the occupiers of the development hereby approved.

No development shall take place until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors, ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials, iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development, iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, v. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction, vi. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works, vii. delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.