Appeal 6004435

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect on the setting of the Grade II Listed 61 - 65 High Street1, and the Sandgate Conservation Area (CA). • whether the future occupiers of units 4 and 5 would have suitable living conditions with specific regard to daylight and sunlight.

The appeal site is situated within the CA. In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The significance of the CA lies predominantly in its interest as a historic coastal town, with a rich architectural heritage. The Sandgate Conservation Area Appraisal describes it as having a human scale, comprising predominantly two and three storeys, a position consistent with my observations. Its linear shape, owing to its coastal location, offers positive long-range views along the [address] and short-range lateral views towards the sea and hills which also positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA. 1 The Historic England list entry name for this listed building is the ‘[name]. The official list entry statutory address and description confirm the listing relates to Nos 61, 61A, 63 and 65 ([name]). In the interests of consistency with the evidence before me, I have referred to the asset as [address] as referred to by the parties.

There are a number of detractors from the CA, identified in the evidence including [address], [address], owing to the uncharacteristic architectural form and larger size and scale than the older buildings within the area. The appeal site is also considered to be a detractor owing to its form, which I discuss further in detail below. However, overall, the positive historic and architectural interest as described is still predominantly perceptible, and I have had due regard to the significance of the CA.

The appeal site is also situated within the setting of [address], a [name] listed building. In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting.

The significance of [address] lies in its architectural and historical interest, as finely detailed properties lining the [address], with value also in their appearance as a collective group due to their intactness. The wider [address] setting features many buildings of a commensurate scale and appearance to [address]. The asset interacts positively visually, functionally and historically with the use, scale and form of the buildings within its setting, which also contributes to its significance as part of the wider historic [address].

Whilst the evidence shows that the buildings have been subject to alterations over time, the overall modest scale of the properties and how they positively interact as an asset, and location with the wider [address] is still readily apparent. I have had due regard to the significance of the asset.

In relation to both assets, I note that the evidence shows that previously opposite the site and adjacent to [address] was a larger hotel and store. Nevertheless, the evidence also shows that these buildings were previously demolished some time ago. Therefore, whilst previously forming part of the pattern of development, they no longer from part of the setting of [address] or the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site comprises a single storey flat roof building with a hardstanding forecourt area, which was previously used as a car sales showroom and garage. To the rear, the land levels steeply rise with Undercliff wrapping around and above the site, allowing views to the rear from the public realm. Whilst the building is not of an overly imposing massing, owing to its uncharacteristic flat roof appearance the existing building poorly relates to the architectural interest of the character and appearance of the CA and setting of [address]. It is identified by the Sandgate Conservation Area Appraisal as a negative feature within the CA. This is a position I agree with and also consider to be the case in relation to the setting of [address].

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing building. Given that it detracts from the character and appearance of the CA and setting of [address], the demolition element of the proposal would not result in harm to the significance of these assets.

The proposal also involves the construction of a detached building on the site containing eight flats. The proposed front elevation appears as three storeys with the building stepping up to four storeys in stature to the side and rear. The ground floor would be finished in off-white render with the remaining floors finished in brick.

As set out, the majority of buildings within the [address] are two to three storeys in stature. The appeal building, when viewed from the front elevation would have a parapet at the third storey in height, broadly aligning with the surrounding area. However, the surrounding buildings have small-scale roof forms, usually pitched or hipped with detailing such as chimneys. When viewed from the front, the appeal proposal would feature substantial bulk and massing above the parapet to accommodate two floors of accommodation within the roof achieved through its large flat roof form, twin gables and dormers. In addition, when viewed from the side and rear, the building notably steps up to four storeys in height. Overall, this results in a building which would be dominant and imposing within the streetscene, particularly in the context of and harmful to the smaller stature buildings opposite the site at [address] and the hall adjacent to it.

The appeal site is bound on both sides by Undercliff and [address] which the appellant contends gives the appeal site an ‘island character’. However, owing to its prominent bulk and massing compared to the modest width of the roads, the building would not appear separated from the surrounding buildings, and this would not mitigate its visual prominence.

In the views along the [address], the proposed overbearing stature compared to the surrounding buildings would be readily apparent, particularly on the approach where the larger stepped fourth storey would become visible. In addition, harm resulting from the form of the proposed building to the side and rear would be plainly visible from views from Undercliff which would further highlight the buildings size compared to its surroundings.

Therefore, even taking into account the demolition of the existing building and removal of a detracting feature, the overall proposed development, by virtue of its significant scale and prominence compared to the more modest surroundings would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of [address] and to the CA.

Paragraph 212 sets out great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The level of harm as described above to the significance of both the CA and [address] would be less than substantial within the middle of the spectrum, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 213 of the Framework requires that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 requires that less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The development would provide eight market dwellings within a district which the evidence shows only has a housing land supply of 3.1 years and a most recent housing delivery test score of 83%. It would also make use of a small brownfield site in a sustainable location which is specifically supported by section 11 of the Framework. The proposal would lead to minor and time limited economic benefits during the construction phase, as well as some limited social and economic benefits from the spend of future occupiers within the area, including within [address] which would support its vitality and viability. There would also be some small ecological and landscape enhancements.

The proposal would also remove the existing building at the site which presently detracts from the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of [address], resulting in a benefit to these assets.

[name] have no evidence before me showing the existing use of the appeal site is harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] flats, the removal of the existing use would only be at most of very limited public benefit in this regard.

The proposal is not for affordable housing as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework and there is nothing before me showing the properties would be anything other than market dwellings. Therefore, the proposed mix of smaller units in this case does not carry distinct weight as a public benefit in its own right despite the appellant contending their size means they will be a ‘more affordable dwelling type’2.

In addition, the lack of harm in relation to geological matters, flood risk and highways, along with providing an appropriate standard of accommodation for future occupiers, as considered below, is not a benefit in itself.

The public benefits in this case are modest overall owing to the scope of the development. Therefore, in this instance, the public benefits including the removal of the existing building, is insufficient to outweigh the respective less than substantial harms to the designated heritage assets.

The development fails to preserve the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of [address]. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with Policy HB1 of the Folkestone and Hythe District Council Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) (LP) and Policy SS3 of the Folkestone and Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review (2022) (CSR). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to its location and surroundings, whilst respecting existing buildings with particular regard to scale, proportions, massing and form, along with preserving and wherever possible enhancing conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings.

The proposed flats 4 and 5 would be served by an enclosed recessed terrace space, with a depth of 1.5m. The windows serving the living/dining areas of these flats would be set behind the terrace.

I have not been provided with technical information showing the effect of the enclosure on the daylight and sunlight received by both the terrace and the living/dining area.

In relation to sunlight, the terrace and windows are southern facing, with considerable separation to the buildings opposite the site. In addition, whilst set back by 1.5m, the openings would be fully glazed. In these circumstances, the evidence does not show that the enclosure would restrict a harmful amount of daylight or sunlight from entering the terrace space or the living/dining area. In addition, the floor plans show both living/dining areas would be served by a side facing rooflight allowing further daylight into the room. 2 Paragraph 5.2.33 of the Statement of Case

Based on the evidence presented, it is not shown that the development would result in adverse effects on the living conditions of the future occupiers of flats 4 and 5, by virtue of a lack of daylight or sunlight. It therefore follows that the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for the future occupiers of flats 4 and 5. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy HB1 and HB3 of the LP. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure new residential development does not lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers, taking into account a loss of light and ensures useable private open space is provided for each new dwelling.

The Grade II listed building of [address] is situated to the rear of the appeal site. I have limited evidence before me regarding the significance of this asset. Based on my observations on site, the significance of [address] relates to its architectural merits and its location behind the [address] nestled into the rising ground levels. Given that [address] is predominantly experienced from Undercliff beyond the appeal site, the surroundings in which the asset are experienced would not be undermined by the proposal. No harm to the significance of this heritage asset would therefore arise. I note that the Council has raised no objection in this regard either.

I note that a historic application has been approved at the site for twelve flats3. However, this permission was never implemented and has since lapsed. It was determined under a different development plan and before the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition, it was of a notably different design, including a lower eaves height so is not directly comparable. For these reasons, the previous scheme would only carry very limited weight as a fallback position or precedent at the site.

Another appeal determined near the site has been brought to my attention4, where the Inspector in this instance did not find harm to the CA. However, this appeal related to the cladding of the walls of an existing building. This appeal is therefore not directly comparable to the scheme before me.

The proposed development is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the LP and CSR. As set out above, the Council can only demonstrate a five year housing land supply of 3.1 years. Therefore, the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are engaged. Footnote 8 confirms in these circumstances, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

In relation to matters of character and appearance, paragraphs 135 and 139 seek to ensure development adds to the overall quality of the area and sets out that development which is not well designed should be refused. In addition, paragraph 212 attributes great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Policies HB1 of the LP and SS3 of the CSR are therefore consistent with the 3 LPA ref 89/1244/SH 4 PINS ref APP/L2250/W/25/3365857 Framework. On this basis, and the various harms identified, the conflict with these policies carries significant weight against the development.

Overall, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Framework.

Paragraph 11d)i) of the Framework sets out that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 confirms that this includes policies relating to designated heritage assets. The respective less than substantial harms identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets of [address] and the CA would amount to a strong reason for refusing the development. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. In addition, the harm caused would be substantial in the context of the provisions of paragraph 125c) of the Framework.

The other material considerations, which I have previously identified in my public benefits balance, carry moderate positive weight in favour of the proposed development owing to the overall modest scope of the proposal and would not outweigh these harms.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.