34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP
Thanet District Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Authority
- Thanet District Council
- Inspector
- Smith D
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Other
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Seaquest Properties
- Agent
- JWDB Planning
- LPA reference
- 21/0852
- ONS LPA code
- E07000114
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 28 January 2022
Summary AI
An appeal against a refusal to grant approval to landscaping details for a four-storey building was dismissed. The inspector considered that the details did not meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Thanet Local Plan.
PDF text
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 June 2022 by David Smith BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 June 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2260/W/21/3281404 34 - 36 St Peters Road, Broadstairs, CT10 2AP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval to details required by a condition of a planning permission. • The appeal is made by Seaquest Properties against the decision of Thanet District Council. • The application Ref CON/TH/21/0852, dated 25 May 2021, sought approval of details pursuant to condition 10) of planning permission Ref F/TH/16/1571, granted by appeal decision Ref: APP/Z2260/W/17/3176989 on 9 October 2017. • The application was refused by notice dated 20 July 2021. • The development is erection of four storey building comprising 7no. 2 bed flats with associated car parking. • The details for which approval is sought are landscaping works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. Whether the landscaping details are acceptable having regard to the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3.
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site contains a recent 4-storey residential building at the junction of St Peters Road with Crawford Road. This part of St Peters Road mainly comprises well-detailed Victorian villas. The coherence of the architecture is a positive feature of the street scene and this is embellished by the greenery that exists, especially on the opposite side of the road. 4. The external areas around the block have been hard surfaced as shown on the submitted details. Good quality materials have been used. However, there is an absence of soft landscaping which was referred to by the previous Inspector as one of the improvements that the scheme would bring about. Furthermore, the wording of Condition 10 specifically refers to the details required and that soft landscaping should be carried out before occupation. This would not have been imposed unless such provision were necessary to make the development acceptable. The appearance of the site on this prominent corner is somewhat harsh and would benefit from some softening, especially as the front forecourt is bereft of planting or enclosure. The intended doorstep play area is also unsuited for that purpose. 5.
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — Appeal Decision Given the extent of the parking areas, the scope for significant landscaping is limited and the potential areas are quite small and irregular in shape. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — Appeal Decision Given the extent of the parking areas, the scope for significant landscaping is limited and the potential areas are quite small and irregular in shape. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z2260/W/21/3281404 Nevertheless, there is potential for shrubbery along the side boundary with Crawford Road and the internal area at the rear of the parking court could also be ‘greened’. Whilst these areas are said to be affected by haunching to the foundations and underground services there is no evidence that planting in these areas would be wholly impractical or that surface water drainage could not be incorporated. Low-maintenance plants could also be selected. Even if the site is improved overall compared to its previous use for motor sales, the most important consideration is the final appearance of the development. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of effective landscaping. It also indicates that the quality of approved development should not be materially diminished between permission and completion. Policies in the Thanet Local Plan aim for high quality and inclusive design and the provision of suitable external amenity space. The submitted details that have been undertaken do not achieve these objectives.
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — Appeal Decision Neither do they fulfil the expectations of the original Inspector or the intentions of the Design and Access Statement. Conclusion 7. In conclusion the landscaping details are unacceptable because soft landscaping is required to make the overall effect on the character and appearance of the area satisfactory. Therefore, the details should not be approved and the appeal should fail.
34 - 36 St Peters Road , Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 2AP — Thanet District Council — David Smith INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶4
The external areas around the block have been hard surfaced, and there is an absence of soft landscaping which was referred to by the previous Inspector as one of the improvements that the scheme would bring about.
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶5
The appearance of the site on this prominent corner is somewhat harsh and would benefit from some softening, especially as the front forecourt is bereft of planting or enclosure.
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶7
The landscaping details are unacceptable because soft landscaping is required to make the overall effect on the character and appearance of the area satisfactory.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| NPPF 208 |
Determinative |
| Local Plan D1 |
Determinative |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 June 2022 under the Open Government Licence.