Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 October 2024 by C Carpenter BA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 October 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/L2250/W/24/3336690 Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent CT21 5XW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Dave Strand against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 23/1270/FH. • The development proposed is described as: “The Main residence of Lower Rydal Mount will remain unchanged. The works planned are the installation of two Shepherds huts within the front garden of Lower Rydal Mount to be rented out as holiday lets. The works include the removal of soil from the front garden to provide a level plateau to place the units on.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. On 30 July 2024 the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and other changes to the planning system. The proposed revisions to the Framework are draft and therefore may be subject to change before the final Framework is published.

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, the draft revisions to the Framework and other proposed reforms are not directly relevant to this appeal. Therefore, I am satisfied no party would be disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to comment on them. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance; and • land stability in the area. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is in a relatively densely developed residential neighbourhood comprising mainly detached or semi-detached houses in a variety of styles. Some houses have been converted to flats. The dwellings on the same side of Cliff Road as Lower Rydal Mount generally have generous front gardens with abundant vegetation, which can be appreciated from several angles because of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3336690 the sloping topography. This gives the area a verdant character. Off-street parking spaces are mostly accommodated at street level, with limited encroachment into these gardens. 5. The proposed development would occupy a considerable proportion of the appeal site’s front garden and change its topography by introducing a new excavated tier. Built form and hardstanding would replace grass and mature planting, diminishing the formal layout and green appearance of the garden. There are several public viewpoints from which it is currently possible to catch sight of much of the garden, including its continuous green slope up to the dwellings, even if parts of the lawn are affected by shade. The new shepherd’s huts would dominate these glimpses, obstructing views of the garden to the detriment of the area’s verdant character. 6. In addition, the shepherd’s huts would have the appearance of rural-style mobile homes, which would jar with the well-established residential surroundings. This is notwithstanding the huts’ subordinate size relative to the host building.

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision The use and appearance of the huts would also be materially different from the domestic character of existing outbuildings on nearby plots. 7. I acknowledge the lower part of the existing garden is screened from some perspectives by the mature front hedge, and this hedge would remain. I also accept the proposed excavation of the site would help ensure the huts would not be seen above the hedge. I further note changes in parking layout would not affect the hedge-line. Nevertheless, these factors would not overcome the harmful change to glimpses of the site from locations in the street scene where the existing hedge does not provide a screen. 8. There is little before me to substantiate the suggestion that the proposed units would be like railway huts, or that such structures are significant to the history of the area. I therefore give this consideration little weight. Furthermore, the proposed use of sympathetic materials would not be sufficient to integrate the shepherd’s huts’ incongruous appearance into their surroundings. 9. Other developments in the area have been brought to my attention.

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision I do not have full details of these schemes, so I cannot be certain of the extent to which their circumstances are directly comparable to those before me. In any case, I have considered the appeal scheme on its own merits. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy HB1 of the Folkestone & Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (FHLP), which supports proposals that make a positive contribution to their location and surroundings, enhancing integration while also respecting existing buildings and land uses. It is also contrary to the Framework, where it seeks development that is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. Living conditions 11. The proposal would introduce two units of holiday accommodation on the appeal site in addition to the existing dwellings. Use of the site would therefore intensify, producing additional comings and goings when the holiday lets are occupied. Such activity would be likely to include extra car movements, and voices as people enter and leave the shepherd’s huts or sit outside them. On https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3336690 the evidence before me, there could be up to six additional people on the site at one time. Resultant levels of noise and disturbance would exceed those generally associated with two flats on one plot in this neighbourhood. The proximity of the proposed huts to the houses on either side of the appeal site means there would be little scope to mitigate effects on neighbouring occupiers. 12. I understand some existing dwellings in the area are let out as holiday accommodation. However, existing homes already generate comings and goings, whereas the two proposed units would generate activity additional to that associated with the existing dwellings on the appeal site. I therefore give limited weight to this consideration. 13. I recognise the appellant would generally be present to manage and oversee the letting of the huts and appreciate his experience in property and holiday letting. Nevertheless, this would not overcome the harm associated with more intense use of the appeal site. 14. For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision This is contrary to FHLP Policy HB1, which supports proposals that do not lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours. It is also contrary to the Framework, where it seeks a high standard of amenity of existing users. Land stability 15. On the evidence before me, the appeal site falls within an area in which slope instability problems are probably present or have occurred in the past. FHLP Policy NE6 requires proposals that affect land where instability is suspected to be accompanied by a desktop slope stability risk assessment, which identifies the degree of instability and any necessary mitigation. Analysis should also demonstrate the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the slip area. 16. No such study is before me, so I cannot be certain of the condition of the slope at the appeal site, the proposal’s effect on its stability, or whether any mitigation would be required. 17. Building Regulation requirements would be subject to separate approval and are outside my remit in considering this appeal. I have assessed the proposal on its planning merits. 18.

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal’s effect on land stability in the area has not been demonstrated, contrary to FHLP Policy NE6. This is also contrary to the Framework, which seeks to prevent new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of land instability and requires remediation and mitigation of unstable land where appropriate. Other Matters 19. The proposed additional holiday accommodation would make a modest contribution to growth in tourism in the area, with benefits for the local economy. However, although tourism-related development is supported by FHLP Policy E3, this is subject to consideration of impacts on surrounding built https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal’s effect on land stability in the area has not been demonstrated, contrary to FHLP Policy NE6. This is also contrary to the Framework, which seeks to prevent new development from contributing to unacceptable levels of land instability and requires remediation and mitigation of unstable land where appropriate. Other Matters 19. The proposed additional holiday accommodation would make a modest contribution to growth in tourism in the area, with benefits for the local economy. However, although tourism-related development is supported by FHLP Policy E3, this is subject to consideration of impacts on surrounding built https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3336690 form and neighbourhood amenities. In this instance, the economic benefit of the scheme would not be sufficient to outweigh the harms I have identified. 20. The Council has raised no concern with the proposed parking layout and, on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, an absence of harm in this respect is a neutral factor. 21. I note the appellant’s willingness to modify the proposal to address any remaining concerns. However, I am required to determine this appeal based on the proposal and evidence before me. Conclusion 22. I have found the proposal conflicts with the development plan, read as a whole. No other material considerations, including the Framework, have been shown to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

Lower Rydal Mount, Cliff Road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5XW — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — C Carpenter INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4