12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2025 by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd March 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/L2250/W/24/3349006 12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent CT20 1HF • 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 James against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 24/0122/FH. • The development proposed is double-storey rear balcony, enlarged dormer to second floor apartment and new doors to first floor apartment. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the: - a. Character and appearance of the host building and the area; and b. Living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at No.10 Copthall Gardens. Reasons Character and appearance 4.

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision The second floor extension with balcony would be a large addition to this building at roof level. The twin pitched roof would not reflect the original pitched roof form or appearance of the existing building or that of other buildings within the area. By reason of its overall size, along with its design and form, including excessive balcony glazing screens, the proposal would create an addition significantly out of keeping with the host property. Furthermore, the glazed balcony at first floor would not reflect the character of the host building. 5. Taken collectively, the proposal would be a visually dominant and harmful addition to the host building and would be substantially out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The harm arising from the proposed development https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3349006 would be clearly visible in public views given the property’s prominent siting within the townscape. 6. I accept that the turret feature within the host property is not a feature common place within this locality and there is some variety to the designs of the residential properties in the area. I acknowledge that over time some of the original features of properties have been lost or altered, such as the small roof dormer with balcony that has previously been added to the appeal property. However, the second floor extension would a large feature. I did not see any examples close by where the style and form of the proposed development, including the balconies, were reflected. 7. The site abuts a busy highway where there is a retail development to the opposite side of the highway. Notwithstanding this, the proposal relates to a residential property that forms part of a residential street. The proposal can and should be considered having regard to the impact of the proposal upon the residential character and appearance of the host property, even if the proposal abuts land uses of a different nature. 8.

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the area. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 and the provisions of the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to make a positive contribution to its location and surroundings Living conditions 9. The first floor balcony would project forward of the first floor window of the adjoining property. The side glazing panel would be of some substantial height. Given the panel’s close proximity to the neighbouring window, the occupiers would experience a sense of being enclosed by this projecting addition that would create a poor outlook for the neighbouring occupiers. 10. The occupiers of the neighbouring property should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. The visually overbearing impact of the proposed balcony in such close proximity to the adjoining property would diminish the outlook and enjoyment of the residential living environment for the neighbouring occupiers.

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision This would harm the enjoyment the existing occupiers of the neighbouring property should reasonably expect to enjoy. Whilst the balcony screens aim to prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties garden and/or windows, this does not obviate the requirement to ensure appropriate outlook is maintained for the existing neighbouring occupiers. 11. There may be examples of new build developments in the wider area where balconies and privacy screens form part of the design of the development. However, I have not been directed to any examples that would enable me to consider what similarity, if any, those developments would have to that of the proposal that is before me that might offer weight in favour of the proposal. Nonetheless, this proposal can and should be considered on its own merits. 12. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at No.10 Copthall Gardens. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Places and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3349006 Policies Local Plan 2020 and the provisions of the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, alterations and extensions to protect the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, taking into account loss of privacy, loss of light and poor outlook. Other Matters 13. Policy HB8 of the Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 relates to alterations and extension to buildings. It is contended that this policy relates to development more akin to solid extensions rather than balcony structures. Both the roof extension and balconies would represent an alteration and extension of the host dwelling, to which Policy HB8 would apply. 14. The proposal would allow the occupiers of the upper floor apartment to take greater advantage of the distant views of the English Channel. It would also improve the practical and functional use of the internal living space. The proposal would not impact a listed building or fall be within a conservation area. Whilst these are merits of the proposed scheme, they do not overcome my above concerns, nor would they justify the proposed development. Conclusion 15. Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.

12 Copthall Gardens, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1HF — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Nicola Davies INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3