37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 March 2025 by A James BSc (Hons) MA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th March 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/L2250/W/24/3352602 37a Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, Folkestone, Kent CT20 3AH • 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 Trevor Alcock against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application reference is 24/0834/FH. • The development proposed is described as ‘to fit new windows and external cladding on the south and west elevations.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Since the Council issued its decision notice, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised, with the latest version published on 12 December 2024 and amended on 7 February 2025. In this case, the most relevant parts of the Framework remain broadly the same. As a result, I have not sought comments on this matter and I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by my approach. Main Issue 3.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the appeal property and whether the proposal would preserve the character or appearance of the Sandgate High Street Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 4. 37a Sandgate High Street (No 37a) forms part of a three storey Victorian building, which occupies a corner plot on Sandgate High Street. There is a commercial unit on the ground floor that faces towards the High Street, the remainder of the building is divided into flats. The appeal property is accessed via a passage from the High Street and is also visible from the adjacent road and sea front. The building has a pitched roof and bracketed eaves cornice. It is finished with a painted render. The appeal property has top hung UPVC windows. The windows on the rest of the building are predominately timber framed sash windows. 5. The appeal property lies within the Sandgate High Street CA. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA. The significance of the CA insofar as is relevant https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3352602 to this appeal derives from the high quality, historic buildings which front and are adjacent to the High Street and its close proximity to the seafront, which signifies the area’s evolution as a historic seaside resort. While the area contains a mix of historic and modern architecture, the presence of traditional materials, including white, timber weatherboarding makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 6. The proposal seeks to use cementitious cladding on the upper part of a section of the building, which would have a lap finish. The use of cementitious cladding on part of the building would fail to respect the Italianate design and rendered finish on the rest of the building. While I appreciate that white, timber weatherboarding is used widely in the locality, the proposed cladding would not utilise a traditional material and it would fail to be sympathetic to the host building and the character and appearance of the CA. 7. The building has an ornate, bracketed cornice.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision The proposed cladding would project out from the elevations of the building and would interfere with the bracketed cornice, diminishing and detracting from this attractive, architectural feature. 8. I appreciate that composite cladding has been approved in the immediate locality; however, the Council advises that this replaced previous UPVC cladding and is therefore materially different than the appeal scheme before me. The appellant has also provided another example of composite cladding in the locality, but this does not appear to have consent. As a result, I give the other examples limited weight in my decision. 9. Nonetheless, where composite cladding is present on buildings in the locality, it is clearly distinguishable from traditional cladding and demonstrates the harm that can be caused to the character and appearance of the CA by such development. Accordingly, I do not find that the presence of composite cladding on other properties within the CA justifies further harm to the character and appearance of the CA. 10. The proposal seeks to replace the existing top hung UPVC windows with casement windows.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision While details of heritage style casement windows are before me, these do not reflect the size of any of the window openings on the building. Furthermore, these details do not correlate with the windows as shown on the proposed elevations. Given that the existing windows at 37a are UPVC, the Council raises no objection to their replacement with a similar material. Nevertheless, the use of casement windows has the potential to harmfully discord with the traditional sash windows, which are prominent on the rest of the building. Based on the limited information before me, I am not satisfied that the replacement windows would preserve the character and appearance of the building or the CA. 11. The proposed windows and cladding would be visible from the public realm, including from the adjacent road, the shared passageway and the seafront. While I appreciate that views would be localised and that the building does not form part of any vistas identified within the Sandgate CA Appraisal the proposal would be visible from multiple views from within the CA, including from the seafront and a road leading to the sea.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision While the proposal would be seen against a backdrop of the existing composite cladding on a nearby building, for the reasons set out above, I do not find that this justifies further harm to the character and appearance https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision While the proposal would be seen against a backdrop of the existing composite cladding on a nearby building, for the reasons set out above, I do not find that this justifies further harm to the character and appearance https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3352602 of the CA. Furthermore, the nearby building is more modern in its appearance and does not have the same ornate, bracketed cornice detail that is found on the appeal property and is therefore materially different than the appeal scheme. 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the existing building and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. I find the harm to be less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, that harm should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. 13. There is limited evidence before me that the use of the building as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the proposal and I therefore give this argument limited weight in my decision. 14. The appellant considers that the proposal would improve the weatherproofing of the property and would have benefits in terms of energy efficiency and would reduce carbon emissions and heating costs. However, there is no compelling evidence before me that the same benefits cannot be achieved in a more sensitive way.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision As a result, I give this alleged benefit limited weight in my decision. 15. There would be a small economic benefit from the proposal during the construction phase of the development, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The proposal also seeks to provide a new bird box on the building, which I give limited weight in favour of the proposal. 16. Overall, the proposed public benefits carry limited weight in favour of the development. As a result, the collective public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the great weight afforded to the preservation of heritage assets. 17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The proposal would fail to accord with the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The proposal would conflict with Policies HB1, HB8 and HE1 of the Folkestone and Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan, adopted September 2020.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision These policies among other things require that a proposed development makes a positive contribution to its location and surroundings, while respecting existing buildings and having particular regard to materiality; that fenestration complements the proportions and alignment of fenestration in the existing building; and, that heritage assets are conserved. Other Matters 18. The appellant has drawn my attention to the case of Waveney DC v SoS from 5 November 2002. There are limited details before me in respect to the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, this case was determined some time ago and precedes the Framework and current Local Plan. As a result, it would have been determined against a different policy context. Consequently, I give it limited weight in my decision. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L2250/W/24/3352602 Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

37A Sandgate High Street, Sandgate, FOLKESTONE, CT20 3AH — Folkestone and Hythe District Council — A James INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4