Erection of a detached double garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 01 September 2026 by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011671 Willow Brook, London Road, Hythe, KENT CT21 4JH • 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 M Kingston against the decision of Folkestone & Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 26/0334/FH. • The development proposed is the erection of a detached double garage. 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 Issue 3. The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The dwellings along this part of London Road are set back from the highway. Some properties along the opposite side of the road host ancillary outbuildings between the dwelling and the highway. The proposed garage would be sited forward of the existing dwelling and close to the public highway. In the context of surrounding development, the siting of the garage would not be out of character with the existing development within the locality. 5. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed garage would be a large, tall structure which the plans show would be visible above the existing high front boundary landscaping. Despite its siting at a lower land level to that of the adjacent highway, the overall size of the garage would be perceived as a prominent and overly large structure sited forward of the dwelling. In this respect the proposed garage would be out of keeping with and would be visually harmful to the street scene as it would not appear as an ancillary outbuilding associated with the host property. 6. The existing boundary landscaping would screen the proposed garage to some extent in public views from the surrounding area. However, this landscaping could die, be removed or be reduced in height and this would amplify the visual harm of Appeal Decision 6011671 2 the development within this street scene. As such, the existing landscaping cannot be relied upon to potentially obviate the visual harm arising from the proposed development. 7. I acknowledge that the outbuilding building would occupy a small proportion of this large residential plot and would retain a sense of openness around the building as well as separation with neighbouring properties. The garage would be constructed using high-quality materials that could complement the host property and reinforce a cohesive appearance across the site. There is an existing vehicular access and turning space within the site. Mature landscaping within the site would be remain. Whilst these are merits of the proposed development they do not overcome the visual harm I have identified above, nor do they justify the erection of a visually harmful development. 8. I have been directed to other garages between dwellings and the highway along this stretch of London Road. Photographs of these have been provided, along with other viewpoint images. Of those examples there appears to be one at Green Hayes that could be considered to be of similar size and scale to that proposed here. Other outbuildings do not appear to be of a similar size and form to that proposed, including that of a recent planning permission at 2 London Road. From the information provided most of the examples relate to historic planning permissions that the local planning authority advise were considered against previous local plan policies. Notwithstanding those examples the proposal can and should be considered on its own merits against the context of current development plan policies. 9. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development would conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to make a positive contribution to their location and surroundings and for the scale and proportions not to have a detrimental impact on the street scene. Conclusion 10. Having regard to the above the appeal should be dismissed. Nicola Davies INSPECTOR