Appeal 3266616

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The new access that forms part of this proposal has already received planning permission in a separate application1 for a replacement dwelling for the existing bungalow, with access from [address]. This appeal will therefore focus solely on the proposed new dwelling.

The main issues are whether the proposal is in a suitable location for housing, having particular regard to the development strategy for the area and its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a part of the existing rear garden of The Bungalow, and previously housed outbuildings which have recently been demolished. The proposal seeks permission for the erection of a detached dwelling which would be accessed from [address], a private road that serves five properties situated on the north-eastern edge of Fairburn. The area in the vicinity of the 1 Planning application ref: 2020/0995/FUL appeal site is characterised by properties in generous plots, that are laid out in a linear pattern and front onto the street.

Under the settlement hierarchy set out in Policy SP2 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) (CS), Fairburn is designated as a Secondary Village. Policy SP2A(b) states that limited amounts of residential development inside Development Limits of [name] may be acceptable providing it conforms to Policy SP4 of the CS.

Policy SP4(a) lists development that would be acceptable in principle in [name], which includes filling of small linear gaps in otherwise built up residential frontages.

The appeal site comprises a small parcel of land comprising part of the rear garden of the Bungalow. It is located within the Development Limits of the village to the side of No [address], a large detached 2 storey dwelling and to the rear of the detached garage at Toplands, beyond which is the dwelling at Toplands, which has a presence in the [address] street scene. Given this context I find that the appeal site comprises a small linear gap in an otherwise built up residential frontage and in this regard, there would be no conflict with [name] SP2 and SP4, insofar as they relate to development within the Development Limits of [name].

However, whilst supporting in principle the development of such sites, CS Policy SP4 makes it clear that this should not be at the expense of the character and appearance of the area. The new dwelling would be located some distance behind the front elevation of No 1 and the garage serving Toplands. Its siting would not respect the existing pattern of development along [address] or [address], and the resultant plot size would be significantly smaller than nearby residential plots. As a consequence, the proposal would result in a cramped form of development which would not protect or enhance the local environment.

My attention has been drawn to recent approvals of new dwellings close to the appeal site. A 2018 appeal2 allowed a new dwelling in a cul-de-sac. While the proposal did not fill a linear gap in a residential frontage, given that the properties at the head of the cul-de-sac were arranged in a circular pattern, the Inspector concluded that the proposal complied with the aims of policy SP4 as it would not comprise ‘garden grabbing’ and the development respected the character and appearance of the area. In 2020, planning permission3 was granted for six dwellings in [address] close to the junction with [address]. It is reasonable to assume in this case that the Council considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the area. For these reasons, these two examples are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me, which has been assessed on its own merits.

Having regard to these matters I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the appeal proposal is not in a suitable location because of the conflict with the character and scale aims of CS Policy SP4, and the safeguarding aims of the natural and manmade environment set out in CS Policy SP18, the high quality design aims of CS 2 Appeal ref: APP/N2739/W/17/3189079 3 Planning application ref: 2019/1352/FUL 2 Policy SP19 and the design and layout aims of Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan.

In reaching this conclusion I am mindful of the judgments made in respect of Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council4 and Canterbury City Council v SSCLG and [name] Limited5 which found that policy interpretation should be done objectively in accordance with the language used. As such, it is a question of fact and planning judgement and I have assessed the proposal accordingly.

Whilst the proposal would provide housing, the provision of one additional unit would make little meaningful difference to the overall housing supply in the area. There would be a small social benefit in providing an extra housing unit, and economic advantages would also arise from the construction and occupation of a new house. However, these benefits would be limited and carry only moderate weight in support of the proposal.

I fully understand and acknowledge the appellant’s reasoning for the construction of the new dwelling, namely for the appellant and her husband to live independently but to be close to their family, who will live in the replacement dwelling at The Bungalow, for support, care and assistance. I attach moderate weight to this reason.

The Council raises no concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on neighbouring properties, the effect on the future occupiers of the dwelling, highway safety or any other matter, and I have no reason to disagree with this. I also accept that the site is in a sustainable location with regards to local facilities and public transport. However, these are neutral matters in the

Given that the benefits of the scheme are moderate, they do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan and the harm to the character and appearance of the area I have identified, harm that carries significant weight against the proposal.

For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.