Appeal 3274845

the appeal is dismissed, the enforcement notice is upheld, and planning permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act.

For the appeal to succeed on this ground, the appellant needs to demonstrate that the use of the outbuilding for the running of a commercial sweet shop business does not constitute a breach of planning control, because it is not development or does not require planning permission.

While the appellant was advised that planning permission would not be required, that was in respect of alterations to the outbuilding. The notice does not include any alterations to the outbuilding in the alleged breach of planning control and it does not require any building works to be removed.

In contrast, the Council advised that a proposed retail unit would constitute a material change of use requiring planning permission. A subsequent application for a retail use comprising sale of sweets and household goods1 was refused. [name] understand an appeal against that refusal was dismissed, only limited 1 19/02635/FUL, refused 19 February 2020 details have been provided. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the need for planning permission for the use was not disputed. No evidence to suggest that the use of the outbuilding as a commercial sweet shop business does not require planning permission has been presented in this appeal.

The character of the use of the outbuilding as a sweet shop business is different from that associated with a typical residential use, particularly in terms of activity generated by deliveries and customers. Accordingly, a material change of use requiring planning permission has occurred and the appeal on ground (c) must fail.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the use of the outbuilding as a commercial sweet shop business on the living conditions of nearby residents.

The appeal premises are within a quiet residential area and close to neighbouring dwellings. The increased activity associated with a retail use would not protect local amenity and would harm residential amenity through noise generated by deliveries and visitors and, potentially, through excessive traffic. Accordingly, the use of the outbuilding as a sweet shop is contrary to saved policy PH12 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan and policy CS1 of the Doncaster Council Core Strategy 2011-2028.

The examination of the emerging Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 (the emerging plan) has concluded. The plan has been found to be sound, subject to the recommended main modifications. The Council anticipates it will adopt the plan by Autumn 2021. The emerging plan is therefore at an advanced stage and significant weight may be afforded to its policies. The emerging plan provides support for non-residential uses that do not cause unacceptable loss of residential amenity. However, as noted in the assessment against current development plan policies, that would not be the case in this instance.

The appellant considers the sweet shop benefits him and his family, his community, and the local area. While it is possible for such benefits to align with the objectives of [name] policy CS1, no further explanation of the benefits, or their significance, has been provided. As a result, only limited weight may be afforded to this aspect of the appellant’s case and it therefore does not alter or outweigh my findings on the main issue. Accordingly, the appeal on ground (a) must fail.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice and refuse to grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.