Appeal 3283717

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Erection of detached double garage at [site address] , Hurworth [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00516/FUL, dated 5 May 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan;PR102 [name] and Elevations; PR104C Existing and Proposed Site Levels.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling on the site.

The appellant has made an application for costs against Darlington Borough Council. this application is the subject of a separate decision.

To support the appeal the appellant has submitted a [name] Assessment1 (FRA). The ‘Procedural Guide – Planning Appeals – England’ advises that if an applicant thinks that amending their proposals will overcome the local planning authority’s reasons for refusal, they should normally make a fresh planning application. Constructive discussions with the Council, particularly in light of new evidence, can help to avoid the need to appeal.

Nonetheless, there is a degree of commonality between the evidence already submitted to the council and the FRA, on this basis I am satisfied that no party 1 [name] 01 dated 13/09/21 reference RLC/0864/TN01 would be prejudiced by the consideration of such evidence. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the [name].

The main issue is whether or not the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regards surface water flooding on the appeal site and elsewhere.

Policy CS16 of the [name], amongst other matters, seeks to protect environmental resources and to reduce the impact of surface water flood risk and requires an assessment as appropriate to the type and extent of impact and associated risks.

The appeal scheme would introduce built development into an area that is at low risk from surface water flooding. The FRA acknowledges that the development would result in the “flow path of the surface water flooding being diverted around the garage”.

Figure 3.1 of the FRA shows some diversion of surface water around the proposed garage, on the basis of the evidence before me it does not appear that the proposed development would result in increased flows towards either the front or rear elevation of the existing dwelling on the site and the general flow of surface water would continue through the site unchanged as a result of the proposed development.

The comments made by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), refers to the need for detailed modelling and the other factors that could affect the natural flow of surface water flooding. However, Policy CS16 specifically seeks an assessment appropriate to the extent of impact and associated risks. In this instance such impact and risk appear, on the basis of the evidence before me, to be limited and as such it is my planning judgement that the level of detail submitted is appropriate in this instance.

On the basis of the limited scale of the proposed development and in light of the evidence submitted by the appellant detailing the expected impacts, in this instance I am satisfied that the appeal scheme is a suitable location for the proposed development with regards the risk of surface water flooding on the appeal site and elsewhere. As such I find that appeal scheme is not contrary to Policy CS16 of the [name] and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Evidence has been provided by the appellant regarding the earlier consent for housing related to the appeal property and adjacent properties. I note that this development did not include the land upon which the appeal scheme would be developed. As such this prior consent, conditions and conclusions relating to surface water drainage/flooding while a material consideration is not determinative in this instance.

In the interests of clarity, I have included conditions to control the life of the permission and the approved plans. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area I have specified that the materials to be used in the exterior of the proposed building shall match those of the existing dwelling on the site.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.