Appeal 6001135

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s fourth reason for refusal refers to part of the site as being within flood zone 3, and no sequential test being submitted. However, the most recent and up to date flood map, which is included within the appellants final comments submission, demonstrates that the whole of the red line site is within flood zone 1. Accordingly, there is no requirement to pass a flood risk sequential test.

Amended plans and an amended flood risk assessment (FRA) were submitted with the appeal to address the Council’s concerns. As the site is entirely within flood zone 1, a FRA is not required, and as such there is no need for me to consider or seek further comments on this or the revised finished floor levels of the proposed dwelling.

The amended plans include the removal of a south facing raised terrace and its enclosure, and a small reduction to the overall height of the dwelling, including its internal finished floor level, and its window and door heights above ground. Although the elevation drawings have not been relabelled accordingly, the site plans and written submissions indicate that the front and rear elevations have been swapped, so that the front door faces south and the solar panels are on the north facing roof slope. The proposed new access has also been realigned on the drawing, with the gates shown set back and visibility splays provided.

As the changes are very minor in nature, and given that the site is in flood zone 1, and accessed via a private driveway to the adjacent pub car park, I do not consider that any parties would be prejudiced by my acceptance of the revised information, which the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment upon as part of this appeal.

Having regard to the above, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the area; ii) the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed and adjacent approved development; and iii) highway safety.

The site comprises the northern part of a small parcel of land, which has been sub-divided into two by a timber fence. It is currently occupied by a caravan, which I understand the appellants are living in without planning permission, and a narrow boat. I have no information regarding the use or ownership of the adjoining section of land to the south of the caravan and narrow boat, although based upon the submitted plans, it appears that at least part of this would be incorporated into the development, with the boundary fence being relocated further south, leaving a smaller parcel of land to the front.

The north and western sides of the site are bound by the car park and access road ( [site address] ) serving [address]. On the eastern side there is an incomplete major housing development. I am aware that the site, together with the adjoining land to the south, was previously occupied by a single dwelling, but I have not been advised how long ago this was demolished or why. The overlay drawing and a photograph submitted with the appeal, indicate that the previous dwelling was orientated facing [site address] , with its side gable window facing the canal, like the old outbuilding on the opposite side of [site address] and the dwelling on the opposite side of the canal.

A public footpath currently separates the site from the adjacent housing development to the east. However, the overlay plan provided, shows the red line site boundary, the proposed dwelling and part of the adjacent approved development all encroaching over this right of access. The footpath would presumably be diverted through the new housing development adjacent to the site at some point in the future, should that development be completed. As a result, the appeal site and the adjacent housing site will become adjoining or overlapping. An accurate and coherent layout and design approach is therefore required.

The adjacent housing site benefits from an extant full planning permission, which has been commenced and therefore cannot run out. It is not subject to an expired outline consent as suggested. The appellants state that the approved development cannot be wholly completed in accordance with the approved plans, because it would encroach into their land. In the absence of any substantive evidence to confirm this, I cannot be certain that the remainder of the adjacent development could not still go ahead in whole or in part, with or without amendments. The accuracy of the overlay, onto what appears to be a downloaded scanned drawing, is unclear, and in any event, this only shows some minor encroachment of garden areas into a right of access area. Having a right of access over land is not the same as having ownership of it.

Although land ownership is not a matter for my consideration, and I am advised it is being investigated by [name], the extant planning permission is a material planning consideration, and I must have regard to the possibility of that going ahead in reaching my decision.

The amended plans submitted with the appeal indicate that the front elevation of the dwelling would now face the dwellings on [address], as opposed to facing the canal, in line with The New Inn, the row of cottages adjacent to it, and the approved new development. This seems to me to be somewhat irrelevant given that the dwelling would not be sited in line with either the dwellings on [address] or the buildings fronting the canal and would be set back from both. It would also not have its gable end facing the canal, like the previous dwelling on the site or others nearby. Instead, it would be at a different angle to any existing, former or approved buildings surrounding it.

The modest scale and traditional design of the dwelling would reflect the scale and appearance of older buildings located on either side of the canal, and on its own, would not harmfully detract from its existing surroundings, subject to appropriate materials, boundary treatment and landscaping. However, the proposal would be very close to and viewed in context with the adjacent modern housing development, which I have no reason to doubt will eventually be completed, even if it is done so in a different form to that originally approved.

The orientation of the proposed new dwelling would sit awkwardly with the approved new roads and buildings on the adjacent site. The proposed [address] boarded fencing adjacent to [site address] would also appear harsh and unsightly. A building facing [site address] , with low boundary treatment to the front, reflecting the frontages of surrounding properties, would be more in keeping with the appearance of the area. The adjacent housing development appears to have been planned and approved on this basis, with the former dwelling being included on the plans.

I therefore conclude that based upon the information before me, the proposal would not be well designed, having regard to its relationship to and the appearance of existing and approved development surrounding it. As such it would fail to accord with policies 41, 42 and 44 of the Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 (the local plan), which require new development to respond to and integrate with its local context and surroundings.

The site is located adjacent to a public house and its associated access, car parking and outdoor seating. I have not been provided with any details regarding potential noise and disturbance from this use, but I note that there are other existing and approved dwellings nearby that would be subject to similar conditions. As such, licencing conditions are likely to already be in place to protect nearby residents, and the additional dwelling is unlikely to put additional constraints on the operation of the business.

Currently, the former dwelling site is split into two sections each enclosed by fencing, containing various buildings, containers and mobile items and each with separate access. There is no information before me as to how the adjoining small parcel of land is or would be used, or whether it is or will remain within the same ownership and control of future occupiers of the new dwelling. As such, I cannot be certain there would be no conflict between the two.

An overlay plan has been provided to show the position of the proposed dwelling in relation to the large adjacent housing development approved under application ref. 13/00987/FUL, which is partially built out and occupied. I have not been advised why this development has not been completed, or whether any subsequent planning applications to amend the scheme have been submitted or determined. However, it is evident from the overlay plan provided, that should the originally approved scheme be completed, the proposed dwelling would be very close to a large three storey block of apartments, which as well as overlooking the proposed dwelling and its garden, would result in an overbearing and oppressive outlook. The new dwelling would also be very close to and overlook the rear windows and garden space of the approved bungalows labelled as plots 150 and 151, which will form part of a continuation along [address].

The proposal therefore fails to accord with policy 44 of the local plan, which requires new residential development to provide future occupiers with decent outlook, light and privacy and to protect the privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties and their gardens.

Access to the site is from [site address] , a narrow unlit driveway serving The New Inn PH. [site address] is used by drivers and pedestrians going to and from the pub and the canal path. At present, the site is accessed from the parking area to the north. A plan submitted with the appellants final comments, indicates that the former dwelling had a similar arrangement, with its access being to the north of the house. The former boundary treatment is unknown. It is proposed to create a new access point into the site from [site address] to the front (south) of the proposed dwelling.

The plans do not demonstrate the proposed parking or turning arrangements within the site. Whilst visibility splays have been shown on the amended drawing, it appears that due to the 2m high boundary fencing along [site address] , drivers exiting the site either in forward or reverse gear, would have very limited views of cars and pedestrians approaching along the lane.

I therefore conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of highway safety, and consequently, it fails to accord with policies 13 and 44 of the local plan, which seek to ensure new development has safe access and appropriate parking.

The failure of the Council to work with the appellant in a positive manner to try and resolve any of its concerns, without the need to appeal, has been noted. However, such matters should be addressed via the Council’s complaints procedure.

Although the proposed development is no longer considered to be at risk of flooding, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that it would not pose a risk to highway and pedestrian safety, that future occupiers would not overlook or be overlooked or over dominated by the approved adjacent development, or that the siting and appearance of the dwelling would respond to the context of its existing and approved surroundings.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.