Appeal 6002334

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal site is within a Conservation Area (CA), I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also requires great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, which includes CAs.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name], and with particular reference to trees.

The appeal property is a modest detached bungalow constructed in stone with a clay pantile roof with stone eaves detail that sits within a generous plot, with garden areas to all sides. The dwelling is typical of the surrounding development, which comprises a mix of single- and two-storey stone-built houses set within relatively spacious plots. These generous plots, together with the spacing of built development, contribute to a broadly open and verdant character. Scattered trees within gardens and along boundaries further soften the built form and reinforce a sense of spaciousness and visual harmony within the estate.

The appeal site occupies a prominent position at the head of a short cul-de-sac, with a public open space to its western side and woodland forming a backdrop to the north. In combination the open space and woodland form a significant visible tree canopy and create a parkland-type character, with mown grass, trees and pedestrian routes. This landscape structure contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area and provides a soft transition between the built form of the estate, the wider settlement and the surrounding countryside.

Based on the evidence before me, which includes my site visit, the significance of the CA derives primarily from the historic core of the settlement and its close association with [name] and its accompanying parkland. It is also informed by the pattern of development, principally the historic routes through the settlement, and the prevailing rural character expressed through building materials, form and layout. The parkland and woodland components at the periphery of the settlement reinforce a strong sense of enclosure and cohesion that forms an important element of the CA’s character.

[address] is a more modern, planned estate of housing with a suburban layout and form. While the use of stone and pantiles reflects the traditional materials found elsewhere in the village, the overall arrangement and architectural expression of the estate is not characteristic of the historic core. As such, the estate, including the appeal site, makes a largely neutral contribution to the significance of the CA. Nevertheless, its discreet location on the edge of the village, together with the sense of spaciousness, trees and woodland, allows it to sit comfortably within the CA without detracting from its significance.

The proposal comprises single-storey extensions to the side and rear of the dwelling. The most substantial element is the side extension, which would run for a considerable length along the western side of the property, extending rearwards beyond the line of the existing building. While the appellant sets out that the proposal has reduced in size from earlier design iterations, it would still run close to the boundary with the adjacent open space and occupy a substantial portion of the existing side garden.

Notwithstanding the use of materials to match the existing dwelling and the single-storey nature of the extensions, the cumulative scale, length and siting of the proposed development would materially alter the perceived scale and visual presence of the host dwelling and its relationship with its surroundings. In particular, the side extension would physically reduce the space between the dwelling and the adjacent public open space, resulting in a perceptible erosion of the sense of spaciousness and visual coherence that currently arise from the generous plot sizes and spacing between built forms.

By narrowing the gap to the public open space, the proposal would leave the dwelling appearing disproportionately large and incongruous within its context, weakening the spatial relationship between built development and the adjoining parkland-like landscape.

[name] have described above, trees within plots and those in the adjoining open space collectively form a significant landscape structure which contributes positively to the character and verdant quality of the area. The proposal would place increased pressure on this landscape structure, including the removal of existing trees. While the two trees shown to be removed are not of significant stature, there is no clearly defined or secured scheme for replacement planting shown on the submitted plans or otherwise guaranteed through the proposal. In the absence of such information, I cannot be satisfied that the verdant character which currently contributes to the area’s character and appearance would be maintained over time.

While the evidence indicates that the root protection area of a beech tree (T5) would not be affected by the proposals, discrepancies remain between the layout shown on the submitted plans and the arboricultural evidence1. In addition, the Council has raised concerns regarding the treatment of the boundary hedge, which is shown as being retained on the plans, and while the appellant has indicated that it could be protected during development, there is limited detail before me as to how this would be secured, particularly given the proximity of the proposed extension. Taken together, these matters introduce a degree of uncertainty as to whether elements of the site’s landscaping that contribute to its verdant character and spatial relationships of the area would be adequately safeguarded.

Taken together, the spatial encroachment of the proposed development and the unresolved effects on the boundary hedge and existing trees, including the lack of secured replacement planting, would erode the harmonious spatial character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. As such, the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and thereby harm its significance.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation, and paragraph 215 requires that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

Given the location of the appeal site within a part of the CA that makes a neutral contribution to its overall significance, and having regard to the nature of the harm identified, I find the level of harm to the significance of the CA to be at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight. While the proposal may improve accessibility, energy efficiency and living conditions for any future occupant, these represent mainly private benefits and do not amount to public benefits of sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Conflict therefore arises with Policies 32, 37, 41 and 44 of the Doncaster Local Plan 2015- 2035 (2021). These policies require, among other things, development to respond positively to its context, preserve or enhance the character and appearance of a conservation area, protect trees and, where necessary, provide appropriate mitigation for any loss of trees.

I have noted the absence of objections from local residents and a letter of support from a neighbouring occupant, who raises concerns about security associated with the appeal property being unoccupied and suggests that the proposal would provide additional beneficial overlooking. [name] am sympathetic to these concerns, and understand why the proposal is supported on that basis, the lack of objection and the private security benefits identified do not indicate that the 1 Phase 2 Pre-development Arboricultural Report and [name], [name] and Woodland Consultancy, 25 April 2025 development is acceptable in planning terms, nor do they outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area and the CA.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s view that the proposal has evolved in response to pre-application advice, and to concerns raised about the Council’s engagement with the appellant during the determination of the application. However, the appeal must be determined on the basis of the scheme before me and its planning merits, rather than the process by which it came forward or the extent of dialogue during its consideration by the Council. As such, these matters do not alter my findings on the main issue.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and would not meet the requirements of the Framework. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.