Appeal 6002878

The appeal is dismissed.

Although not explicitly referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal, I am required, under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Bessacarr Conservation Area (BCA).

The main issues are the effects of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area, including the BCA; • the living conditions of the occupiers of 97 and [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and privacy; and • biodiversity.

The appeal site is located on [address]. It is currently occupied by a period detached two storey dwelling. Properties in this part of the road generally have similar design origins constructed of a combination of white render and red brick and feature bay windows and projecting gables. They are set back from the highway behind walls and hedges and occupy substantial plots. The site lies within the BCA.

The appeal proposal involves the demolition of the existing detached dwelling and its replacement with a two-storey detached dwelling. Though in a similar position, the replacement would be much deeper and would extend further back within the plot than the existing dwelling, as well as two-storey in height on the boundary with [address] (No.97). Whilst the appeal property has a single storey flat roofed garage abutting the boundary, the central location of the main two storey elements of the dwellings within their plots contributes to a sense of rhythm which adds positively to the appearance of the road and the BCA.

The BCA derives its significance from its historical development as a residential suburb for railway workers in the early 20th century. [address] provides an attractive southern approach into the city, featuring a broad highway with verges, extensive treescape and ample well-spaced houses, of which, the appeal site is one such dwelling. The Bessacarr Conservation Area Appraisal (BCAA) further identifies that the main character of the BCA is the low density of the housing, which allows for a feeling of openness and spaciousness. This is reflected by the immediate neighbours and wider residential development surrounding the appeal site.

The proposal, on account of its increased height, depth and proximity relative to the boundary with No.97 would erode this sense of spaciousness. The positioning of the proposed dwelling would result in a cramped appearance, contrary to the prevailing street pattern which principally features detached dwellings centrally positioned within their plot.

I further acknowledge that the Council’s Conservation Officer accepted the amended massing, roof height and facade of the proposed development. However, from the evidence before me, I am not convinced that this overcomes all their concerns, particularly in respect of the placement of the building within the plot and its separation to the left-hand boundary.

Great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset when assessing the impact of a development on its significance. As set out above, the proposal would introduce a form of development which would appear as an incongruous feature due to its positioning relative to the boundary with No.97 and its overall scale would be out of place in this part of the BCA. Although there are other modern dwellings close by, these generally are located centrally within their plots, maintaining the sense of spaciousness and rhythm in this part of the road. The resultant harm to the BCA would be at the lower end of less than substantial and I attach great weight to it in arriving at my decision.

No specific public benefits have been put to me which could be weighed against this harm and though, inevitably, some local economic benefit would be derived from demolition and erection of the new dwelling, including through the purchase of materials and labour, these public benefits are very limited and do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the BCA that I have identified.

I acknowledge that there are no upper limits on dwelling scale, floorspace, footprint or plot ratio and that other dwellings have been enlarged in a variety of ways across [address]. However, this does not mean that a dwelling of any scale would be acceptable in this location and does not diminish the harm that I have found on this main issue.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area including the BCA for which no public benefits have been demonstrated to outweigh the harm to the heritage asset. Consequently, it would be in conflict with Policies 37, 41 and 44 of the Doncaster Local Plan 2021 (DLP) which, together, seek to ensure development achieves high quality design that contributes positively to local character while also protecting the historic environment.

The proposal, by introducing a deep, two-storey elevation close to the boundary with No.97, would dominate the outlook from both the dwelling and garden of that neighbouring property. On the opposite side, the two-storey rear wing of the new dwelling would be set-in from the boundary with [address] (No.101). When experienced alongside the two-storey outbuilding, indicated on the plans to be retained, the risk of overbearance from the rear wing is negated and the outlook of the occupiers at No.101 would be preserved. Whilst meaningful separation has been provided on one side of the dwelling, insufficient separation is provided on the other. This harm would not be lessened by the low density of housing in the area which, given their ample spacing compared to the proposal, would exacerbate the impression of overbearance.

I note the position of both parties on the submission of evidence relating to shadowing effects and recognise that mutual levels of overshadowing exist between properties due to the direction of [address] relative to the path of the sun. However, the height and mass of the new dwelling across, and in proximity to, a broad stretch of the boundary shared with No.97 would substantially increase shadowing across that property, harmfully diminishing the amount of sunlight over that dwelling and its garden. No evidence has been submitted to show that this impact would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of that property.

With regard to privacy, unobscured side windows are a feature of the existing dwelling as well as the neighbouring dwellings and a certain degree of intervisibility is shared between the appeal property and its two neighbours. As the side windows of the proposal facing No.101 would be obscure glazed, and could be secured by a suitably worded condition, I am satisfied that privacy would be maintained for neighbouring occupiers. I note the proposal originally included a rear balcony. As this design feature is no longer included in the scheme, I have not considered it further.

The proposal may not result in a loss of residential units, garden land below accepted standards, or a change in land use. However, the absence of harm from these factors do not represent benefits that should be weighed against the harm in respect of living conditions I have identified above. Consequently, these considerations are not determinative of the appeal.

The proposal would not incur harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. However, it would incur significant adverse impacts on the outlook and sunlight experienced by the occupiers of [address] to the detriment of their living conditions. Consequently, the development would conflict with Policies 10 and 44 of the DLP which, together, seek to ensure development maintains and improve the living conditions of residents.

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and the removal of trees and vegetation from the site to facilitate the development. No ecology information has been submitted with the appeal. Therefore, it has not been established what habitats may be present on the site, including those of protected species which may be affected by the proposal.

The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a development proposal is being considered which would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before any planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.

The Council requested that an ecological impact assessment, including a preliminary bat roost assessment, be submitted during the application. DLP Policy 29 is clear that development proposals should protect, create, maintain and enhance the Borough’s ecological networks. [name] recognise that the policy predates the Government’s statutory [name] requirements, to which this proposal is exempt, it is also a statutory requirement to ensure that protected species are not adversely affected by a development. Given that the proposal involves the demolition of a building which is in proximity to trees and other vegetation it would not be unreasonable to consider whether bat roosts or foraging territory may be present. In applying the precautionary principle as well as having regard to the advice in Circular 06/2005, I cannot be certain that species, including those which are protected by law would not be adversely affected by the proposal. To this end, insufficient evidence has been put forward to ensure that there would be no harm to protected species.

To conclude, in the absence of surveys or assessments, there cannot be any certainty as to whether the proposal would have any effect on protected species or what that effect might be. Consequently, it is not possible to ensure mitigation measures can be put in place to specifically address any potential harm. It would not be reasonable to condition further surveys in this instance, and a preliminary bat roost assessment at this stage would be a proportionate request for the development proposed. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies 29 and 30 of the Doncaster Local Plan (2021) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that habitats and species are protected in the light of a nationally recognised mitigation hierarchy.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.