Appeal 6004372

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. It refers to signage, the display of which is normally subject to a separate consent process1. For the avoidance of doubt, my consideration relates solely to the proposed front external canopy, as there is no evidence to suggest that the signage requires planning permission.

Although described as a canopy, the proposed plans indicate that the development would be attached to the front elevation of the host building with solid sides and a mono-pitched roof, such that it would appear as a single storey extension. Despite the planning application form stating that works had not commenced, at the time of my visit a structure forward of the principal elevation was present on site. While the development appears to accord with the submitted plans in terms of its overall size and position, there are deviations in terms of the position of the doorway and the glazing pattern to the front elevation in particular. My decision is therefore based on the submitted plans, rather than the development as built.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development upon i) the character and appearance of the area and ii) highway safety.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terrace, 2-storey property on the northern side of [address] within Doncaster town centre. The ground floor comprises a glazed shop front indicating its commercial take-away use. The upper floor has balanced proportions between window openings and wall, with traditional corbelling detail evident. The street is characterised by traditional terraced buildings which, despite varied ground-floor commercial uses, present a generally consistent and readable building line set well back from the carriageway. As part of 1 As set out within the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. this wider terrace, the appeal property makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Policy 46 of the Doncaster Local Plan (DLP) 2021, requires development, including extensions and alterations to existing commercial premises to be designed to be high quality and make a positive contribution to the area by meeting a number of criteria. Amongst other things, proposals should be sympathetic to the character of the host building and its surroundings in terms of siting, scale, massing, form, detailing and materials, and where relevant should enhance established street frontages, including their rhythm and building lines.

The proposal would introduce a single storey front extension to the host building. The shallow mono-pitched roof and predominantly glazed appearance would fail to respect the traditional proportions and balanced window to wall ratio found on the host building and wider terrace. Neither would the materials match the existing.

While glazing can give the impression of lightness it depends on how it is used. In this case, the number and thickness of the proposed glazing bars and external frame, particularly on the front elevation, would result in a visually heavy and fussy appearance. In combination with the reflectivity of the glazing, the structure would read as a solid projection rather than a lightweight addition. Views through to the shopfront behind would be limited, a perception likely to be reinforced by the use of the space for seating and associated furniture. Even if the proposed materials were of good quality and durability, this would not overcome the fundamental concerns arising from the form, scale and detailed design of the extension.

It is unclear from the evidence before me, when and how the walls and roof would be retractable, whether they could both occur at the same time and whether such retraction would include the framework. Given that the proposal is clearly intended to function as a covered seating area throughout the year, it would be unreasonable to assume that it would regularly appear in a retracted form. I must therefore assess the development as it would appear when fully in place, as shown on the submitted plans.

Owing to the straight alignment of the street and the consistent setback of buildings on either side, the appeal site occupies a prominent position in the street scene. By reason of its siting, projection and design, the proposal would appear as a visually discordant addition that fails to respect the traditional proportions and coherence of the host building and the terrace as a whole. While investment in town centres is important, it should not be at the expense of good design. In this case, the proposal would detract from, rather than enhance, the quality of the street scene, which is already suffering from poor quality signage.

Similar structures within the wider street scene have not been granted planning permission and enforcement investigations are ongoing regarding some of these locations. Irrespective, I observed that most premises in this parade either have no front extensions or utilise traditional awnings, which are materially different in appearance and function being lightweight and retractable when not in use. Given that the adjacent properties do not have front extensions, the proposal would appear particularly prominent, drawing the eye to a negative degree.

Consequently, I find that the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the wider area. The proposal conflicts with Policies 41, 42 and 46 of the DLP which seek amongst other things, to ensure that development is of a high quality that respects local character including street frontages. Conflict is also found with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which places significant importance on good design and the creation of well-designed places.

The appeal site’s town centre position indicates that it is accessible by a range of modes including walking and public transport. However, the crux of the Council’s concern appears to be the limited parking options for deliveries and customer delivery companies visiting the site.

The proposed development would be contained within the site’s forecourt and would not encroach onto the public footway. However, it would result in the loss of the open forecourt to the front of the premises, an area which I note is used at other premises within the street scene for off-road car parking. There is no evidence to suggest that there is currently any mechanism to require the forecourt to be kept free for delivery vehicles. There would therefore be nothing to prevent a member of staff from parking on the site frontage during opening hours, forcing delivery vehicles to park elsewhere.

The Council advises that the take-away use is established. Therefore, deliveries to and from the premises would already occur. The appellant suggests that deliveries are undertaken from the rear, but it is unclear how realistic this is, given my observation that the rear alleyway is gated and the subject of a regulation order restricting access. Even if I could accept that there was an opportunity for deliveries at the rear, the appeal site is more likely to be conveniently accessed from the front, given its location on a main road. This view is supported by the Council’s acknowledgement that following multiple visits to the area, deliveries do occur at the front of businesses on [address]. I have no evidence to suggest such activity is already causing a highway safety hazard, notwithstanding the presence of double yellow lines.

Whilst the appellant has not provided any detailed information about the opening hours of the take-away or the frequency or management arrangements for deliveries, there is no evidence to suggest that they would increase or change as a result of this proposal. It seems to me that the provision of additional seating would encourage more eating on site, rather than an increase in delivery company drivers attending to collect take-aways.

The Council’s Highway Development Control Technician did not object to the scheme but deferred to the Planning Officer as to whether the loss of an area capable of accommodating off-street parking, would be sufficient to justify refusal on highway safety grounds. Both local and national policy states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.

Although the Council ultimately concluded that the proposal would be harmful to highway safety, it has not clearly explained the nature or extent of that harm. Even if the proposal would have an effect on highway safety, it has not been demonstrated that it would be unacceptable. The Council has also accepted that a planning condition could be used to minimise any impact on highway safety arising from deliveries.

For the above reasons, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety. The proposal would accord with Policy 13 of the DLP which seeks to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, an objective shared by the Framework.

I am referred to an appeal decision in Waltham Forest, a different local authority area and therefore a different local plan context2. That development related to a timber pergola, the visual impact of which was mitigated by its lightweight design and the presence of trees lining the road. It is therefore considerably different to the proposal which is a more substantial solid front extension, and which is located in a street devoid of features to assimilate its impact. This does not affect my findings.

Reference is made to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework is clear that this presumption, does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a proposal conflicts with a development plan, permission should not usually be granted unless material considerations indicate the plan should not be followed. I have found that the proposal conflicts with the development plan.

I have had regard to the appellant’s comments concerning the economic benefits of the proposal, including increased seating capacity, support for the continued viability of the business and the contribution such investment may make to town centre vitality. I acknowledge that national planning policy places significant weight on the need to support economic growth, particularly within town centres, and that the appeal site occupies a sustainable and accessible location where commercial activity is encouraged. However, the Framework is clear that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.

Additional seating would no doubt benefit the operation of the business and may support local employment and expenditure. However, I am advised that the business is already established and there is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposal is essential to enable its continued take-away use. The economic benefits identified would therefore attract no more than limited weight. It has not been demonstrated that there are not alternative ways to ensure the future viability of the business than the proposal before me.

The lack of objections does not indicate a lack of harm and weighs neither for, nor against, the proposal.

[name] have found that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, this is neutral in the planning balance weighing neither for, nor against, the proposal. I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area in conflict with the development plan. While the economic benefits attract limited positive weight, they would be insufficient to outweigh this harm or to justify setting aside relevant development plan policies. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR 2