Appeal 6004502

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (i) the character and appearance of the area, and (ii) flood risk.

The appeal site forms part of the garden area to [site address] , a semi-detached property in the village of [address]. The built form generally follows a linear pattern of development, with dwellings being set at varying distances from the highway. This built form, along with planting within front gardens and along boundaries together with views of surrounding open areas of land, provides for a strong pattern of development with a semi-rural character.

The proposed single storey dwelling would be sited towards the rear of the appeal site, which would be accessed by a driveway to the side of the existing dwelling. This siting to the rear would be in marked contrast with the existing pattern of development that have a street presence. There are a number of cul-de-sacs in the village, including at [name], but properties in those locations have a frontage to the street, unlike the appeal proposal, which would be set well back and largely screened from the public realm by its positioning behind the existing dwelling at No. 31.

The village also includes some examples of backland development. This includes both historic and more recent planning permissions. However, the prevailing character and pattern of development are defined by buildings that maintain a presence within the streetscene, notwithstanding variations that exist in plot size and shape across the area. Although the full details of previously approved backland schemes are not before me, the information provided indicates that those cases differed in key respects, such as them involving the replacement of an existing building, the provision of an annexe, or development that adjoins an existing road. Additionally, one of the cited examples predates the adoption of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 (Local Plan). As a result, I attribute these examples limited weight in support of the proposal.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policies GN3 and RS1 of the Local Plan, which seek, amongst other matters, development that would complement or enhance local distinctiveness within its surroundings, including through appropriate siting. It would also be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), which seeks, amongst other matters, development that is sympathetic to local character.

The appeal site is situated within [name] 3 and is therefore subject to a high risk of flooding. Although no concerns have been raised in relation to fluvial or surface water flooding, the lack of detail on foul surface water disposal forms the second reason for refusal.

Further details1 have been provided with the appeal, and I consider that this matter could have been addressed by way of planning condition, had the development been otherwise acceptable.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable harmful effect in relation to flood risk and it would therefore comply with Local Plan Policy GN3 and Section 14 of the Framework, which seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that development does not result in unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems.

The proposal, as a single storey dwelling would maintain a sufficient distance from neighbouring residential buildings. Whilst noting it would be closer to neighbouring gardens, given the scale of the proposal, there would not be harmful overbearing impacts arising. The lack of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, to trees, biodiversity, highway safety and drainage, are however neutral considerations.

The proposal would add an additional dwelling within the village that would contribute to the delivery of housing. This matter weighs in favour of the appeal, but as it involves a single residential dwelling, it attracts limited positive weight which would not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

Reference has been made to pre-application discussions, and a change in the case officer during the consideration of the application. This appeal follows the Council’s formal decision, and I can confirm that I have dealt with the proposed development on its own merits.

I have had due regard to the public sector equality duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of 1 Proposed Foul Drainage Plan, [name]: 1168_302 opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. From the evidence before me, my decision has the potential to affect persons with the age protected characteristic.

This is evidently an important consideration, but it has not been demonstrated that the appeal scheme is the only means to enable the appellants to remain in the village through the provision of suitable, accessible accommodation. Consequently, I attach limited weight to this matter.

The harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area is such that dismissal of the appeal is a necessary and proportionate response that would not unacceptably violate the appellants rights under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998.

The proposed development would not accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a different decision other than in accordance with this. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.