Appeal 6004969

The appeal is dismissed.

Arising from the refusal reason, a main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed new dwelling on the visual and physical openness at the head of the Crescent and the established character and pattern of low-density development in the street. In addition, taking account of the matters that are raised in representations on behalf of interested persons, there are additional issues concerning flood risk assessment and impact on [name].

The appeal site is part of a large domestic garden belonging to number [address]. This dwelling is close to the lake that gives this private street, a cul-de-sac, its name. [address] has a varied arrangement of detached houses of differing designs, orientations and siting with no building line or uniform pattern, set in verdant surroundings, with a considerable number of mature trees. The existing large garage with a pitched roof, which is currently visible from the street, would be demolished as part of the proposal.

The proposed dwelling is well designed, with a hipped roof, projecting gables and sympathetic detailing responding to the local vernacular, and is an appropriate form of development in this context. I am satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the living conditions of the residents of other houses in the Crescent, although the proposal would, to a degree, impinge on private views. However, the separation distances, mature landscaping and the siting of the proposal all ensure that the amenity and outlook of neighbouring occupiers would remain at an acceptable level.

I am therefore satisfied that there would be no material harmful effect on the visual and physical openness at the head of the Crescent or the established character and pattern of low-density development in the street.

However, the matter of flood risk has to be considered. On the government’s ‘Flood map for planning’, submitted with a representation, the area of the lake itself and a small area of the Crescent in the vicinity No.2, are shown as being in [name] 1 but with a 1:30 years risk of surface water flooding. The version of this map supplied in the representation has been superseded by a recent revision, but it does not materially differ from the previous version so far as this appeal is concerned. National guidance (‘Flood risk assessments: applying for planning permission’) provides that, irrespective of the size of development or change of use proposed, applicants will need to complete a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment in circumstances that include, within [name] 1, where the flood map for planning shows it is at risk of flooding from surface water, now or in future. This has not been provided.

In addition, concerns about [name] (GCNs) are raised in representations. The council’s ecologist assessed the lake to have a [name] (HSI) score below 0.50 (indicating ‘poor’ suitability). HIS scores are not conclusive, and this low index figure does not mean that the lake does not provide support for GCNs. There is no evidence of them being sighted, especially during the breeding season when they are most evident. Nevertheless, a lack of sureness about any adverse impact potentially justifies refusal of permission. This could be overcome by a method using an eDNA survey, but this has not been done and thus the concern about GCN stands against the proposal.

I have considered all other maters raised, including the matter raised by a neighbour concerning the blockage of a sewage pipe and appreciate that the information given represents an unsatisfactory situation, but this is a civil matter and not a matter for me. The same is true of restrictive covenants.

In view of the lack of a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment and satisfactory evidence in relation to GCNs, the appeal will be dismissed.