Case Reference: 3344616

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 October 2024
by F Wilkinson BSc (Hons), MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 17th October 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/F4410/W/24/3344616
62 Allenby Crescent, New Rossington, Doncaster DN11 0JX
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the
City of Doncaster Council.
• The application reference is 23/01678/FUL.
• The development proposed is the construction of detached bungalow to rear garden.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are:
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
including with respect to trees;
• the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of residents of 62 Allenby
Crescent with regard to privacy and whether acceptable living conditions
would be provided for future occupiers with regard to outlook and privacy;
and
• the effect of the proposal on protected species.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
3. The appeal site comprises part of the rear garden of a dwelling that sits within
a street of other similar properties in a mainly residential area. Access to the
site would be from a private road that runs behind the rear of the dwellings.
4. Policy 44(C) of the 2021 adopted Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 (the Local
Plan) supports backland development proposals where they generally conform
to existing plot sizes and do not lead to overdevelopment and/or a cramped
appearance, amongst other considerations.
5. The street scene in which the site is viewed is characterised by single tier
frontage development with long rear gardens that are, save for some
outbuildings, largely open and undeveloped.
6. The appeal scheme would introduce a multi-tier of development in backland
form which would be against the established and characteristic grain of the
surrounding area. The proposed dwelling would be located close to the side
and rear boundaries of the site and this, together with the access and parking
area would erode the open and undeveloped feel of the rear gardens to the
dwellings in the vicinity. While the proposal may well seek to make efficient
use of land, it would result in an incongruous development that would appear
cramped on the site.
7. Additionally, the garden for the proposed dwelling and the area that would
remain for the existing dwelling would be uncharacteristically small when
compared to the existing situation and the nature of the other gardens within
the street scene in which the proposal would be viewed. This would contribute
to the appearance of a visually cramped development and would further erode
the spacious character of the street scene in this location.
8. A number of the nearby dwellings have outbuildings in their rear gardens
which are behind the frontage dwelling. Some of these are quite large and sit
relatively far back within the gardens. They do therefore add some depth to
the built form in the vicinity. However, these are ancillary to their host building
which, in terms of how they form the character of the area, are fundamentally
different to a new dwelling which would have its own access, garden and
parking.
9. The appellant has drawn attention to an application for two dwellings in a
backland location1 on Allenby Crescent. However, these dwellings are a
considerable distance from the appeal site and as such are read as being
distinctly separate from it. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence before me
as to the relevant considerations that led to planning permission being
granted. I cannot therefore conclude that this scheme is directly analogous to
the appeal proposal, which I have in any event considered on its own planning
merits.
10. It does not appear to be in dispute that it would be difficult to accommodate
the proposed development without removing the trees in the garden. I have
no reason to disagree. The appellant’s Arboricultural Survey2 classifies these
as four category B trees and one category C tree. The trees that I observed on
my site visit are visible in the surrounding area and contribute positively to the
character and appearance of the area.
11. The trees are not protected and do not lie within a conservation area. As
highlighted by the appellant, they could be removed at any time. However,
Policy 32 of the Local Plan supports proposals where it can be demonstrated
that trees have been adequately considered during the design process and
that sufficient provision of appropriate replacement planting is undertaken
where it is intended to remove trees.
12. Any landscaping for the proposal would take several years to reach the same
size and therefore make a similar positive contribution to the character and
appearance of the area as the trees that would be removed. In any event,
given the relatively small size and configuration of the garden proposed for the
dwelling, there would be limited space for future tree planting. There is no
mechanism before me, such as a planning obligation under section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure a commuted
1 Application reference 19/02534/FUL
2 Prepared by [APPELLANT], 9 October 2023
sum for trees on nearby public land. This adds to the concerns about the effect
of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
13. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would result in significant
harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict
with Policies 32 and 44 of the Local Plan as summarised above and Local Plan
Policies 41 and 42 which require proposals to contribute to local distinctiveness
and the components of a development to be appropriate to the area amongst
other considerations. There would also be conflict with the objectives of the
National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) for achieving well-
designed places.
Living Conditions
14. The main living space of the proposed dwelling would be served by a set of bi-
fold doors. Nevertheless, given the proximity of this elevation to the boundary
fence, a limited outlook would be provided for the main living area. This would
result in a sense of enclosure that would be oppressive for occupiers.
15. The proposal would fall short of the guidance in the South Yorkshire
Residential Design Guide in terms of separation distance between the existing
and proposed dwellings and garden depths.
16. Given that the proposed dwelling would be single storey and suitable boundary
treatment could be secured by a planning condition, this shortfall would not
result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for residents of no. 62. However, the
rear facing first floor windows of no. 62 would afford direct views of the rear
bedroom window of the proposed dwelling. The separation distance would not
be sufficient to prevent a strong sense of intrusion for future occupiers of the
proposed dwelling. The separation distance between the main rear elevation of
no. 62 at first floor and the shared boundary would be sufficient to ensure no
unacceptable overlooking of the garden of the proposed dwelling.
17. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would provide acceptable living
conditions for residents of 62 Allenby Crescent with regard to privacy, but it
would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of the
proposed dwelling with regard to privacy and outlook. The proposal would
therefore conflict with the residential amenity requirements of Policies 10 and
44 of the Local Plan and the Framework.
Protected Species
18. I note the comments that have been made by the Council’s ecological advisor
that a bat survey of the trees proposed for removal is required. No survey has
been submitted. No further detail is given in the ecological advisor’s
consultation response. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, and taking a precautionary approach, I would be uncomfortable
finding no harm to this protected species given the lack of evidence.
19. 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 planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material
considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need
to ensure surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to planning
conditions in exceptional circumstances. In my view there are no exceptional
circumstances that would justify a condition requiring survey work. This is not
therefore a matter that can be addressed through a condition.
20. I cannot therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse
effect on a protected species. This is contrary to the biodiversity requirements
of Policy 30 of the Local Plan and the Framework objectives for conserving and
enhancing the natural environment.
Other Matters
21. The proposal would support the government’s objective of significantly
boosting the supply of homes, on a small site within a reasonable walking
distance of some services and facilities. This weighs positively for the proposal.
However, I do not afford such benefits very significant weight given the
quantum of houses proposed. The absence of objection from adjacent
residents does not in itself render the scheme acceptable.
22. None of these other matters outweigh the harm I have found.
Conclusion
23. The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There
are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would indicate a
decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for
the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.
F Wilkinson
INSPECTOR