Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2024 by Mark Caine BSc (Hons) MTPL MRTPI LSRA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 July 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/F4410/W/24/3338443 Land to the East of High Common Farm, High Common Lane, Doncaster DN11 9HE • 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 KH against the decision of City of Doncaster Council. • The application Ref is 23/02311/FUL. • The development proposed is described as ‘the erection of two earth sheltered dwellings and associated infrastructure following cessation of site for open storage use (B8)’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are: (i) Whether the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; (ii) The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt, and the character and appearance of the area; (iii) Whether the proposed development would provide a suitable site for housing with particular reference to its location and accessibility to local services and facilities; and (iv) If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances. Reasons Whether Inappropriate Development 3. The appeal relates to a roughly rectangular shaped parcel of land that contains several metal shipping containers, parked vehicles, a forklift truck and building materials. The site is located in the Green Belt. 4. Policy 1 of the Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 (2021) (Local Plan) requires conformity with national policy when assessing development proposals in the Green Belt.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F4410/W/24/3338443 circumstances. The Framework further establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. 5. On the basis of the evidence before me, the exception most pertinent to this appeal is paragraph 154 (g) which provides for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. 6. It is undisputed between the main parties that the lawful use of the site, as confirmed by a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUD), is for open storage (Ref: 21/00369/CPE). The appeal scheme proposes the cessation of this existing use, the removal of the materials, vehicles and containers and their replacement with 2 ‘earth sheltered’ dwellings. 7. My site observations confirmed that as all the storage is not fixed and is capable of removal, the land is not occupied by permanent structures.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision As the hardstanding is also not associated with a permanent structure the site does not fall within the definition of previously developed land. Furthermore, there is a wider network of open fields directly to the north and east of the site. A pattern of sparse development is also prevalent along the southern side of High Common Lane. Given the visual gaps and intermittent open areas and fields between buildings along this side of the highway, and in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, there is little coherence to the built form here. As a result, the proposed scheme would therefore not be positioned within an area that would logically be seen as replicating or completing the prevailing pattern of development, as would be necessary to achieve ‘limited infilling’ in terms of the Green Belt. 8. Accordingly, the proposed development would not satisfy exception g) or any other exceptions stated in paragraph 154 of the Framework. As a result, it constitutes inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Openness and Character and Appearance 9. The Framework advises that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Openness is the absence of development and has both spatial and visual dimensions. 10. The appeal site is relatively flat, predominately covered in gravel and hardcore and used for open storage. However, the storage was spread out across the site at the time of my site visit, such that it was not concentrated in one area nor was it particularly intensive. The mature landscaping along the boundaries of the site also filter views into and out of it from a number of directions, and it is largely enclosed by large industrial buildings to the south. As such, the visual and spatial effect of the current use from outside the site is relatively limited. 11. Whilst the proposal may result in a greener space, it would necessitate a change in the topography of the site, requiring an increase in the levels of the land to shelter the proposed dwellings. This would increase the spatial profile of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F4410/W/24/3338443 the original landscape and would be punctuated by a number of vents, rooflights and other equipment that would be of a domestic appearance. 12. Views into and out of the site would still be restricted, and I have been made aware of a landscape architect’s reluctance to undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment. Nonetheless, the proposed development would be visible through the vehicular entrance and the side windows of the neighbouring High Common Farm. As a result, the size, scale and siting of the proposal, along with a likely range of associated domestic paraphernalia, including parked cars, gates, washing lines and garden furniture in an area where there is not any built development would inevitably alter its character. The proposed hedgerow planting and landscaping scheme would not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome this. 13. As such, I find that the size, scale and bulk of the proposal along with the domestic paraphernalia associated with a residential use would result in a reduction in the openness of this part of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision This would constitute an encroachment of built form into the countryside, thereby also conflicting with purpose c) of the Green Belt, when assessed against paragraph 143 of the Framework. The proposal would also cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Local Plan Policy 41, which requires development proposals to respect and enhance the character of the locality. 14. In reaching this view I have had regard to the judgments in Euro Garages Ltd v SSCLG & Anor [2018] EWHC 1753 (Admin) and Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466. Location and Accessibility 15. Paragraph 84 of the Framework states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless 1 or more of 5 listed circumstances apply. These include the essential need for a rural worker, the optimal viable use of a heritage asset, the re-use of redundant or disused buildings, the subdivision of an existing residential building and where the design is of exceptional quality. These circumstances refer to new isolated homes in the countryside and should not be confused with very special circumstances within the Green Belt. 16. The word ‘isolated’ is not defined in the Framework.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, the Council’s Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document 2024, (SPD) provides useful guidance in this respect. Its sets out that whilst it is a matter of planning judgement, it may include considerations such as physical distance, sense of remoteness, and how well it may be connected to or separate from a settlement. Factors such as proximity and practicable reasonable ease of access to local services and facilities along with accessibility, including public transport services and whether sustainable transport modes could reasonably be used to access the property from a nearby settlement should also be taken into account. Although the SPD was adopted after the Council’s decision notice was issued, it has been subject to public consultation and is a material consideration at the time of making my decision. 17. Whilst there are some distribution warehouses and dwellings sporadically sited nearby, it is undisputed between the main parties that the site lies outside any defined settlement in the development plan. It is also uncontested that the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F4410/W/24/3338443 nearest range of local services and facilities are at Tickhill Town Centre which is approximately 3.3km away from the appeal site. Although there may be a garden centre with café/store located within 2km of the site, this would be unlikely to cater for the day-to-day needs of future residents. 18. I have also been made aware of a number of public access routes in the area. However, these are not within easy walking distance of the site and would involve utilising the unlit High Common Lane and Stripe Road which have no pavements. The nature and distance of the routes themselves, would also be likely to deter most pedestrians and cyclists, particularly after dark and in bad weather. Although there is a bus service that stops outside of the nearby DHL distribution site and along Stripe Road, I do not have the full details of the times and frequency of these services before me. 19. In light of the above, I am therefore unable to be certain that most future occupiers, especially the elderly or families with young children, would not be likely to be dependent on the private car to access the majority of the services in the area, and further afield. 20.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant considers the proposal, under paragraph 84 e) of the Framework, to constitute design of exceptional quality. Sheffield Hallam University’s support for the sustainable and non-traditional design of the proposal is noted, as is the unusual use of salvaged materials, sustainable construction and energy efficiency measures. Nonetheless, design is subjective and given my findings in respect of the visual aspects of openness, and character and appearance, the proposal would not significantly enhance its immediate setting or be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. As such, I find that the proposal would not provide a suitable site for housing in respect of its location and accessibility to local services and facilities. It would thereby conflict with paragraph 84 of the Framework. Other Considerations 21. It is common ground that the CLEUD is unfettered, and I am mindful that there are no controls over what can be stored on the site and the extent of it. The appellant has suggested that there would be nothing to prevent the site being more intensively used.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, I have no substantive evidence to indicate that there is a greater than theoretical probability that this would happen should this appeal be dismissed. 22. In reaching this view I am mindful of the extracts from letters of support for 21/00369/CPE and the appellant’s ariel photographs which show the extent of storage on the site between 2002 and 2023. However, the very fact that the level of the storage varies over the range of photos illustrates their transience and I do not consider on the available evidence that the use of the site for parking and open storage would be tantamount to land occupied by permanent structures. There is also no mechanism before me to ensure the cessation of the existing storage use and prevent the physical possibility of both the appeal proposal being carried out and the storage use continuing. These factors therefore limit the weight that I can attribute to it in the overall Green Belt balance as a fallback position. 23. It has been put to me that the proposal would make an effective use of the land, contribute to the Council’s housing supply and provide landscaping which could potentially contribute to biodiversity and some ecological net gains.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/F4410/W/24/3338443 Nevertheless, given that the proposal is for 2 dwellings, any benefits in these respects would be somewhat limited. The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside, and the use of sustainable forms of energy, water efficiency, sustainable construction methods, recycled materials and eco technologies have also been put forward as other considerations that outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt. However, I have already considered those matters in assessing the harm. 24. I have been referred to a number of appeal decisions that involve open storage and other Inspector’s responses in respect of their effect on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt. Whilst I have had regard to these in reaching my findings, on the evidence presented I cannot be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the proposal. Moreover, each application and appeal must be determined on its own merits, and that is what I have done in this case. As such, they do not attract any positive weight in the overall Green Belt balance. 25.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The lack of objections from local residents and businesses have also had no bearing on the outcome of this appeal as I have only had regard to the planning merits of the proposal that is before me. Green Belt Balance and Conclusion 26. I have found the proposal to be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework, and to reduce the openness of the Green Belt. I have also found there to be conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Framework requires me to give these collective harms substantial weight. In addition, it would harm the character and appearance of the area and not provide a suitable site for housing with particular reference to its location and accessibility to local services and facilities. Therefore, even when taken together, the other considerations reviewed above do not clearly outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause. Consequently, the very special circumstances required to justify the

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision | proposed development have not been demonstrated. As a result, the proposal | | --- | | would conflict with Local Plan Policy 1 and Section 13 of the Framework which | | seeks to protect Green Belt land. | seeks to protect Green Belt land. 27. The appeal scheme consequently conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

Land to the East of High Common Farm , High Common Lane, Tickhill, DN11 9HE — Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council — Mark Caine INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5