# 286 Great North Road, Woodlands, Doncaster

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Gilbert
- **Authority:** Doncaster (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009127
- **Application reference:** 25/02200/COU
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of first floor and attic flat to two 1-bed flats with rooflights
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(3)
- **Development plan policies:** Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 Policies 44, 45 (NDSS)
- **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-3-plan-compliance, space-standards, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
The proposal split a first-floor-and-attic flat in a Doncaster terrace into two 1-bed flats. It was dismissed on living conditions: rooflight-only outlook from the main living room, an undersized two-storey flat, and a bin store over 100 m away. The key Framework move was DP3(3). Its "explicit design standards set out in the development plan" limb was triggered by the local plan's adoption of the national space standard (NDSS). The inspector gave that conflict substantial weight and treated it as a refusal-type policy, so the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** The parties were given the opportunity to comment "in the interests of natural justice" (DL ¶3).
- **Outlook.** The rooflights "would allow only limited skyward views, preventing decent outlook" (DL ¶7).
- **NDSS.** For a one-bedroom unit over two storeys, "the minimum floorspace ... should be 58m2 ... Flat 1 would provide approximately 49m2" (DL ¶10).
- **DP3(3).** "NDMP DP3(3) states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan. The proposal would conflict with Policy 45 of the DLP which relates to housing design standards ... I therefore apply substantial weight" (DL ¶19).
- **L2 and L3.** L2 weight was limited because the scheme "would also intensify the existing residential use, not convert the space from an alternative land use" (DL ¶21). L3 density support was limited where the space standards are not met (DL ¶22).

## Planning balance
This was the S4 balance. HO7 got moderate weight, because one dwelling "in the absence of evidence to demonstrate what specific need it may address ... would only partly comply with NDMP HO7" (DL ¶20). L2, L3 and economic benefits were limited. The result was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶24).

## What made the difference
The 9 sqm NDSS shortfall, carried by a local plan policy, turned into a DP3(3) "explicit design standard" conflict.

## Transferable points
- A local plan's space standard (NDSS) is an "explicit design standard" under DP3(3). Breaching it without justification engages a refusal-type policy within S4 (DL ¶19).
- L2 "better use of buildings" weight is limited where a scheme only intensifies an existing residential use (DL ¶21).
- HO7 weight falls to moderate for a single unit meeting no evidenced specific need (DL ¶20).

## Policy findings
- **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** conflict with an explicit plan design standard (NDSS via LP 45) without clear justification - 49 sqm two-storey 1-bed flat against 58 sqm minimum (DL 9-10, 19)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling, no evidence of specific need, so only partly complies (DL 20)
- **L2(1)(b): benefit (limited weight).** intensifies residential use rather than converting another use; site too small for the units (DL 21)
- **L3: benefit (limited weight).** density increase inappropriate given DP3(3) conflict (DL 22)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 24)

## Key facts
- Flat 1 lit only by high rooflights in its living room; bin store reached by a walk of over 100m across three streets (DL 7, 13)
- Works had started before the decision (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009127
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e3f7d5f1-37ff-41d3-97de-8829dd11d2b1

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009127.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.