Appeal 3270764

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. [name] of the appeal form a different wording has been entered, but as the parties have not provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed I have used the one given on the original application.

A revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 20 July 2021, but as the revisions do not materially change the national approach to development of this nature it has not been necessary to seek the views of the parties on this matter.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (1) on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order; and (2) the living conditions of occupants of the extended dwelling, with particular reference to overshadowing and leaf fall.

The appeal site is a modest 11⁄2-storey dwelling with single-storey lean-to and flat roofed elements at the rear. It is sited towards the front of the site, with much of the remainder below the canopies of trees the subject of a group Tree Preservation Order, ref. 1985 No.1. As a prominent corner site at the junction of [address] and [address] to the rear, the trees make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character and appearance of the area. Although tree cover may be seasonal, at the time of the appeal site visit much of the garden area was in partial shade.

The tree canopy already extends reasonably close to the rear of the dwelling, but the closest element is single-storey and there are no habitable room windows in the rear elevation. The proposal would introduce two-storey development closer to the trees, and with some habitable room windows1 facing into the rear garden.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment which accompanied the application assesses most of the trees as ‘[name], in good condition and suitable for retention. Although some minor encroachment of a root protection area was identified, no facilitative crown pruning was considered to be required. The report noted that the crowns are high adjacent to the building, and therefore did not foresee that the proposed extension would make a marked difference to the pressure put on the trees for pruning. Whilst noting that the extension would experience a similar amount of shading from the trees as the current dwelling, it also stated that the shade needs to be mitigated by adequate fenestration, light gathering features or placing habitable rooms away from the shaded areas.

The proposal would be both deeper than the extensions that it would replace, but also much higher at the point closest to the trees. Whilst it may be physically possible to construct the development without causing harm to protected trees, I consider that the closer proximity and height would create undue pressure for the future removal of, or significant works to, the trees closest to the extended dwelling. The existing garden is affected by the tree canopies, but these could be perceived as unduly overbearing in closer proximity and with the introduction of extra windows. Although the trees would remain subject to protection, at such close quarters I consider this pressure for tree works to be a realistic prospect, and potentially difficult to resist. In the long-term, works to mitigate the impact of the trees is likely to undermine their retention, with implications for their public amenity value.

The appellant has identified that single- and two-storey extensions could be constructed as Permitted Development (PD). However, a PD extension would not be as deep as proposed in this case; there is no ‘fallback’ for an 8m deep extension suggested by the appellant as this would be subject to a [name] process which cannot be guaranteed. Given the proximity, I consider that the greater depth of the proposal compared to a PD extension would be more harmful to the trees’ future, and therefore I give this factor limited weight.

I appreciate the reasoning for the proposal, which includes thermal upgrading of the house, and to improve accessibility in accordance with [name] of the Building Regulations. However, these benefits would not outweigh the harm identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal has the potential to undermine the long-term retention and amenity value of protected trees on the site, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with 1 The submitted layout includes a ground-floor rear-facing kitchen/dining room window and a first-floor bedroom window. Policy DM 4.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] 2015 (DMP), which seeks the retention and conservation of significant trees, and to safeguard and promote the appropriate management of protected and other significant trees, unless the need for, and benefits of, a development clearly outweigh their loss; and with Policy 1 of the [name] for Broadland, Norwich and [name], which amongst other criteria seeks to conserve and enhance existing environmental assets.

The trees on site already cause a degree of shading to the garden, and there is an existing parking area below the trees. Whilst the outlook from habitable rooms may increase pressure for works to the trees to minimise their impact, I do not consider that the effect would be so marked as to create unacceptable living conditions for occupants of the extended dwelling. The effects of leaf and branch fall on parked vehicles could be inconvenient, but would not be any greater than the existing arrangements.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would create acceptable living conditions for residents in accordance with DMP Policy DM 3.13, which seeks to ensure a reasonable standard of amenity and to avoid issues including loss of day light, overshadowing and overbearing impact. However, this does not alter my conclusion on the first main issue.

For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.