Appeal 3273699

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a tree house in rear garden at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2020/1789, dated 30 September 2020, subject to the following conditions:

The tree house hereby permitted shall be in place for a limited period, being the period of not greater than 3 years from the date of this decision, within which time all built elements of the structure shall be completely removed.

During the temporary period the development is in place it shall accord with the following approved plans:002B, 003 & the location plan.

The development is completed; this does not alter the way I consider the merits of the proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions for neighbours.

The sawn timber appeal structure with timber access steps is affixed to a very large tree within the sizeable rear garden of the host property which lies within an established residential area of generally spacious character. The disposition of rear gardens, because of the proximity of a road junction, leads to a number from [address] having their rear garden boundary along the side boundary with the appeal site at right angles. There is thus not the full back-to-back relationship which is more generally the case where gardens abut. A number of residents, not all, are concerned that this relationship results in loss of amenity including overlooking and the Council has refused the scheme on this specific point.

I observed that the structure is clearly intended for young children’s play purposes. This is because it has a very small entrance hatch, no significant area of decking for sitting, a lack of any very substantial structure, minimal weather-proofing, and limited scope for direct sunlight or wide outlook. Such use by young children would align with the case put by the Appellant.

At the time of my visit boundary vegetation was substantial and provides good screening or, at minimum, visual filtering and the timber structure has a degree of subtlety in this context. During summer months when, realistically, the tree house will be most likely used for play the mainly deciduous boundary vegetation will mitigate direct overlooking in my opinion, and it may be that engrossed with playing games there is no interest in wider surrounds in any event.

In my mind I see this as a piece of play equipment comparable to those that come and then go, find favour then wane, with the passage of time and children ageing. This is such as is apparent in many families’ rear gardens albeit more often in the form of slides, or swings, or trampolines and so forth. I appreciate the fears expressed that children become teenagers and activities can change radically as families develop. I am not sure older children or other people would or could be drawn to this structure. [name] could not say this for sure and I do recognise that concerns over future loss of amenity through for example, more intense wishes to invade privacy, or noise and disturbance, or changes through time in boundary planting, any of which could be troubling for neighbours. To this end, and to tie with the Appellant’s stated aim of this structure being a play feature for young children, I would deem it necessary to restrict the life-span of this tree house to three years. I shall apply a planning condition accordingly.

In these circumstances I conclude that the proposal, on a temporary basis, would not run contrary to policies DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] and CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy which, amongst other matters, are both concerned with the protection of amenity within a neighbourhood.

The proposal is retrospective but I agree with the Council’s suggestion to tie it to submitted plans to provide certainty; albeit the standard condition requires some modification for complete relevance. 10.I explain my thinking on a temporary condition above and shall apply this in the interests of residential amenity. The Appellant accepts the principle of this condition whilst the Council considers it does not address the issue; I use my planning judgement on this point. 2