Appeal 3328248

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it reflects the amendment to the proposal made during determination of the planning application, namely the removal of the proposed outbuilding.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the locality, with regards trees.

No. [site address] is a two-storey 1930s semi-detached dwelling located to the south side of [address]. On the boundary with its non-attached neighbour, at No.[address], are 3no. trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order. These comprise an Alder assessed as [name] (of low quality), located closest to the road, and two Oak assessed as Category B1/2 (so of moderate arboricultural and landscape quality).

[address] is open to the north side with a mature belt of trees along the back edge of the pavement. To the south side, dwellings front the road and whilst front gardens are mature and verdant there are no substantial trees, save those on the appeal site. All three trees (but particularly the Alder) are visible travelling in either direction on [address] and I observed that they make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The proposed side extension would be set well back from the front elevation of No.183, projecting around 2.5m from its existing flank elevation. It would extend within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the 2no. Oak, but outside the RPA of the Alder. The planning application was supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment which confirms that the impacts of development within the RPAs could be managed and the detail of a construction method statement controlled by condition.

However, the proposed extension would also project close to the existing canopy spread of one of the Oak, and in its south west corner would encroach marginally into the spread of the other. I observed on my site visit that these trees have previously been managed with epicormic growth and lateral branches of the trees removed from lower levels, such that the canopies of the trees are largely above the eaves of the existing dwelling. The reason given for this management was to ‘clear branches from roof’ so, whilst I do not dispute the that appellant enjoys the positive contribution the trees make, there is clearly already a pressure on them.

Given the proximity and the expected lifespan of these two trees (assessed as 20+ years), the canopy would, over time, extend over the roof of the extended dwelling. I find this would result in significant pressure for further management of these trees, or indeed for these trees to be removed, to avoid potential damage to the property in the event of falling branches. Such further management, or loss, would be difficult to resist on safety grounds, notwithstanding the Tree Preservation Order, and would consequently cause harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene.

I do not find that similar pressure would result as a result of shading or leaf litter as this would mainly effect the driveway and an area between the extended dwelling and the detached garage. The principal outlook from the dwelling would be from the extended dining/living space which would be south facing overlooking the rear garden; neither of which would be under the canopy of the two Oak.

For the reason given, on the main issue I conclude that the proposed extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality, with regard pressure to manage or remove existing trees. It would therefore conflict with Policy DM45 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name] because it fails to conserve and successfully integrate significant healthy trees into the development scheme.

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