Appeal 3330781

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by additional information including an [name] (AMS) and a Tree Protection Plan (TPP). This detail was not before the Council when the planning application was determined. However, it does not fundamentally change the scheme that was considered and consulted upon by the Council. In considering this information as part of the appeal, I do not consider that this would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to existing trees and hedgerows.

The appeal site is occupied by a detached property and comprises a spacious plot which sits within a row of dwellings. The proposed retaining wall would be located along the rear boundary of the appeal site which backs onto [address]. There are several mature trees located in this area of the garden which are attractive specimens, substantial in size and prominent within their setting. Despite the recent clearance of roadside vegetation along [address], the trees within the appeal site together with the abundance of mature trees and dense vegetation remaining along this section of the lane, make a positive contribution to the verdant, semi-rural character and appearance of the area.

The submitted plan identifies that the proposed retaining wall would be located within the [name] (RPAs) of several trees and adjacent to a well-established, dense hedgerow. To minimise root disruption, the AMS sets out general methods including excavations by hand and consultation before severing roots within the RPAs. Protective fencing would also be erected during the construction phase.

However, in the absence of a clear, site-specific construction methodology and investigation which take account of the respective ground levels and steeply sloping bank, I cannot be certain that the above measures would be sufficient to prevent damage to the roots of the trees and hedgerows which are intended to be retained. [name] have considered the possibility of imposing a condition to ensure that the development is constructed in a way to safeguard the existing landscaping and the contribution that it makes to local character, given the uncertainty, I cannot be confident that a condition would safeguard the well-being and integrity of the trees or hedgerow. A condition therefore would not make the development acceptable.

Whilst it may be the case that subsequent dialogue between the appellant and the Council has resolved the matter in dispute, the evidence before me nevertheless fails to demonstrate that there would be no adverse effects on the existing trees and hedgerow. These landscape features make a positive contribution to the verdant, semi-rural character and appearance of the area and their loss or diminution would be harmful to this local distinctiveness.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies CS6 and CS17 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework: [name] 2011. Collectively, and amongst other aspects, these policies seek to ensure that proposals contribute to local distinctiveness and protect and enhance the high quality and local character of the natural and built environment. It would also be inconsistent with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.