Appeal 3372652

The appeal is dismissed.

The development involves the erection of a prefabricated building to act as an office in the appellant’s rear garden. The site is located within the Perryfield Conservation Area (CA). The Council is content, having regard to the proposal’s secluded position, that the building’s superstructure would have no harmful impact on the character or appearance of the CA. The Council’s concerns are centred on the possible effect it would have on the trees growing in the appellant’s rear garden and on adjoining land. As they lie within a CA, the trees are protected, and the Council considers that insufficient information has been presented to appropriately judge the proposal’s effect on the trees.

[name] 2025, shortly following the issuing of the Council’s decision notice and before the submission of the appeal, the Lewisham Local Plan (LLP) was adopted. It follows that the policies contained within [name] and Lewisham’s Development Management Local Plan referred to in the Council’s sole reason for refusal are no longer applicable. My decision will therefore be made having regard to the relevant policies of the London Plan (LP) and the newly adopted Lewisham Local Plan and any material consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the future health and well-being of protected trees and whether the character or appearance of the CA would be preserved or enhanced.

The appellant sought pre-application advice of the Council. The response was reasonably positive, but the Council paid particular regard to the trees on the site, confirming that they were protected owing to the CA designation and that in any future application the ‘..plans should show the relationship between the outbuilding and any existing trees, and if within the canopy there should be justification and mitigation so that these trees are not harmed.’

The appeal property is a detached dwelling, used as a care home, set within a predominantly residential area. The rear garden is reasonably compact with a lawn and patio areas. At the bottom of the garden are what remain of the trunks of three trees, otherwise the garden is free of any meaningful vegetation.

The outbuilding would be sited close to the boundaries shared with the next-door dwelling at [address] and [address]. Two mature, pollarded trees are apparent within [address]’s garden, sited very close to the site of the proposed office, whilst several less mature trees are sited within [address] to the boundary.

Notwithstanding the pre-application advice and the thrust of the reason for refusal little or no information has been provided by the appellant to assist in determining the effect of the proposal on nearby trees. The only additional information of relevance provided at appeal stage is that the office would not involve any foundation excavation since the building would sit directly on wooden railway sleepers.

Judging from the plans, the outbuilding would be provided with electricity, a toilet, shower and wash hand basin. It seems to me therefore that excavations would almost inevitably become necessary. Nor has any apparent consideration been given to possible soil compaction arising from the weight of the outbuilding, which is unknown, and the effect of any such compaction on nearby trees, particularly their root systems.

In the absence of any additional meaningful information as to the possible effect on these protected trees which contribute positively to local amenity, I shall adopt a precautionary approach, in much the same way as the Council

I therefore conclude that in the absence of convincing information it has not been adequately demonstrated that the effect of the proposal on protected trees and the character or appearance of the CA would be acceptable. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of LLP policies H2 & GR5 and LP policy G7 designed to protect trees of value, particularly in conservation areas.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the references to the National Planning Policy Framework and other development plan policies.

I have considered the representations made by a local resident at [address] whose rear garden boundary is common to that of the appeal property. I share the Council’s view, for the same reasons, that the proposed outbuilding, possible effect on trees apart, would have no material effect on their living conditions.