Appeal 3372801

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Drawing no. 001 – [name] was amended during the life of the planning application and the Council’s decision was based on it. As such, I have taken it into account in my recommendation on the appeal scheme. The main issue in regard to which is its effect on protected trees and, by association, the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site features a generously sized garden bordered to the rear and sides by mature hedgerow and trees protected under a Tree Preservation Order. In particular, there are five labelled from T1 to T5 on the submitted plans. These are visible from public vantage points on [address] and [address]. As high quality natural features, they support a verdant and attractive setting, which contributes positively to the semi-rural character and appearance of the area.

T1 is located within the appeal site and is proposed for removal to enable the development. To mitigate this loss, three replacement trees will be planted. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has stated that this would be acceptable, given the space available within the site and the number of trees already present. I find no reasons to disagree. T2 to T5 are located close to the shared boundary, within the rear garden of Number [address] (No. 21). T2 is reported to be in poor condition due to disease, and the appellant has indicated that the owners intend to remove it. At the time of my site visit, T2 was still present, and the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) notes it has a remaining life expectancy of less than 10 years. Nevertheless, it continues to be a protected tree. Accordingly, the trees most likely to be affected by the proposal are T2, T3, T4 and T5, by virtue of their proximity to the proposed development.

Amended plans were submitted during the planning process to reduce the scale and footprint of the proposed garage, thereby minimising its encroachment into the [name] (RPAs). Nonetheless, the structure would remain in close proximity to the protected trees, and the precise extent of the RPAs may be greater or more/less regular than what has been surveyed.

The AIA details that temporary ground protection, along with protective fencing would be in place throughout the construction period. A section of initial hand digging to the edges of the RPAs is also advised to limit impacts from excavation works. Whilst the construction process itself may not pose immediate harm; the proposal is for a new detached garage for two vehicles. I cannot be satisfied that the frequent passage of vehicles so close to the RPAs would not lead to soil compaction over time. Such compaction and movements could disrupt and damage the complex immediately below ground root systems and ultimately compromise the future health of the nearby trees.

Moreover, no information has been provided on the type of foundations to be used, the method of construction for it, nor the depth of any works. As such, I cannot be certain the proposed development could be implemented without damage to the protected tree’s roots in these regards. There are also no details for the surfacing to be used to the front of the garage to provide vehicle access to it. Such details would not be appropriate to condition, as it is important that the potential effects of any surfacing are first understood, and whether such methods or techniques could be successfully implemented given where the garage is intended to go and its overall size.

It is also intended to serve multiple functions beyond vehicle parking. This would include a workshop, gym and office. Given the proximity of the proposal to these trees and their canopies, it is reasonably likely that leaf fall will occur onto, or near the proposal’s roof. This may lead to blocked gutters and accumulation of debris on the roof and around the proposed roof lights. It would be difficult for the Council to resist applications to prune or fell in circumstances where damage is being sustained. This could occur if the trees are a nuisance and therefore, the close siting of the proposal to these would result in future pressure for pruning or felling. Although this may be viewed as responsible management, the increasing pressure is already evident in the number of applications the Council has received for tree works and removals in the area.

With this and the above in mind, the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the positive contribution these protected trees make to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policies DM29 and DM45 of the [name]: Development Management Development Plan Document 2025 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek for new developments to make a positive contribution to the surrounding landscape, where existing trees should be positively incorporated.

The proposal would meet the occupants’ need for additional space. However, there is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s requirements cannot be met through alternative measures, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I remain to be convinced that the proposal is the only way to achieve the outcome the appellant desires.

I have also had regard to the economic benefits of the scheme in creating local employment, the ecological benefits from the planting of three trees, the proposal’s effective use of land and sustainable location. However, none of these considerations outweigh the harm that I have found. They would be time limited in their effect and take a long time to re-establish the current situation. The garage would be used in association with the existing dwelling so its effectiveness as a use of land and the sustainability of the location would not be determinative issues.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.