Appeal 6000577

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area as a result of potential impacts on trees.

The appeal proposal includes the erection of a single storey outbuilding sited towards the rear of the garden of No. [site address] . The building would be an ‘L’ shape and approximately 3.6 metres (m) high with a flat roof, covering some [address] metres. This would be used as an art studio along with some other uses, including cycle storage, gym and a home office.

Two oak trees were subject to assessment by the Council and appellant; one is within the appeal site adjacent the proposed building location (given as T1 on the submitted site plan) and protected under a Tree Preservation Order1 (TPO) along with several others in the wider area. Another is positioned on the public footpath (T3 on the site plan) outside of the site which is evidently not part of the TPO as per the maps the Council has submitted, although the appellant’s Arboricultural Statement2 (AS) refers to it as protected.

I have had regard to the appellant’s AS submitted with this appeal and the [name] and Planning Integration Report3 submitted with the planning application. As the AS points out, any root disturbance is technically harmful, but the degree of harm is also important, while coverage of a root protection area (RPA) does not equate to the severance of roots. However, the AS also states that the proposal would result in some root severance. Evidently, T1 would have nearly half of its RPA covered, while for T3 this be about a third. The outbuilding would 1 Tree Preservation Order No 2715 / 2021 2 Ref: AR/4467-App 3 Ref: AR/4467/jq utilise a foundation with a base depth of some 20 centimetres beneath ground level with piled foundations.

I understand that in response to concerns raised by the Council in refusing the application, exploratory holes were dug by the appellant’s arboricultural consultant in order to ascertain the depth of roots of the trees. One hole encountered concrete at 40 centimetres (cm) deep while the other was dug to 75cm and did not reveal any roots in that location. Evidently, this is because the type of tree would likely have a deeper root system due to the high clay content of the soil.

However, the section drawing4 shows the piles of the foundation extending to a depth of 3m. Given the location of the outbuilding within the RPA of both trees, and the 3m depth far exceeding the trial hole depths, it is unclear as to whether other roots would be encountered and harmed during excavations, particularly as the submitted plans do not specify how many piles are required.

Moreover, [name] of the AS includes further information on the section plan, advising that the exploratory holes would determine the acceptable depth of the ground beams. However, no updated information is included on a plan or drawing following the trial holes being dug. Therefore, I cannot be certain how deep the foundations could safely be dug without harming the health of either tree. This is of particular concern given the appeal statement advises that during the breaking up of the foundation of a previous outbuilding which was demolished at the site, the health of the trees in question was evidently negatively affected by the stress caused by that work. It is not specified how deep that foundation was, but it demonstrates the harm that can be caused during works which produce vibrations or impacts upon soil leading to compaction or movement.

Furthermore, [name] seemingly advises that the measures proposed would raise the building height by 90cm. The elevation drawings do not show this, and subsequent effects of increased height have not been demonstrated.

I have had regard to the measures proposed to mitigate harm to the trees. This includes the appellant’s arboricultural consultant being present on site during construction and the use of protective mats. However, given the lack of information regarding the foundations I cannot be certain this would be effective. I understand that remediation measures including root treatments with a decompaction process and nutrient mix were carried out to improve the health of the trees after the outbuilding foundation removal. However, whether this has had the desired effect is not clarified.

My attention is drawn to an appeal decision within which the Inspector accepted the findings of the arboricultural consultant in matters of tree health at another location. I do not have a copy of this decision or details of what the circumstance of that proposal was. In any event, I have assessed the appeal before me based on the evidence that I have and my own observations.

I understand that previous applications to fell two other oak trees protected under the same TPO that were within the appeal site were approved by the Council, with a condition attached to ensure replacement trees were planted in the garden of the host property. At the time of my site visit these were not evident. 4 TP/BR/02/A/B

I note the further concerns of the Council that the erection of the outbuilding could compromise the viability of the replacement trees required to replace those previously felled. I have very little information before me on this matter other than the location of the replacements and that they would be field maples. The proposed site plan shows a services route to be dug underground close to one of the trees. It is also not explained whether the trees would be planted before or after the erection of the building. Moreover, the building would be positioned close to the location of the two replacement trees which could compromise their future health and long term viability which would in turn lead to pressure to fell.

On my site visit, I observed that trees make a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. While there are other trees in the vicinity, the loss of two, such as those subject to assessment in the appeal, would be keenly felt and harm these positive characteristics. As such, the loss of trees as a result of the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policy 73 of the Bromley Local Plan. This states that proposals for new development will be required to take particular account of existing trees on the site and adjoining land in the interest of visual amenity, among other things.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole. [name] recognise that the outbuilding would be beneficial to the appellant and their family, this would be private in nature and not outweigh the potential harm identified. There are no material considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it and as such, the appeal is dismissed.