Appeal 6001999

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were submitted with the appeal: drawings 004 Rev AP1, 005 Rev AP1, 006 Rev AP1, 007 Rev AP1, 008 Rev AP1, 009 Rev AP1. These drawings show an alteration to the internal layout of the dwelling and the introduction of roof lights to the rear. This represents a minor alteration to the original scheme upon which the Council has been given the opportunity to comment. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced, and I have had consideration to these drawings in determining this appeal.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area with particular regard to the protected trees.

[site address] is a semi-detached dormer bungalow with 3 tall, attractive mature oak trees at its western boundary. The Arboricultural Report (AR) identifies that the trees are between 12 and 14 metres in height and are in a generally good condition with no significant defects and a remaining contribution of 40+ years. These trees are protected by a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and provide a substantial leafy presence, adding a considerable verdant quality and attractiveness to the site and the street scene.

The appeal is for the erection of a 2-storey detached dwelling to the side of the host property. The AR states that the proposed dwelling would be outside the Root Protection Area of the trees and sets out recommendations to minimise the potential damage to the trees. Trees T01 and T02 identified in the AR would be sited within the proposed dwelling’s rear garden. Given their size and siting, these trees would restrict the amount of light which would be able to penetrate the site, resulting in restricted light levels to the dwelling’s rear windows. In response to this the dwelling design incorporates a dual aspect kitchen/living/lounge, and the rear-facing first floor rooms also include rooflights. I am satisfied that, with the benefit of these additional light sources, all rooms would be provided with adequate levels of natural light.

Nonetheless, given their size, canopy spread and proximity to the dwelling, the presence of the trees would be acutely experienced by the dwelling’s occupants, and the outlook from the rear windows would be dominated by the trees, which would make these rooms oppressive spaces in which to spend time. Most of the garden would be under the canopy spread of T01 and T02. This would result in a garden wholly dominated by trees which would likely be in shade at certain times of the day or year, and which would experience considerable leaf-litter onto the garden area. This would adversely affect the usability of the garden and limit the enjoyment of the amenity space to an unacceptable degree.

The dwelling would be sited closer to T01 than neighbouring property 10b Causeway View1. Whilst the proposed dwelling would have a similar separation to T01 as the host dwelling, the siting of the tree directly in front of the dwelling’s rear windows would result in a greater visual impact on the dwelling’s occupiers. The proposed dwelling would also have a larger portion of the garden covered by tree canopies than the host dwelling and No 10b.

It is realistic to speculate that the appeal scheme is likely to subject the trees to additional pressure for pruning works or even felling, to bring in more sunlight into the garden area, improve outlook from the dwelling and to avoid perceived or actual damage. Recent applications2 to reduce the crown of T01 appear to verify this. The loss or pruning of these trees would cause the verdant qualities of the site to be permanently eroded, harming the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

The felling or pruning of the trees would require an application for works to a tree protected by a TPO, in assessing which the Council would consider the amenity value of the tree, the likely impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area and whether the proposal is justified3. It would be within the Council’s gift to refuse such an application on grounds of visual amenity where the works are not justified, and I note that the Council did so in the 2 applications for works to T014. Nonetheless, the proximity of the dwelling to T01 and the garden’s dominance by the canopies of T01 and T02 would likely represent matters to be considered in a future application to remove or reduce the size of the trees, and these matters could increase the prospect of a justification being made for works to these trees.

It is anticipated that the dwelling’s future occupiers would be aware of the presence of protected trees before taking occupation. Even so, I do not consider that this would overcome or eliminate the anticipated future pressures that would be placed upon the trees, not least due to the considerable scale and coverage of the tree canopies and their associated potential to influence day-to-day living arrangements at the site.

The development would result in increased pressure to prune or fell protected trees which would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and 1 As indicated on drawing Number: 241223-CVN-AIA-SD, [name] 2 Application references 21/P/2989/TPO and 22/P/2197/TPO 3 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 090 [name]: 36-090-20140306 4 Application references 21/P/2989/TPO and 22/P/2197/TPO the surrounding area. I therefore find conflict with those aims of policy CS9 of the [site address] [name] (2017) and policy DM9 of the [site address] Sites and Policies Plan part 1 - Development Management Policies (2016) which seek to safeguard green infrastructure, give priority to the protection of trees, demonstrate that the long-term retention of trees is realistic and ensure that trees are viewed as an asset rather than an issue of conflict.

The proposal would meet the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standards, would be constructed using materials sympathetic to the local area and future occupiers would be provided with adequate car and cycle parking. The development would not result in harm to protected species and would make adequate provision for [name]. Nonetheless, compliance with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case. Therefore, these matters weigh neutrally, rather than in support of the proposal.

The appellant’s dissatisfaction with the handling of the planning application is noted. However, this is not a matter for consideration in this appeal which focusses on the planning merits of the proposal.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the proposal involves the provision of housing, footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates the most important policies for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date and paragraph 11d) ii. of the Framework is engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a small contribution towards housing supply on a site within the settlement boundary, contributing to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. This attracts moderate and meaningful weight as a scheme benefit.

On the other hand, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. Chapter 12 of the Framework sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and recognises that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments. I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan in this area.

In support of the benefits of the proposal the appellant references an application 5 in which the Council approved development which conflicted with the development plan under paragraph 11d) ii of the Framework. The full details of that decision and its associated development plan conflicts are not before me, and I am therefore unable to draw conclusions on the similarities between this appeal and the decision 5 Application reference 25/P/1668/FUL to which my attention has been drawn. I have therefore considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits and with regard to the specific circumstances of the site.

In light of the above, whilst the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the delivery of one dwelling, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the proposal would not constitute a sustainable form of development in terms of the Framework and does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.