Appeal 6002610

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of an outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01576/PA, and the plans submitted with it.

As indicated by the application form, the proposal has been implemented and is complete. This weighs neither for nor against the proposal, which I have determined on the basis of the submitted plans.

The application form describes the proposal as “retention of an outbuilding (resubmission following appeal dismissal APP/H2265/W/25/3364008)”. The definition of development at section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes no distinction between proposals for development and those made retrospectively. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, in the header above and formal decision I have amended the development description to reflect the proposal which relates to the construction of an outbuilding.

It is my understanding that the proposal is broadly the same as that dismissed by an appeal decision, dated 23 July 20251. Consistency is an important tenet of the planning system, and a previous appeal decision is capable of being a material consideration where the previous decision is sufficiently closely related. In my decision I have had regard to the previous appeal decision.

However, the proposal differs from the previous scheme through the submission of additional evidence, namely the updated BS5837 Tree Survey Report & Retrospective Arboricultural Impact Assessment, revised 01 September 2025, and accompanying summary (hereafter “tree survey report”). I have also had regard to this updated evidence. 1 Appeal decision ref: APP/H2265/W/25/3364008

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the health and longevity of protected trees.

The appeal site contains a detached bungalow with driveway and front and rear gardens. The single-storey, flat roof outbuilding that is the subject of the appeal proposal has been constructed in the front garden.

Trees within and adjacent to the site are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). As identified in the previous appeal decision, the mature trees are an attractive feature within the street scene, are of high visual amenity value, and the premature loss of any of these TPO trees would have a negative and significant visual impact on the street scene2. Therefore, maintaining the health and longevity of the trees is necessary to conserve the character and appearance of the area.

The tree survey report is based on impartial, factual assessments of the trees’ condition and I have no compelling reason to doubt its objectivity. These updated assessments took place two full growing seasons after works were completed. The tree survey report advises that, had significant impact on any retained tree occurred, signs of stress would have been apparent at the time of assessment in March and August 2025. Therefore, due to the passage of time since the construction of the outbuilding, the tree survey provides greater certainty of the long term effects of the development on protected trees.

Construction of the outbuilding resulted in incursion into the [name] (RPA) of trees T1, T3, T4, T11, and T12. Soil compaction will have occurred in the area of the development’s footprint and would have had the potential to affect soil structure, root growth, nutrient uptake, water infiltration and drainage. In addition, excavation within the RPA can result in root loss. Such adverse effects could have been avoided through an alternative siting of the development.

Incursion of the development into the RPAs ranges from 0.3% to 15%. In certain exceptional circumstances, BS5837:2012 permits a 20% incursion of hard surfacing and, within this context, the extent of incursion is considered minor and moderate. Therefore, the area of soil compaction and root loss is relatively small. Furthermore, the outbuilding does not have traditional foundations but sits on a concrete base, requiring shallow excavation works and minimising root loss.

The tree survey report advises that the position of underground service apparatus would have had some limited severance of minor roots and root clusters, but due to the position mostly outside canopy outlines and several metres from stem bases, there is a low probability that major roots were severed.

The tree survey report advises that the assessments were undertaken during a critical evidential period and if harm had occurred, physiological stress such as crown dieback or reduced vigour would have been apparent, particularly given the hot and dry climatic conditions of 2025. No signs of physiological stress or accelerated symptoms of decline associated with root loss and/or soil compaction were identified. In addition, the tree survey report confirms that no works to TPO 2 Paragraph 6 of appeal decision 3364008 trees were undertaken to facilitate the development. Consequently, there is no evidence that trees were harmed by the development.

Based on the trees’ present condition and reasons detailed within the report, the tree survey report considers it unlikely that impacts on retained trees would manifest in the future. Furthermore, the risk that any latent harm would be sufficiently severe as to lead to the loss and/or long-term decline of any retained tree is considered very unlikely. Therefore, whilst the Council suggest there is uncertainty regarding the long-term impact of the development on trees, the submitted evidence does not support this conclusion.

The tree survey report considers the residual risk of harm to trees to be remote. However, to offset the risk it proposes amelioration works as a precautionary measure, including soil amelioration, nutrient/mycorrhizal injections, and organic mulch. Since the trees are deemed to be healthy, a planning condition requiring such works would not meet the test of necessity.

The tree survey advises that it would be difficult to remove the outbuilding and concrete pad without causing soil disturbance or compaction. Were only the concrete pad retained, the effect on soil would be the same as at present. Therefore, removal of the outbuilding would not offer a better environment for tree recovery and there is no arboricultural justification for its removal.

Trees need space to naturally develop their width, height and canopy spread. The tree survey report demonstrates there are no tree stems or large surface roots sufficiently close for direct damage to occur now or in the future. In addition, there is substantial clearance between branches and the building on all sides and a lack of substantial overhang. Therefore, the siting of the outbuilding is not expected to create future pressure for tree pruning or removal.

As identified by the tree survey report and previous appeal decision, the construction of the outbuilding would have had an impact on protected trees through RPA incursion, soil disturbance and compaction, and minor root loss. However, the tree survey report concludes there is no evidence that protected trees have been harmed by the development. Moreover, removal of the outbuilding would create fresh soil disturbance and compaction and would thus introduce risk to tree health. Acknowledging the importance of consistency in decision-making, the proposal contains evidence that would not have been available at the time of the previous appeal decision. Therefore, the circumstances of the appeal proposal materially differ from the previous decision, and finding a different conclusion is justified in this instance. For these reasons, I conclude the proposal would not harm the health and longevity of trees.

In the absence of harm, the proposal complies with Policy NE4 of the Managing Development and Environment Development Plan Document 2010 which requires the extent of tree cover be maintained and deterioration of woodland be avoided.

The development has been implemented and therefore the standard time limit for the commencement of development is not necessary. The Council has suggested conditions for the purpose of safeguarding trees. Since, the planning application form confirms the development is complete, it is not anticipated that further works will take place. Therefore, the suggested conditions would not be necessary.

For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan taken as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.