Appeal 6003126

The appeal is dismissed.

Following determination of the planning application the appellant has produced additional information in the form of amended plans relating to the front driveway, a letter in respect of protected species and a Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Report. In my judgement this information does not represent a substantial difference or a fundamental change to the scheme. I have, therefore, paid regard to this information in assessment of the appeal. Having regard to the [name] judgement1 which follows on from Wheatcroft2 I am satisfied that no interested parties have been prejudiced by my approach.

The Council advise that based on the additional information they no longer wish to defend the third and fifth reasons for refusal. Based on the available information there is nothing that would lead me to reach a different conclusion in respect of these matters and, as such, I have not addressed them in my reasoning below.

Following determination of the planning application the Ashtead Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been adopted replacing the [name]. I have taken this document into account in coming to my decision and I am satisfied that no interested parties have been prejudiced by my approach.

The main issues are:  The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area;  Whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with regard to outdoor amenity space; 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL, 1982, P37]  The effect of the proposal upon a neighbouring Oak tree; and  The effect of the proposed development upon the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network.

The appeal site is irregularly shaped and positioned close to the junction of Overdale and [address]. The site currently accommodates a single storey building positioned along its northern boundary with the remainder laid out to hardstanding. This junction represents the entrance into the [name] which displays a degree of coherence on account of its planned nature including its layout and architecture.

That said, the site alongside the neighbouring electrical sub-station and The Rowans on account of their architecture, plot sizes and layout are at variance to the [name] and are not read as forming part of it, but rather as a transition between residential development south of the railway line and the estate.

There is no doubt that the proposed dwelling would sit close to the boundaries of the site compared to properties in the [name] occupying a large percentage of it. However, this arrangement would not be too dissimilar to the current one and given the immediate context I do not find that the proposed layout would appear unduly incongruous or cramped.

The appearance and scale of the dwelling would be different to that of nearby properties, but I find that its unapologetic modern and angular design to be pleasingly distinctive and an appropriate response to its setting. It would be a conspicuous feature within the street scene, but I do not find this to be unacceptable given the disparate context that the site sits within. It would also represent a further evolution of this part of the street. As such, I am not persuaded that it would have a harmful impact upon the setting of the estate or the wider area.

In conclusion the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024) (LP) and [name]-H3, AS-H5 and AS-En3 of the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan (2016) which, amongst other things, seek high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to its local character; a good layout and design in relation to the immediate locality and proposals to have regard to character of the area and street scene.

The SPD sets out that dwellings should provide a suitable area of private garden amenity in scale with the building but no smaller than the building footprint depending upon the context.

The main outdoor amenity space would be positioned to the side between the dwelling and the road measuring around 12.5sq.m and broadly sail shaped. This would be in addition to a small incidental area positioned between the main bedroom and the western boundary.

I acknowledge that the amount of outdoor amenity space would be considerably smaller than the footprint of the dwelling proposed. However, based on the plans before me, it would be large enough to accommodate outdoor seating and other domestic paraphernalia. Taking into account the modest size of the dwelling it is unlikely to be occupied other than by an individual, couple or a small family and who may not have desires for a large garden. Furthermore, future occupiers would have the ability to use [name], neighbouring the site, and nearby recreation grounds which would offset the compact size of the garden area.

Whilst noting the Council’s position I am satisfied that the outdoor amenity space could be made private through the installation of a boundary treatment appropriate to its context and which could be secured by planning condition.

Despite the above, the proximity, height and crown spread of the Oak tree, located on the footpath, would restrict light to the garden causing overshadowing for at least half the year, when the tree is in leaf, resulting in an unduly claustrophobic environment. There is little to indicate there would be much garden space outside of its canopy nor that the garden area would receive an acceptable level of direct or dappled sunlight throughout the year.

As such, the proposed development would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. It would therefore be contrary to LP Policy EN4 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure the amenity of future occupiers is not significantly affected by overshadowing or a sense of enclosure.

The Oak tree occupies a prominent position within the street, and its position combined with its height and crown spread means the tree positively contributes to the visual amenity of the area. Whilst the tree displays stem and pruning wounds and some minor decay on branches and despite its urban setting the tree is in a fair condition with a life expectancy of over 40 years. At the time of my site visit I observed that some pruning of the canopy closest to the site had taken place.

Having regard to the appellant’s [name] am satisfied that the removal of hard surfacing and the foundation structure would not unacceptably impact upon the tree. However, when taking into consideration the proximity, height and crown spread of the tree it would dominate the dwelling, resulting in overshadowing as set out above. This would likely cause resentment once the dwelling is occupied. Furthermore, occupiers may perceive the tree as a potential hazard to the property in the future.

Based on the evidence before me I cannot conclusively say whether regular pruning would compromise the physiological health of the tree. However, for the reasons set out above it is likely that the proposed development would create significant pressure to severely prune or remove the tree once the dwelling is occupied.

The appellant suggests that a Tree Preservation Order could be placed upon the tree so that the Council could exercise control over works to it. Whilst this is noted, there is no certainty that the Council would pursue this option nor is this justification for a scheme that I have found to be unacceptable in respect of the relationship between the tree and the position of the proposed dwelling.

Drawing these matters together I conclude that there would be an unacceptable relationship between the proposed development and the Oak tree which would likely lead to pressure to severely prune or remove the tree once the dwelling is occupied harming the visual amenity of the area.

On this basis, the proposed development would be contrary to LP Policy EN9 which, amongst other things, seeks to maximise opportunities to protect existing tree cover.

The proposed development would benefit from one car parking space accessed from a relocated footway crossing on Overdale. Whilst the space would meet local adopted standards due to the constrained nature of the frontage vehicles would not be able to manoeuvre so as to egress the site in forward gear.

Overdale provides the sole access into the [name] and is a no through road. On this basis I concur with the appellant that traffic heading north east would be largely limited to residents, their visitors and deliveries. But this also means that all traffic, including future residents of the scheme, would have to travel in a south westly direction past the site towards where day-to-day services and facilities are located.

During my visit on a weekday afternoon, I observed a steady flow of traffic on Overdale and surrounding roads. I also observed the level crossing barriers being lowered at regular intervals which resulted in short term queuing on Overdale as well as [address] and [address]. Following the raising of the level crossing barriers I noted that vehicles travelled close to one another in proximity of the site before dissipating once beyond the curvature of the roads. [name] acknowledge that this is a snapshot in time, there is nothing to suggest that what I saw on site is untypical.

Given the nearness of the site to the controlled railway crossing, I am of the view that in the circumstances outlined above future occupiers would find getting onto the driveway problematic even at low speed.

When approaching the site from the south west it is likely that vehicles would either need to swing onto the opposite side of the road or would have to make irregular movements to get onto the driveway in forward gear. This would increase the potential for conflict with vehicles travelling on the opposite side of the road.

Vehicles would either have to abruptly stop in the road to then reverse onto the site or park on the road or the grass verge to wait for other vehicles to pass before reversing onto the driveway. Either scenario would disrupt the flow of traffic and block the road or lead to instances of indiscriminate and inconsiderate parking close to the access and road junction. This would undermine the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network.

Furthermore, and as shown on the swept path diagrams reversing onto the driveway, albeit during turning, would result in some encroachment onto the opposite side of the road.

When exiting the site in forward or reverse gear visibility to the north east is obstructed by the substation’s boundary fence. This relationship increases the potential for conflict with both vehicles and pedestrians approaching from the [name] resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Whilst these manoeuvres would involve a shorter reversing distance and existing occupiers in the area may well reverse onto the highway this is not justification to allow a development that I have found to be harmful. The absence of collisions or road traffic accidents in the area does not alter my conclusion in respect of this

There is no substantive information before me in relation to the traffic movements and parking arrangements associated with the previous uses of the site and therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would result in less frequent trips. Thus, I give very limited weight to this aspect of the appellant’s argument.

Drawing these strands together I find that the proposed development would unacceptably affect the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network rather than leading to a betterment. This would be contrary to LP Policy INF1 which, amongst other things, seeks to eliminate developments having an unacceptable impact on highway safety and a severe adverse impact on the highway network.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would result in a more efficient use of an underutilised site in an accessible location. It may well also be energy efficient and a self-build development. However, these matters neither individually nor cumulatively would outweigh the harm that I have identified.

[name] have given the appellant’s personal circumstances and the need to provide support to family members careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is also probable that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be material. For these reasons, I find that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons set out above the appeal does not succeed.