Appeal 6003390

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) whether the proposal would have a harmful effect on trees.

The appeal site comprises a detached three‐storey dwelling within an established residential area characterised predominantly by large, detached houses set within generous plots. The site occupies a prominent corner position within the small enclave of [address], while also presenting a frontage to [address]. Although development along [address] displays a range of architectural styles and periods, properties are generally well set back from the footway behind landscaped and vegetated frontages, with open areas in front of dwellings. This establishes a spacious and verdant street scene.

The proposed detached double garage would be ancillary to and smaller than the main dwelling. It reflects the host property and the design ethos of the homes in [address]. Although offset, it would be read as being in front of the dwelling in views along [address] and would reduce the host building’s visual presence and primacy in the street scene.

The garage would also be positioned forward of the prevailing building line on the northern side of [address]. Although set back from the highway by a section of garden, it would introduce a conspicuous element of built development into a frontage that is otherwise largely undeveloped. This impact would not be adequately mitigated by the detailing proposed, including eaves and dormers, as the bulk and massing would remain pronounced due to the steeply pitched, largely blank gabled elevation. As a result, the garage would occupy an unduly prominent and imposing position close to the footway.

[address] is a compact, inward‐facing development with a materially different relationship to the public realm than properties along [address]. However, the appeal site’s corner location significantly increases its visibility from both [address] and the entrance to [address]. Existing and proposed trees and hedgerows would provide only limited and seasonal screening and would not obscure a large, permanent structure. The alignment of the road ensures that the development would remain visible from a range of public viewpoints.

While garages are present within front gardens elsewhere, each proposal must be considered in its specific context. It was suggested that garages on the southern side of [address] demonstrate that such development is not entirely uncharacteristic. However, those examples are generally discreet, associated with older properties, and set within more spacious plots, such that they do not present as visually dominant features within the street scene.

For these reasons, the proposed garage would appear as a dominant and incongruous form of development, disrupting the established relationship between built form, landscaping, and the highway. It would erode the open and verdant frontage character that is a defining feature of this part of [address], resulting in clear harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policies SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, adopted July 2017 (the CELPS), alongside policies GEN1 and HOU11 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, adopted December 2022 (the SADPD). The proposal would also conflict with Policy H2 of the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan (the WNP). Together these seek to ensure that proposals make a positive contribution to their surroundings, reinforcing local distinctiveness. For similar reasons, the proposal would not accord with the design objectives of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework).

The Arboricultural Implications Assessment dated 29 April 2024 was submitted in support of a larger scheme. The accompanying plan shows the proposed garage positioned close to, but nominally outside, the Root Protection Area (RPA) of trees within Group G1. This group comprises three Oaks and two Beeches, identified as category C2 trees. While this classification denotes low quality, the report indicates an estimated remaining lifespan of at least 80 years, which confirms that the trees are not in poor health and have long-term growth potential.

The Method Statement Plan shows ground protection and tree protection fencing encroaching into the [name] of the nearest trees. While the submitted measures suggest that construction-phase impacts could be mitigated, the supporting information largely focuses on construction methodology for other elements of the previous development and gives little consideration to the long‐term implications for trees within Group G1. In particular, there is no substantive assessment of how the proposal would accommodate the trees’ future growth, including maturing canopy spread and expanding root systems. Given the species involved, both canopy and roots have significant potential to extend over time. Trees of this nature are characteristic of this stretch of [address] and, if allowed to mature, would make a meaningful contribution to the area’s visual amenity.

Although full details of earlier schemes are not available, it is evident that these trees formed part of an approved landscape strategy intended to mitigate tree loss on the site. Their young age accounts for their limited current contribution; however, their loss or failure to establish would materially diminish the verdant character of the area. I am not satisfied that replacement planting would secure equivalent long-term growth or amenity value. On the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would safeguard the future growth and development of the trees. This conclusion is shared by the Council’s Environmental Planning Officer (Forestry).

I therefore conclude that in the absence of sufficient information, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have a harmful effect on trees. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies SD1, SD2, SE4 and SE5 of the CELPS. The proposal is also contrary to policies ENV5 and ENV6 of the SADPD and Policy LSP2 of the WNP. Together, and insofar as they are relevant to the proposal, these seek to protect the natural environment, loss of trees and maintain tree cover and ensure landscaping reaches maturity. Furthermore, the proposal would also not align with Framework paragraph 136, which seeks to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible.

While garages are present within some front gardens, each proposal must be assessed on its own site-specific merits. The Sandbach appeal1 cited by the appellant does not establish general support for such development; rather, it confirms that the presence or absence of comparable examples is not determinative. I have not been provided with full details of that case, which will have been decided under different circumstances, policies, and evidential considerations. In the absence of clear comparability in design or context, I am not satisfied that it carries material relevance to this appeal and I therefore attach it little weight.

I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm to neighbouring living conditions or highway safety, and that it would provide functional benefits for the occupiers, including secure parking, storage, and limited opportunities to support sustainable travel. The proposal would also generate a modest economic benefit during the construction phase. However, these benefits are limited in scale, largely private in nature, and could reasonably be achieved through alternative means. Furthermore, the fact that the development would avoid harm to living conditions and highway safety is an expected requirement of acceptable development and therefore attracts neutral weight in the planning balance. In contrast, the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area and to existing and future tree growth carries significant weight. Overall, the identified benefits do not outweigh the harm. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/22/3290027

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.