Appeal 6003490

The appeal is dismissed.

On the site visit I saw that the development is not wholly reflective of the plans, particularly the extent of the landscape planting and the boundary line of the westernmost plot. Nonetheless, I have based my decision on the proposed plans.

Planning permission 21/01397/FL granted permission for the construction of 6 no. three bedroom semi-detached dwellings with communal off-street parking/courtyard and landscaping.

This permission was varied by a subsequent grant of planning permission (ZF24/00099/FLA) following an application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (S73). This varied condition 1 of 21/01397/FL, approving revised plans. This type of application is possible as this condition, imposed on the original permission, specified the approved plans.

The application subject to this appeal was also made under S73 and seeks a further revision to the scheme, through amending the plans approved by 21/01397/FL and ZF24/00099/FLA, to allow the provision of a private driveway to the front of the westernmost plot and the retrospective felling of a [name] tree that was proposed to be retained as part of the landscaping scheme approved by condition 5 of planning permission 21/01397/FL that was subsequently referenced in condition 2 of ZF24/00099/FLA.

The main issues are therefore: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • the effect of the proposal on biodiversity.

[address] is a wide road comprising predominantly mid twentieth century housing. Trees and grass verges are prevalent along the roadside here, giving the street a verdant yet suburban character.

The appeal site relates to a newly constructed infill development of 3 pairs of semi-detached dwellings fronting [address]. The dwellings appear as a coherent grouping with matching materials, and are similar in scale, height, and design with all three pairs incorporating hipped, pantile roofs. They are set back equidistant from the road behind small front gardens. These are predominantly grassed and enclosed by matching metal rail fences that are bounded by a grass verge. Parking is provided to the rear which is accessed from a small cul-de-sac. The consistency in the front gardens, adjacent verge, rail fencing and provision of parking to the rear has enhanced the coherent feel of this development which has a positive effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would involve the removal of part of the metal rail fence to the side of the westernmost plot of the development to create an access from the cul-de-sac in order to park a car on the front garden of this property. The removal of the fence, the loss of a portion of the verge and provision of a parked vehicle to the front of the westernmost dwelling, would appear as an incongruous addition to the end of the row that would significantly disrupt the harmonious appearance of the development. The proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area as a result.

I am provided with limited information from the appellant with regard to the condition of the [name] such as a tree survey. Nonetheless, I am mindful of the comments of the Tree and Woodland Officer which states that at the application stage, it was healthy, had good vitality and form typical of the species, and continued to provide good public visual amenity.

Based on the photographs submitted by the appellant, the tree exhibited a pronounced lean which, along with its general form, notwithstanding the Tree and Woodland Officer’s comments, reduces its amenity value. However, it nonetheless made a positive contribution through softening the edge of the development and reinforcing the verdant character of [address]. In its absence, the tall timber boundary fence adjacent to the highway appears unduly stark and visually oppressive. With its very limited width, the adjoining landscape strip offers little to soften the edge of the development. On this basis the removal of the tree has resulted in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst the appellant references a possible replanting of a tree, in the absence of details of such a replacement tree, or a tree report detailing its suitability for this location, I cannot be certain that a replacement tree would be capable of mitigating the harm that has arisen. Moreover, I am mindful that the appellant chose to remove the tree partly due to its proximity to his dwelling, I therefore cannot be certain that similar issues may lead to pressure for the removal of a replacement tree in the future.

For the above reasons, the proposed driveway would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. Similarly, the removal of the [name] has also harmed the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would fail to comply with Policy DEC1 of LP and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which together seek to ensure development proposals constitute good design that preserves character and appearance. There would also be conflict with guidance within the [name] (2021) (the SPD), which guides against the use of parking areas in front of principal elevations.

[address] is a reasonably busy road in a residential area featuring a pedestrian crossing that lies close to the appeal site.

The proposed driveway would be located in very close proximity to the junction of the cul-de-sac with [address]. It would also be located immediately adjacent to tactile paving and a lowered kerb indicating a crossing point along the cul-de-sac.

The provision of a new access onto the cul-de-sac a few metres from the junction would result in vehicles emerging from the driveway in a location where other users, such as those turning right into the cul-de-sac, would not reasonably expect such movements. Moreover, due to its position so close to the junction, a vehicle emerging from the access would give drivers entering the cul-de-sac insufficient space or time to respond and could lead to vehicles waiting on the highway, causing an obstruction and increasing the risk of a collision, to the detriment of highway safety.

Moreover, the proposed access lies immediately adjacent to the tactile pavement and dropped kerb, which is not shown on the proposed plans. This is indicative of the pedestrian desire line and could lead to conflict with pedestrians crossing the road here, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted. Furthermore, the position of a parked car in this location would also likely reduce sightlines for pedestrians crossing the cul-de-sac.

Whilst the Council cites guidance referencing a minimum distance of 15 metres from a junction, the origin of this is unclear. Nevertheless, the guidance in Manual for Streets (2007), also referenced by the Council, generally seeks to ensure that accesses are designed so that drivers have adequate visibility and sufficient time to perceive and respond to hazards. For the above reasons, the appeal proposal fails to achieve this.

[name] acknowledge vehicle movements within the cul-de-sac are likely low, the cul-de-sac nevertheless serves a number of residential properties and is reliant on a single point of access from [address]. All vehicle movements, including those of residents, visitors, and delivery vehicles entering and exiting the cul-de-sac would add to the risk of conflict set out above. I am therefore not convinced that the traffic levels would alleviate the risk to highway safety.

For the above reasons the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. This would be contrary to Policy DEC1 of the LP which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new developments provide safe and suitable access for users.

Policy ENV5 of the LP encourages a biodiversity net gain through ensuring new developments include appropriate tree planting whilst retaining and integrating healthy, mature trees. The Policy states that development proposals should recognise not only the importance of protecting species-rich trees or hedgerows but the value of incorporating them in design and consider how new planting can interact with existing habitats. Additionally, the Framework sets out that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity.

Conditions 5 and 7 on planning permission 21/01397/FL related to minimising the impact of the development on, and providing net gains for, biodiversity. Neither party has provided me with detail of the precise nature of any biodiversity enhancement proposed as part of the original permission. Nonetheless, the loss of a mature tree would inevitably have diminished biodiversity here.

Whilst there is reference to a single replacement tree, this would be unlikely to offset the harm to biodiversity from the loss of a long-established tree. In my experience, mature trees, even isolated trees within suburban areas such as this, are capable of supporting a large number of species of animals, plants and fungi. It would likely take many years before a single replacement tree reached a similar size or capability to support a similar number of species.

The appeal has not been supported by an ecological survey or specific mitigation to offset the harm to biodiversity that would inevitably have occurred from the loss of the tree. Based on the extent of evidence before me I therefore conclude that the proposal has resulted in a loss of biodiversity at the appeal site. This conflicts with Policy ENV5 and paragraph 187 of the Framework, set out above.

I acknowledge that the tree has been removed on the basis of the appellant’s safety concerns and that there may have been ground compaction to the tree that could have led to a future decline, as set out in the letter from an arborist provided by the appellant. However, as the tree has already been removed and there is no contemporary arboricultural assessment, the weight I can to public safety considerations is limited. I would note that, even if the tree were found to have unstable limbs, there may have been opportunities for pruning or other works recommended as part of an arboricultural assessment that could have ensured that the tree endured, at least in the short to medium term. Furthermore, even if the removal were recommended in such an assessment, it would have been an opportunity to provide a mitigation plan including replanting of one or more trees of an appropriate species in an appropriate location that could have offset the harm.

The processing of the application and the time taken to determination relates to the practical administration of the application rather than to the acceptability of the scheme. [name] sympathise with the appellant with regard to the time taken to determine the application, I have nonetheless determined the appeal scheme on its planning merits.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.