Appeal 6003924

The appeal is dismissed.

The other appeals on the site regarding extensions to the host dwelling (Ref: 6003921), [name] for an additional storey (Ref: 6003925) and a certificate of lawful development for an outbuilding (Ref: APP/K3605/X/26/3377488) are the subjects of separate decisions. I am the Inspector for the first two appeals and given that there are similarities in the matters, some of the language may be common to these decision letters.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including with regard to trees.

The Barton is within the [name], which is characterised by generous dwellings set in their own grounds. Many of the properties have been extended and redeveloped and planning permission for examples at no 12 and 15 The Barton and [address] have been drawn to my attention. There is variation in the detailed design of the properties.

The Barton is broadly T shaped and a number of properties in the row with no 16, including nos 12, 14A and 15, have double or triple garages which project forward of the host dwelling. I am provided with detail of the extension at no 15 which has a 6.7m high ridge height and extends forward in its plot. The plans show a pitched and part hipped roof served by two modest dormers. These forward extensions are generally attached to the main house and are single storey with a pitched roof and a limited number of small dormers. As such, modest forward projecting extensions are not uncommon in this particular part of The Barton.

There is an area of wooded open space on The Barton and houses also have green verges and large front gardens with landscaping including hedges and trees. The appeal site has mature planting to the boundaries in the front garden and this makes a positive contribution to an attractive leafy, green appearance to this streetscene.

The proposed garage would be single storey with accommodation in the pitched roof and lower in height than the host dwelling. At roof level, three projecting dormer windows with arched features would occupy the majority of the width of the roofslope.

The scale and number of dormers would result in them being dominant features to this roof. This would lead to highly conspicuous first floor accommodation. Furthermore, their arched detailing would not relate to features on the existing house and this contrasting appearance emphasises the dormers and their scale. Although the proposed footprint and forward position of the building would be similar to others nearby, nevertheless, the roof accommodation to the garage would be unacceptably dominant in this context. The resultant sizeable appearance would harmfully undermine the modest character of front projections in this area and would be visually jarring.

The garage would be located directly adjacent to the boundary in the position of an existing mature hedge. Submitted arboricultural information relates to the construction of an outbuilding in the back garden and therefore I give very limited weight to its conclusions for this appeal. Given the position of the proposed garage building, the evidence does not satisfy me that it would be possible to retain the hedge. Its loss would harmfully undermine the verdant character of these front gardens and would unacceptably erode the green character which is an important part of this area. The appellant suggests that a tree protection plan and arboricultural impact assessment could be required by condition. However, taking into account these findings, there is little before me to suggest that protection measures would adequately retain the hedge. Consequently, even with such a condition, this would not prevent harm to the hedge, with the consequential adverse effect on character and appearance.

Mountleigh is towards the end of a private cul de sac and the mature planting to its front boundary provides some screening. Nevertheless, the development would be visible in views through the entrance gates and from neighbouring properties and more so if the hedge was lost. As such this harm would be experienced. Furthermore, this is significantly different for the conclusions relating to previous application for rear extensions (ref: 2009/2284 and 2009/2015), and as such they do not alter my conclusions.

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to trees. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies CS10 and CS17 of the [name] (2011), Policies DM2 and DM6 of the Development Management Plan (2015). Together these set criteria to achieve high quality design, including with regard to Cobham and require that development does not result in the loss of or damage to trees and hedgerows that make a significant contribution to the character of the area.

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. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.