Appeal 6003986

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

During the appeal, the appellant submitted a landscaping section drawing. This new drawing would not result in a substantial or fundamental change to result in a different application. The Council has also had the opportunity to comment on the drawing. Given its nature, the acceptance of this new drawing would not deprive those who should have been consulted of the opportunity of such consultation. I have therefore considered this new drawing in determining this appeal.

The appeal was made following the failure of the Council to give notice of their decision on the planning application within the statutory timescale. The Council has indicated that had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission. The Council’s appeal statement sets out its issues with the proposal and provides putative reasons for refusal.

In light of the above and from the evidence before me, the main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether the parking provision would be acceptable, having regard to the location, on-street parking demand and the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and highway safety; and, • The effect of the proposal on [address] School, with regard to overlooking.

[address] is a long road predominantly of large houses. A varied mix of trees and hedging creates a strong verdant character that defines the road and is reflected in the surrounding area, creating an attractive local environment. The appeal site comprises a two-storey house within a large plot and contains several trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The frontage comprises tall trees of varying form, including specimens with broad, spreading crowns as well as others with more compact, rounded canopies. Owing to their height and visibility from public viewpoints, they are prominent in the street scene and make a strong contribution to the area’s character and have high amenity value, reflected in their TPO designation. Together with established hedging, these features give the site its distinctive leafy appearance.

The proposal is supported by an [name] (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP)1. Although protected trees T1–T6 would be retained, the frontage would be significantly altered to provide parking for five vehicles, increasing car presence and bringing vehicles closer to the trees. While access around the trees has been demonstrated in their current form, the AMS identifies T2 and T5 as young trees, with T1, T3, T4 and T6 classed as early‐mature. There is no evidence that these trees will not continue to grow. They have therefore not reached full maturity, and their current form does not reflect their future crown spread or growth potential.

The new vehicular access would be in very close proximity to the grouping of trees along the front and side boundary. As these trees continue to mature, further growth has the potential to restrict visibility at the access, giving rise to highway safety concerns. While there is inevitably an element of judgement involved, there is nothing substantive before me to demonstrate that the protected trees could be retained within the proposed layout over the longer term without adversely affecting the access, despite the appellant’s assertions.

The close relationship between the trees and the parking spaces could result in complaints from future occupiers over leaf fall and other debris, bird droppings, and damage to vehicles and the hardstanding. Combined with the potential to impede the site access, this could create undue pressure for additional works to the protected trees, or their potential removal. These concerns are not unfounded, as perceptions of future occupiers can lead to pressure for tree works. Furthermore, Policy DM6 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document (the Development Management Policies LDD) sets out that development likely to result in future requests for significant topping, lopping or felling will be refused. While any future works to the trees would remain subject to the Council’s consent, such pressure would be difficult to resist once the development is occupied.

The car park would be within the [name] (RPAs) of trees T1 – T6, with hardstanding encroachment exceeding the 20% figure set out in BS 58372. Protective measures set out in the AMS and TPP include the use of a ‘no‐dig’ geogrid cellular confinement system over a terram layer, backfilled with stone, to 1 [name] & Tree Protection Plan – [name]: Wednesday, 15 October 2025 2 [name] 5837:2012 “Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations” provide both temporary ground protection during construction and permanent permeable hardstanding. This system is designed to allow air and water movement and can accommodate changes in ground levels. Additional measures include tree protection fencing, temporary ground matting, arboricultural supervision, adherence to BS 5837 where roots are encountered, and a prohibition on excavation, grading, soil level changes or digging within the RPAs.

Although the proposed hardstanding within the RPAs exceeds BS 5837 guidance, there is no compelling evidence that the proposed mitigation measures would be ineffective in protecting root growth. The safeguards set out, together with the ability to secure further details by planning condition, are sufficient. However, the proposal does not demonstrate that the close relationship between the retained trees and the parking area would allow the trees to grow without creating undue conflict. This would undermine their long‐term amenity value which would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, given their important contribution.

The new vehicular access would necessitate the removal of a substantial proportion of the existing hedge when assessed against its overall extent. This would fundamentally compromise its role as a defining landscape feature and would result in a marked erosion of the site’s established leafy character, causing harm to the character and appearance of the area.

To accommodate a flatted development with its associated parking and access requirements would necessitate the removal of frontage hedging and could place undue pressure on the retained protected trees, potentially leading to further works or removal. Consequently, irrespective of the building’s design, such a development would be out of character with the surrounding houses, as the layout required for this flatted development would undermine the streetscape features, namely the protected trees and hedging, that are fundamental to the area’s character.

Drawing all of the above together, I conclude that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. This arises from the layout of the development, the loss of the frontage hedging and the failure to demonstrate that the development would not place undue pressure for works to, or the removal of, the retained protected trees. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies CP12 of the [name] 2011 (the [name]) and Policies DM1 and Appendix 2, DM6 of the Development Management Policies LDD. These policies amongst other things, expect development to make efficient use of land whilst respecting the distinctiveness of the surrounding area in terms of character and demonstrate that existing trees will be safeguarded and managed during and after development.

The proposal falls short of the minimum parking standards set out in Policy DM13 and Appendix 5 of the Development Management Policies LDD. A total of 10.5 spaces are required, including 7 allocated spaces; however, only 5 spaces are provided, resulting in a shortfall of 5.5 spaces. The submitted parking survey was conducted overnight on two consecutive nights; the Highway Authority have not disputed this methodology. In the absence of any alternative analysis, I have relied on its findings in assessing the appeal.

The parking survey indicates very low on‐street parking stress, below 10%, suggesting that the identified parking shortfall could be reasonably accommodated on nearby streets. Although a snapshot in time, at my site visit I saw that [address] and The Climb had limited parking spaces, whereas [address] had few cars parked along the road, with several spaces available.

It is acknowledged that [address] School generates on‐street parking demand and that parking conditions vary at different times of the day. While some increased competition for on‐street parking could cause inconvenience, if visitors to existing properties are required to park further away, this does not necessarily amount to material harm sufficient to justify refusal of permission. Even if some overspill parking were to occur along [address], parts of the road are subject to time‐limited restrictions near the school, with unrestricted parking elsewhere. On the evidence before me, there is no indication that overspill would necessairly extend into [address] or The Climb, or result in unsafe parking conditions near the school.

Rickmansworth Town Centre and Station are accessible from the site within around a 21‐minute walk. Although concerns have been raised about walking along the A404, an alternative and quicker pedestrian route is available, which forms part of the established pedestrian network. While the routes involve changes in gradient, crossing roads and the use of an underpass, these are existing pedestrian routes. Walking may not suit all future occupiers, but it nonetheless provides a realistic alternative to car travel.

The site is also served by an hourly bus service from [address], with links to [name] and [name], and there is no substantive evidence to suggest cycling would be impractical. Given the range of available transport options, I consider the site to be in a sustainable location where future occupiers would not be wholly reliant on private vehicles.

Although the proposed access would be close to [address] School, it would serve only three parking spaces and generate limited vehicle movements. While some additional manoeuvring on [address] would occur, the road is subject to a 30 mph speed limit and the Highway Authority has identified no requirement for on-site turning. Visibility splays and other highway safety measures could be secured by planning condition. The Highway Authority has also raised no objection in terms of highway safety, and there is nothing substantive before me to reach a contrary view.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the parking provision would not place unacceptable pressure on demand for on-street parking. The proposal would therefore not cause severe harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or highway safety. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Policy CP10 of the [name], Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD and Policy 5 of the Chorley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020 – 2025 (the NP). These policies, amongst other things, require all development to be designed and located to minimise the impacts of travel by motor vehicles, provide safe and adequate means of access, be built in close proximity to public transport, and not result in a loss of residential amenity. Additionally, it would not conflict with the broad thrust of Policy DM13 and Appendix 5 of the Development Management Policies LDD.

From my site visit, it was apparent that [address] School is already visible from the ground and first floor windows of the existing house. The rear boundary is currently formed by mesh fencing, which allows further views into the school grounds from the rear garden.

No windows are proposed in the side elevation facing the school, preventing direct overlooking. The Flat 3 lounge/kitchen window would face a patio enclosed by privacy screening, effectively limiting views. Although some windows in Flats 3 and 4 would face the school grounds, these views would broadly reflect the existing situation. Moreover, the replacement of the mesh fence with a 2‐metre‐high boundary fence would prevent views into the school grounds from the communal garden. While the development would introduce multiple households, the school is located within a residential area and is already overlooked by surrounding houses. The existing house could likewise be occupied by multiple people with similar overlooking potential.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable overlooking to [address] School. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy CP12 of the [name] and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD. These policies, amongst other things, require development to maintain acceptable standards of privacy and not result in the loss of amenity.

Set against the harm identified, the proposal would deliver 5 flats, each providing a good standard of accommodation. This would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and contribute towards the housing land supply. However, the extent of this benefit is tempered as there is nothing substantive before me to indicate there is an evidenced need for 2 and 3-bedroom flats. I give moderate weight to this benefit.

There would be temporary and ongoing economic benefits from the proposal, through the construction stage and spending from future occupiers, but given the quantum of development, those benefits attract limited weight.

The Biodiversity Net Gain would exceed the mandatory 10% requirement; however, limited weight is attributed to this, as it represents only a modest uplift above the minimum.

Renewable energy provisions, landscaping and plants would be incorporated in the proposal. However, compliance with relevant planning policies on these matters, and the associated benefits, would be required in any case. These are therefore neutral considerations, and neither weigh in favour, nor against the proposal.

The proposal would not conflict with Policy CP10 of the [name] and Policy 5 of the NP. It would also not conflict with the broad thrust of Policy DM13 and Appendix 5 of the Development Management Policies LDD. However, this is neutral. It would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I have judged the magnitude of this harm as significant.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires developments to be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding landscape setting and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Policies CP12 of the [name] and Policies DM1 and Appendix 2, DM6 of the Development Management Policies LDD align with the aims of the Framework. The conflict with these policies should be given significant weight. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. With a supply of 1.7 years, which is a considerable shortfall. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

As described above, there would be some moderate and limited benefits associated with the proposal, even accounting for the Council’s housing supply position. The Framework promotes an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes in locations where sustainable transport modes are prioritised, but it also sets out that developments should add to the overall quality of the area and be visually attractive as a result of effective landscaping. It highlights that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments. The proposal fails to achieve these aims.

Consequently, the adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused.