Appeal 6005106

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed garden building and single storey front extension.

However, the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed alterations to the dormer windows and GRP decking infill at a northern portion of the building and permission is granted for the GRP decking infill at a northern portion of the building and alterations to the dormer windows at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00806/FUL and the plans submitted with it, insofar as they relate to the proposed alterations to the dormer windows and decking infill hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the location and site plans, proposed plans and elevations and use of materials insofar as they relate to the proposed alterations to the dormer windows and decking infill.

I have considered this appeal on the basis of the Council’s description of development as it a more accurate specification for the proposals.

The appellant has submitted a claim for an award of costs against the Council. That is the subject of a separate decision notice.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and streetscene, and the effect on trees.

The appeal building is a large, detached dwelling with a front garden, partly lawned, and a long rear garden. [address] forms a loop road with [address] and linking to [address]. [address] has a concrete setted surface and no footway. Initially it passes two storey and single storey brick built dwellings which have small open grassed frontages providing a tranquil setting away from the busy main road.

The amount of tree cover next to [address] increases as a small group of detached dwellings is approached, including the appeal property. A public footpath provides access to the open space of [name] and is likely to be well used by pedestrians. The character of the area is verdant with the larger dwellings being setback from [address], giving a sense of spaciousness.

The Council considers that the proposed alterations to the dormers by replacing the pitched roofs by flat roofs would not be harmful. I see no reason to disagree as there would be no change to their width or height. In addition, a small section of GRP decking proposed to infill a section of the northern portion of the dwelling should be allowed as it would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the dwelling.

The proposed garden building would be located in the corner of the front garden between a pollarded lime tree that is subject to a Tree Preservation Order and a row of trees at the road frontage of the land. The potential impact on trees is a matter I shall consider separately below.

The appellant advises that the proposed garden room structure, intended for storage use, has been deliberately designed to be lightweight and visually recessive, and using slim powder-coated aluminium columns, some incorporating frameless glazing, to create transparency and allow views through to the main house.

The appellant submits that the west facing frontage of the house cannot reasonably be described as open. However, from my site inspection I observed that the proposed building would occupy open space at the front of the dwelling. The frontage tree cover next to the road would allow filtered views of the building from the road, especially in the winter months after leaf fall, and it would be seen from the driveway. Although the layout and design of neighbouring buildings vary, the mainly set back siting of built development from the road is a predominant character overall. The proposed garage extension would also add to the amount of development proposed towards the front of the dwelling.

The garage extension and the garden building would both incorporate a green powder coated aluminium finish and vertical slatted panels linked by a gate and fence. The use of these materials would increase the visual impact of the development proposals because of their scale and extent and would appear uncharacteristic and less rural in appearance than the existing building materials and boundary treatment at the appeal site.

I therefore consider that the proposed garden building and garage extension and associated use of the green slatted panels would reduce the degree of openness at the appeal site and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building and streetscene. These elements of the proposal would therefore conflict with the City of York Local Plan policies D1, D2 and D11 and the [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, which seek to ensure, amongst other things, that extensions and alterations respond positively to their immediate architectural context and local character in terms of scale, form, proportion, and the space between buildings.

The Council has raised objections in relation to three specific trees on the site. These are the protected lime tree (T1), a variegated sycamore (T11), and a [name] (T8). In relation to the lime tree the appellant’s arboricultural consultant advised that the tree’s stem diameter was measured at 1050 mm at breast height which, using the BS5837:2012 formula, produces a Root Protection Area (RPA) of 498 m2. Due to the tree’s canopy management regime, this was adjusted to 356 m2. The consultant commented that the RPA size revision was appropriate and defendable.

However, the Council’s tree officer considered that the RPA had been inappropriately reduced based on historic canopy management and proximity to existing structures. In his view the Tree Protection Plan showed a protection area significantly smaller than expected for a tree of its stature and legal status. It was considered that this posed a serious long-term risk of decline, especially due to likely compaction and further root disturbance during construction.

The appellant’s arboriculture officer considered that tree T11 was easily replaceable, barely visible from public land, and neither rare nor unusual. In addition, that it was also in active competition with the nearby birch, T8, and would almost certainly out compete it. The Council’s tree officer advised that the loss of tree T11 was not sufficiently justified and would detract from the character and amenity of the site. In addition, that the proposed development would result in severance of significant roots undermining the stability and longevity of mature tree T8.

The appellant’s arboriculture officer advised that no detailed method statement had been provided for the proposed structure and however, such a document could be produced. The use of screw piles for the building was considered feasible and the appellant advised that screw piles are a low-impact foundation solution that are small enough to avoid most roots, require no wet chemicals such as concrete which can contaminate soils changing the local pH, and can be installed using only basic tools without the need for heavy machinery.

The protected lime tree is tall and can be seen from [address]. Along with other trees at the front of the site it makes a positive contribution to the amenity of the locality and its verdant character and appearance. I agree with the Council that the proposal lacks a detailed method statement to avoid harm to the critical root zones of nearby trees, in particular for the protected lime tree which was subject to a revised and reduced RPA. The proposal therefore conflicts with the City of York Local Plan policies D2 and G14 which, amongst other things, seek to avoid conflict between existing trees to be retained and new buildings and to ensure trees are retained where they can be successfully managed and maintained.

The proposed single storey extension and garden building should be dismissed as they conflict with the development plan as a whole. However, the proposed alterations to the dormer windows and section of GRP decking should be allowed.