Appeal 6005429

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice rather than the application form description. Whilst including useful information regarding the development, the application form description is of greater detail than is necessary to describe it. I have corrected a typographical error and deleted reference to “retrospective”, as that is not a form of development.

The application form indicates that development has already commenced, but has not been completed. The appeal submission also describes the existing outbuilding as being unfinished. I have therefore determined the development as being part part-retrospective in nature and with regard to the submitted plans before me.

I am aware of another ongoing planning enforcement appeal in relation to the same site1. That appeal is the subject of a separate process and therefore has no bearing on my determination of this section 78 appeal, which I have considered on its own planning merits having regard to the submitted evidence before me.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including in respect of the tree within the appeal site protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The appeal site forms a corner plot location alongside a large wedge of public open space between the [address] residential estate, [address] and [address]. It is therefore within a spacious setting, and trees within and around this residential area also contribute to the character of the area. 1 Appeal Ref: 6007525

The existing outbuilding sits within an enclosed garden that is already partially forward of the appeal dwelling. However, the outbuilding’s width facing the cul-de-sac is not subordinate to the dwelling, and it is sited very close to it. Sited to the side and mostly in front of the dwelling, the outbuilding is visible from a wide area. This is despite the presence of an enclosed substation to the front, as the outbuilding is sited on higher ground and stands considerably above the substation, and all surrounding fencing. Trees in the wider vicinity do not screen all views of the existing outbuilding.

Although the existing outbuilding does not form the finished proposal subject of this appeal, its scale and layout is nonetheless not reflected in the immediate vicinity. Sitting mostly forward of the appeal dwelling and filling the entire gap between its side elevation and the side fence boundary, the outbuilding appears squeezed in to that garden space, which further draws the eye to the structure. It therefore appears discordant and out of kilter with its surrounding context, which harms the character and appearance of the area. Painting or cladding the outbuilding to match the surrounding fencing would not mitigate this adverse visual impact.

The outbuilding’s canopy footprint and roof form also subsumes the main trunk of an ash tree within the garden that is subject of a woodland Tree Preservation Order (TPO). This tree is adjacent to the side boundary fence with the public open space beyond. It therefore makes a small but positive contribution to the visual character of the area, despite the presence of larger trees in the vicinity and that the TPO was served many years ago. I have no substantiated evidence before me to demonstrate that this ash tree would be unlikely to survive on site for many years.

The outbuilding therefore detracts from the spacious and landscaped character of the surrounding area. Moreover, in the absence of tree survey information authored by a suitably quality expert to demonstrate the contrary, the outbuilding’s proximity to the ash tree’s main trunk and its base could restrict its future growth, including secondary growth and reaction wood to aid stability, even if the structure does not touch the trunk. This could harm the future amenity value and health of this tree, and any future crown lifting undertaken could also reduce its amenity value.

During my site visit, I found that the outbuilding sits on a raised timber platform, which may somewhat limit root compression. However, the majority of tree roots are typically found in the top shallow section of soil. Therefore, and in the absence of tree survey information before me to provide a professionally informed plan of the ash tree’s root protection area (RPA), the outbuilding could cause root damage to this tree in terms of compaction of the soil structure. It has not been adequately demonstrated that future provision of guttering to direct water into the RPA and maintenance of a mulched zone around the tree would mitigate this impact.

The fact that the ash tree has coexisted with the surrounding development for many years does not alter my above conclusions. This is because the outbuilding’s proximity to the ash tree could further constrain its future growth and health.

The appellant is willing to demonstrate a cooperative and responsible approach, including reducing the footprint to increase clearance from the ash tree. However, the evidence before me does not indicate the precise intended extent of footprint reduction. I therefore do not have sufficient certainty that if I allow the appeal, imposition of a planning condition requiring a reduced footprint and amended layout would be acceptable in terms of visual character and the future health of the ash tree. These matters could be fully considered as part of a new planning application to be determined by the Council, including further consultation with its Trees & [name] team, should the appellant wish to submit such an application.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including in respect of the Ash tree within the appeal site protected by TPO.

The scheme thus conflicts with Policy CS13 of the Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CSDPD) ([name] incorporating the [name] 2015), and [name] SDP7 and SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (LPR) (adopted 2015). These set out, amongst other things, that development should respond positively and integrate with its local surroundings and character, retain important landscape features, incorporate landscape qualities, and be compatible with existing natural features that contribute to the quality of the local environment.

The development does not comply with advice contained within paragraph 2.3.5 of the Council’s Residential Design Guide (RDG) (September 2006), as it would project beyond the existing building line of the appeal dwelling. Paragraph 2.3.8 subsequently advises that in some circumstances a well-designed extension that does not follow established building lines might be permitted, for example where it can create visual interest and closure. However, for the above reasons, I have found that the appeal scheme is not well-designed, which amounts to overall conflict with the RDG.

My attention has been drawn to various examples of outbuildings and front extensions in clear view from streets within the immediate area, which I observed as part of my site visit. However, none of these examples have the same level of impact on surrounding visual context and trees as the appeal scheme. Many of the porch and outbuilding examples that I observed also appear to form part of the original estate layout. Even if nearby additions do not have the requisite planning permission, that would be a matter for the Council to investigate if necessary. The cited examples therefore do not justify allowing this appeal.

The appellant is aggrieved with the way the Council determined the planning application, including a purported failure to view the development and the tree from within the appeal site’s garden. That is a matter between the appellant and the Council and has had no bearing on my determination of this appeal. Based on the specific circumstances of this appeal, neither the part-retrospective nature of the proposal, nor the lack of pre-application advice sought from the appellant, weigh in favour or against allowing this appeal.

The extent of conflict with CSDPD Policy CS13 and [name] SDP7 and SDP9 that I have identified amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole. Paragraph 135(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that to achieve well designed places, planning decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. Framework paragraph 136 also states that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments. For the above reasons, the appeal scheme does not adequately meet or address these expectations and considerations of the Framework.

The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.