Appeal 6009394

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council and is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the occupants of [address], with specific reference to privacy; and the effect of the proposal upon the amenity of the area, specifically regarding trees.

The appeal site comprises a detached house to the south east of the junction of [address] with [address] and is located roughly at a right angle to no12.

With a diagonal shared rear garden boundary, there is already a degree of mutual overlooking between the two properties and the proposed two storey side extension would significantly exacerbate this, creating direct views into the rear garden area and conservatory of the neighbouring property.

However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) stipulates that conditions can enable development to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects. As part of their appeal documentation the appellant submitted amended drawings showing the 2no first floor rear windows of the extension to be obscurely glazed, and bearing in mind that 1no of these would serve an en-suite bathroom and the other would be a secondary bedroom window with its primary outlook being provided through the principle elevation, I consider that the purported overlooking could have been overcome by the imposition of an appropriately worded condition, had I been so minded to have allowed the appeal. Consequently, I find no conflict between the proposal and Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2020-2039) (MVLP) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that the amenity of residents occupying properties in the area surrounding a development is not significantly affected by overlooking, causing a loss of privacy.

There are 4no substantial mature silver birch trees located within the front garden area of the appeal site, in close proximity to the proposed extension.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) requires planning decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia, recognising the wider benefits of trees. I also note that MVLP Policy EN9 requires new developments to maximise opportunities to protect existing tree cover, allowing sufficient space for them to grow and requiring planning applications in such circumstances to be accompanied by a detailed appraisal of their condition, location and ecological and landscape significance, both at the time of the application and with an assessment of their potential future value if retained. Applications should include an [name] and Tree Protection Plan to be followed during construction.

I consider that these trees are of high amenity value and contribute to the verdant character of the local residential area; it is quite probable that the root protection area of at least one of the trees would be impacted upon by the proposal and, furthermore, there could be future pressures for the trees to be pruned due to the proximity of the proposal to them. I note that the proposal does not require the removal of any of the trees, however, taking a precautionary approach, I consider that it would not be appropriate to grant planning permission with a condition requiring additional information as I am not satisfied that no harm would ensue to the trees. For this reason I find the proposal in conflict with MVLP Policy EN9 and the general spirit of the Framework.

I accept that the Council’s Officer report found the proposal to be acceptable in terms of character and design, no objections were raised by the local highway authority in respect to parking; and aside from a loss of privacy, no other effects were cited upon either the occupants of no.12 or any other neighbouring residents. However, taking into account a complete lack of information with regard to the potential effects of the development upon the trees, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposal would outweigh the benefits.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.