Single storey rear extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2017 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10 April 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N1215/D/17/3166733 Rivers Meet, High Street, Gillingham SP8 4AA  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 again st a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Hooper against the decision of North Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 2/2016/1031/HOUSE, dated 14 July 2016, was refused by notice dated 24 October 2016.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Application for Costs 1. An application for costs was made by Mr Hooper against North Dorset District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at Rivers Meet, High Street, Gillingham SP8 4AA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2/2016/1031/HOUSE, dated 14 July 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing nos 1607 01, 1607 02A, 1607 02B, 1607 03, GH1650a (Tree Constraints Plan) & GH1650b (Tree Protection Plan). 4) No development shall commence until details of foul and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details. 5) The works hereby approved shall take place in strict accordance with the provisions set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement (Ref: GH1650) dated 31 August & 16 September 2016 or as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Appeal Decision: APP/N1215/D/17/3166733 2 6) Any measures installed to protect the Horse Chestnut tree shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of the works. No site hut, no equipment and no materials shall be placed or stored in the area fenced off to protect the tree, for the duration of the works. 7) All service routes, drain runs, soakaways or excavations in connection with the development hereby approved shall take place wholly outside the area fenced off to protect the Horse Chestnut tree. Main Issue 3. The main issue relates to the effect of the proposed extension on the health of a nearby Horse Chestnut tree and any potential future pressure to lop, prune or fell it. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a two storey detached dwelling which is situated where the river Stour and river Shreen/Shreen Water meet. The site is in the centre of Gillingham and is accessed from the High Street. To its north there is the Gillingham Suite and Bedding Centre which has a hard-surfaced car park. A Horse Chestnut tree, which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order ‘TPO’, is situated outside the appeal site on a steep grassed bank of the river and it is close to the common boundary between Gillingham Suite and Bed Centre and the appeal site. 5. The proposed development is a single storey extension on the north side (rear) of the dwelling. Its walls would be flush with the existing northern and western walls of the existing dwelling, so it would infill the indented corner. It would have a mono-pitched roof and some rooflights and windows. It would be built within an area of garden which is gravelled and contained by a low retaining wall. 6. The Horse Chestnut tree is a mature to over-mature specimen and rises to a height of about 19 metres. It has been classified by the appellant’s tree expert as a B2 specimen. It is located adjacent to a Conservation Area and to my mind, it makes a notable contribution to public visual amenity and is worthy of its TPO status. A small part of its canopy would overhang the proposed extension at its north-west corner, and part of the proposed extension would be built within its root protection area. There is grass and soil on the western side of the retaining wall and the tree is located on the northern side of the boundary fence. 7. The appellant has submitted an arboricultural impact statement and method statement. The method of construction of the extension detailed in the document involves a piled foundation. However, the existing finished floor level of the current dwelling is markedly higher than the existing gravel which surrounds the existing rear elevation. The damp proof course is well above the gravel and the depth of the gravel to existing soil is about 20cm. The combination of these two measurements would allow sufficient space for a ring Appeal Decision: APP/N1215/D/17/3166733 3 beam to be used over piles without requiring excavation below the existing soil level. 8. The construction of the walls would be on top of the ring beam with a block and beam (or similar) construction just below the finished floor level and the damp proof course at about 100cm above ground level. The voided suspended floor is likely to allow the free movement of air and gaseous exchange in turn allowing the soil to function naturally. 9. It is recommended that a structural engineer would design the foundations and that they are approved prior to construction. New permanent hardsurfacing would not exceed 20% of the existing unsurfaced root protection area of the tree which is in accordance with standard advice. 10.Given that a planning condition can be imposed requiring the provisions of the arboricultural impact statement and method statement to be followed, I have concluded that the likelihood of unacceptable damage to the tree or damage which would impair its health is remote. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not present an unacceptable risk to the health of the tree and that there would be no conflict with policy 24 of North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2016). 11.As to potential future pressure to lop, prune or fell the tree, the appellant acknowledges that there would be a need to prune a small part of the canopy. Future pruning, amongst other things, is controlled by the terms of the Tree Preservation Order. Given the degree of pruning needed in connection with the scheme before me and the location of the tree and its canopy in relation to the proposed single storey development, I do not consider the changes would warrant refusal of planning permission or that future pressure to prune amounts to a sustainable objection. 12.Gutters would be nearer to the protected tree than they are at present but clearance of those gutters and other property maintenance requirements caused by the presence of nearby trees would not be so onerous that they would, in my view, warrant refusal of the proposed development. Conditions 13.In the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition which ties the proposed development to the submitted and approved plans. In order to protect character and appearance I have imposed a condition which requires the external surfacing materials to match those of the existing house. I consider it is essential to know and to obtain approved details of both foul and surface drainage prior to development commencing as the appeal site is adjacent to two rivers and in flood zones 2 and 3. Conditions are also imposed to protect the tree: following the identified arboricultural report provisions, ensuring there are no soakaways or similar in the fenced off area and ensuring there is tree protection for the duration of the works. Appeal Decision: APP/N1215/D/17/3166733 4 Conclusion 14.Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons above I conclude that the proposed extension would not unduly harm the health of the TPO’d tree and would not lead to unacceptable pressure to prune, lop or fell it. I therefore allow the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR