Erection of a single storey rear extension with pitched roof and 5 No. rooflights; pitched roof to replace flat roof over two existi ng dormers; two storey side extension with catslide roof integrated into main roof of the existing property, one new dormer window in gable end of catslide roof to match adjacent dormers; further to demolition of existing garage and along with other minor alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2017 by Kevin Gleeson BA MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1st November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/A3655/D/17/3185721 Southerndown, 76 Dartnell Avenue, West Byfleet KT14 6PJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs S Gay against the decision of Woking Borough Council.  The application Ref PLAN/2017/0604, dated 23 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 August 2017.  The development proposed is described as erection of a single storey rear extension with pitched roof and 5 No. rooflights; pitched roof to replace flat roof over two existi ng dormers; two storey side extension with catslide roof integrated into main roof of the existing property, one new dormer window in gable end of catslide roof to match adjacent dormers; further to demolition of existing garage and along with other minor alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area with particular reference to its effect on the protected trees on the site. Reasons 3. Southerndown is a two storey detached house on the southern side of Dartnell Avenue. To the front of the property is a detached single garage. Dartnell Avenue is characterised by large detached houses of varying designs and the area has a sylvan character with extensive mature trees and vegetation. An area Tree Preservation Order covers the site. 4. The proposed side / front extension would replace the existing garage and extend the building footprint closer to the road frontage. This element of the proposal would primarily comprise a double garage and games room above. 5. Within close proximity to the existing garage are three trees identified as T1 Pine, T2 Spruce and T3 Oak. Trees T1 and T2 were assessed by the appellant to be Category B1 with T3 being Category C1 and therefore all have future potential. Although the oak tree is somewhat obscured from public views by the other trees and may have less amenity value than them, they all contribute to the landscape character of the area, have significant public amenity value and contribute positively to the visual amenity of the area (as recognised by Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/17/3185721 2 their inclusion in the TPO). The proposed extension would be located in part beneath the canopies of the pine and oak trees. 6. The Council’s view is that all three trees are semi-mature but the appellant considers that only the oak has not reached full maturity in respect of its canopy size. On the basis of the evidence within the arboricultural report I consider that the pine and spruce trees which are more significant than the oak have possibly reached full maturity. Consequently their canopies will not increase in size significantly. Nevertheless, the oak has potential for further growth and would require future pruning regardless of the proposed development. 7. The oak tree has been routinely pruned in the past and there is no reason to think that this would not continue in the future as part of good tree management. The appellant has indicated that through measures including the use of closed guttering, the introduction of dormer windows and the proposed low intensity use and layout of the first floor rooms that the pressure for future pruning of the oak and pine trees would be reduced. Whilst these measures may reduce the likelihood of pruning being sought they would not eliminate that possibility. Nevertheless, the Council has not provided justification as to why it considers it would be difficult to resist such pressures and therefore it would be wrong for my decision to be based on the possibility of a request being made to fell, or significantly prune any of the trees in the future, particularly where the Council could exercise control. 8. The proposed development would encroach into the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of all three trees. The appellant has identified engineering solutions which aim to minimise the potential impact of the development on trees. With no-dig construction and other specialist forms of construction it would be possible to reduce the impact upon the trees. However, taking account of the extent of the necessary incursion into a previously undeveloped area of the RPA for T1, T2 and T3 for permanent works, and that the works are proposed in close proximity to the trees the likelihood of encountering roots is increased as is the potential for damage to those roots and adverse effects on the trees’ rooting environments. A previously approved proposal for the site permitted development to extend to the footprint of the existing garage which is within the RPA but this does not justify the further extension and potential harm arising from the current scheme. 9. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, it has not been substantively demonstrated that the proposal would not result in harm to, or the potential loss of the protected trees, taking into account the extent of work within the RPA and the proximity of the proposed works to the trees. 10. The appellant has also referred me to the Council’s decision in respect of Spring Cottage, Pyrford Road, West Byfleet. That decision, like the Council’s decision in respect of the earlier permission for Southerndown allowed development within the RPA. But based on my findings above, and in particular the proximity of the proposed development to the protected trees I do not accept the appellant’s case that the current proposal would have less of an impact in the RPA than the proposal at Spring Cottage. 11. I therefore find the proposal to be contrary to Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy, 2012 (the Core Strategy) which states that proposals for new development should retain any trees of amenity value. It would be in conflict Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/17/3185721 3 with Policy CS24 requiring the protection of local landscape and townscape character, and trees where it is relevant to do so. The reasoned justification to Policy CS24 states that trees form an important part of the landscape and that the Council will seek the retention of existing quality trees. 12. The proposal would also fail to accord with Policy DM2 of the Woking Development Management Policies Development Plan Document, 2016 which states that trees, hedgerows and other vegetation of amenity or environmental significance or which form part of the intrinsic character of an area must be considered holistically as part of the landscape treatment of new development. It has not been adequately demonstrated that trees which are to be retained would be adequately protected to avoid damage during construction and no exceptional circumstances or overriding public benefit has been provided. 13. I also find that the proposal would be contrary to the advice in section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework which emphasises the need for good design which contributes to the overall quality of the area and incorporates appropriate landscaping. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Kevin Gleeson INSPECTOR