Single storey side addition

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2017 by Patrick Whelan BA(Hons) Dip Arch MA MSc ARB RIBA RTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/17/3186029 The Woodlands, Butterfly walk, Warlingham CR6 9JA  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 S Medhurst against the decision of Tandridge District Council.  The application Ref TA/2017/877, dated 28 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 July 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey side addition. 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 area, with particular regard to the loss of a protected tree. Reasons 3. The proposed development necessitates the removal of several Scots Pine trees on the site, one of which is protected by a recent Tree Preservation Order (TPO)1. The Council raises no issue with the removal of the unprotected trees, but it objects to the removal of the protected Scots Pine, identified as T8 in the TPO. 4. Tree T8 is one in a long line of Scots Pine trees standing along the boundary between the garden of the house and Butterfly Walk. It appeared to me an attractive specimen. It forms part of the arboreal character of the area which is distinctive for the dispersal of trees, especially coniferous species, between the spaciously laid out buildings and streets. The overall effect gives the area a woodland texture. 5. The loss of tree T8, together with the other unprotected trees on the site would significantly diminish the sylvan character of this part of Butterfly Walk and the area around the site. Moreover, there are no replacement trees formally proposed. There is little scope for replacement planting in the site without affecting the living conditions of occupiers. Having regard to the verge beside the site along Butterfly Walk, it would seem that there is little space for any significant replacement trees even if an appropriate undertaking were provided to secure their planting. 1 Tree Preservation Order No 12, 2015 (Tandridge) Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/17/3186029 2 6. I understand the frustration of the appellant who considers the unprotected trees to be more conspicuous and more valuable than the protected tree the subject of this appeal. However, the Council had the opportunity to protect these other trees when it made the TPO. It excluded them because of their form, their condition, their limited contribution to amenity, and their limited life expectancy. Their exclusion does not justify the removal of the protected tree. 7. The appellant describes the line of Pines as forming a landscape feature of merit. He suggests that the removal of 4 of them would reduce it to the degree where the loss of tree T8 becomes acceptable. I agree that the proposed development would diminish the feature by removing the unprotected Pines in the line; however, sufficient number would remain, including tree T8, to retain the distinctive arboreal effect of the local landscape. 8. Tree T8 leans, and some of its branches are weaving with those of the protected Ash tree close-by. However, the lean appeared to me not to be out of character with other Pines in the area, and not excessive. The interweaving appeared limited and there is no evidence that it could not be resolved by sensitive surgery. Indeed, the Council reports that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment describes tree T8 as having normal physiological and structural conditions, with a life expectancy of 40+years. 9. I acknowledge the appellant’s point that the Council excluded from the TPO a Pine tree in the vicinity which has branches mixing with an adjacent tree. I also note the appellant’s dispute of the merit of the protected status of tree T8; however, the justification for the TPO is not a matter for this appeal. 10. I conclude that tree T8 is visible from Butterfly Walk and from surrounding dwellings. It makes a significant contribution to amenity and its loss would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development would therefore conflict with policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 and policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014-2029. These require development to respect the setting and local context including those features that contribute to local distinctiveness and seek the retention of trees which are important by virtue of their significance in the local landscape. Conclusion 11. Whilst the development would provide additional accommodation, this is outweighed by the unacceptable harm it would cause to the character and appearance of the area resulting from the loss of the protected tree, which is in clear conflict with the policies of the development plan. For the reasons given above, and taking account of all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Patrick Whelan INSPECTOR