Vehicular access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2018 by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/17/3188683 12 Hall Terrace, Harold Park, Romford, Essex RM3 0YR  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 Mrs Keilly Eury against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering.  The application Ref P0892.17, dated 17 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2017.  The development proposed is a vehicular access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have adopted the development description set out on the appellant’s appeal form as it is usefully more concise than that initially set out in the planning application form. I am satisfied that no party would be disadvantaged by my doing so and I have therefore determined the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on a tree in the highway verge. Reasons 4. No. 12 is one half of a semi-detached bungalow which, like others along this stretch of Colchester Road, lies behind a pleasant tree lined grass verge. This stretch of Colchester Road is also characterised by the number of vehicular verge crossings. Some, such as those serving properties closer to Colchester Road’s junction with Court Avenue, are shared and provide vehicular access to two properties. Others, such as those at Nos 11, 13 and 14 just provide access to a single property. 5. The proposal is for the creation of a vehicular access from 12 Hall Terrace onto Colchester Road involving the creation of a hard surfaced crossing within a grassed highway verge. The area of grassed verge in front of No. 12 is neatly bookended by a verge crossing serving No. 11 on one side and by a pavement crossing on the other. The tree to which the Council’s concern relates is situated between the two crossings and is slightly offset from centre between these two crossings, closer to the access serving No. 11. 6. It is proposed that the verge crossing in this instance would be aligned between the tree and the crossing serving No. 11. This is the narrower of the Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/17/3188683 2 two sides on either side of the tree and, with a small gap between the proposed crossover and that at No. 11, it seems to me that the crossover would be positioned very close to the existing tree. 7. Although the Council refer to the loss of the tree in their refusal reason, there is no suggestion in the appellant’s submissions that it is proposed to remove the tree. However, without an appropriate tree survey, any indication of how the works of excavation and construction might be carried out in proximity to the tree and its root structure or details of any precautions that would be employed given that proximity, I cannot be certain that the proposal would not cause harm to the tree. 8. Moreover, in order to provide a crossing to the relevant Transport for London (TfL) specification in the location proposed TfL advice is that the tree would need to be removed. Given the contribution that the avenue of trees makes to the character and appearance of this stretch of Colchester Road, harm to, or harm leading to the potential loss of, one of these trees with the concomitant impact upon the rhythm that is created by their regular spacing, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 9. Thus, I conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) policies DC60 and DC61. Together these policies seek to protect and improve the amenity value afforded by trees and ensure that development maintains, enhances or improves the character and appearance of the local area. In my judgement, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would achieve this, nor that it would fulfil the environmental dimension of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) or achieve a high standard of design or conserver or enhance the natural environment, set out in the Framework as core planning principles. 10. I saw several verge crossings along this stretch of Colchester Road when I visited the site. I have also noted the conclusions of an Inspector in relation to an appeal1 for a highway verge crossing to serve No. 13. I accept that in some instances, these crossings are close to trees within the verge. I do not, however, have any information before me to support the appellant’s claim that those trees have been unaffected by those crossings, nor do I have the details of those proposals before me. 11. With regard to the Inspector’s conclusions regarding the proposal at No. 13, it would appear that whilst there was little information regarding excavation works in that instance, there was at least some information regarding construction techniques. However, no such evidence has been provided in this instance and, without that, I cannot be certain that a similar approach in this instance would avoid harm to the tree in this case. Therefore, without being familiar with the circumstances surrounding these other instances, I can only give limited weight to their provisions. In any event, I must consider the proposal before me on its own merits and the available evidence. Other Matters 12. I acknowledge the appellant’s desire to be able to park her three cars within the appeal property’s forecourt area, thereby reducing by three the number of 1 APP/B5480/D/16/3159640 Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/17/3188683 3 cars parked on surrounding streets. However, whilst that desire is noted, I have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that parking stress exists within the surrounding streets. Any contribution that this might make towards the social role of planning in contributing to sustainable development would therefore be limited and I give this factor limited weight. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Graeme Robbie INSPECTOR