Vehicle crossing to allow access to hardstanding drive on property from a classified road

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 April 2018 by Caroline Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H4505/D/17/3189318 26 Colegate, Leam Lane Estate, Felling NE10 8PN  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 Steven Graham against the decision of Gateshead Council.  The application Ref DC/17/00724/HHA, dated 23 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 October 2017.  The development proposed is a vehicle crossing to allow access to hardstanding drive on property from a classified road. 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 adjacent street tree. Reasons 3. The character and appearance of this part of Colegate is in part derived from the regularly spaced mature trees within the highway verge. The trees form a distinctive feature within the street scene and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the road. 4. One of the street trees lies immediately to the front of the appeal property close to the position of the proposed crossover. The crown spread of this tree extends over the area in which works would take place and at my site visit I saw that the roots of the tree lie very close to the surface. 5. The appellant states that the risk to the tree is low. However, there is no compelling evidence before me, such as an arboricultural report, to support this contention or to demonstrate that the loss of any roots would not adversely affect the long-term health of this tree. I cannot therefore be certain that the proposed crossover would not prejudice the long term health and retention of this tree. The loss of this tree would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. 6. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of locations where highway crossovers or tarmacking close to trees does not appear to have damaged the health of the tree. However, I have not been provided with the background or circumstances that led to such development and cannot be sure whether these Appeal Decision APP/H4505/D/17/3189318 2 were approved on the basis of technical advice to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on the trees or were constructed using specific techniques to mitigate any potential harm. In any event, the depth and spread of roots are specific to each individual tree and the presence of the other crossovers does not justify the appeal proposal. 7. I note that the proposal would be of benefit to the appellant in facilitating off street parking and that it would reduce on street parking. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 8. In the absence of any technical evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is an unacceptable risk that the proposed development would prejudice the long-term retention of this tree to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policies ENV3 and ENV44 of the Gateshead Unitary Development Plan and Policies CS15 and CS18 of the Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne (2015). Together these seek, amongst other things, that development makes a positive contribution to the established character and identity of its locality, that trees should be protected and that works that will damage or lead to the loss of trees which contribute to the amenity of an area will not normally be permitted. 9. For the reasons given above and taking all matters into account, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Caroline Jones INSPECTOR