Described on the planning application form as ‘single storey first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2018 by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/18/3202269 22 Ashdene Close, Wimborne Minster BH21 1TQ  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 Lee Dixon against the decision of East Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 3/18/0014/HOU was refused by notice dated 14 February 2018.  The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘single storey first floor side extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension over garage, at 22 Ashdene Close, Wimborne Minster BH21 1TQ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/0014/HOU, 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 20-12-2016-01 Revision C-WIP. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding details already submitted with the application, no development shall start on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), which is to be in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS and TPP. 5) Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of trees on and adjacent to the site in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan, before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development. The tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3202269 2 ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Preliminary matter 2. In the decision above I have used the description of development given on the appeal form and decision notice as it more accurately reflects the proposal. Main issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons 4. The appeal concerns a two storey dwelling that is located at the end of a cul de sac. To the west of this there is an area of public open space next to Cranfield Avenue where there is a group of four trees. Two of these are Oak trees, which the Council indicates are subject to a Tree Preservation Order, with the others being Tulip trees. 5. The other trees in this group limit views of the Oak tree nearest to the appeal site from Cranfield Avenue. From Ashdene Close it is to the front of the other Oak tree and even without it there would be a fairly continuous row of trees. However, towards the end of the street and the appeal site the individual presence of the nearest Oak and the projection of its canopy over the curtilage of 22 Ashdene Close is readily apparent. As a result, this tree, in itself, contributes to the verdant character of the locality. 6. The Council’s concern is that the relationship of this tree to the development, above a bedroom in the extension, would result in applications to severely prune or fell it. It is indicated that this would happen due to factors such as tree debris and fear of storms with the potential resultant loss of the tree or its severe pruning considered to be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality. 7. However, I saw at my site visit that this is a fairly large tree in relatively close proximity to the existing dwelling. It overhangs the garden at the side, a single storey part containing a garage and kitchen, as well as being fairly near a bedroom further back at first floor level. Most significantly it has a fairly pronounced lean towards the existing dwelling. This current relationship is not harmonious and may well cause significant anxiety to occupiers of the property regardless of this decision. 8. Moreover, I see no reason to disagree with the view of the Appellant’s arboricultural consultant that the extension would reduce the potential for damage from any falling branches or even that of the whole tree. This would occur due to the likely reduction in the distance of fall and therefore also the force of any impact. 9. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the proposal would result in the Council coming under any more pressure to accept the pruning or felling of this tree than would be likely to occur anyway given the existing relationship. I note the concerns of a local resident that the extension would damage the roots of the adjacent trees. However, there is no technical evidence to support this contention and the Council has not objected on this basis. Despite the amenity Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3202269 3 value of the tree, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the locality. 10.The appeal scheme would comply with Policies HE2 ‘Design of New Development’ and HE3 ‘Landscape Quality’ of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 - Core Strategy 2014. The relevant aims include seeking to ensure that new development has a suitable relationship with mature trees and protects and seeks to enhance the landscape character of the area with specific reference, among other things, to taking into account natural features such as trees. 11.Taking account of all other matters raised, there is no reason to reject the proposal given the absence of harm and the appeal succeeds. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. The facing materials used should match those of the existing dwelling to protect its appearance. Because of the proximity of the adjacent trees, conditions concerning protection during the construction of the extension are justified in the interest of visual amenity. However, the requirement for a supervision statement would be unduly onerous. I consider that other requirements, such as a method statement and tree protection plan, would be sufficient to safeguard the trees during construction. M Evans INSPECTOR