Proposed detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 September 2018 by I Bowen BA(Hons) BTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/D/18/3205430 1 The Annexe, Woodland Heights, Tremorvah Crescent, Truro TR1 1NL  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 R Dolman against the decision of Cornwall Council.  The application Ref PA18/02262, dated 7 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 April 2018.  The development proposed is a proposed detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. During the course of this appeal, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the revised Framework) replaced the previous 2012 version in July 2018. In relation to the main issue in this appeal there is no material difference between the policies of the former and revised Frameworks. As such, the cases for both main parties have not been prejudiced by the revised Framework and I have had full regard to it in determining this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to protected trees. Reasons 4. Woodland Heights is a small, private residential estate in an elevated woodland setting above the built up area of Truro. It formed part of the former Tremorvah Hall Estate and retains a spacious, leafy character. 5. The proposed garage and driveway would be located towards the back edge of a swathe of open green space which sweeps along the southern side of the estate drive opposite detached houses. In the main, this land is laid to grass giving it a cared-for and manicured appearance. The development would be sited directly opposite its host dwelling on land currently part-occupied by a small area of domestic decking. 6. The open space is relatively narrow at its southern end where it wraps around the garden of a dwelling set at a lower level towards the junction with Tremorvah Crescent, before broadening out as it approaches the site of the proposed development. The site is bounded on its northern and eastern edges Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3205430 2 by low open-boarded fencing but the otherwise uninterrupted green space continues beyond it before tapering off as the estate driveway curves gently away to the north. It is also planted at fairly regular intervals along its length with a number of mainly sycamore trees which make a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 7. Despite proposing an appropriate design and use of sympathetic materials, the proposed garage and driveway would represent a stark new hard feature in the undeveloped space on the southern side of the estate driveway. Rather than being read in the local landscape as incidental to its host dwelling on the opposite side of the estate driveway, it would appear as a jarring interruption in the otherwise continuous sweep of treed landscaping when approaching from Tremorvah Crescent. Its prominence would be further compounded by the likelihood of car parking taking place on the proposed garage driveway. In my view, despite being a private residential neighbourhood, this would be harmful to the local landscape, even though its visibility in more distant views would be limited. 8. It may be that a hard standing could be introduced as permitted development. However, I have no details or evidence before me of the appellant’s intention to implement such a scheme. In any event, a hard-standing would not have such a pronounced effect on the character and appearance of the area as the appeal proposal. I therefore attach little weight to this matter in deciding this appeal. 9. The trees are formally protected under Tree Preservation Orders and 2 specimens in particular have the potential to be affected by the proposed development. Both of these are multi-stemmed sycamores immediately adjoining the proposed driveway to the garage. 10. The Council’s Tree Officer raised no objection to the proposed development but requested replacement planting in an apparent recognition that the health of the trees is in decline. The appellant’s Tree Survey and Protection Plan (TSPP), however, concluded that no trees would need to be removed or damaged in order to accommodate the development. 11. Despite the apparent concerns of previous tree officers on earlier development proposals, I must decide this appeal on the basis of the evidence before me. Notwithstanding the age of the TSPP, it was prepared by a professionally qualified arboriculturalist. In the absence of any specific evidenced challenge to it or obvious changes in site circumstances, I therefore see no good reason to doubt its conclusions. 12. Given the above, I am satisfied that, subject to necessary protection measures, the development would be capable of taking place without undue risk to the protected trees. 13. Nevertheless, I conclude overall that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with Policy 12 and Policy 23 of the adopted Cornwall Local Plan (November 2016) (CLP), Policy E6 of the made Truro and Kenywn Neighbourhood Plan (December 2016) (TKNP) and Section 12 of the revised Framework. Together, these policies seek to ensure development respects local distinctiveness and the special character and setting of settlements in the area, including in undesignated landscapes. It would also conflict with the aims of Appeal Decision APP/D0840/D/18/3205430 3 CLP Policy 1 which seeks to approve sustainable development which accords with its policies. 14. The LPA also cited TKNP Policy E4. However, this Policy is aimed at achieving good quality housing and does not therefore appear to be relevant to the appeal proposal. The LPA also referred to the Cornwall Design Guide. However, I have not been provided with a copy of that document, nor any explanation as to its status or relevance to the proposal before me. It has therefore not weighed against the proposed development in my decision. Conclusions 15. For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. Ian Bowen Inspector