2-bay carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2018 by Mrs Hollie Nicholls MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/D/18/3209451 44 Station Road, Nailsea BS48 4PD  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 T Patrick against the decision of North Somerset Council.  The application Ref 18/P/2418/FUH, dated 15 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 July 2018.  The development proposed is a 2-bay carport. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 2-bay carport at 44 Station Road, Nailsea, BS48 4PD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/P/2418/FUH, dated 15 February 2018, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The proposal is described on the application form as a three bay carport. However, the plans submitted to the Council were amended prior to determination of the application and now show a two bay carport instead. I have changed the description of the development to more accurately reflect the proposal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on protected trees. Reasons 4. 44 Station Road is a detached two storey dwelling which faces towards Station Road behind a stone wall and garden area. There are two large trees in the front boundary. There is a large block paved driveway to one side of the frontage and the rest of the space is laid to lawn. From evidence before me and my own observations, it appears that the lawn area is also utilised for the parking of vehicles. 5. The trees on the appeal site form part of a group protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) confirmed in 1977 which includes two Oaks and two Limes. The other two trees are within the school grounds adjoining the site. Other mature trees in the wider area are also protected by the same order, including two others on the side boundary of the appeal site. The group of trees along the frontage form a prominent feature in the streetscene along Station Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3209451 2 Road and therefore make a significant contribution to the character of the area. This contribution is indicated by their inclusion within the TPO. 6. The proposal is to construct a double bay carport on the space between the front elevation of the house and the trees at the front boundary. The carport is proposed to be located within the root protection area (RPA) of both of the protected trees and would involve positioning six timber supports with vertical concrete bases amongst the RPA area. Beneath the carport, a layer of ‘No-Dig' Cellular confinement System would be laid and infilled with gravel. This surfacing would extend to, and connect with the existing driveway. 7. The proposal has been submitted with two Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Method Statement and Tree Protection Plans (Method Statement and TPP), the latter of which was updated to correspond with the reduced size of the carport. The adequacy of the arboricultural reports is in dispute between the parties. The Council indicate that the reports do not adequately detail the size of the canopies, any changes to site levels or the effects of changes to surface water interception on the protected trees. 8. From my observations, the tree canopies appeared comparable with that shown on the TPP. Similarly, I have no reason to doubt the extent of the RPAs shown on the plan, which indicates that the carport would overlap with the RPAs of both protected trees. The Method Statement and TPP are otherwise comprehensive and I am satisfied that they adequately address the requirements of the applicable British Standard (BS) (BS 5737:2012), having been produced by an appropriately qualified professional. Some of the detail sought by the Council would appear to be more prescriptive than seems necessary relative to the scale of works proposed and given the moderate tolerance level of these trees to changes within their root environments compared to other more sensitive species. 9. The method statement for the undertaking of the works is sufficiently detailed and would involve employing protection measures, including designating a construction exclusion zone (CEZ) with temporary protection barriers and ground protection measures, as well as hand-digging the pits for the concrete bases of the carport. I note that there is a typographical error in respect of the number of concrete bases in the Method Statement and TPP which is in fact six, as opposed to the four detailed. Otherwise, no activity is planned to take place within the CEZ. All construction activities are due to be overseen by the appointed project arboriculturalist. 10. In terms of level changes, the site is relatively level in the area that the carport is intended to be installed. In respect of the driveway extension using the ‘No Dig’ cellular confinement system, the Method Statement and TPP detail that the area will be cleared of vegetation and a general level created using hand tools and clean sand where necessary. The geo textile membrane will then be laid across the surface and retained using tannalised wooden retaining boards staked into the ground, tapering to the existing ground level using top soil. These works do not require level changes that necessitate a topographical survey, particularly as the proposed height of the carport relative to ground level and the existing boundary fence is shown on plan PL01E. 11. In terms of surface water, the ‘No Dig’ cellular confinement system is specifically designed to be porous, enabling air and moisture to reach the tree roots and encourage healthy growth. As such, there should be little change to Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3209451 3 the degree of infiltration of surface water. The modest roof of the carport will alter the rainwater interception to a minor extent, but a condition requiring a means of redistributing surface water to this area could satisfactorily resolve this issue. 12. Consequently, in respect of the main issue, as the proposal has sufficiently addressed the existence of the protected trees and their root systems, and due to the mitigation measures that would be employed during construction or subsequently agreed by condition, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the protected trees and would allow for them to be retained without detriment to the character and biodiversity value of the area. 13. Consequently, the proposal is in compliance with Policy DM9 of the North Somerset Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 2016 (NSSPP) which requires that the future growth of tree canopies and roots should be fully accounted for in the design, location, spacing and orientation of buildings, gardens and green spaces. The proposal would also comply with Policies CS4 and CS9 of the North Somerset Council Core Strategy 2017 (Core Strategy) which, amongst other things, seek to protect trees which make a positive contribution to the character and biodiversity value of an area. 14. The proposal would also comply with Policies CS5 and CS12 of the Core Strategy, which require that proposals of all scales will be required to demonstrate sensitivity to the existing local character already established in an area and that the character, distinctiveness, diversity and quality of North Somerset’s landscape and townscape will be protected and enhanced. 15. The proposal would also comply with Policies DM8, DM10 and DM32 of the NSSPP, which require that proposals take account of their impact on local biodiversity and identify appropriate mitigation measures, conserve and enhance natural or semi-natural vegetation characteristic of the area and ensure that the siting, soft and hard landscaping and other attributes of a proposal are appropriate and respect the characteristics of the site and surroundings. 16. The proposal would also comply with the North Somerset Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document which, amongst other things, requires development to be successfully reconciled with the interests of the biodiversity as well as the amenity of trees on the site and its surroundings. Other Matters 17. The Council have highlighted that a double storey side extension, including garages, was constructed at the appeal site and that the garages have since been converted to living accommodation. Nevertheless, this does not preclude the appellant’s need or desire to seek a parking solution that prevents damage to the cars from Lime tree sap. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal would not be harmful and consequently there is no basis on which to withhold planning permission. Conditions 18. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, it is necessary to specify the plans in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Given the importance of the measures outlined in the submitted Method Statement and TPP to the long term health of the trees, a condition should be imposed to Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3209451 4 ensure strict adherence to it for the duration of construction works. As such, I do not consider it necessary to seek the submission of a new, detailed Arboricultural Method Statement Report with Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan as suggested by the Council. 19. Given the absence of details in connection with the sustainable drainage system and its importance to the future health of the tree, it is necessary to impose a condition to seek agreement of these details. The Council’s suggested condition relating to landscaping ensures that there is adequate means of securing replacement tree planting in the event of tree failure within ten years of implementation of the landscaping scheme. This condition has also been adopted in the interests of the character and biodiversity value of the area. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Hollie Nicholls INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL01E, PL02D and PL03. 3) Notwithstanding details that may be approved pursuant to other conditions, the construction works shall adhere precisely to the methodology specified in the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, Revision A dated June 2018 (reference 180612-44SR-TPP-Rev B-LI&AM). 4) The carport shall not be used until a sustainable drainage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the means of ensuring an even distribution of surface water to areas affected by the proposed development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such. 5) The carport shall not be used until a soft landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing details of all trees, hedgerows and other planting to be retained; finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; and a programme of implementation. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, specifications and programme of implementation. Trees, hedges and plants shown in the landscaping scheme to be retained or planted which, during the development works or a period of ten years following full implementation of the landscaping scheme, are removed without prior written consent from the Local Planning Authority or die, become seriously diseased or are damaged, shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of such species and size as the Authority may specify.