Construction of garage and associated work to drive

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 May 2019 by S Edwards MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/18/3215268 Churston, Harcombe Road, Axminster EX13 5TB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs J Shuker against the decision of East Devon District Council. • The application Ref 17/2953/FUL, dated 9 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 August 2018. • The development proposed is construction of garage and associated work to drive. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The development has already been carried out, and I am therefore considering this appeal retrospectively. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon (1) the character and appearance of Harcombe Road and (2) upon the long term longevity and wellbeing of trees, including a protected tree. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site lies within an established residential area characterised by detached properties which, in most cases, are significantly set back from the road frontage, within large plots. This, together with the mature trees and abundant landscaping, as well as the proximity to the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to the southern side of Harcombe Road, provide the area with a pleasant sylvan and spacious setting. 5. The double garage subject to this appeal is a single storey structure made of green painted corrugated metal, with a shallow pitched roof. The building sits along the front boundary of the site and is therefore visible within the street scene. By reason of its scale and utilitarian appearance, the garage unduly stands out as an alien and prominent feature, which adversely affects the character and appearance of this verdant, residential street scene. The harm would be exacerbated further by the erection of a 2-metre high screen fence with trellis over, which would appear visually incongruous. Appeal Decision APP/U1105/D/18/3215268 2 6. There are other examples of garages within proximity to the frontage along Harcombe Road, but they generally remain of a modest scale and as such are perceived as ancillary structures to the host dwellings. Additionally, the appearance of these outbuildings reflects the semi-rural, residential nature of the surroundings. 7. My attention has been drawn to other detached garages which have been constructed some distance away from the appeal site. In the absence of details confirming that these structures benefit from planning permission, I cannot however be certain of the circumstances of these cases or the policies that would have applied at the time of their consideration. In any case, I am required to determine the appeal scheme before me, on its individual merits. 8. The appellant would be willing to accept a condition requiring the garage to be painted. It is also suggested that elements could be clad in timber to soften the appearance of the building. However, no details have been provided to illustrate what this would look like. In any event, the suggested conditions would not overcome the harm I have identified, particularly in respect of the scale and design of the development. 9. Whilst it does not adversely affect the adjacent AONB, the garage causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of Harcombe Road and therefore conflicts with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (2016) (EDLP). This policy notably requires development proposals to relate well to their context, having regard to scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials. The development does not adversely affect key distinctive views and in that regard, I find no conflict with Guideline 2 of the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan (2017). Trees 10. The double garage lies within proximity to an Ash tree (T1) situated to the front of the appeal site, which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order1 (TPO). A Cherry tree (T2) and a Beech tree (T3) are located within the front garden of the neighbouring property known as Bird Haven. Based on the evidence before me, T2 and T3 do not appear to be protected by a TPO. 11. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) submitted by the appellant indicates that the garage has not been constructed within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of T1. The suggested RPA does not take account of the fact that the tree lies within proximity to the carriageway. As a result, it is highly likely that the rooting system of the tree extends further North into the appeal site. Whilst RPAs may be theoretical, a precautionary approach should normally be adopted in such circumstances, in accordance with the advice contained within BS5837:2012. However, this does not appear to have been reflected within the appellants’ AIA. 12. The comments provided by the Council’s Arboricultural Officer indicate that a significant part of the rooting system of T1 has been removed to enable the widening of the gateway to the appellants’ property. As part of my site visit, I observed that part of the rooting system of T1 appeared to have been exposed as a result of the excavation of the bank required for the associated works to the drive. This would suggest that harm has been caused to this protected tree. 1 Tree Preservation Order No. 18/0065/TPO. Appeal Decision APP/U1105/D/18/3215268 3 13. As noted above, T2 and T3 are located within the neighbouring site. The AIA shows that the garage has been constructed within the RPA of these trees. There is disagreement between the parties regarding the extent of the RPA affected by the development. Regardless of this, the AIA shows that the garage has been built on a concrete slab, on top of a pre-existing hardstanding area. This constitutes a mitigating factor, ensuring that the development would have caused limited harm to the roots of these trees, despite possible minor soil compaction. On the basis of the information before me, I am satisfied that the development has been carried out without adversely affecting these neighbouring trees. 14. That said, I share the Council’s concerns regarding the pressure for pruning these trees, especially as the canopy of T3 extends significantly over the garage. Repeated pruning could affect the health of that tree in the long term, as mature beech trees are known to be particularly susceptible to recurrent tree works. 15. The loss of trees would erode and cause harm to the sylvan character of this area. In the absence of sufficient information to the contrary, I am unable to conclude that the development has been undertaken without causing irreversible harm to the long term longevity and wellbeing of the protected Ash tree in particular. The development therefore fails to accord with Policy D3 of the EDLP, which notably seeks to ensure that there is no net loss in the quality of trees or hedgerows resulting from an approved development. Conclusion 16. For the reasons detailed above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S Edwards INSPECTOR