Extension and alteration to house to form en-suite at first floor and conversion of garage to porch and study with new detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2019 by Matthew Woodward BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N2739/D/18/3219697 1 High Trees Court, Sherburn In Elmet, Leeds, LS25 6AE • 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 Hazel Stockdale against the decision of Selby District Council. • The application Ref 2018/1106/HPA, dated 20 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2018. • The development proposed is extension and alteration to house to form en-suite at first floor and conversion of garage to porch and study with new detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling situated off High Trees Court which is a cul-de-sac accessed off Low Street. Several trees within the appeal site, which lie close to the boundary with Low Street, are subject to a group TPO and are prominent features of the street. There are signs of tree work over time but, in general, the majority are healthy specimens. The trees contribute to the sylvan character and appearance of the area both individually and as a group and can reasonably be expected to do so for many years. 4. Whilst there are discrepancies between the submitted plans and the Council’s evidence concerning the precise location of the trees, I am satisfied, based on my site visit and the evidence before me, that it appears that the proposed garage and driveway would encroach under the canopy spread and into the Root Protection Areas (RPA’s) of two protected trees. The root systems could be affected by excavations and foundation work, due to the location of the proposed building, and the movement of vehicles over the proposed driveway and the risk to roots from compaction. There is no detail of any mitigation measures to protect the tree roots. As a result, the development would affect the long-term health prospects and survival of the trees. A reduction in aesthetic quality or loss of one, or both, of the trees and their substitution with Appeal Decision APP/N2739/D/18/3219697 2 built form would disrupt the linear layout of the trees when viewed from Low Street. 5. The potential for planting to compensate for any lost or damaged trees has been advanced. However, the existing trees are mature with substantial height and form which would not be replicated by new, immature planting. Therefore, replacement planting would not satisfactorily compensate for the loss of either tree in this case. 6. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area as it would fail to have regard to the effect on the long-term health of trees which make a significant contribution to it. It would therefore conflict with Policy ENV1 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005) which requires, amongst other matters, that proposals have regard to the effect of development on the character of an area and on landscaping. This policy is broadly consistent with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that development conserves the natural environment. Other Matters 7. The appellant indicates that the existing trees, due to the extent of their roots, are likely to cause damage to the house, wall and highway if left in situ. However, I have no substantiated evidence before me to indicate that the existing trees would cause structural damage to justify their removal. 8. The appellant indicates that the Council did not give an opportunity to discuss their concerns or allow amendments through the planning application process. However, this is a matter between the parties and has no bearing on the planning merits of this case. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. Matthew Woodward INSPECTOR