Erection of a double garage

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2026 by J Somers BSocSci (Planning) MA (HEC) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:30 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003116 10A The Broadway, Oadby, Leicestershire LE2 2HD • 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 Rajinder Dhinsa against the decision of the Borough of Oadby and Wigston. • The application reference is 25/00302/FUL. • The development proposed is described on the Application form as the ‘Erection of a double garage.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The site contains trees along The Fairway boundary that are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The Application Form does not mention the removal of a sycamore tree1 (hereon called T1) which has a TPO. However, the removal of this tree is included within the application with details of the removal of the tree in the application form, with associated arboricultural surveys and reports detailing the removal of the tree. As the removal of the tree would require further consideration, the Council has also made this determination within the application with one of the Reasons for Refusal on the Decision Notice relating to the removal of the tree as well as whether there is sufficient evidence around the effect of the development upon the other TPO trees. As such, I will also consider this matter as being part of the planning application. Main Issues 3. Taking the above into account, the main issues are: • The effect of the proposed outbuilding upon the existing trees along The Fairway that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), including the removal of T1. • The effect of the proposed garage upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding locality; and Reasons Site Description 4. The appeal site is located along The Fairway, with a long side garden and driveway which is accessed from a dropped kerb along The Broadway. Dwellings within this 1 The Tree is identified as ‘T1’ on Plan Titled ‘Tree Constraints Plan’ Dwg No. TCP-25-06-001, Dated 05/06/2025 Appeal Decision: 6003116 2 area consist of generally large plots and detached dwellings. The way that the dwellings have been designed and placed along surrounding streets with front and side gardens with dwellings set back from the road places an emphasis on spaciousness and the gaps in and around dwellings which emphasise status. Many of the front and rear gardens are well vegetated with mature trees, with grass verges, and common features throughout the surrounding roads including hedges and low boundary walls to the front of plots which allows vegetation to dominate and gives a very leafy and green townscape. There is an emphasis on spaciousness with undeveloped gaps in and around dwellings which also contribute to the experience and local distinctiveness of the locality. There are a handful of dwellings that have completely paved their front garden or have tall solid boundary treatments, however these elements are not a dominant characteristic, but which do detract from the positive qualities that make up the character and appearance of the locality. 5. The appeal site is a more recent infill construction that contains elements which reflects some of the positive qualities that contribute to the character and appearance of the locality, such as having a large front garden area, with hedgerows and large mature trees located along the front boundary of The Fairway. Whilst the narrow side garden/driveway behind the trees is surfaced in gravel, the dwelling is set back into the plot which emphasises the important undeveloped spaces in and around the dwelling. Effect upon trees, including removal of T1 6. In assessing the effect upon trees, the Borough of Oadby and Wigston Local Plan (LP) Policy 6 is a design-led policy which has a number of design criteria to adhere in relation of development and trees, such as providing opportunities to promote biodiversity; respecting existing local and historic character, considerations around layout, orientation, landscape, streetscape, and ensuring development is sympathetic to the surroundings, amongst others. LP Policy 44 is associated with landscape and character and seeks all development proposals reflect the prevailing quality, character and features such as settlement patterns, important views, open spaces and significant natural habitats. 7. Along The Fairway to the front/side boundary of the appeal site are three trees and associated hedging which according to the Council, are subject of a TPO. Whilst I have not been presented with the TPO schedule, both parties appear to agree that the TPO’s consist of an Oak tree, a Willow tree and a Sycamore Tree. The three trees are substantial in size and located on/adjacent to the property boundary within the appeal site and are attractive specimens that make a significant and positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area (as recognised by their inclusion in the TPO). On my site visit I saw that the trees had recently been subject to pruning where there were signs of limbs having recently been removed and alterations to the crown. 8. The proposed garage would be located close to and under the canopy of the Sycamore Tree and the Willow Tree. The submitted appeal documents do not show the extent of the excavations required for the foundations of the garage or whether there is a need for any trenches associated with utilities. However the construction of the garage is likely to pass close to/through the root structure of the trees that are subject to the TPO. Appeal Decision: 6003116 3 9. The appeal documents contains an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIS) and an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) that is made in accordance with BS:5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction which is a material consideration to this scheme. The Sycamore Tree is graded as ‘U’ whereby BS: 5837:20212 notes that this means that “the tree is in such a condition that it cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years.” The standard also notes that “Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve.” The Sycamore tree has been recommended to be replaced with 3 Silver Birch Trees located along The Fairway, not in front of the existing dwelling, like the current position of the Sycamore Tree. The AIS or AMS do not go into detail about the assessment, other than to say that in their opinion that 80% of the canopy is dead, and does not specify options available, or why three Silver Birch trees have been regarded as a suitable replacement. 10. The Council’s Tree Officer raises concerns over the assessment as the development of a dwelling in 2019 the tree was rated as having a life expectancy over 20 years, and that the development of the dwelling appears to have damaged the root zone of this tree. On my site visit, whilst the canopy was reduced, the tree did not have the appearance of being dead and was still fulfilling a contribution to the character and biodiversity of the area. As such, based on the evidence before me I am not persuaded that the principle of the removal of the tree has been adequately established. 11. Additionally, when a TPO tree is sought to be removed, there is an assessment on the replacement tree/s, which in this case is 3 trees placed further along The Fairway. There are no details in the appeal documents as to why the positioning and type of tree is the best replacement. Whilst both Sycamore and Silver Birch trees are quick growing, the Sycamore is typically considerably taller with a larger canopy than a Birch, with also the Sycamore having a longer lifespan, meaning that whilst some leafy character would be maintained, this would not be a like-for-like effect upon the character and appearance of the street scene, particularly in front of the appeal dwelling which would be much more exposed as a result of the removal of the sycamore tree with nothing to replace in its place. 12. In relation to the proposed development and its effect on the root protection zone of the Sycamore and Willow trees, the details of the construction in relation to the tree and hedgerow is not detailed sufficiently. However it would appear that suitable tree protection measures may be able to overcome the Council concerns, particularly as the development is likely going to interfere with the root protection zone of this tree as well as the Sycamore tree (the latter of which is not detailed on the Tree Protection Plan). 13. Based on the evidence before me, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the principle of the removal of the Sycamore tree has been demonstrated or that the proposed development would not cause adverse detriment to the neighbouring trees which are subject to a TPO. Consequently, the proposed scheme would be contrary to LP Policies 6 and 44 as described previously. Appeal Decision: 6003116 4 Character and appearance of the site and surrounding locality 14. The proposed garage would be very large in size at 10 metres x 6.2 metres x 3.8 metres tall and would be placed very close to the boundary with the Fairway and would take up much of the space next to the existing dwelling. Whilst there is a small gap between the dwelling and the garage; the proposed garage would elongate the built form and massing from the house to the dwelling, rather than be seen as a separate ancillary building. Whilst I agree with the Appellant’s Statement of Case (SoC) that the garage would be seen in the context of the mature trees and vegetation, it is not a modest building and this is why the development is problematic, given that it interferes with the undeveloped and open spaces around the dwellings which allow vegetation to dominate, rather than built form. Given the large footprint of the building, I can also appreciate there have been attempts to reduce the roof height by proposing a hipped roof form with elongated apex. However the architectural approach has not been effective in taking into account the local characteristics of the area, whereby the size, massing and positioning of the proposed garage is oversized and does not match the form and design of the existing dwelling and would be an incongruous building when experienced in the context of the existing building and the surrounding locality. 15. I note reference in the appeal documents to a number of developments of garages in the surrounding area2 which the Appellant seeks to demonstrate “a consistent approach by Oadby & Wigston Borough Council in permitting well-designed ancillary buildings near protected trees, provided that robust mitigation and enhancement measures are in place.” As previously discussed, the garage is not particularly well designed for it’s location, and hence the examples provided do not provide adequate justification or precedence for the development. 16. Consequently, and in conclusion of this matter, the proposed garage would be oversized and an incongruous proposal that would detract from the positive qualities of the locality, causing harm to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to LP Policies 6 and 44 as described previously. Other Matters 17. I note that there is a submission from an interested party that concerns non- compliance with existing planning applications and enforcement on previous breaches, as well as a loss of light from 10 The Broadway. Matters such as the character of an applicant and enforcement are not considerations to this determination, and the Council notes that further amendment applications have been approved. I note that the Council were satisfied with the impacts towards neighbouring amenity and I have no further evidence to dispute this. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. J Somers INSPECTOR 2 Nos. 11, 12 & 13 The Fairway; Nos. 17 & 65 Broadway; No. 31 Ringer’s Spinney;