Two storey front, single storey rear and first floor side extension; conversion of garage to habitable room; extension to existing front dormer and fenestration alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2026 by Nicola Davies BA DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:31 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003474 Dunsmore, 10 Hadlow Park, Hadlow, KENT TN11 0HX • 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 D Harle against the decision of Tonbridge & Malling. • The application Ref is TM/25/01709/PA. • The development proposed is two storey front, single storey rear and first floor side extension; conversion of garage to habitable room; extension to existing front dormer and fenestration alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as this clearly and succinctly describes the act of development. 3. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (Amended Jan 2026) has been submitted in support of the appeal. This amended assessment has been produced to inform the appeal process, however there is no clear evidence that it has been subject of consultations, such as through the Council’s planning application formal consultation process. If I determine the appeal on the basis of the amended Arboriculatural Assessment it is possible that the interests of parties who might wish to comment would be prejudiced, including that of the Council’s arboricultural adviser. For this reasons, I have not had regard to the amended Arboriculatural Report. Main Issues 4. The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on an oak tree and a group of trees that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and the effect upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The proposed development would bring built development into close proximity to an existing oak tree. This mature tree is an attractive feature of the site, is visible from the surrounding area and is of high visual amenity value for this reason. The TPO that is in place affords this tree protection. This makes it all the more important to protect the oak tree from harm to ensure its longevity is not undermined. The Appeal Decision 6003474 2 premature loss of this tree would have a negative and significant visual impact on the locality. 6. Concern has been raised to the Council having failed to correctly show the location of the oak tree and may have considered the tree to be closer to the proposed development than it actually would be. Notwithstanding these concerns, I saw that the tree would be in close proximity to the proposed first floor extension. The tree has been pruned. It has been advised that to manage the oak there should be a cycle of pruning every 5-7 years to ensure its on-going and future care to protect the health of the tree. Nonetheless, there would be limited space between the tree and the first floor extension to allow for crown spread during this cycle. 7. Given the size of the tree and the proximity of the proposed development that would include outlook from a master bedroom directly toward the oak tree, this would have a negative impact upon the outlook from this room. I accept that the TPO could control works to the tree and its removal. Nonetheless, the proximity of the tree in outlook would make it hard to resist future works to the tree or its removal. As a result, there would be increased pressure from occupiers to reduce the canopy of the oak tree or totally remove the tree to improve outlook for enhanced enjoyment of their home. Either the reduction in size of the oak tree or its removal would diminish the valuable visual contribution this tree makes to the character and appearance of the area. 8. Additional weight resulting from of the proposed first floor extension has the potential to lead to ground compaction. In addition, the ground floor door relating to the kitchen/dining/family room would open directly towards the oak tree. There is currently a hardsurfaced patio in situ, however it is not clear whether this would be retained and/or would sufficiently prevent soil compaction. Therefore, this could contribute to ground compaction. As such, there is a risk of direct harm to tree roots. Further to this, the construction phase may require scaffolding to be erected close to the oak tree that could have its own potential impacts on the well-being of the oak tree. 9. The Arboricultural Assessment submitted in support of the planning application referenced two trees from the group TPO. The Council comment that the tree protection plan does not provide sufficient reassurance that they will not be harmed and that the protective fencing would be unnecessarily close to the protected trees. Within the group TPO two replacement trees have been planted following the approved felling of two TPO oak trees within the group. However, it is highlighted that the Assessment does not include or comment on these trees. 10. I cannot be certain that the oak tree and/or the trees within the group TPO would not be harmed as a result of the proposed development and/or that their long-term protection would be sufficiently secured. The proposed development, therefore, has a significant potential to negatively impact upon the trees and have a detrimental impact on their wellbeing in the long-term, as well as lead to pressure to excessively prune or remove the oak tree in the future. This would be an erosion of the statutory protection placed upon the trees by the serving of the TPO. As a consequence, the proposal should be resisted. 11. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be extremely likely to cause harm to the oak tree and the group of trees that are protected by a TPO. The loss of any of these protected trees would be harmful to the character Appeal Decision 6003474 3 and appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy NE4 of the Managing Development and the Environment Development Plan Document, Policy CP1 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Core Strategy and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, to protect and enhance the natural environment. Conclusion 12. Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed. Nicola Davies INSPECTOR