| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | There is a tree belt forming the western boundary of the application site on the adjacent school's property [third party land] and which provides a uniform screened boundary on this eastern edge of the school which is of local visual amenity value and likely to be of some ecological value also.
The tree belt is in close proximity to the existing dwelling and the proposed extensions will bring habitable rooms in even closer proximity to the tree belt and the Oak tree the subject of TPO no. 4 2017. In this regard the proposal has not been supported by the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment [AIA] in accordance with BS5837. The constraints and impacts of the tree belt including the TPO on the proposed development and vice-versa have therefore not been assessed.
The close proximity of the proposed extension to the trees will likely impact on the tree roots [Root Protection Area - RPA] and will bring habitable rooms much closer to the treed boundary and be subject to even more shading than the existing dwellings living accommodation which will create issues with the treed boundary. There is also a mature Oak tree which is subject to a TPO which would also be affected by the proposed building (during the construction by the development foundations) and also likely longer-term effects.
Not only is the proposed development likely to have a detrimental effect upon the school's trees along the boundary but when complete the residents of the extended dwelling will suffer shading and lack of daylight within the extended habitable rooms and furthermore the remaining area of external private rear amenity space will be subject to a heavy amount of shading and leaf and branch drop which will detract from the enjoyment of the outdoor amenity space. This is likely to lead to greater pressure to reduce or remove trees within the tree belt in order to reduce impacts on the resident's amenity with consequential impacts on the amenity value of the tree belt and this further contributes to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposal.
As such the proposal is considered contrary to Local Plan Policies CS9 a), b) and g); H9 a); and E4. Furthermore, the proposal is considered contrary to paragraph 130 a), b) and c) of the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of function, layout and local landscape setting. |
| 2. | There is significant concern with regard to the impacts of the tree belt on third party land on the residential amenities of the occupiers of the extended dwelling and also their amenities in relation to outdoor garden space to the rear of the extended dwelling.
It is considered that given the position and the orientation of the site, the trees would cast shadow over the site for a significant part of the day. The extended accommodation would not receive sufficient daylight nor would have sufficient outlook.
It is therefore concluded that the development would not provide acceptable indoor and outdoor living conditions for future occupants and would be contrary to Local Plan Policies CS09 f); A1 b) and H9 c) which seek to protect the amenity of existing residents. Furthermore, the proposal is considered contrary to paragraph 130 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of creating places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. |
| 3. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
