| 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. Although an Aboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted it has provided a tree survey and constraints plan, and considered protection during construction, but it does not consider the impacts that the trees could cause on the proposed development through introducing constraints on the living conditions and form of the development proposed.
The close proximity of the proposed extension to the trees will likely impact on the tree roots [Root Protection Area - RPA] which can be mitigated to a degree, but it will also bring habitable rooms much closer to the treed boundary and be subject to even more shading than the existing dwellings living accommodation already experiences, which will create issues with the treed boundary. The mature Oak tree which is subject to a TPO and appears set slightly further away from the boundary, could also create impacts on the future occupants.
Not only is the proposed development likely to have a detrimental effect upon the school's trees along the boundary, even with mitigation, 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.
The trees may be retained and to an extent protected through the development process based on the submitted AIA recommendations, but the trees will still have a large impact upon both the current and any future residents throughout the year - limiting access to light, shading and falling debris etc. This could also lead to many enquiries to the school for the trees to be worked upon/cut back, as evidenced by the incursion of the footprint of the two-storey development into the current crown spread of the tree belt as seen on Appendix 3 (Tree Constraints Plan) and Appendix 4 (Tree Protection Plan) of the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment, and the suggestion that the trees whilst unprotected could be cut back extensively to accommodate the extension.
As such the proposal is considered contrary to Local Plan Policies CS9 a), b) and g); H9 a) of the Core Strategy, and E4 of the Local Plan Part 2. 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. |
