Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of a detached garage (Retrospective)

The Specialist, Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and informed members that this was a retrospective application, and a second application submitted, following a previous application that had been refused. 

She also updated members that:

·         This application included an arboricultural report.

·         The applicant wished it known that the planning history shown within the report was regarding applications submitted by the previous applicant.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation the Specialist, Development Management then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans.  She explained the key consideration regarding this application was solely the impact on the nearby Tree Protection Order (TPO) trees.  

She explained that the Council’s Tree Officer had visited the site, inspected the impact on the protected trees, and had raised concern regarding the current damage caused by the works already undertaken and any future works without causing further detriment to the adjoining trees.

She concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, her proposal was to refuse the application as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions, the Council’s Tree Officer summarised the damage he considered to have been caused by this proposal, as detailed in his report. He also confirmed that:

·         Retaining the garage and any future works, such as trunking of utility services to serve the garage, would continue to impact on the future of the root protection zone.

·         He had advised the applicant to take the pre-application advisory service to seek further arboricultural advice prior to making a planning application.

·         The protected trees already have the highest protection afforded against them and it is a criminal offence to cause unauthorised damage above and below ground.

·         Explained the work that can be done, should the garage be removed, to reinstate the soil profile to its former state and hopefully enable the trees to establish new roots.

The Specialist, Development Management also confirmed to members that:

·         The current applicant had erected the garage and had submitted the previous application that was refused.

·         Any enforcement action would require an enforcement notice to be served on the applicant and advice would be sought from the Tree officer on what works would be required to restore the land to help improve the health of the affected trees.

The applicant’s arborist then addressed the committee. He referred to his report that had been submitted with the application, however wished to add further comments including:

·         Tree roots can sometimes be damaged during development, but decline is usually present when the ground is of clay soil and not of sandy soil, as in this instance, he proceeded to explain the reasoning behind this.

·         Any effects are usually obvious within a few weeks and that photographic evidence does not show any obvious damage to the long term health of the protected trees.

·         If the garage were to be demolished, further disruption to the tree roots would occur.

He considered the proposal had caused no significant damage to the trees and could see no reason to remove the garage for this purpose.

Ward member, Councillor Nicola Clark raised concern regarding the application.  She felt it was contrary to the Council’s Environmental Plan, that a precedent could be set for future retrospective applications in the area and consequences to other TPO’s within the district.  She believed it was contrary to the East Coker neighbourhood plan and polices within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Ward member, Councillor Gina Seaton believed the removal of the structure would cause further damage to the tree roots and that further consideration should be given to allow the garage to remain.

During member’s discussion, several comments were made including:

·         Believe an offence has been committed and the application has violated planning policy.

·         Noted the applicant had ignored the advice to take up pre-application guidance before submitting a planning application prior to any works being undertaken.

·         Concern that should this retrospective application be approved it would set a precedent for any future applications and the protection of TPO’s.

It was then proposed and seconded that the application be refused, as per the officer’s recommendation, as set out in the agenda report with a recommendation that enforcement action be pursued to seek removal of the garage. On being put to the vote this was carried by 12 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: 

That application 20/00434/HOU be refused for the following reasons:

01.       The outbuilding has been constructed and installed within the overlapping radial Root Protection Areas of a number of protected trees. This can lead to both direct and indirect damage to the root systems of the protected trees. The development is therefore harmful to existing landscape features (protected trees) and is therefore contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

(voting: 12 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)