Corsican Pines

Roots

Both trees lie very close to the footway in Cross Road. The appellant submitted a plan showing a total RPA within the site for both trees of 206m². This means that more than half of the combined RPA would be under the road. The appellant conceded that no allowance had been made for differing root conditions and that the road had not been taken into account in setting the RPA. The appellant points out that many street trees survive despite being surrounded by tarmac and that Corsican pines have deep roots. This is true and it is likely that some roots will lie under the road. However, it was accepted that most roots will be found in the top 1m of soil. It seems to me that the vast majority will extend under the well drained soil of the existing front gardens rather than the compacted soil under the footway and the road. If this were not the case then there would be no need for BS5837 to advise that such matters need to be taken into account in plotting RPAs.

Having heard the evidence of the Council’s Tree Officer and considered the advice in BS5837, I consider it is unrealistic to expect that such a high proportion of the roots would be under the road.

Extents

It is the Council’s view that the RPAs should extend between the proposed building and the road. For the western most tree, the Council’s RPA extends from the mid point between the two towards the western corner of the site. It would be free from building work but the boundary of the RPA would abut the wall of the proposed building. The same would be true of the RPA for the other tree but it would be encroached by a vehicle turning area. Even if this turning area were moved, the access would still encroach into the RPA. There was some dispute as to the extent but using the appellant’s estimate the access would cover between 20m² to 30m² of the RPA. That equates to around 10% of the RPA for that tree. BS5837 does not preclude works in RPAs. However, it does advise that the RPA is the minimum area which should be left undisturbed around each retained tree. Even if the turning area were to be moved, I am not persuaded that the works to construct the access would not have a harmful effect on the well being of that tree.

13. The appellant argues that were the RPA to be plotted as a circle it would have a radius of 8.4m and points out that it would not reach the proposed access.

However, I say above why I do not consider such an approach to be appropriate and I consider the Council’s RPA to be more realistic.

Appeal Decision APP/L3625/A/07/20445484

Possible Damage

The appellant submits a construction method statement for works close to the trees on the site. Assuming that the Council’s RPA is more likely to reflect the position of the roots, the front wall of the proposed building would immediately abut the fencing erected to protect the Corsican pines. I share the Council’s scepticism regarding the ability to excavate and lay foundations and construct a 2½ storey building in such restricted circumstances without encroaching into the RPA and damaging the trees. The construction method statement says that external drainage runs would be laid in areas immediately outside the RPA.

Again, given the position of the RPA in relation to the proposed building, I am not satisfied that this could be done without harm to the long term health of these trees.

Other Trees

Two oak trees and one pine to the rear of Nos. 3 and 5 Cross Road are subject to a tree preservation order. These trees would be lost as a result of the proposed development. The Council accept (and I agree) that the loss of these trees would be mitigated by the planting of suitable replacements. The Council is also satisfied that, although restricted, there would be space to implement a satisfactory landscaping scheme. There is no technical evidence before me to contradict this. However, I share residents’ views that a more generous allocation would provide greater comfort regarding the ability of any new planting to thrive.

The Council conceded at the Inquiry that the appellant’s amended proposals would ensure that the group of trees within the garden of No. 9 Cross Road would not be harmed by the construction of the proposed building. There is no technical evidence to lead me to a different view. The hawthorn within the garden of No.1 at the corner of Cross Road and Corner Farm Close is in a poor state and probably ought to be felled whatever my decision in this case. It is proposed to be removed and no doubt could be replaced by a semi mature tree.

Shadow

In order to demonstrate the impact of the proposed building on the occupiers of No.1 Ashurst Road, the appellant submitted a series of shadow diagrams. Using these as a rough guide, one can see that the group of trees on the boundary with No. 1 Ashurst Road are likely to cast a shadow over the proposed building in the early morning. The impact of these trees on light reaching windows is, therefore, limited. The Corsican pines would probably cast a shadow across the front of the building until mid afternoon. These trees would be no closer to the proposed building than the existing houses but the flats would be single aspect and occupants would rely on these windows for light and views of the outside world. This may well lead to pressure to carry out works and residents may have other reasons to be concerned regarding the proximity of trees to their apartments. However, these trees would be protected and the Council could refuse to permit works to them.

Retention

I consider that the design of the proposed building respects its surroundings. However, my findings in this regard are outweighed by the effect of the proposal on the Corsican pines. The loss of these trees would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and I conclude that the proposal conflicts with development plan policies SE4, SE9, Ho 9(i) Ho 13, Ho 20 and Pc 4 insofar as these policies relate to the retention of trees.