Agenda item

Erection of single detached 'Tree House' dwelling.

The committee considered application P20/V3322/FUL for the erection of single detached 'Tree House' dwelling on land at Hids Copse, Cumnor Hill.

Commencement of discussion of this application was delayed as Councillor Robert Maddison had encountered technical communication problems during the presentation of this item. The councillor was unable to participate in or hear the whole debate and did not vote on this application.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer reported that the proposal was for the erection of an individually designed ‘floating’ tree house in timber and glass.  Access would be from Hids Copse, (which contained 84 trees with tree preservation orders - TPOs), and the existing access to the site would be utilised. The application had addressed the shortcomings of a previous application and the dwelling was of an innovative design, did not entail the removal of any trees, and incorporated piling techniques as an alternative to conventional foundations, to minimise damage to trees. Cumnor Parish Council supported the application.

The planning officer referred to paragraph 5.9 of the report, which stated that the proposal was supported by an Internal Daylight Adequacy and Overshadowing Assessment, which had concluded that adequate daylight would be received in the dwelling and that 53% of the garden had received at least 2 hours of sunshine on 21 March 2021.  Since the publication of the agenda, a further neighbour objection had been received, which corrected the daylight and overshadowing details. In fact, this evaluation applied to only a small area adjacent to the dwelling, which the planning officer depicted in the presentation to the committee.

The planning officer’s presentation incorporated site plans of the proposed dwelling, with floor plans and elevations. The council officers’ reasons for recommending the refusal of planning permission were listed, including the reasonable expectations of future occupiers and how the effect of TPOs could be undermined if there was a poor relationship between the dwelling and protected trees. Additionally, if the proposal proceeded, the council’s ability to resist works to TPO trees could be limited.

The officer concerns also included the anxiety of occupiers purportedly created by an anticipation of storm activity and storm debris. There was also concern in respect of unattended damage during the construction stage. The complex construction processes and materials and their storage would cause concern, and the tree cover would reduce flexibility during this phase, and dealing with unexpected consequences. Officers took the view that constructing a dwelling at Hids Copse would provide a significant risk owing to unpredictability, particularly as underground conditions were not fully known. The loss of habitat was also a concern, with increased harmful disturbance to biodiversity.

The democratic services officer had sent a statement by Cumnor Parish Council to the committee prior to the meeting.

The democratic services officer had sent a statement by Mr. John Guillebaud, a local resident, to the committee prior to the meeting.

Baroness Deech, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr Themis Avraamides, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. The democratic services officer had sent statements by Mr and Mrs Avraamides to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Phil Easton, the architect, spoke in support of the application. In response to a question, Mr. Easton explained the design of the dwelling and its innovative features, including the helical piling method, which did not require traditional trench foundations. He responded to a further question regarding the protection of tree roots and service routes; avoiding soil compaction and root damage, cell web technology mats would be employed for vehicles, load spreading and protecting roots during construction and subsequent car parking. Also, off-site prefabrication of elements of the building minimised disturbance.  In response to a question regarding utilities, services would be fully ducted, with access chambers, entailing no soil or root disturbance in the event of maintenance or repairs. The applicant would work with council officers, and a construction methods statement would be approved. Responding to a question regarding amenity space, the architect reported that this was a large site, with many spaces without trees, ensuring adequate amenity space.

In response to a question regarding the safeguarding and enhancement of biodiversity, the architect responded that his agency’s ecologist had not identified the existence of bats or protected species on the site. All species could easily pass through the site without disturbance.  The proposal would increase biodiversity, with the provision of bat boxes and additional tree planting.  Responding to a question regarding fire hazards connected with a largely wooden building, the architect replied that it would be fire protected, have adequate emergency access, and comply with building regulations.

The council’s tree protection officer advised the committee on the need for root protection during this type of development, in that all roots would need to remain to ensure the integrity of a tree. The officer also responded to a question in respect of

the powers available to the council in the event of damage during construction. Redress for the council was limited, as planning permission took precedence over TPO powers. However, there was some recourse to the magistrates’ court and crown court to apply for damages against an offender. In response to a further question, the tree officer confirmed that the helical piling technique represented high risks, because of the relative lack of information available on this technique.

Alison Jenner, a local ward councillor, spoke in support of the application.

The committee, whilst acknowledging an innovative application, remained concerned at the impact the development would have on the character of the local area and the amenity of neighbours. It also considered that protected trees could not be safeguarded and that there would be public safety risks from tree debris. The committee also considered that the site’s biodiversity could not be sufficiently mitigated by the proposals.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: that planning permission for application P20/V3322/FUL is refused for the following reasons;

1. That the proposed development would be detrimental to the visual amenities

of the locality and would lead to a progressive detraction from the character of the area due to potential damage from construction and the likely pressure on the protected trees, for removal and lopping due to overshadowing, public

    safety and debris following any residential occupation on this site. It is

    considered that this would cause substantial harm to the character and

    appearance of the area and wider landscape, contrary to policies CP37 and

    CP44 of Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 part 1 and relevant paragraphs

    of the NPPF.

2. The proposal has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the priority habitat can be protected and that any biodiversity impacts as a result of the development can be sufficiently mitigated against or offset. As such the proposal is considered contrary to policy CP46 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and paragraphs 170 and 175a of the NPPF.