Appeal 6000265

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for development comprising of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 4 one-bedroom flats wholly contained within the existing attic space at [site address] in accordance with the terms of application, Ref PA25/0725, dated 11 March 2025.

I have largely taken the description of development in the banner heading above, from the planning application form but have left out superfluous detail so that it succinctly describes the proposal before me. The planning application form is clear that the appeal relates to a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 4, one-bedroom flats. I have considered the appeal on this basis and amended the description of development in the formal decision to reflect this.

The Richmond Local Plan Publication (Regulation 19) [name] dated June 2023 has reached an advanced stage of preparation with the main hearings having taken place and the examining Inspector’s report awaited. However, I have not been advised whether there are any unresolved objections or outstanding requirements for modifications, particularly in respect of Policy 28 which is referenced in the Council’s appeal statement. Therefore, I have assessed the proposal against the adopted policies of the development plan before me, these being included in the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, adopted July 2018 (LP).

The appeal is against the failure of the Council to give notice of a decision within the prescribed period. The Council’s appeal statement confirms that had they determined the application, permission in principle would have been refused with the putative concern relating to whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to location, proposed land use and the amount of development.

The Council have indicated they have no objection to the proposal in respect of location and proposed land use, being an existing building in residential use, in a predominantly residential area. From all that I have seen and read, I see no reason to disagree. I therefore turn to whether the site is suitable for residential development having regard to the amount of development.

The existing building consists of two floors of residential accommodation, with each floor comprising of 4 two-bedroom flats. The main roof of the building is hipped, with a lower half hip section to each end.

The appeal proposal relates to the provision of additional accommodation within the existing roof space. Due to the sloping nature of the roof, the floor to ceiling height would reduce at its periphery and there would undoubtedly be some unusable floorspace, particularly at the edges, for this reason.

However, the proposal relates to the provision of 4 one-bedroom flats. This would require less overall floorspace than on either of the two floors below because the flats would be smaller. [name] do not have plans before me which demonstrate that 4 one-bedroom flats could be accommodated within the roof space and provide a suitable standard of living accommodation, I am only required to consider the ‘in principle’ aspects of further residential development at the appeal site. In this respect, there is no substantive evidence before me that the sloping nature of the roof and loss of some floorspace at the periphery means that the roof cannot accommodate 4 one-bedroom flats and that conflict with Policy LP8 of the LP would arise, which seeks to provide reasonable living conditions for new occupiers.

The proposal includes reconstructing the roof to match the existing. Accordingly, there would be no increase in the height of the roof and no alteration to the external form of the roof. In this respect, no conflict would arise with Policy LP1 of the LP which requires that development is compatible with local character.

In conclusion, I find the site would be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

I do not need to be satisfied about all aspects of the amount of development being permitted as development cannot proceed until technical details consent has been given and there is no requirement for this to be given automatically.

Therefore issues raised by interested parties, including but not limited to, parking provision, the disruption to existing residents during development and from the occupation of any additional units, fire safety measures, flood risk, external alterations to the building, the availability of external amenity space, the structural capability, maintenance and extent of services within the existing building and the effect of any physical alterations on the size of any existing flat, are not relevant to the proposal before me.

Previous planning applications at the appeal site which were refused and dismissed at appeal are not relevant to my consideration of this proposal for a permission in principle, for the reasons set out above.

The PPG indicates that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle.

The default duration of the permission in principle is 3 years and applications for technical details consent must be determined within the duration of the permission granted.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.