Appeal 6000290

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (2025) (LP). The main parties were aware of the emerging policies at the time of the Council's decision, and they have not materially changed to the adopted versions. The LP has replaced the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018), and I have considered the appeal having regards to the most up to date development plan.

The main issue if the effect of the proposed development on trees and highway-safety.

The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling located on a residential street. It is set back from the highway beyond a shallow drive, which is bound on one side by hedging and to the other by shrubbery and trees. The verdant nature of the appeal site compliments the surrounding street scene, as low level shrubbery and hedging is a typical example of boundary treatment and there are a number of trees of varying size and maturity both in gardens and lining the highway.

[address] is a classified road with a 20mph speed limit; this has been reduced from 30mph between the Council’s decision and my site. There are traffic calming measures in place along the road including speed bumps and chicanes, both of which can be found in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. [address] is also within a [name] (CPZ), with a CPZ space located outside the property boundary.

The forecourt of the appeal dwelling is not large enough to support a turning area of 8.0mx10.0m as required by the guidance within the Richmond Borough Council Transport Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) meaning that there is insufficient space for a vehicle to both enter and exit the parking area in a forward gear. The proposed development would require the vehicle to either enter or exit the appeal site in a reverse gear, thereby increasing the risk of creating a road safety hazard.

This risk would be exacerbated by the presence of an on-street parking space outside the appeal site and abutting the edge of the proposed dropped kerb. There are further on-street parking spaces lining both sides of [address] and at the time of my site visit I observed that many of them were in use. Whilst the road is straight and free of significant bends, the parking space immediately adjacent to the proposed dropped kerb already affects the visibility of pedestrians using the footway and crossing the road, together with vehicles using [address]. Because a vehicle entering No 39 using the proposed dropped kerb would need to reverse in or out, those movements would take place with limited visibility and add to the existing situation.

Furthermore, visibility splays have not been provided as part of this proposal and therefore I cannot determine whether the proposal satisfies this requirement within the SPD for visibility splays of 2.1mx2.4m for off-street parking. These dimensions are required to ensure that residents can control the height of any vegetation and ensure that pedestrians, especially small children, can been approaching on the footway. [name] note that there is a school nearby, and with a lack of evidence to the contrary, I consider that this would exacerbate the harmful effect I have already found.

There are a number of dropped kerbs already on [address]. However, I do not have the benefit of any details to understand the material circumstances under which these examples were installed, and thus I do not know whether or not these existing examples benefit from the visibility splays of 2.1mx2.4m as required by the SPD.

The appellant has stated that there is no record of safety incidents arising from the existing dropped kerbs. However, the absence of safety incidents to date does not automatically remove the risk to highway safety. This does not therefore override the harm I have found above.

The Council have raised concerns regarding the choice of material for the proposal; it is proposed to use concrete rather than pavement slabs which would complement the existing footpath. I am satisfied that if the proposal were to be found otherwise acceptable, that this could be conditioned satisfactorily and thus be found to have an acceptable effect on the appearance of the street scene.

Overall, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety contrary to Policy 48 of the LP which require all development to maintain the quality and safety of Richmond’s footways for pedestrians and vulnerable road users. It would further lack compliance with the SPD regarding entering and exiting the highway.

The proposed development would introduce a low boundary wall to the right-hand side of the existing driveway abutting the highway. Policy 42 of the LP requires the protection of all existing trees, and not just those which have Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s). Furthermore, the policy resists the removal of any tree that is not dead, dying, dangerous or that it is causing significant damage to adjacent structures; whilst I do not have the benefit of an arboricultural assessment, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this is the case. The extant tree currently contributes positively to the pleasant verdant character of the area and therefore its retention would be a desirable outcome.

The proposed works would take place within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the extant tree and therefore they would have the potential to harm the trees long-term health and longevity. However, a suitable worded condition requiring the work to be undertaken by hand digging within the RPA and bridging over roots if they are encountered could satisfactorily alleviate this concern and mitigate any harmful effect on the street scene.

Therefore, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on trees and would thus comply with Policy 28 and 42 of the LP, which requires all development to minimise impacts on existing trees and other significant vegetation, and to integrate new existing natural features.

The appellant has suggested that the proposed development would facilitate the installation of an electric vehicle charging point. However, this proposed installation does not form a part of the scheme before me.

[name] have found that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the tree within the appeal site, this does not outweigh the harm that I have found to highway safety. As such, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.