Appeal 6000623

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and outbuilding and forming raised deck for extending existing use of pub garden by patrons at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/1801/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have amended the description only insofar as removing words which are not acts of development. I have received confirmation that the appeal is to proceed under the name of the applicant named on the planning application form.

I saw at my site visit that the development had already taken place.

The Council’s reason for refusal references the Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19). The Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (LP) was formally adopted on 7 October 2025 and therefore I have determined the appeal in accordance with it.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

[site address] public house (PH) is located on a busy road where there is an existing level of noise and activity in the area. The existing rear garden of the PH is surrounded on three sides by residential dwellings. I saw that the tight knit nature of the area means that nos 5, 7 and [address] to the area of the beer garden where the decking has been constructed.

Whilst the decking was not in use on the day of my visit, there are times when its use by patrons of the PH causes disturbance to existing residents. This is particularly on summer evenings when residents wish to have their windows open and the decking is well used by patrons drinking late into the evening. Indeed, the submitted [name] Assessment1 (NIA) based on 96 patrons, concludes that the completed development results in a 4 dB increase in sound levels to the residents of 1 – [address].

The modelling in the NIA indicates that a 2.5m high acoustic fence erected along the boundary with those properties would mitigate the effects of noise on neighbouring occupiers to pre-development levels. This could be secured by a condition. However, the submitted plans indicate seating for 105 patrons and therefore the effect on the adjoining occupiers is potentially greater than set out in the NIA.

The use of the beer garden is long-established. There are no planning restrictions in place regarding its use. This means that there are no controls presently over the number of patrons using the beer garden or how their behaviour and noise are managed. I am also mindful that once the garage and outbuilding on the site had been demolished, the area of the beer garden the subject of this appeal could still have been used by patrons whether or not the decking had been constructed.

The NIA recommends the implementation of a noise management plan (NMP) to control noise from patrons using the beer garden. The NMP would include a number of measures including the implementation of a complaints procedure. This would require the operators of the PH to log complaints received by neighbouring occupiers and to implement mitigation proposals to address those concerns. Final details of the NMP could be secured by a planning condition and would introduce safeguards which are not currently in place, to protect the living conditions of residents.

Taking all this together, I am satisfied the measures proposed would be sufficient to mitigate the noise arising from the development. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with Policy D14 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 (TLP) and Policy 46 of the LP which seek to prevent harm to the reasonable enjoyment of neighbouring dwellings and gardens from the adverse effects of noise.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). The Council concluded that the already demolished garage and outbuilding were later ancillary structures with no particular interest or value and only limited visibility from the street. They also concluded that their replacement with low profile decking and a condition securing landscaping would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. From my site visit I find no reason to disagree.

The removal of existing trees and planting has opened up the boundaries between the PH and neighbouring properties. However, the Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed that none of the trees removed would have warranted a Tree Preservation Order and replacements could be secured by a suitable condition. 1 [name] dated 23 February 2024

The erection of an acoustic fence to a height of 2.5m and additional planting would prevent overlooking from the decking to neighbouring properties. Whilst it would be higher than could be erected as permitted development and may result in some overshadowing of the rear gardens to the properties on [address], I saw that some residents had already taken measures to increase the height of the existing rear fence and therefore the effect of the proposed fence would be negligible.

Patrons using the decking are able to look towards the rear elevations of the properties on [address], including bedrooms at first floor. This would also be the case from other areas of the beer garden, even if the decking were not in place and the acoustic fence will provide further screening in this respect.

There is no substantive evidence before me that the provision of the decking is directly responsible for any increased levels of vermin.

The Council are satisfied that the appeal development does not result in severe parking impacts and from the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

Moving the decking elsewhere in the garden may reduce the impact to those residents immediately adjacent to it, but that proposal is not before me.

I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance, and I have sought the views of the appellant and the Council on the re-wording of conditions suggested by the Council.

As the work has already been carried out, it is not necessary to attach the standard time condition or require the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted [name]. However, in addition to those conditions which I have already referred to above which are necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty and control external lighting to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers. It is also necessary to require a commissioning acoustic test report to be submitted to the Council for approval to ensure that the reduction in noise levels set out in the NIA are achieved.

There is a timetable for compliance with conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 because permission is being granted retrospectively and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the implementation of these before the development takes place. The conditions will ensure that the development can be enforced against if the requirements are not met.

The Council have suggested conditions relating to hours of opening and staff presence at the premises, servicing hours, refuse storage, and a requirement to cease the use of the beer garden by 2300 each evening. However, as these are not directly related to the appeal proposal, they would not meet the tests in Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I have also not attached a condition preventing smoking on the decking, as there is no evidence before me that this is a source of nuisance to neighbouring occupiers. I have considered whether imposing a planning condition seeking to limit the number of patrons in the beer garden to 96 would meet the tests in Paragraph 57 of the Framework, but as this is a proposal for decking, and the use of the beer garden is already established, it would not be reasonable.

The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 030-02 [name] and 030-01 [name].

Unless within 2 months of the date of this decision, a Noise Management Plan (NMP) detailing all measures to be put in place to control noise from patrons using the beer garden, is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is completed within 1 month of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of the decking shall cease and all equipment and materials comprising the decking shall be removed until such time as an NMP is approved and implemented. If no NMP in accordance with this condition is approved within 4 months of the date of this decision, the use of the decking shall cease, and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as an NMP approved by the local planning authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved NMP specified in this condition, use of the beer garden shall thereafter operate only in accordance with the approved NMP, for the lifetime of the development. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Unless within 2 months of the date of this decision, details of the acoustic barrier to be erected along the north east boundary of the appeal site, including detailed plans, sections and elevations to a scale of no less than 1:10, is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 1 month of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of the decking shall cease and all equipment and materials comprising the decking shall be removed until such time as details of an acoustic barrier is approved and implemented. If no acoustic barrier in accordance with this condition is approved within 4 months of the date of this decision, the use of the decking shall cease, and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as an acoustic barrier approved by the local planning authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved acoustic barrier specified in this condition, it shall be maintained and retained for the lifetime of the development. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Unless within 2 months of the date of this decision, the approved landscaping scheme is implemented, the use of the decking shall cease and all equipment and materials comprising the decking shall be removed until such time as the landscaping has been implemented. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Within 1 month of the implementation of the NMP and the acoustic barrier having been constructed, a commissioning acoustic test report (CATR) shall be undertaken and submitted to the local planning authority. The CATR shall demonstrate whether the predicted sound levels detailed in Table 3 of the submitted Noise Impact Assessment by [name] dated 23 February 2024 (NIA) have been achieved and shall include details of any additional measures which may be required in order to achieve the predicted sound levels in the NIA and a timetable for the implementation of those measures for approval in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. Once implemented the additional measures shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development. If no CATR in accordance with this condition is approved within 6 months of the date of this decision, the use of the decking shall cease, and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a CATR approved by the local planning authority is implemented. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree or plant (or any tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree or plant.

No external illumination of the decking shall take place until such time as full details including height, design, location, intensity and hours of operation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out and operated only in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development. End of schedule