Appeal 6000811

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed the words retrospective from the description above as this does not describe development. However, for clarification, I observed at my site visit that the change of use and internal works have been undertaken, mostly (as set out below) in accordance with the plans before me and therefore I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

Since the decision was issued, the new Richmond Local Plan and [name] were adopted on 7 October 2025 (LP). This plan replaces policies in the Local Plan (Review 2015-18) and the Twickenham Area Action Plan (2013). These policies are listed in the officer report and within the reasons for refusal and the appellant has made reference to them. There is therefore no harm to natural justice in my referring to them or giving them full weight., and I have therefore not referred to the replaced Local Plan (Review 2015-18) policies referred to.

The main issues in this case are: • whether the proposal provides acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal living space and private outdoor garden space; • the effect of the proposed development on the provision of community facilities; and • whether suitable arrangements are in place to ensure that the development would make appropriate provision for affordable housing; and .

Policy LP 13 requires that, in the interests of health, diversity and community cohesion, new housing should have adequate space and comply with the [name] (NDSS). The submitted residential standards statement sets out that the ground floor flat (flat 1) is proposed as a 2 bed 3-person dwelling, and the first floor flat (flat 2) is proposed to be a 3 bed 5- person dwelling.

Flat 1 would meet the required 74sqm of minimum internal space. However, bedroom 2 would not meet the minimum required floor space for a double bedroom.

Flat 2 would not meet the required 86sqm minimum required floor space. Moreover, bedrooms 1, 2 and 3 in this flat all fall short of the minimum width requirements, with bedroom 2 falling short of the minimum width even for a single bedroom. The appellant does not dispute these findings.

As such, even if flat 2 was considered a 4 person 3 bed dwelling, the bedrooms identified above would not meet the minimum size guidelines. In addition, the storage areas set out in the residential standards statement also falls short of the minimum requirement.

[name] observed that the opening in the wall between the entrance to flat 2 and flat 1 shown on the proposed plan is not in place, and that there are standard ceiling heights within both units that would provide sufficient head room, neither flat would therefore be provided with internal sufficient space.

LP Policy 13 (D) also states all new housing development, including conversions, should provide adequate external amenity space, that, amongst other requirements, is private, usable, functional and safe.

I observed that the property has a large rear garden area, with an outbuilding previously used by the nursery. The submitted plans do not indicate how this space would be used, and the submitted appeal statement sets out that the garden space and outbuilding would be used by both flats. I observed that there is no clear separation at present and no indication therefore of how private and usable space is provided for each separate flat. Adequate outdoor space is not therefore provided for each flat in this respect.

I conclude that the development does not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to internal living space and private outdoor garden space. The development is therefore contrary to LP Policy 13 and Policy D6 of the London Plan, which collectively require high quality design by ensuring homes are of adequate size and fit for purpose in an increasingly dense city.

The Council also refer to [name] 15 and 45, however these relate to infill and backland development and tall and md-rise building zones respectively. As such, they are not determinative in this instance.

LP Policy 49 sets out that the provision of adequate community and social infrastructure is essential to support the projected population growth within the borough. [name] of the policy states that the loss of social or community infrastructure will be resisted, and proposals involving the loss of such infrastructure will need to demonstrate clearly:

That there is no longer an identified community need for the facilities or they no longer meet the needs of users and cannot be adapted; or

That the existing facilities are being adequately re-provided in a different way or elsewhere in a convenient alternative location accessible to the current community it supports, or that there are sufficient suitable alternative facilities in the locality; and

The potential of re-using or redeveloping the existing site for the same or an alternative social infrastructure use for which there is a local need has been fully assessed. This should include evidence of completion of a full and proper marketing exercise of the site for a period of at least 18 months in line with the requirements set out in Appendix 2.

Limited information is submitted with regards to the identified community need for the nursery facility. The appellant does not dispute that the nursery was operating near capacity (36 on roll1), restricted to 40 allowed by condition on the original planning permission2. The new nursery - [name] at [address], provides more room and capacity, with 51 children on roll according to the Ofsted inspection of August 2024. This does not suggest that there is a lack of need in the community for such a facility.

The appeal site is located in an otherwise mostly residential suburban road, and whilst I note letters of support in this regard, no substantive evidence of any harmful effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties are provided, and the nursery was operating in this location for over 20 years. It is not therefore demonstrated that the property is not suitable due to noise, disturbance and parking impacts associated with the nursery use.

There is similarly no substantive evidence before me why the physical building and garden area is no longer of a scale suitable for continued nursery use by any operator, and therefore no longer meets the needs of users and is not sustainable.

Based on the evidence before me therefore the proposal does not meet the requirements of LP Policy 49 C 1).

As set out above, the appellant sets out that the nursery has been relocated to [address], within the Kingsway Business Park. I observed that this facility is a convenient walk from the appeal site, and as set out above, has a larger capacity, in addition to more designated parking spaces. The relocation has not led to a shortfall or net loss in provision, and I consider this to be a convenient alternative nearby location. This nursery is busy, as set out above, and it is accessible to the current community it supports, well located and sustainable. 1 As set out by the Council – ‘according to the last Ofsted report in 2020’ 2 Application reference 99/0855

This is compliant therefore with LP Policy 49 C 2), in addition to Policy S3 of the London Plan, which requires development proposals for childcare facilities to be located in accessible locations.

However, the policy also requires that the potential of re-using or redeveloping the existing site for the same or an alternative social infrastructure use for which there is a local need has been fully assessed.

The appellant sets out that ‘the site was vacant for a reasonable period of time but due to the above mentioned reasons, there was no viable or suitable occupier found to continuous the use of the site as nursery’. There is no substantive evidence submitted to support this, and no ‘full and proper’ marketing evidence, as required by the policy, has been provided. Whilst its original use was as a residential dwelling, a ‘community infrastructure use’ was long established, and it is not therefore possible to say that other potential social and community infrastructure uses at this location has been fully assessed as unsuitable, albeit a non-nursery use may require planning permission.

Moreover, LP Policy 50 seeks early engagement with the Council (Achieving for Children) where there is a loss or proposed gain in pre-school places; evidence of discussions between the Council (Achieving for Children) and providers will be required to demonstrate how needs will be met and should be submitted with an application. No such evidence of any engagement with the Council at any stage has been submitted to demonstrate this.

Three examples of applications3 for a change of use from a nursery to residential use have been pointed to by the appellant. Limited details of these permissions have been provided, including the circumstances and policy context of the planning decision, which prevents direct comparison. However, it is noteworthy that the Council indicate that these permissions simply met the policy requirements, which is not the case for the development before me as set out above.

I conclude therefore that it has not been demonstrated that the loss of social/ community infrastructure is justified. The proposed development would therefore have a harmful effect on the provision of community facilities and would conflict with provision of adequate community and social infrastructure/ education and childcare facilities goals of [name] 49 and 50, and Policy S3 of the London Plan.

Policy LP 11 states that all small sites must contribute towards affordable housing in line with a sliding scale set out in the Supplementary Planning Document ‘[name] (2014) (SPD), through a financial contribution. This is due to the scarcity of land in the borough and other factors, including some of the highest house prices in the [name] meaning that it is now experiencing an acute affordable housing crisis.

This includes 2 units, as proposed, and as such, the proposal does meet the threshold for an affordable housing contribution. The SPD sets out that Particularly in the current uncertain economic climate, an assessment of economic viability 3 25/0210/FUL, 20/0623/FUL & 15/5414/FUL which is sensitive to location and the nature of the existing use is important....where viability is an issue in providing affordable housing, the onus will be on developers to produce a financial assessment showing the maximum amount that could be reasonably achieved.

The appellant has provided a [name] which indicates that the proposal would result in a significant financial deficit and therefore cannot provide an affordable housing contribution. A minor inconsistency is pointed out by the Council in relation to the floorspace of the flat 2, with 80sqm being used for valuation purposes, instead of 75.8m2 set out in the [name] document, although it appears this figure does not include the 3.5sqm ground floor space that the plans show include the access to this flat.

This minor alteration to the submitted total development costs is insufficient to significantly reduce the deficit of the scheme at £396,395 (on the allowed profit figure) set out in the viability appraisal, at the time of consideration.

From the information in front of me, I have no reason to disagree that the viability methodology meets the requirements of LP Policy 11 and the SPD. As such, I find that the conclusions of the submitted viability appraisal are robust and sound, and the circumstances for zero affordable housing contribution demonstrated. The proposal has therefore demonstrated whether suitable arrangements are in place to ensure that the development would make appropriate provision for affordable housing.

There is therefore no conflict with the securing of affordable housing goals LP Policy 11.

Within the context of this appeal under section 78 of the Act, it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the proposal requires planning permission/prior approval. Whilst the submitted planning statement concludes that the proposal would comply with the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO4, I note that this matter was considered and dismissed by an Inspector5 on the basis of development having already been begun.

No substantive evidence that traffic and parking have improved significantly since the nursery closed is before me, or indeed the nursery use lead to harm in this regard. As such, this also carried little wight in favour of the development.

The development results in two additional units of accommodation which contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Further development on site would result in short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the units. However, given the quantum of development in this case, I give each of these matters minor weight in favour of the scheme. 4 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) 5 Appeal reference APP/L5810/W/23/3323044

Applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the reasons set out above, the lack of acceptable living conditions and harmful effect on the provision of community facilities conflict with the development plan. The minor benefits outlined above do not outweigh this identified harm.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.