Appeal 6001057

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] of Curran Properties Ltd against the Council of the London Borough of [name] which is the subject of a separate Decision.

The Decision Notice refers to policies contained within the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2018) and the London Borough of Richmond upon [name]: Local Plan (Regulation 19). The latter became the adopted Local Plan in October 2025 and therefore the policies in it that are referred to in the Decision Notice supersede those in the 2018 Local Plan.

The appellant has provided signed and certified copies of a [name] (UU) which would provide a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing in the borough. The Council has seen this. I am satisfied that the UU overcomes the third reason for refusal and therefore this matter falls away. As such the main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the street scene and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area, (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, with particular regard to privacy and outlook, (iii) highway safety, with particular regard to on-street car parking, and (iv) whether the statutory requirements in respect of [name] would be met.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land which is bounded by Nos. 256–[address] to the rear, the rear gardens of properties facing [address] to one side and the side boundary of 22 and [address] to the other. It is accessed from [address] and occupied by a garage and other small structures.

[address] is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and comprises a mix of handsome brick and rendered detached, semi-detached and terraced 2-storey dwellings with dual-pitched roofs. The front elevations of these houses are situated a short distance from the pavement giving the street a relatively intimate and tightly knit character. These characteristics create a pleasant residential environment that makes a clear positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. In the context of the tightly knit street scene, the openness of the appeal site is somewhat of an anomaly.

Planning permission was granted at appeal in November 20221 for development described as “the demolition of an existing garage and ancillary outbuildings on garden land and the construction of 2 new detached houses”. This scheme comprised a pair of detached houses facing [address] with street frontages similar in scale and appearance to the neighbouring properties in this street.

The appellant has advised that an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness to confirm the lawful commencement of the 2022 scheme has been refused. As things stand the evidence available indicates that the 2022 permission has lapsed and therefore this scheme does not represent a fall-back position.

The appeal site is less than 800m from [name]. The London Plan supports the intensification of residential development within such areas. The planning history of the site clearly indicates that it is suitable of for intensification. However, proposals need to be considered against the entirety of the development plan and, in particular in this case, against the statutory requirement to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. As noted above, planning permission has already been granted for 2 houses on the appeal site which is a significant degree of intensification compared to the existing situation.

The proposal would comprise the erection of a 3-storey terrace comprising three 3- bedroom houses set at right angles to the street with the lowest floor set below ground level. Access to the houses would be gained via a path on the [address] side of the site and sunken gardens would be created on the side bounded by 22 and [address]. One of the flank elevations would face the street and incorporate a green wall the other would be close to the rear boundary of the site. 1 APP/L5810/W/22/3297924 This elevation would be set behind the prevailing building line in the street to enable the provision of a pair of car parking spaces together with structures for refuse and cycle storage.

The set back street frontage, the forecourt parking area and the neighbouring storage structures would be entirely at odds with the prevailing characteristics of the street scene. Forecourt parking is not a prevailing characteristic of [address] or the surrounding streets. In the small number of instances where this has occurred it has led to the loss of front boundaries and vegetation to the clear detriment of the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposal would extend well beyond the rear building line of the houses in [address], and the rear elevation would be less than a metre from the rear boundary of this site. In the context of the openness of the gardens bordering the site on 3 sides, this extent of development would result in an obtrusive and overly prominent form of development that would be at odds with the prevailing pattern in the locality.

For these reasons I conclude that due to its siting, size and layout the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and result in substantial harm to, and fail to preserve, the character and appearance of the CA.

It therefore fails to accord with Policies 28 and 29 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2025) (RuTLP) which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure proposals are compatible with the local character, including the relationship to existing townscape, development patterns, local urban grain and frontages, and to preserve and, where possible, enhance the character or the appearance of the conservation areas. There is also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) and the [address] Conservation Area Appraisal (2021).

Due to the proposal’s siting and orientation, the 3 dwellings would have front windows facing the rear elevations and rear gardens of the [address] houses, and rear windows facing the gardens to the rear of the neighbouring [address] houses. Upper floor windows in the proposal would be clearly visible from neighbouring houses and gardens and therefore there is a risk of unacceptable overlooking occurring.

The appellant has sought to overcome this by incorporating obscured glazing in many apertures and angled windows at first floor level. In addition, the second floor would include high level rooflights. [name] recognise the fenestration on the front elevation would lead to a sense of overlooking, I am satisfied that the use of obscured glazing and angled windows would ensure residents of the [address] properties maintain adequate levels of privacy.

The 4 rear first floor windows serving units 2 and 3 would be clear glazed. Despite the fact they would be set away from the boundary shared with the adjoining garden and 2 of the windows would be angled, an unacceptable level of overlooking would be caused. However, I am satisfied that this impact could be overcome by the imposition of a planning condition requiring a similar arrangement of obscured glazing as proposed at the front. Due to the distance between the appeal scheme and the rears of surrounding houses I am also satisfied that neighbouring residents would retain acceptable levels of outlook from, and natural light to, their properties.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding properties. It therefore accords with RuTLP Policy 46 which states that all development will be required to protect the amenity and living conditions for occupants of new, existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties and ensure acceptable standards of privacy are provided and proposals are not visually intrusive or have an overbearing impact.

Despite the fact the appeal site is within walking distance of [name] it has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2 which indicates that access to public transport is limited compared to other parts of London. At the time of my visit in the early morning levels of on-street parking within [address] and neighbouring residential streets were high. Due to the narrowness of [address], the areas marked out for parking are partly on the pavement which is less than satisfactory when refuse bins are on the pavement. The appeal site is not within a [name] (CPZ) and there is no information before me to suggest that a CPZ would be put in place in the near future.

The proposal would provide 2 off-street car parking spaces, which is described by the appellant as a “car-lite” approach. This is in response to London Plan Policy T6 which states that car-free development should be the starting point for all development proposals in places that are (or are planned to be) well-connected by public transport, with developments elsewhere designed to provide the minimum necessary parking (‘car-lite’). The “minimum necessary” would evidently depend on the particular circumstances in each instance, most notably the type of housing proposed and the levels of on-street parking in the local area.

RuTLP Policy 48E reflects the above by recognising that car-free development, and by implication partially car-free, or car-lite, development, may be acceptable in certain situations including in areas with a PTAL of 3 or higher and where a proposal would not increase on-street vehicular parking stress above 85% of total on-street vehicular parking capacity.

The proposal would create 3 family-sized dwellings, in an area with relatively poor public transport accessibility. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I consider it likely that the proposal would generate a level of car ownership that would far exceed 2 cars. This, combined with the fact the proposed off-street car parking would require a small reduction in space available for on-street parking would lead to a greater demand for the limited on-street car parking in the area.

The Transport Statement2 submitted with the application refers to a parking survey that accompanied the 2020 application which showed that the parking stress in the area was above 85%. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate otherwise I consider it likely that this remains the case and the proposal would unacceptably exacerbate an existing high level of parking stress in [address]. Given the 2 Paragraph 4.12v arrangement of parking in the street and limited turning space at the end in front of the appeal site I conclude that this would result in unacceptable effects on highway safety in the area. For these reasons the proposal conflicts with the policies cited above.

The appellant has expressed a willingness to enter a legal agreement to restrict future parking permit eligibility in the event of the street becoming a CPZ and is willing to consider other planning obligations in this regard. The UU before me does not include any such provisions.

Whilst the London Plan supports the intensification of residential development in areas less than 800m from a station it does not however stipulate that such areas are automatically suitable for car-free or car-lite development. The appellant refers to a scheme in the borough where car-free development was accepted although no information on this is before. As all applications and appeals must be considered on their individual merits and against the entirety of the development plan I attach limited weight to these matters.

Under Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2025 all applications for planning permission are required to be accompanied by information relating to [name] (BNG). The information required includes a statement as to whether the applicant believes, if granted, the planning permission would be subject to the biodiversity condition.

The appellant indicated on the planning application form that the proposal would be exempt because it meets the definition of “self-build or custom housebuilding” as set out in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. No evidence has been provided to support this assertion.

Post-submission the appellant has argued that the proposed development would be subject to the de minimis exemption which includes development that impacts less than 25sqm of onsite habitat. The proposal would occupy more than 25sqm of the site, but the biodiversity value of the site is clearly low due to the fact it was largely cleared prior to the submission of the planning application.

Special provisions3 have been put in place for the calculation of the pre-development biodiversity value of onsite habitat when loss or impact to habitats has occurred prior to the submission of a planning application. Where unauthorised degradation of the onsite habitat has taken place on the land between 30 January 2020 and the date of relevant date, the biodiversity pre-development value of the onsite habitat should be calculated as the biodiversity value of the habitat on the date immediately before the carrying out of these degradation activities.

The information before me indicates that prior to the clearance works being carried out, the site included a greater level of vegetation and therefore a higher level of biodiversity potential. As the proposal would occupy more than 25sqm of the site I am not therefore convinced that the de minimis exemption applies. As the 2022 planning permission has lapsed, I am not of the view that the clearance works undertaken can be viewed as part of the implementation of that permission. 3 Paragraph 6 and 6A of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 036 [name]: 74-[phone]

In the absence of a valid exemption the proposal is statutorily required to demonstrate at least 10% BNG in mitigation. The minimum information requirements in this respect are not before me. As such the proposal fails to demonstrate sufficient BNG provision and therefore conflicts with the statutory requirements in this respect and is contrary to LP Policy 39, which requires development to deliver robust and measurable net gains for biodiversity and the aims and objectives of the Framework.

The appellant has referred to “forthcoming” appeals in respect of a separate planning application for the site and the refused Certificate of Lawfulness application. The appeal proposal must be considered on its individual merits and on the basis of the information before me, which does not include these matters.

The Council has referred to its Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name]. As the proposal comprises new build development the SPD is not applicable and I have attributed limited weight to it.

The appellant has suggested that the Council is not meeting its housing targets although limited information has been provided to support this view. The proposal would provide 3 family houses on a site that until recently had an extant planning permission for the provision of 2 houses. The housing supply benefit of an extra dwelling on the appeal site does not outweigh the clear harm identified above.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised including the representations from local residents, I conclude that the appeal should fail.