Appeal 6001100

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of outbuilding and proposed landscaping at [address], Flat [address], [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/2268, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have removed superfluous wording from the description of development that does not relate to the act of development.

The Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2024-2039) (‘the LP’) was adopted on 7 October 2025 before the submission of this appeal on 14 October 2025 after which both parties would have had the opportunity to comment within their submitted statements of case. I am required to consider the appeal using the most up-to-date development plan and no interests have been prejudiced as a result of this.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area with particular regard to landscaping. • The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity.

The site comprises a ground-floor flat, with a fenced rear garden, within a three-storey building. It lies in a mainly residential area, with [address] running parallel to the rear. Existing mature trees, shrubs and grassed areas are located around the apartment building.

The apartment development, which the appeal site is a part of, was granted permission under 20/1499/FUL. A landscaping condition was attached which was subsequently discharged. The approved works do not appear to have been carried out. The Council has raised objections the proposed development would be inconsistent with the overall site approval resulting in the unacceptable erosion of landscaping.

The proposal includes landscaping proposals of its own, which would differ to that approved through the original condition. Nevertheless, this would still help to soften the proposed built form. There is already a mix of green infrastructure in the locale beyond the site. Whether or not the original permission is implemented in full, the proposed landscaping would neither create an uneven appearance to the appeal site nor visually detract from the character of the surrounding area. Even if the remaining approved planting were to be implemented, there is nothing to indicate that the two schemes would appear uneven or inconsistent with each other. I am not persuaded that the proposal would give rise to harm in any event and would sit comfortably within the local character.

The local planning authority (LPA) has not objected to the siting of the proposed outbuilding: it’s positioning would prevent a section of the approved landscaping scheme from being carried out. The existing built form between the appeal site and the neighbouring apartments, including the close-boarded timber fencing and the adjacent outbuilding, provides a clear visual, spatial and physical separation. This arrangement is characteristic of the locality, where a mix of trees and planting serves to soften the surrounding built form and its visual effects. Taking this into account, the proposed landscaping would not cause a greater visual impact, appear uneven or out of place in the vicinity and would provide a visual break within the apartment development.

To ensure existing trees within the appeal site and apartment development as a whole are protected, a condition could be imposed to ensure adequate space and protection for the crown and root system of the trees is maintained during construction.

The proposal would therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would not conflict with Policy 42 of the LP which requires, amongst other things, the protection of existing trees, the provision of high-quality landscaping that complements local character, and aims to protect back gardens from harmful development. (b) Biodiversity

This proposed development would not be within any designated site as listed in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’), Site of importance for Nature Conservation (London Plan), or a wildlife/ecological corridor. Whilst the proposed landscaping would be different to the approved planting scheme for the apartment development as a whole, there is no evidence before me which would demonstrate that this incompatibility would destroy, impair or harm the integrity of the back garden space in this urban environment.

No information has been provided to show how the proposed landscaping would erode the approved biodiversity measures and given that the previously granted landscaping scheme has not commenced, the provision of the proposed planting would improve the wildlife value of green infrastructure within the site as a whole. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that if the approved condition were to be implemented, that taken together there would be any harm to biodiversity.

As such the proposed development would comply with Policy 39 of the LP, ensuring among other things, that it would protect and enhance biodiversity, and would accord with the London Plan and the Framework.

The Council has suggested several planning conditions. I have considered these in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

The standard conditions setting out the time limit for implementation and the approved plans are both necessary to define the permission and provide certainty.

A condition ensuring the detailed materials to be used is necessary to ensure the proposal would respect and reflect the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

A condition requiring the outbuilding to remain ancillary or incidental to the use of the existing residential unit would ensure that no additional residential unit can be created and would respect local character.

Given the requirements set out in Policy D12 of the London Plan 2021, the fire safety condition is necessary, precise and relevant to the development to be permitted.

A condition is necessary to ensure the [name] and Enhancement Plan is correctly implemented, in the interests of biodiversity.

Given the presence of trees within and adjacent to the appeal site, a tree protection scheme in accordance with [name] would be required to demonstrate how a development could be undertaken without causing any damage to trees both above ground and to the root system beneath ground level. The scheme would need to include the movement of any plant, machinery, equipment and storage of materials into, within and from the site. This must be agreed prior to any construction taking place and must therefore be a pre-commencement condition. The appellant has provided a written confirmation that they would accept this.

The Council has not raised a requirement within its report for the outbuilding to have a biodiverse roof and would therefore would not be necessary. In any event, the wording of the suggested condition refers to superstructure works, which would not appear to be relevant to the development to be permitted.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 01 [name], 02 [name], 03 Site and Block Plan, 04 [name], 05 [name], 06 [name], 07 [name], 08 Proposed Section, 09 Proposed Section.

No new external finishes, including works for making good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing, except where indicated otherwise on the submitted application form and/or approved drawings.

The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes incidental or ancillary to the use of the existing residential unit and shall at no time be occupied separately as a self-contained dwelling unit or be given a separate postal address or be used in any commercial capacity.

The development must be carried out in accordance with [name] received on 02/07/2025 and retained as such thereafter.

Prior to the first use of the outbuilding hereby permitted, full details of the proposed ecological enhancement measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Installation of a stag beetle loggery (b) Provision of a hedgehog house (c) Incorporation of hedgehog access The approved measures shall be fully implemented prior to the use of the outbuilding and kept free from obstruction for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed scheme of tree protection, in line with BS5837, for both on and off-site trees, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of the development until a time when the approved tree protection details and plans have been implemented in full. The approved tree protection details shall thereafter be retained on site for the duration of the development.