Appeal 6001252

The appeal is dismissed.

After the Council determined the application, the London Borough of Richmond Local Plan 2024-2039 (the Local Plan) was adopted, superseding the Local Plan 20181 and the Publication Local Plan2. As my decision must be based on the development plan policies currently in force, I have determined this appeal in accordance with the recently adopted Local Plan.

I have also dealt with another appeal submitted by the appellant on the site 3, both of which were the subject of the Hearing. However, as the other appeal relates to an application for outline planning permission for two dwellings, that appeal is subject to a separate decision.

[name] am aware that a third application seeking full planning permission 4 for five dwellings has been submitted to the Council, this has not been determined as yet. As such, it is not a determinative matter in this appeal.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided an updated biodiversity net gain (BNG) baseline metric which incorporates habitats, in this case a tree, that had been removed from the site after 2020 but prior to the submission of the application; a circumstance which the Council was alerted to by interested parties after the application had been validated. The Council has confirmed the acceptability of the baseline metric and I have no substantive evidence before me to disagree with this position. The Council did not, therefore, pursue this particular reason for refusal as part of this appeal. 1 London Borough of Richmond Local Plan (2018) 2 Richmond Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19 version), published for consultation on 9 June 2023 3 Appeal ref: 6001253; Council application ref: PA25/0730 4 Council ref: PA25/4148

Consequently, the main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including trees; • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing; • the effect of the proposal on the safety of users of [address] and including whether adequate car parking and waste/recycling servicing is provided; • the effect of the proposal on biodiversity and ecology; • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of [address] (No.122), with specific regard to outlook; and • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for accessible and adaptable dwellings.

The appeal site comprises a modest, detached, two storey dwelling and its associated large garden area on the residential street of [address]. Despite the scale of the garden area, it contains few notable landscape features. Aside from several small fruit trees, a holly and a cypress, more established and substantial trees are positioned closer to/on the site boundary. The remainder of the garden includes overgrown dense scrub and grassy sections surrounding domestic paraphernalia such as ornaments, a small shed and a greenhouse, and plant beds. None of the landscape features within the site are protected although my attention has been drawn to the fact that a group of trees on the site was subject to a TPO5. This, however, has been revoked.

A variety of dwelling typologies are present along the road, from detached and semi-detached dwellings up to three storeys, to four-storey flatted development. Although there is not a singular, consistent built form typology, taller and bulkier development forms are predominately located between the site and [address]’s junction with [address], sitting within communal gardens. In contrast, in the other direction, detached and semi-detached dwellings are commonplace with, for the most part, long rear gardens.

A similar transition between the presence of trees and other landscape features within the street scene is appreciable in the vicinity of the site; with the bulkier flatted development incorporating substantial mature trees within their grounds. The occasional street tree also contributes to the verdancy of this part of [address] and provides partial screening to the built form. In comparison, on the other side of the site, trees and landscape features present in front gardens are modest and any street trees are small in stature. The substantial trees located either side of the road between the site and [address] creates a sense of enclosure with the greenery prominent the street scene. In the other direction, between the site and Bushy Park Road, a more open character is appreciable, with neither built form nor landscape features dominant.

As a result, the width of the appeal site and the offset siting of the existing dwelling adjacent to the flatted development of [address], together with its modest scale in comparison to other detached properties nearby and the size of the 5 Group Tree Preservation Order (TPO) T1107 – revoked in 2022 garden, acts as a break or point of change between differing built form grains. As such, the appeal site reflects few of the features which contribute to the varying character along [address].

Whilst the width and depth of many of the dwellings along the road varies, as identified within the Village Planning SPD6, with numerous properties having been extended to the side, rear and/or into the roof, terraced forms are not a typology that contributes to this varied character. Additionally, the slim width of all the proposed dwellings would be noticeably narrower than the existing dwelling on the site which, itself, is modest when compared to the majority of other properties along the road. The inclusion of a terrace of three townhouses at the rear of the site would, as a result, be at odds with the predominant building forms nearby and would create a denser built form arrangement than currently perceived in the area.

Moreover, while dwellings have been constructed to the rear of properties which address the street on either side of the site, with a single dwelling sited to the rear of 118 and [address] and a block of flats as part of [address], these backland forms are materially different in scale, massing and character to the proposed terrace. Additionally, while Policy 15 does not preclude backland development such proposals will only be supported where the characteristics of the surrounding area are reflected, adequate separation between dwellings and appropriate garden space is provided and important features are retained or reflected, amongst other aspects. This approach is amplified by the [name] SPD7and the Design SPD8 by requiring such development to be informed by the proportions, layouts, groupings and building lines of adjacent properties.

Despite the proposal resulting in the loss of much of the garden land as well as the trees located away from its boundaries, these features make minimal contribution to the character and appearance of the site or the wider area. Their removal would not, therefore, result in adverse harm to the street scene or the surrounding context. Such a situation is supported by Policy 42 of the Local Plan with respect to trees with little or no amenity value and cannot be retained as part of the development, despite the lack of a [name] for [name] (CAVAT). In any event, a CAVAT is not a mandatory requirement for all applications likely to involve the felling of trees, even if expected by the Council.

Given the wide variety of roof forms along the road, including pitched, gable ended, hipped, mansard, crown and flat roofscapes, many with different styles of dormer windows, the mansard roofs of the proposed dwellings would not be incongruous features within the street scene.

Notwithstanding this, the proposal would result in the introduction of built form which discords with the typology, proportions and perceived density of the surrounding context. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies 15, 28 and 42 of the Local Plan insofar as they relate to local character and the contribution trees make to it.. It would also conflict with the Village SPD, [name] and the [name], all of which amplify various aspects of the aforementioned policies. Affordable housing 6 [name] and Teddington Village Planning Guidance SPD (Village Planning SPD) 7 Small and Medium Housing Sites Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ([name]) 8

Policy 11 of the Local Plan requires all residential development to provide affordable housing. With regard to small sites (less than ten dwellings) a contribution to the [name] is required rather than an onsite provision. This requirement is not, however, consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) approach to securing affordable housing as part of residential proposals comprising ten or more dwellings.

Nonetheless, the supporting text to Policy 11 of the Local Plan indicates that the scarcity of land in the Borough, particularly sites capable of accommodating ten or more dwellings, alongside the demand for properties and some of the highest house prices in the [name], has contributed to an acute affordable housing crisis in the area. This has been the case for many years, with the Council having adopted a similar approach within policies in the Local Plan’s predecessor.

In addition, as part of the evidence base for the recently adopted Local Plan, the viability of the affordable housing targets within Policy 11 was assessed, in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), to ensure development is deliverable without the need for further assessment at the decision-making stage. On this basis, despite the aforementioned inconsistency, as Policy 11 of the Local Plan reflects the Framework’s requirement that strategic policies should be informed by local housing needs, I attribute significant weight to it within my

The affordable housing contribution amount required for all residential development is based on a sliding scale dependent on the number of units proposed, whether there would be a loss of former employment space or whether the conversion of a listed building is proposed. For the appeal scheme, using the pro-forma calculator appended to the [name] and applying the Council’s benchmark rent per week for 2025/2026 for a four-bed social rent unit, the affordable housing contribution totals £1.599.627.

The supporting text to Policy 11 also states that the Council will, in extraordinary circumstances, and on a case-by-case basis, accept viability arguments if it can be demonstrated that the site has abnormal costs that could not be foreseen. The appellant has, consequently, sought to demonstrate that the proposal would not be viable if the policy compliant affordable housing contribution is to be paid.

During the appeal process, various viability appraisals were provided by the main parties, culminating in the submission of a [name] of [name] (SoCG) just prior to the virtual Hearing. The SoCG confirmed the agreed position on the majority of assumptions to be incorporated into the appraisals, including the [name] (RLV) of the site. However, a key point of dispute remains regarding the appraisal methodology to be adopted, namely, whether the [name] (BLV) of the site should be compared with an [name] (AUV) that takes into account the scheme subject to the other appeal. This would only come into effect were I to allow the other appeal. However, the appellant has adopted this approach regardless of my decision on the other appeal on the basis that there is, on the balance of probabilities, a strong likelihood that part of the site would be redeveloped for housing.

[name] to adopt the above approach, rather than using the [name] (EUV) plus a landowner premium for the value of the garden land for development as set out in the PPG, the RLV of the appeal site, including the refurbishment of the existing dwelling, would be £2,028,152. With the benefit of outline planning permission for two dwellings on the site, which is the subject of the other appeal, this figure would then be the BLV, resulting in a surplus or affordable housing contribution of £1,247,401.

However, in their appraisal, the appellant has used a higher BLV which combines the EUV of the existing house plus a RLV value for the garden land with outline planning permission for two dwellings. This does not take into account the refurbishment of the existing dwelling and any other costs associated with selling it, on the basis that the description of development for the other appeal does not include works to it. Whilst this is the case, nonetheless, the existing dwelling forms part of both schemes and is shown within the redline boundary. Furthermore, even if the existing dwelling were to be sold off separately from the rest of the site, with a smaller garden area and without refurbishment, the relevance of the agreed EUV has not been fully justified or substantiated.

Consequently, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the appellant’s viability appraisal and its conclusions are objective, reasonable and realistic, as required by the PPG nor that there are abnormal costs associated with the site that could not be foreseen such that extraordinary circumstances apply. The weight I attach to it is, therefore, at a low level.

Within an agreed timetable shortly after the virtual hearing, two signed and dated9 [name] (UU) were submitted by the appellant. [name] are identical save the affordable housing contribution sum. [name], the contribution sum totals £514,154, derived from deducting the appellant’s BLV from the agreed RLV. [name] includes a higher contribution, totalling £667,145. Both sums are significantly below the policy compliant derived amount, as well as the surplus advanced by the Council. Other than reference to having looked at another property to inform the valuation of the site, no specific details of how this higher contribution has been derived is before me.

As the contribution is required by Policy 11 of the Local Plan, it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Through the use of the Council’s sliding scale commensurate with the size of the proposal, it is also directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. It, therefore, meets the tests for planning obligations as set out within the CIL Regulations10 and the Framework.

Consequently, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure either the policy compliant affordable housing contribution or the surplus calculated using the BLV of £2,028,152, I conclude that the proposal does not make an adequate provision for affordable housing and conflicts with Policy 11 of the Local Plan and the [name] in this regard. I attribute significant harm to this matter.

Vehicular access to the Plots 1-2 and 4-6 would be facilitated by a new access road with a kerbed bellmouth, while Plot 3 would be served directly from [address], via a new two car width pavement crossover. The width of the access road has been designed to allow larger vehicles, such as those used by the emergency 9 Dated 15 April 2026 10 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL Regulations) services, to access the site and manoeuvre satisfactorily within it, as demonstrated on the Proposed Site Layout with [name] drawing11.

Noting that an increase in pavement crossovers reduces pedestrian priority, Policy 48 of the Local Plan and the supporting [name] state that approval for a crossover with usually be limited to a 2.4 metres wide, a single width crossover. An access of this size is designed to serve an individual dwelling and, importantly, would not be sufficient to provide access for emergency vehicles. Moreover, as the proposed access road would be kerbed, its use for vehicular access would be clearly understood by pedestrians and enable them to be alert to the potential for vehicles moving into and out of it.

Due to the layout of the access road which enables vehicles to turn around within it, vehicles would exit the development in a forward direction and drivers would be able to see any pedestrians on the pavement on either side, subject to the provision of unobstructed visibility splays. Although an existing lamp column would need to be relocated to as part of the proposal, this can be adequately addressed through a mechanism outside the planning process, at the appellant’s expense. It is not a determinative factor in my decision.

With specific regard to Plot 3, Policy 48 of the Local Plan states that applications for new vehicular crossover or dropped kerb accesses will be assessed strictly in accordance with the guidance set out in the Council’s Transport SPD and approval will usually be limited to single width crossovers.. Where a development comprises a row of houses adjacent to the highway, paired crossovers serving two dwellings, would be acceptable. However, although Plots [address] of houses, the proposed two car width crossover would serve Plot 3 only, thereby conflicting with the guidance contained within the [name].

Nonetheless, given the acceptability of a paired crossover, I see no reason to conclude that a crossover of the same width serving a single dwelling would result in a greater risk to the safety of users of the highway than the situation where two dwellings are served by the same access. Certainly, any difference in the number of vehicle movements crossing the pavement between these two scenarios would be negligible.

While sufficient parking spaces would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings, spaces for Plots 1 and 2, would be laid out in a tandem arrangement. These spaces, therefore, would not be independently accessible to the future occupants of the dwellings or their guests, and drivers may need to manoeuvre their vehicles within the site in order to swap positions. Given the scale of the proposal and the layout of the access road, the number of vehicle swaps would not be significant in number and could be undertaken in manner that is safe to pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers nearby. Any inconvenience to the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be minor, particularly as drivers would be, other than in the case of guests, from the same household. In any event. as one space would be provided within a car port, this arrangement is no different to where a parking space is provided within a garage with another on its forecourt.

The proposal includes a bin collection point, alongside the access road, with individual bin stores within the gardens of Plots 1-3 and a communal store serving Plots 4-6. It is proposed that refuse collection vehicles would idle on [address], 11 Drawing no: 21-J3747-108 rather than enter the site, with operatives collecting the bins from the collection point. However, the collection point is located more than [address], beyond the distance recommended within [name] BS5906:2005 – Code of Practice on [name] in Buildings for individual dwelling bins and the 10 metres relating to communal bins. Should the bins not be collected from or returned to the collection point by operatives and left in locations impeding vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians, this would be harmful to their safety. Uncollected waste or recycling would also be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and has the potential to harm the health and safety of the public.

Nevertheless, the layout of the scheme is such that there is the potential for the collection point to be positioned closer to [address], alongside the access road, within the required distance stipulated in the [name]. Subject to a suitably worded condition, were I minded to allow the appeal, this issue could be resolved as part of details submitted for approval by the Council demonstrating the appropriate number and type of bins can be provided within the bin stores. Such details could also include a Delivery and Servicing Plan which, amongst other things, would specify the arrangements for moving the bins to the collection point.

Following the submission of a parking stress survey with the application subject to the other appeal, any loss of on-street parking would not lead to excessive levels of parking stress as a result of the proposal.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the safety of users of [address] and would provide adequate car parking and waste/recycling servicing, in accordance with policies 7, 47 and 48 of the Local Plan. In combination, these policies, amongst other things, require adequate waste/refuse and recycling servicing to be provided, and by achieving the specified parking and servicing standards, ensures developments do not have a severe impact on highway safety.

As indicated above, Policy 15 of the Local Plan does not prohibit backland development nor a significant loss of garden land, provided a well-designed scheme with appropriate mitigation, such as to improve biodiversity, can be achieved. This is reiterated within Policy 39 which states that, where possible, new development should protect rear and front residential garden spaces as a cumulative key wildlife habitat resource. Although the proposal would result in the removal of much of the existing garden area the Ecological Assessment12 concludes that the site contains relatively low value, common habitat types and that the potential for these habitats to support protected species is also low. No further surveys were recommended as necessary within the Ecological Assessment, nor requested by the Council, and no issues regarding the methodology adopted within the assessment were raised during the Hearing.

With specific regard to bats, a species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Ecological Assessment acknowledges that the roof of the existing dwelling does provide roosting opportunities. No works to the roof are proposed however and opportunities for bat foraging is limited given the existing plant species on the site typically support low numbers of invertebrates that would attract bats. 12 [name]; Ref GH24001, prepared by Calyx Environmental Limited, dated 27 March 2025

While the nearby Udney Park may be a known hot spot for bats to forage and a maternity colony has been recorded locally, no substantive evidence is before me demonstrating that the site forms part of important green corridor for bats commuting between it and the larger Bushy Park to the south. Nor is Udney Park specifically referenced as one the important sites for bats in the Borough within the Richmond Bats Species Action Plan appendix to the Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).

The Ecological Assessment also acknowledges that the site provides habitats suitable for hedgehogs, including areas with a potential to support hibernation. However, through controlling the timing of any site clearance and implementation of mitigation measures to prevent animals being trapped or injured during constriction, all of which could be adequately secured via the imposition of conditions on a grant of planning permission, hedgehogs would be protected.

Given the above, the evidence before me does not indicate that the proposal would result in a significant negative impact on biodiversity or detrimentally affect bats and hedgehogs, and appropriate mitigation measures could be secured via conditions. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not harm biodiversity and ecology, and accords with policies 39 and 42 of the Local Plan. These policies require development to support and enhance biodiversity. Furthermore, the proposal would not conflict with the objectives of the Council’s BAP.

The rear elevation of the proposed dwellings on Plots 4, 5 and 6 would have a parallel alignment to the side boundary of the site with No.122 and the neighbouring property’s principal elevation. Windows within No.122’s elevation serve a reception room currently used as a bedroom and a storage room on the ground floor and a bedroom at first floor level. All these windows have an outlook onto or over the end of the property’s driveway and parking area, with a boundary brick wall and existing landscape planting beyond.

Given the single vehicle width of the driveway/parking area and the height of the substantial Leyland cypress trees along this part of the boundary, the outlook from the aforementioned windows is restricted. While some gaps in the landscape features in this area would be more apparent at the end of autumn and during winter, when leaves have dropped, the evergreen [name] would continue to restrict the outlook experienced from No.122.

The evidence before me indicates that while the distance between No.122’s habitable rooms and those of the proposed dwellings on Plots 4 and 5 would fall short of the minimum distance required by Policy 8 of the Local Plan, this would be by a very small amount. Whilst this standard aims to ensure appropriate levels of privacy between neighbouring properties is provided, it also contributes to maintaining acceptable degrees of outlook from residential spaces. The introduction of built form at this distance would not, therefore result in significant further restrictions to the outlook of occupiers of No.122 from the rooms served by windows on the principal elevation of their property.

Although reference is made to the small garden space associated with No.122 being overborne by the proposal, this refers to the property’s driveway/parking area, not its main garden area which is located to the rear, on the other side of the dwelling to the site.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No.122, with specific regard to outlook, and accords with Policy 46 of the Local Plan in this regard. It also complies with the xx set out in the [name] and the [name] SPD13 which xx.

Policy D7 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 13 of the Local Plan requires new residential development to support diverse household types and adapt to changing needs through compliance with the optional Building Regulation requirement M4(2). This requires step-free access to and within specific parts of the dwelling to be provided for a wide range of people, including older, disabled and some wheelchair users. Evidence at the Hearing confirmed that, whilst the existing floorplans do not show a compliance with M4(2) for every dwelling, there is scope within the layouts to accommodate the regulation through a small amendment in room sizes. Given this would result in a minor/de minimis change to the plans, compliance with Building Regulations M4(2) could satisfactorily be provided via the imposition of a suitably worded condition, were I minded to allow the appeal.

I conclude that the proposal would make adequate provision for accessible and adaptable dwellings and, as a result, would accord with Policy D7 of the London Plan and Policy 13 of the Local Plan in this regard. The reference to Policy 15 of the Local Plan in this reason for refusal is not determinative as it relates to infill and backland development.

The provision of six additional family homes in an area where such housing types are in demand and within an area identified within the Local Plan for incremental intensification would make a positive contribution to the housing stock. Social and economic benefits would also be derived from the construction and occupation of the dwellings. These benefits would be modest in scale. The proposal’s adherence to other policies of the London Plan and the Local Plan, including those relating to housing and energy standards, are neutral factors within my decision.

However, I have also concluded that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not provide an acceptable level of affordable housing. I attach significant weight to the harm which would result from the latter. As the development plan policies relating to these matters are broadly consistent with the Framework as a whole, I give the proposal’s conflict with these policies substantial weight and conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole.

When the Council determined the appeal, it was unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, as noted above, the Local Plan has since been adopted and, within Policy 10, sets out the how the Borough’s housing requirement can be delivered over the plan period using a stepped trajectory. Nonetheless, the 2023 [name] results indicate that the delivery of housing was substantially below the housing requirement for the Borough over the preceding three years. The consequence of these results is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11dii of the Framework is engaged and that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse 13 Residential Development Standards SPD ([name]) impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would support the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing and, as a small site, could make a quick, yet important, contribution in this regard, as advocated within Policy H2 of the London Plan and Policy 11 of the Local Plan. Additionally, the site is in a location accessible to a range of services and facilities, including public transport, which would support everyday living. Notwithstanding this, I have found the proposal would be contrary to the Framework in respect of the requirement to achieve a well-designed place which is sympathetic to local character and which reflects local housing needs.

Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, having had regard to all relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Updated Viability Appeal Statement – submitted by the Council on 27 March 2026.

Response to [name] 5 - submitted by the appellant on 30 March 2026

Comments on [name] to the [name] 5 – submitted by the Council on 13 April 2026

[name] of [name] - submitted by the Council on 13 April 2026

Response to [name] 6 - submitted by the appellant on 13 April 2026

[name] – submitted by the Council on 15 April 2026.

[name] (£514,154) dated 15 April 2026 – submitted by the Council on 16 April 2026.

[name] (£667,145) dated 15 April 2026 – submitted by the Council on 16 April 2026.

Planning Obligations SPD - submitted by the Council on 16 April 2026.