Appeal 6001465

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing building and outbuildings to provide three residential dwellings including associated landscaping works, provision of parking and works to the public realm at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/1856/FUL, subject to the conditions listed in the attached schedule.

Since the determination of the application that is now the subject of this appeal, the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan (2024 to 2039) (October 2025) (the LP) has been adopted and thus now comprises a part of the development plan. I shall determine the appeal on this basis.

As the appeal property is situated within the St Margaret’s Estate Conservation Area (the CA) and within the setting of the [name]* listed building known as ‘[name], Lock and Sluices’ (the Footbridge), I shall have regard to the statutory duties that apply under Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended). These require special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, and of preserving listed buildings, their settings, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that they possess.

The Council has confirmed, following its consideration of the appellant’s appeal submissions1, that it no longer wishes to defend its third reason for refusing planning permission. This had related to the lack of an adequate lighting strategy 1 including a [name] (October 2025) to guard against an alleged adverse impact on local biodiversity. I have formulated the appeal’s main issues accordingly.

The main issues are: • Whether or not the proposal represents inappropriate development on [name]; • Whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA; • The effect of the proposal upon the setting and thereby the significance of the Footbridge; • The effect of the proposal upon the setting and thereby the significance of the [name] listed Park and Garden and World Heritage Site known as ‘[address], Kew’ ([address]); • Whether or not, in the context of flood risk, sequential test considerations have been adequately satisfied; and • The effect of the proposal upon the local housing stock, having particular regard to the implications for existing residential units.

The appeal site lies within MOL, and it is common ground between the main parties that MOL is afforded protection from inappropriate development equivalent to that which applies to the Green Belt under national planning policy.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) identifies a number of exceptions where new development is not regarded as inappropriate in Green Belt terms. Of relevance to this appeal is the exception at paragraph 154(g), which relates to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. As the proposal comprises redevelopment of previously developed land, it is therefore necessary for me to assess its effects on openness.

Detailed comparisons between the existing and proposed development are set out in the agreed Statement of [name] (December 2025). Whilst the proposal would result in increases in overall building volume and floorspace, it would deliver reductions in maximum building width and depth, building footprint, building height, and the extent of hard-surfaced areas. It is also relevant that a newly proposed basement level – designed to be discreet and non-visible – would account for a proportion of the increases in both building volume and floorspace.

I acknowledge that the site occupies a sensitive and prominently visible riverside location, where even modest increases in built form have the potential to result in a material loss of openness. However, having considered the proposed changes in both a spatial and visual sense, and borne in mind overall height differentials and the manner in which the new building would recede from the riverside, I am satisfied that the replacement of the existing development with that proposed would not result in substantial harm to the openness of MOL. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to other appeal decisions2 cited by the Council as being of relevance, but I note material differences in both site-specific and contextual circumstances when compared with the scheme before me. It is also noteworthy that one such decision, relating to a site in Pendle Borough, was determined under an earlier iteration of the Framework.

In the absence of substantial harm to the openness of MOL, the proposal at this previously developed site does not constitute inappropriate development. Consequently, there is no requirement for me to consider whether any other exception to inappropriate development might apply. For the avoidance of doubt, it follows that very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated in order to justify the scheme. The proposal therefore accords with Policy 35 of the LP in so far as it sets out that the Borough’s MOL shall be protected and retained in predominantly open use.

The significance and special interest of the CA is drawn, in-part, from its origins as a 19th-century planned estate, its concentration of large Victorian dwellings of varied architectural character set within generally generous plots, its network of open spaces and established planting, and the presence of the Footbridge – a well-used historic landmark that forms a distinctive focal point for river crossing. This significance and special interest is further reinforced by the CA’s intrinsic relationship with the [name] and the availability of a wide range of scenic views and vistas, including north-eastward views across the river towards the extensive well-vegetated edge of Old Deer Park, which constitutes an important component of the CA’s setting.

The appeal site occupies a distinctive position within the riparian landscape of this particular stretch of the river. The existing main building upon the site replaced a boatbuilding and repair workshop in the 1960s and was subsequently adapted for use as a private recording studio with integral residential accommodation above. Today, this building, which is supplemented by ancillary outbuildings that include a double garage of modern appearance setback from the river, comprises three separate residential units and has evidently been subject to incremental and unsympathetic alterations over an extended period.

It has been suggested that the visual influence of the existing building is moderated by its recessive form and appearance, including its part-polygonal pitched roof, low eaves, and muted tones. Whilst there is some merit in these observations, the building nevertheless maintains a distinct and readily perceptible presence. It offers no inherent architectural interest and is characterised by a disparate palette of basic and somewhat dated external-facing materials. Moreover, notwithstanding any assertions made to the contrary, the building does not clearly read as a continuation of a historic boathouse. Rather, it represents a muddled and poor-quality design that detracts from a sensitive receiving environment, including a riverside walk that directly fronts the site.

Given the proposed increase in building volume, it is inevitable that the development - centred on the introduction of flat-roofed elements – would result in 2 APP/A1910/W/24/3353398; APP/W4705/D/25/3361711; APP/E2340/W/23/3315598 some increase in perceived bulk and massing. This would be most evident through the widening (south-eastwards on-site) of built form rising to two storeys. As a consequence, north-eastward views along [site address] towards the river and Old Deer Park beyond, as well as south-westward views into the CA from the opposite riverbank, would be influenced to a material degree.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that the overall height of development would be reduced and that the new building would adopt a predominantly horizontal emphasis, stepped back beyond a new boundary wall of non-excessive stature as well as the river path which itself would be widened. In addition, first-floor accommodation would be retained at a markedly recessed position relative to the river. The proposal would also be accompanied by a meaningful extent of new on-site planting, which would more than compensate, in visual amenity terms, for the intended losses of a single moderate-sized [name] of sub-optimal condition and other ruderal growth.

In this context, an unduly dominant or imposing form of development would be avoided, and the openness of a wide range of views – including those from the Footbridge and its immediate riverside environment – would be preserved. In my judgement, notwithstanding the increased width of development rising to two storeys above-ground, the proposal would not undermine the verdant character of what remains a typically open, landscape-led river edge.

Further, I see merit in the detailed design approach adopted, which draws appropriately on the form, architectural detailing, and materiality of nearby lock lodges that comprise a part of the Footbridge. The proposed symmetrical frontages and well-proportioned bays would reflect, albeit in a loose and contemporary manner, a recognisable riparian building typology. Moreover, the scheme would respond positively to both its immediate context and the formality of the wider setting in a way that is not currently achieved by the existing building. In addition, the proposal incorporates modest yet meaningful public realm and hardstanding improvements, which would further contribute to the overall quality of the scheme.

Taking all relevant matters into account, and notwithstanding a limited increase in overall building bulk and a degree of encroachment into selected cross-river views, it is my judgement that, when assessed holistically, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The scheme therefore accords with Policies 28 and 29 of the LP, Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (March 2021), the Small and Medium Housing Sites Supplementary Planning Document (February 2006), and the St Margarets Village Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (June 2016) in so far as these policies and guidance seek development to be of a high architectural and urban design quality and to conserve and, where possible, take opportunities to make a positive contribution to, the historic environment of the borough.

The significance and special interest of the Footbridge, which is [name]* listed and dates from the 19th-century, is derived, in part, from its age, its role as a well-used and technically innovative local landmark, and the high quality of its elaborately designed cast-iron footbridge and associated lock and sluice gates with stone piers, flanked by brick-built lock houses of additional architectural interest. The significance and special interest of the asset is further reinforced by its setting, which is strongly defined by the [name] and its typically verdant and well-planted banks, contributing to a distinct sense of openness and semi-rural character.

The appeal site occupies a prominent position within the setting of the Footbridge. As such, the existing building is readily perceptible at close quarters from the bridge itself and is co-visible with the Footbridge from a range of riverside viewpoints on both banks, as well as from more distant vantage points along [name] downstream. As previously identified, the existing built form detracts from its receiving environment. Moreover, in its current guise, the site adversely affects the verdant and semi-rural qualities that are characteristic of the Footbridge’s setting.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential prominence of proposed development, particularly having regard to an overall increase in building bulk, and the associated risk of new built form dominating the riverside setting of the Footbridge. However, having experienced the Footbridge and its surroundings through a comprehensive set of agreed inspection viewpoints, I am not persuaded that these concerns would materialise. Notably, owing in part to the reduced overall height of the development and the way in which it would recess from the river, I do not consider that the proposal would lead to any appreciable increase in the perceived scale or dominance of residential development in views of or from the Footbridge.

Further, as already identified, I see merit in the manner in which the design has drawn carefully and selectively from the form, materiality, and fenestration of the lock houses, including their flat-roofed typology. In my view, these subtle and sympathetic references would be read as contextual design cues rather than as overt architectural statements. They would not comprise part of an over-elaborate scheme that could risk competing visually with, or distracting attention from, the Footbridge, which comprises the principal historic focal point in this riverside environment.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting and thereby the significance of the Footbridge as a designated heritage asset. The scheme therefore accords with Policy 29 of the LP in so far as it requires that the significance (including the settings) of the borough’s designated heritage assets will be conserved and enhanced.

The significance and special interest of [address], designated as a Grade I Registered Park and Garden and a World Heritage Site (WHS) is derived, in part, from its age, historic royal connections, and longstanding role as an important public landscape. Old Deer Park, which tends to be screened from the river by thick boundary planting, lies to the south of the [address] and the WHS but is afforded Registered Park and Garden status. I note that the WHS buffer zone encompasses the entirety of a substantial stretch of the river, including the towpath that directly abuts the appeal site. Views across, and up and down the river within the wider [address] area are of particular importance, forming part of an attractive historic riverside corridor that has undergone little substantive change for many years.

The appeal site, although located on the opposite bank of the river, occupies a prominent position and forms part of the wider setting of [address]. Nevertheless, cross-river views toward and outward of Old Deer Park are heavily filtered by an established buffer of mature boundary planting. This filtering effect was clearly evident during site inspection, notwithstanding that the visit took place during winter months when deciduous trees were not in leaf. In these circumstances, and particularly when considered alongside my finding that the proposal would not undermine the verdant qualities of an open and landscape-led river edge, I find that the proposed development would not adversely affect the setting of [address].

For the above reasons, the proposal would preserve the setting and thereby the significance of [address]. The scheme accords with Policy 29 of the LP in so far as it sets out that the significance (including the settings) of the borough’s designated heritage assets will be conserved and enhanced.

The site, as identified in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, lies within [name] 3a, an area where the annual probability of river flooding is greater than 1 in 200. This probability is assessed without taking account of the internal configuration of buildings or the protection afforded by the [name].

As set out in the Framework, the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source, and it should be applied in areas known to be at risk now or in the future. Policy 8 of the LP similarly requires the application of the sequential test. In the case of the appeal proposal, no detailed assessment has been provided to demonstrate whether there are sequentially preferable alternative sites elsewhere.

As acknowledged by the appellant, there is no specific provision within the Framework, nor within the associated Planning Practice Guidance, that exempts replacement development from the requirement to undertake the sequential test. Moreover, the proposal does not comprise one of the exempt forms of minor development referenced at paragraph 176 of the Framework. Nevertheless, it is material to note that, were the appeal to be dismissed solely on the basis of an absence of sequential assessment, three lawful residential units would remain in situ within an area identified as being at risk of flooding.

A comparable situation was considered by another Inspector in relation to an unrelated site within [name] 3a in Maldon District. That decision3, which forms part of the evidence before me, concerned the construction of a single replacement dwelling, for which planning permission was granted notwithstanding the absence of a sequential test. I am mindful that each proposal must be determined on its own individual planning merits. I also recognise that the Maldon scheme involved the replacement of a ‘[name] mobile home, whereas the proposal before me would not result in any change in flood risk vulnerability classification. In addition, the Maldon development did not include basement accommodation. Even so, there are clear parallels to be drawn, in that a legitimate residential use already exists, no increase in the number of residential units is proposed, and a significant reduction in existing flood risk would be achieved. 3 APP/X1545/W/23/3332515, dated 2 May 2024

Indeed, the proposal would deliver a net reduction in flood risk through a range of mitigation measures, including an increase of approximately 1.4 metres to ground floor levels when compared to existing circumstances, raising them to 6.01 metres [name] (mAOD). In addition, the entrance level to the ground floor would be set at 6.9 mAOD. Entrance thresholds would correspond with a new river-fronting retaining wall elevated to the same height and would sit some 0.6 metres above the likely maximum predicted water level of the Thames, taking account of climate-change projections, to the year 2100.

Such measures provide robust assurance that the internal areas of the proposed development – including at basement, which would be limited to utility functions and accessed only from the ground floor of each new unit above – would remain free from flooding over the anticipated lifetime of the development. This finding is reinforced by the proposed surface water drainage strategy, which would provide below-ground attenuation during periods of high river levels, and by the appellant’s commitment to prepare and implement an Emergency Flood Response Plan. Further, it is of notable importance that the Environment Agency, as the principal technical consultee on matters of flood risk, has raised no objection to the scheme.

It is also of relevance that, although the site is not located within the functional floodplain, it is a matter of common ground between the main parties that the proposal satisfies the relevant requirements of Policy 8 of the LP in so far as they relate to the redevelopment of existing developed sites within [name] 3b. Moreover, the proposed building footprint would be reduced and contained entirely within that of the existing building. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to find that no additional built development would arise for the purposes of assessment under Policy 8, that no increase in flood risk vulnerability would result, that a net reduction in flood risk would be achieved, and that a degree of restoration of the functional floodplain would be realised through the widening and improvement of the riverside footpath. For the avoidance of doubt, in light of these considerations, it is my judgement that the proposal would satisfy the exception test as set out at paragraph 178 of the Framework, which is applicable to the scheme before me.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions4 said to be of potential relevance. However, a proposal at [address] concerned an extension and the addition of an extra storey to a permitted dwelling, rather than a replacement dwelling. As such, it is of little relevance to my assessments. Likewise, a scheme at [address] involved the relocation of ‘[name] development to a part of the site with a higher probability of flooding, which contrasts materially with the circumstances of the appeal before me. That decision therefore is also of little relevance.

In conclusion, in flood risk terms, the absence of a sequential test – when applying national policy in a strict sense – results in a limited degree of conflict with Policy 8 of the LP, in so far as it seeks to guide development towards of lower risk through application of the sequential approach. However, there would be no intensification of the existing residential use of the site, and a considerable reduction in current flood risk would be achieved through a comprehensive suite of measures, of particular note being the raising of ground floor levels. In these circumstances, existing flood risks would be materially and demonstrably reduced, and, in my 4 APP/D0121/W/22/3294760; APP/H1840/W/21/3267349 judgement, the benefits arising from these enhancements would outweigh the policy conflict associated with the absence of a sequential test.

The Council’s fifth reason for refusing planning permission refers to an alleged unacceptable erosion of the borough’s housing stock arising from the loss of residential units, with particular emphasis on houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Of the three self-contained residential units currently present at the site, one is occupied in Class C35 dwellinghouse use. The remaining two units, as confirmed by a relatively recently issued lawful development certificate6 and corroborated by my internal inspections, have lawful uses falling within Class C4, comprising small HMOs occupied by no more than six residents.

Policy 14 of the LP seeks to retain existing housing and states that existing larger HMOs will be protected where they are of a reasonable standard. It is important to note that the proposal would not result in the loss of any larger HMOs. Furthermore, Policy 14 does not confer specific protection on small HMOs, notwithstanding that they can make a valuable contribution to housing choice. In any event, given that a change of use between Class C3 and Class C4 constitutes permitted development and therefore does not require planning permission, the proposal would maintain the status quo in so far as the site would continue to accommodate three self-contained residential units.

Policy 14 further indicates that the redevelopment of existing housing should normally only occur where it has been demonstrated that the existing housing is incapable of improvement or conversion to a satisfactory standard to provide an equivalent scheme, having regard to embodied carbon and the circular economy. While the retrofitting and re-use of existing buildings should be prioritised where feasible, it would be neither realistic nor appropriate to seek the retention of an aging building of poor quality design, which has been subject to incremental and unsympathetic alterations and that can be observed to be in a sub-optimal state of repair. Although a detailed building condition report (or similar) has not been prepared, these shortcomings were readily apparent during my external and internal inspections of the property.

For the above reasons, and with particular regard to the implications for existing residential units, the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon the local housing stock. The scheme therefore accords with Policy 14 of the LP in so far as it sets out that existing housing should be retained and that proposals should avoid a detrimental impact on existing housing supply.

Further to those already identified above, there are other designated heritage assets situated in the general vicinity of the site. There include the [name]* listed [address] that is located north-westward along the river. For the avoidance of doubt, in-part owing to the generous separation distances involved, I am content that the setting of any such designated asset would be preserved as a consequence of the proposed development at the appeal site. 5 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order (1987) (as amended) 6 Ref 19/0141/ES191

Concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding instances where the riverside path adjacent to the site has become impassable at high tide. Whilst the proposal includes an increase in the width of this path, no alteration to its level is intended. As the scheme could not reasonably be expected to increase the frequency or severity of occasions when the path becomes impassable, I find no justification for requiring the path level – or the level of the adjacent pavement along [site address] – to be raised within the scope of this appeal. In any event, as discussed at the Hearing, such alterations would be likely to present considerable technical and practical challenges.

A Financial Viability Assessment has been submitted, demonstrating that the scheme is unable to support a commuted sum in lieu of on-site affordable housing provision. This assessment, and its conclusions, have been independently reviewed on behalf of the Council and found to be robust, and I have no reason to take a different stance.

I have identified a limited degree of conflict with Policy 8 of the LP, solely in so far as it relates to the sequential testing of sites in a flood risk sense. However, for the reasons set out above, and in the absence of any other identifiable development plan policy conflict, it is my judgement that the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole and that there are no material considerations which indicate a decision otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt, having found that there would be no harm to the significance of any designated heritage asset, it has not been necessary for me to consider in detail the purported public benefits of the scheme.

A list of draft planning conditions was worked upon by the parties in advance of the Hearing. Following further discussion at the event, I have considered the conditions against advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As a result, I have made amendments to the list for consistency and clarity purposes. Pre-commencement conditions have only been applied where agreed to by the appellant and where necessary to guide initial works on site. A condition setting out the relevant approved plans and documents is necessary in the interests of certainty.

In the interests of mitigating flood risk, whilst noting that the external walls of the building shall serve as flood defences, conditions are reasonable and necessary that secure full details of the design of said walls (including a maintenance strategy) as well as the implementation of relevant measures specified in the approved Flood Risk Assessment.

In the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA, conditions are reasonable and necessary that secure full details of: external facing materials; refuse storage/collection arrangements; means of enclosure; and hard and soft landscaping. For the same reason, the submission and implementation of an [name] is necessary to secure via condition. For the avoidance of doubt, the aforementioned means of enclosure and refuse storage/collection conditions would additionally be in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring/local occupiers.

In the interests of preserving/enhancing ecology and biodiversity, conditions are reasonable and necessary that secure the submission and implementation of: a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan; a Construction Ecological Management Plan; and a programme of ecological enhancements. For the same reason, conditions are reasonable that secure the undertaking of bat emergence survey work and full details of any external illumination that differs from lighting details submitted and adjudged acceptable at appeal stage.

In the interests of promoting the utilisation of sustainable construction measures or sustainable travel choices, conditions are reasonable and necessary that secure: adherence to relevant water consumption targets; a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over and above the relevant Building Regulation; and full details of the cycle storage facilities to be installed.

To promote fire safety, adherence with a submitted [name] is necessary to condition. In the interests of crime prevention, it is reasonable to require that the scheme achieves a ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation. To promote accessibility and inclusivity, it is necessary to secure compliance with Building Regulation M4(2). Further, in the interests of highway safety and safeguarding the living conditions of local occupiers, a Construction Management Plan is also reasonable to condition.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed such that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Basement Impact Assessment (June 2023); [name] (March 2023); Flood Risk Assessment and [name] (June 2023); [name] (July 2024); [name]: Ecology (June 2023); PL-001 P4; PL-002 P4; PL-010 P4; PL-011 P4; PL-020 P4; PL-030 P4; PL-031 P4; PL-040 P6; PL-041 P5; PL-043 P5; PL-046 P6; PL-047 P5; PL-050 P5; PL-051 P6; PL-052 P5; PL-054 P5; PL-060 P5; PL-061 P5; PL-062 P5; PL-063 P5; PL-070 P5; PL-072 P5; PL-073 P5; PL-074 P5; PL-075 P5; PL-076 P5; PL-077 P5; PL-078 P5; PL-100 P5; PL-101 P5; PL-111 P5; PL-210 P5; PL-213 P5; SK01.

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until such time as the detailed design of the external property walls and a maintenance scheme demonstrating that they shall remain operational for the 100 year lifetime of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme shall include the following details: • Evidence to demonstrate that the external walls have been designed to support the hydrostatic loads expected from the current and future design water levels; • Vegetation management plan to ensure any relevant asset inspector is able to visually inspect the external walls and to prevent any vegetation from damaging the external walls; • Maintenance strategy for the external walls that includes: a proposal for periodic inspection of the structures by a suitably qualified engineer to check defects; and a proposed method of remediation to rectify any defects identified during their inspection, or an inspection by the Environment Agency, that impact the flood defence’s performance. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements, or within any other period as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency.

The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment and [name] (FRA) (June 2023), and the following mitigation measures it details: • Finished threshold level shall be set at no lower than 6.9 mAOD; • Flood storage volumes shall be maintained and increased at all elevations up to the design fluvial flood height of 5.42 mAOD, with reference to Table 01 on page 10 of Appendix 2 to the FRA; • No air vents or windows will be permitted below 6.9 mAOD. The above mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and subsequently in accordance with the scheme’s timing/phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for landscape and ecological measures within the application site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape and Ecological Management Plan shall be implemented as approved, any subsequent variations shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include, but not limited to, the following elements: • A plant schedule detailing native species; • A bat sensitive lighting strategy, consistent with the submitted [name] (October 2025); • Detail and timings of ongoing maintenance obligations.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a detailed Construction Management Plan using the Council's relevant proforma document has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved Plan. The Plan shall include: • Contact details, including a 24 hour emergency contact (details of which shall be displayed on any hoarding/security fencing); • Programme length and phasing; • The number, type and dimensions of vehicles required; • Vehicle routing; • Details of holding areas for construction traffic and communication strategy for their arrival; • Methods of spoil removal and concrete supply; • Details and location where plant and materials will be loaded and unloaded; • Security hoarding and maintenance details of such; • Site setup drawings showing the position of such features as vehicles, skips, concrete supply, at a minimum scale of 1:200, showing the site in context of the surrounding highway and neighbouring properties; • [name] drawings, should vehicles be expected to enter/exit the site in a forward gear off/on to a classified road; • Details of how the safety of highway users and vulnerable pedestrians shall be managed; • Details of how access to neighbouring properties shall be maintained; • Details of how any trees and street furniture (i.e. such features as lighting columns, communications cabinets, bollards) shall be protected during the works; • Details of any required footway and/or road closures, or highway licences; • Any necessary parking suspension details; • Details of any wheel-washing facilities, if required; • Details of measures to be applied to control the emission of noise, vibration and dust including details of working hours. Such measures shall follow [name] detailed within BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014, Code of Practice for Noise and [name] on Construction and [name]; as well as for dust control: COSHH 2002 (as amended 2020), The London Plan 2021 Policy SI-1-D and [name] CIS36. Where applicable, the [name] shall be written in conjunction with the [name] (Condition 8), and in accordance with [name] 5837:2012 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations', in particular sections 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 7.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a detailed Construction Ecological Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved Plan.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until an [name] (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS shall: • Be written in accordance with and address sections 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 7 of [name] 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations; • Be written in conjunction with the scheme’s [name] (Condition 6) (where applicable); • Outline any tree constraints and explain any impacts for both above and below ground; • Detail all tree protection (including plans); • Detail any special engineering required for construction within [name]; • Detail any facilitation pruning that may be required. The specification for tying back and/or pruning shall be measurable and prepared by a suitably qualified Arboriculturist or [name]. All tree work shall be undertaken in accordance with BS3998:2010 Tree work – Recommendations, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; • Provide confirmation of the appointment of an [name] for the duration of the development and a schedule of inspections to achieve an auditable monitoring and supervision programme, and a timetable for submission to the Local Planning Authority; • Provide details of all servicing runs (existing and proposed). The development shall not be implemented other than in accordance with the approved AMS.

No development (including demolition, roof works, or other operations hereby approved affecting buildings or trees with bat roost potential) shall commence until bat emergence surveys have been undertaken during the recognised bat activity season (May to September) and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where updated surveys confirm the presence of bats or potential roosts, no development shall take place until a suitable mitigation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and, if required, a [name] licence has been obtained. All approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of works affecting the roost, unless otherwise in accordance with a timetable to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No development above slab level shall commence until an [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include the following details of ecological enhancements: • Specific location (including proposed aspect and height) on a plan in context with the development; • Specific product/dimensions; • Proposed maintenance. The ecological enhancements shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

The external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted (including fenestration) shall not be constructed other than in accordance with materials details/samples first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Notwithstanding approved landscaping details, no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Landscaping shall be implemented and managed in accordance with the approved details, which shall include: (A) Hard landscape works: • Finished levels/contours; • Details of vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; • Surfacing materials, hard surface construction and drainage; • Existing and proposed utility services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines – indicating such features as lines, manholes, supports); • A program or timetable of the works; (B) Soft landscape works: • [name] in context with the development; • Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); • Plans and written specifications shall detail the quantity, density, size, species, position and the proposed time or programme of planting of all shrubs, hedges, grasses, together with an indication of how they shall integrate with the scheme in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance, especially over the first 2 years; • All tree, shrub and hedge planting included shall be carried out in accordance with relevant [name].

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until cycle parking facilities have been provided in accordance with detailed drawings to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The approved facilities shall be retained at all times thereafter.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until arrangements for the storage and disposal of refuse/waste have been made in accordance with details to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved arrangements shall be retained at all times thereafter.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a suitable means of enclosure has been erected along the boundaries of the site in accordance with details to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved means of enclosure shall be retained at all times thereafter.

The development shall achieve ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation awarded by the [name] from the [name] on behalf of the Association of [name]. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, evidence of this accreditation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied other than in accordance with the water consumption targets of 105 litres or less per person per day, and 5 litres or less per head per day for external water use.

The dwellings hereby permitted shall achieve a 35% reduction in Carbon dioxide emissions beyond relevant Building Regulations requirements (2013).

The development hereby permitted shall not be constructed other than in accordance with Building Regulation M4(2).

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the approved [name] (March 2023), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

External illumination of the premises shall not be carried out except in accordance with the [name] (October 2025) prepared by AA Environmental Limited, unless approved otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with supporting details to include the lighting method, intensity, siting and technical specifications. [name] [name], [name], Silver Jetty Ltd Paul Dickinson Principal, [name] and [name] (Heritage), HCUK Group David Parfitt Director, David Parfitt Landscape Consultancy Ltd [name] (Hydrology), SLR Consulting Ltd FOR THE COUNCIL Thomas Faherty Senior Planning Officer, Development Management Ben Eley Senior Conservation and [name] [name] • Plan to confirm the boundaries of World Heritage Site, World Heritage Site Buffer Zone, and [name] and Gardens – hard copy submitted to the Inspector at the site visit as agreed at the Hearing