Appeal 6001955

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of an existing free-standing single-storey garden store with a single-storey garden store/garage at [site address] , Twickenham, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/3003, and the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In the interests of conciseness and precision, I have used the description of development on the Council’s decision notice for the purposes of the appeal

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Richmond Riverside Conservation Area (CA), including the effect on trees.

[address] is a semi-detached property set within a generous curtilage. It lies beyond a private, gated access. The detached neighbouring dwelling, [address], has a small tree within its frontage. These properties are situated within Area 4 of the CA, the significance of which derives from its historic development along the [name]. The character of this part of the CA is strongly defined by the open river corridor, with mature trees and greenery on both banks, particularly around [name]. This established tree cover is integral to the area’s special interest, reinforcing its semi-rural riverside character, softening the built environment and sustaining its scenic value.

With regards to the Council’s suggestion that the proposal fails to assess effects on a TPO Tree (ref T0518 T1), the appellant has provided information demonstrating that this tree was removed with the Council’s approval in 2008. This is consistent with my own observations on site which confirmed that the tree is no longer in situ. Therefore, the proposed development would not have any impact in this regard.

The Tree Protection Plan (TPP) appended to the appellant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Preliminary Method Assessment (PMS) shows that the development area will encroach into the root protection area (RPA) of a Category A Tree ‘T1 Sycamore’. Even so, the TPP also indicates that tree protection fencing (TPF) will be put in place and this would ensure a construction exclusion zone (CEZ) in the more central parts of the RPA.

Moreover, the PMS sets out a detailed approach including monitoring and supervision from an arboriculturist during works. It confirms that the TPF will be in place for the duration of demolition and construction activities, together with appropriate tree protection signage on the fencing. Clear principles are included in the CEZ, for example no mechanical excavation and no storage, and temporary ground protection areas would be put in place. A pre-commencement meeting would take place with an arboriculturalist.

Further mitigation measures detailed in the PMS include specified techniques to minimise the likelihood of damage to trees during demolition of the existing building in accordance with the ‘top down, pull back’ method described within BS5837:2012. During the ground works for the replacement outbuilding, sensitive excavations for foundations would be employed with a detailed methodology set out in the PMS for this, new hard surfacing and excavation for underground services.

The AIA and PMS concludes that based on the considerations within the document, the overall arboricultural magnitude of the appeal scheme is low. There is no detailed contrary evidence before me. Therefore, subject to an appropriately worded condition requiring the development to be carried out in strict accordance with the detailed methodology provided, I am satisfied that the development would not have a harmful effect on trees in the CA, including the Category A Tree T1 Sycamore Tree.

Furthermore, the Council has raised no concerns in respect of the design of the garden store/garage. Indeed, whilst larger in comparison to the existing shed structure, the proposed garage/ garden store will feature timber cladding to its walls and a tiled roof, a design that would assimilate with surrounding outbuilding structures within the CA.

I conclude, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, including the effect on trees. In that regard, the proposal would accord with policies 28, 29 and 42 of the [site address] Local Plan (2025) which require proposals to ensure trees are protected, that the design, layout and materials of a development respect and respond to the historic environment and that great weight is given to the conservation of the heritage asset when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of the asset.

The proposal also responds to paragraph 135 and 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as they require that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change as well as ensuring great weight is given to a heritage asset’s conservation.

With regards to the third-party concerns raised, given my findings in terms of the effect of the proposed development on trees, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that there is a significant risk of a tree falling onto neighbouring property. This in any case would be a private matter between landowners. The necessity of the proposed development and any effects on private views are not material to my

Based on my observations on site, and even accounting for neighbouring land levels, I am satisfied that the building’s domestic scale and position relative to the windows and garden areas to the rear of neighbouring gardens would be such that there would be no material effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. There would also be no harmful loss of green space in the CA. The suggestion that there would be unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance and hazardous materials stored is conjecture. I note that the Council also identified no harm in these respects.

In addition to the standard three-year implementation condition, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to include a condition defining the approved plans.

The Council’s suggested condition requiring an [name] is unnecessary as there is nothing to suggest that the detailed information already provided in the appellant’s detailed AIA and PMS does not comprehensively address the methodology to protect trees. Instead, it is reasonable to include a condition requiring the development to be carried out in strict accordance with the detailed methodology in the AIA and PMS in the interest of ensuring that there is no harm to trees and the character and appearance of the CA is preserved.

It is also reasonable to attach a condition setting out that the development must be undertaken in accordance with the submitted [name] as required by London Plan Policy D12 and the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the purposes of flood risk management. In the latter respect, the FRA is the appellant’s completed proforma ‘Environment Agency – Householder and other miner extensions in [name] 2 and 3’ which confirms the intended flood mitigation measures to be incorporated.

The Council’s suggested comprehensive landscape condition would not be proportionate in respect of the modest store/garage proposed. A separate condition relating to a detailed construction methodology and foundation design is not necessary as this is addressed under the AMS condition.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is 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 the following drawings: Location Plan 837.01, [name] and Garage Plan and [name] 837-52 [name], Site Plan: Proposed – [name]/Garage 837.024.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] produced by PF2 Architects LLP and the accompanying Site Plan Fire Safety Strategy: Proposed drawing 837.025 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the completed ‘Environment Agency – Householder and other miner extensions in [name] 2 and 3’ proforma unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the MDJ Arboricultural Consultancy Limited ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] dated 12 August 2025 (AIA and PMS) including the detailed tree protection methodology set out at paragraphs 6.1 – 6.11 and the recommendation at paragraph 7.2 of the AIA and PMS together with Tree Protection Plan drawing [name] BS25173-TPP-01 which is appended to the AIA and PMS.