Appeal 6002308

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The application form states that work was completed in June 2025 and at the time of my visit I saw that the bike box was still in situ. However, I have noted inaccuracies as the elevation plans do not reflect the dimensions given for the structure. Therefore, I have considered the development on the basis what has been constructed on site, rather than the submitted plans.

The main issue of the appeal is effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] comprises a semi-detached, five-bedroom dwelling set behind a front garden. The front boundary is formed by a low brick wall mounted with metal railings above. The bike box unit is positioned directly against this boundary and is constructed from anthracite galvanised panels. Solid structures of this scale which are located immediately on the front boundary are not typical of the surrounding street scene. The prevailing character is defined by low brick walls and natural hedging that provide a softer, more open transition between the properties and the public realm. The site does not lie within a conservation area, however the area still possesses an individual character which consists of high-quality design.

The limited examples of structures I observed along [address] were constructed from timber and were more akin to typical outbuilding structures that you might expect to find in a front garden. Whilst these were still visible from the public realm, they had a softer relationship with the traditional materials seen within the street scene as they were made from timber, which when viewed against the backdrop of the verdant front gardens, appeared fairly inconspicuous. In contrast, the bike box’s position directly on the boundary, together with its solid, dark metal façade and its bulky form and scale, makes it visually prominent and conspicuous within the street scene.

[name] note the examples referred to by the appellant, I am not aware whether they benefit from planning permission or, if not, whether the Council is taking enforcement action against them. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that they are permanent features of the area. In any event, several of the structures identified appear more inconspicuous than the appeal scheme due to boundary treatments that provide a greater degree of screening of them. The Council’s cycle hangar storage units are not comparable, as they are located within a wholly different site context to that of the appeal property. Nevertheless, the presence of other structures of similar scale or materials does not, in itself, demonstrate that they form part of the prevailing character of the area or that the appeal proposal is acceptable in this context. Given that these examples are isolated examples, I afford them limited weight as they do not represent a defining feature of the area, and they do not justify granting planning permission for the appeal scheme.

I recognise that the size of the bike box reflects its practical function in accommodating the four bicycles required by the household. I also note that one of the occupiers has a health condition which means that having access to a bicycle adjacent to the road can be invaluable when walking is difficult, and that this is clearly a benefit to them.

Disability is a protected characteristic and so I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. [name] give significant weight to this, it has not been demonstrated that the development cannot be sited or designed in a less harmful way while achieving the same benefit. Accordingly, there is no substantiated evidence before me to show that the dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect on those with protected characteristics, when weighed against the planning harm set out above.

Furthermore, while the promotion of sustainable transport is an important public benefit supported by local and national policy, there is nothing before me to suggest that this storage could not continue to be provided in a way that has a lesser impact on the character of the area.

Therefore, the development results in harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it fails to accord with Policy LP28 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024 to 2039 (2025), which requires that developments are compatible with the local character, including the relationship to existing townscape, development patterns, views, local urban grain and frontages as well as scale, height, massing, density, landscaping, proportions, form, materials and detailing.

The Council refers to the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document, [name] and [name] (2015), which advises that extensions should not dominate the existing house and should harmonise with its appearance. However, as the proposal relates to an outbuilding positioned in the front garden rather than a side or rear extension, I do not consider this guidance directly applicable to the development.

Although reference is made to existing rose bushes and shrubs providing partial screening, the planting observed on site did not meaningfully mitigate the visibility of the structure. In any event, such planting cannot be relied upon as a permanent or enforceable measure and therefore does not adequately address the harm identified.

I note the appellant’s concerns about the Council’s conduct during the application process; however, this does not fall within my remit in dealing with this appeal.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.