Appeal 6002563

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the reversion of four flats to a single-family dwelling house, removal of fire escape, replacement windows, refuse and cycle store at [site address] [site address] , [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/1389, subject to the conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.

Since the issuing of the original decision the Council has formally adopted its new Richmond Local Plan (2024-2039) (LP), which replaced its former Local Plan. The references to the former Local Plan found in the officer report and decision notice can therefore be discounted.

The appellant has produced a viability assessment to address the Council’s first reason for refusal relating to financial contributions in the context of affordable housing. The Council has considered the assessment and acknowledges that it satisfactorily addresses the first reason for refusal, which should be removed. Since the Council no longer supports the first reason for refusal, I shall not consider this aspect further.

Having regard to the provisions of LP policy 14, the main issue is whether the loss of housing units proposed is significantly outweighed by other factors.

The appellants raise an issue in respect of the Council’s application of LP policy 14. This is whether the development proposed should appropriately be described as a redevelopment having regard to the terms of LP Policy 14 (C).

It has long been established that a Local Planning Authority must proceed on the basis of a proper understanding and interpretation of the development plan. The leading case is Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council (Scotland) [2012] UKSC

This establishes that policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context. This is ultimately a matter for the Courts, but an exercise of judgement is called for in the application of a policy to a particular set of circumstances.

The term redevelopment is not defined in the LP’s glossary, but it is in common usage in planning circles. I do not entirely exclude other forms, but the redevelopment of a site in my experience normally relates to the demolition and replacement of derelict, unused or underused buildings or structures, or those in poor condition with new, whilst not excluding their possible refurbishment. Redevelopment normally involves the revitalization or regeneration of a site or area evidently in need of such action. The proposals do not involve such development.

Thus on my reading and understanding of the policy the proposal could not appropriately be described as a redevelopment but rather as a reversion or conversion falling clearly within the ambit of LP policy 14 (B).

[name] of the policy is also significant in that it provides that existing housing should be retained. However, there is no persuasive evidence before me suggesting that the existing housing within the property is ‘affordable’, in the terms of the definitions provided in the LP’s or the Framework’s1 glossaries. Nor is it an HMO, supported accommodation, hostel or staff accommodation.

Thus, to my mind, against the general policy2 resistance to loss of housing units, the proposal should properly be assessed against the provisions of LP policy part (B), which provides that: Proposals for reversions and conversions should assess the suitability of the property, environmental and design considerations. Proposals should avoid a detrimental impact on existing housing supply.

Clarification is provided in the explanatory text accompanying the policy. Both parties refer in particular to paragraph 17.68, which explains that reversions of houses converted into flats back into a single-family dwelling house will only be considered acceptable if the property was originally built as a single-family dwelling house. The parties agree that the property was originally built as a single-family dwelling house. In such cases it should also be demonstrated that the loss of a housing unit will be outweighed by environmental, street scene, transport or parking benefits which could not be easily achieved without the reversion.

The Council, however, points to another aspect of the policy’s explanatory text representing a material change from the provisions of the replaced Local Plan. This provides that: Reversions should not involve the combining of more than two units due to the Borough’s housing needs. A stronger justification for an exception needs to be made if there is a greater loss of existing units, given reversions will be generally resisted due to the loss of existing stock. 1 National Planning Policy Framework 2 Also taking into account the relevant provisions of policy H8 of the London Plan

The existing property contains 4 housing units comprised of 3 reasonably sized flats and a basement studio. The proposal, in that it involves the net loss of 3 housing units, would thus need exceptional justification under the terms of the newly adopted development plan. The appellants seek to justify the proposal principally on account of the benefits brought about in respect of heritage issues; environmental/energy issues and parking/transportation. The Council considered all these aspects in its officer report and concluded that any benefits gained did not outweigh the loss of units.

The Victorian property was originally built as a large semi-detached dwelling. It is of 4 storeys with a raised ground floor and basement, with an attic above. The appellant’s Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) provides an account of the historical development of this part of Richmond, and rightly in my view emphasises the importance of context having particular regard to historical development and to the outstanding view obtained from this part of the Hill, a view being the only one in England protected by statute.

The appeal property is designated as a Building of [name] (BTM) by the Council and therefore falls to be considered as a Heritage Asset (HA) as defined in the Framework3. It also falls within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). The appellant has listed the physical improvements to be made to the property which include cleaned and re-pointed brickwork/stonework; new timber windows, the removal of an unsightly fire escape; the rationalisation of refuse bin and cycle storage; an opportunity to improve the appearance of garden areas and internal improvements.

The external appearance of the property appeared to me to be dowdy and adversely affected by neglect, in a condition undeserving of its prominent position within the CA. On my visit I saw that external areas were neglected and there were refuse bins on display in the front garden. The rationalisation of bin storage at the rear and an improved front garden would bring other visual benefit.

Being sited directly opposite [address] and within a short distance of the main designated viewing point from the Hill the immediate locality is extremely popular with visitors drawn locally and from well beyond. The property is therefore in full view of the many pedestrians making their way to and from this part of the Hill.

The Council acknowledges that some of the envisaged improvements will bring heritage benefits, but suggests that there is no reason why most of the improvements could not be achieved were the property to remain as flats. However, there is no assurance or guarantee that would prove to be the case, and nor does the Council suggest a time scale for this possibility. On the other hand, the proposed development would be expected to bring benefits in a reasonably short period of time.

The Council, in its officer report, give limited weight to some of the heritage benefits, but attribute no weight to others, and considered that the improvements would ‘..at least preserve the character and appearance of the CA and significance of the BTM..’. I do not share its view as to the extent, degree and effect of the improvements which would be brought about. To my mind, having full regard to 3 National Planning Policy Framework. local and national heritage policy and the statutory test for development in conservation areas, the effect on the CA would represent a substantial enhancement considering the prominence of the building, and the significance of the BTM would also be enhanced both externally and internally.

The Council give no weight to the environmental benefits arising from the introduction of the proposed energy saving proposals on the basis that similar results could not be achieved without the reversion. There is no evidence however that any such energy scheme is planned were the conversion proposal not pursued or granted permission. I regard the agreed environmental benefits as a significant benefit of the scheme.

The Council acknowledges that the implementation of the scheme would bring about local parking and transportation benefits in an area of high parking demand, and where the PTAL rating is poor. It would also bring about a reduced trip generation for the property as a whole, thus effecting lower CO2 emissions.

I have considered the representations in respect of the quality of the existing units and whether or not they could be properly considered as suitable for families. The main policy relied upon by the Council does not distinguish between the type of units lost, and I have no reason to conclude that the units, if advertised for rent, would not be readily let. The Council refer me to the historical adverse land availability for housing position under the terms of the now replaced development plan, but I note that this is an issue satisfactorily addressed, having regard to national policy, under the terms of the newly adopted plan.

In arriving at a planning decision, the weight attributed to the various considerations referred to above is a matter for the decision maker. I differ from the Council in that the heritage factors identified attract significant weight in view of the enhancements proposed in a sensitive and prominent location. The environmental and transportation benefits also attract substantial weight in my considerations.

I conclude that, taken in combination, the benefits of the scheme significantly outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the 3 housing units, and I therefore consider that, exceptionally, the main thrust of LP policy 14 need not be adhered to.

The Council has produced a list of conditions on which the appellant has commented. There were no adverse comments from that quarter. I shall therefore impose those conditions, with some minor adjustments, for the same reasons as provided by the Council.

I have considered whether any additional conditions are necessary. I have specifically mentioned the garden areas in my decision. In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose a landscaping condition which should result in a further visual improvement, especially at the front of the property.

I attach some significance in my decision to the prospect that the development could bring visual improvements relatively quickly. The standard time limit imposed ensures that the development should commence within 3 years, but there is no indication provided, other than an indication in the viability assessment, as to how long it would take to complete the development, thus bringing about the promised external improvements within a reasonable period of time. An additional condition reflects my comments on this issue.

I have considered all references to other development plan policies, local guidance and the Framework, and have considered the only representation made by a local resident, which was in favour of the development. I have also considered the references made to other appeal decisions. These are of limited relevance given the recent emergence of the freshly adopted LP.

All other matters raised have been taken into account, but they do not outweigh the considerations which led me to my main conclusion.

The appeal is therefore allowed and planning permission is granted subject to

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 0665(00)00, 0665(90)01, 0665(90)02, 0665(90)03, 0665(90)04, 0665(00)01 B, 0665(00)10, 0665(00)11, 0665(00)12, 0665(00)02 D, 0655(00)03 D, 0655(00)04 C, 0655(00)05 C, 0655(00)06 C, 0655(00)07, 0655(00)08 A, 0655(00)09 A, 0655(01)01 A, 0655(01)10, 0655(01)11, 0655(01)12, 0655(01)02 B, 0655(01)03 A, 0655(01)04 A, 0655(01)05 A, 0655(01)06 A, 0655(01)07, 0655(01)08 A & 0655(01)09 A.

No new external finishes (including fenestration), including works of making good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP) (to include any demolition works) using the Council's proforma document (https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/22165/construction_management_plan_ guidance_notes pdf) 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 CMP shall detail:

Contact details, including a 24hr 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 of where plant and materials will be loaded and unloaded;

Security hoarding and maintenance of such;

Site set up drawings showing the position of vehicles, skips, concrete supply, etc. at a minimum scale of 1:200, showing the site in context of the surrounding highway and neighbouring properties;

Details of how the safety of highway users and vulnerable pedestrians will be managed and how access to neighbouring properties will be maintained;

Details of how any trees and street furniture (i.e. lighting columns, communications cabinets, bollards, etc.) are to be protected during the works;

Details of any required footway and/or road closures, or highway licences or any necessary parking suspension details;

Details of any wheel-washing facilities, if required;

Details all non-road transportable industrial equipment or vehicles which are fitted with an internal diesel-powered compression ignition engine between 37 and 560KW to be brought onto the construction site.

Details of measures that will be applied to control the emission of noise, vibration and dust including working hours. This should 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.

No development shall commence until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The development shall not proceed other than in accordance with a building programme in respect of external works to be agreed with the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development.

Before the development hereby permitted begins a scheme shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and be put in place to ensure that, with the exception of disabled persons, residential parking permits shall be limited to a maximum number of 2 for the property, within any controlled parking zone which may be in force in the area at any time, nor shall any more than 2 occupiers at any time obtain a season ticket/enter into a contract to park in any car park controlled by the Council.

The single residential unit hereby approved shall not be occupied until cycle parking facilities have been provided in accordance with either A) approved drawing numbers 0665(01)01, 0665(90)01 & 0665(90)02; or B) detailed drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such drawings to show the position, design, materials and finishes thereof. The cycle parking facilities shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

The single residential unit hereby approved shall not commence until refuse facilities have been provided in accordance with either; A) approved drawing numbers 0665(01)01, 0665(90)03 & 0665(90)04; or B) detailed drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse facilities shall be retained thereafter.

The dwelling hereby approved shall achieve a 35% reduction in Carbon dioxide emissions beyond Building Regulations requirements (2021).

The dwelling hereby approved shall achieve [name]; in accordance with the terms of the application & the requirements of the [name] (or such national measure of sustainability for house design that replaces thatscheme).

The dwelling hereby approved 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 development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the ‘[name] received by the local planning authority on 28 Apr 2025.