Appeal 6002638

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the application, the description of development was amended to remove reference to demolition and instead to refer to extensions and alterations. This revised description reflects changes to the proposed scheme following consultation with the Council. The appeal has therefore been considered on the basis of the revised description of development set out above.

Through this appeal the appellant has submitted an [name] demonstrating that the scheme would achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions significantly exceeding the minimum requirement of 35% through on-site renewable energy generation. A completed London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRuT) [name] has also been provided, indicating that the scheme would make a substantial contribution to the borough’s stock of sustainable developments, together with a BREEAM Pre-Assessment confirming an ‘Excellent’ rating.

The Council has stated that these documents should not be considered as part of the appeal, on the basis that they would necessitate external changes to the proposal through the introduction of an air source heat pump. However, I am satisfied that matters relating to the siting, location and appearance of an air source heat pump can be adequately addressed by planning condition. The submitted information addresses the matters identified in the Council’s second reason for refusal. Accordingly, I do not need to consider this issue further.

Through this appeal a [name] signed by all relevant parties has been submitted, restricting future occupiers’ eligibility for parking permits. I am satisfied this addresses the matter identified in the Council’s fourth reason for refusal, and the Council has confirmed they no longer maintain an objection regarding parking permit eligibility. That reason for refusal also referred to insufficient detail on cycle parking. I am satisfied that the proposal makes provision for an enclosed space capable of storing two cycles. Accordingly, I do not need to consider these matters further.

The Council’s fifth reason for refusal concerned the need for a legal agreement to secure an appropriate contribution to the Council’s affordable housing fund. The appellant has submitted additional information indicating that such a contribution would render the scheme unviable. This evidence has addressed the Council’s earlier concerns, and the Council no longer maintains an objection on affordable housing grounds. I have no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, I do not need to consider this matter further.

Following the determination of the planning application, the new Richmond Local Plan was adopted by the Council in October 2025. This replaces the previous Local Plan adopted in 2018. The relevant policies in the new Local Plan were included in the Council’s reasons for refusal, and the Council has confirmed that the adoption of the new Plan does not result in any changes to its conclusions on the proposed development. This appeal will therefore be determined using the policies contained within the Richmond Local Plan 2025 (the Plan).

The main issues are: i. the loss of industrial space; and ii. the design of the proposed development, taking into account: a) the effect on the character and appearance of the adjacent buildings and the setting of the Conservation Area, and b) sustainable design measures.

Policy 24 of the Plan seeks to retain industrial space and applies a presumption against the loss of industrial land across the borough. It states that proposals resulting in the net loss of industrial land, defined as land in industrial or warehouse use ([name](g)(iii), B2 and B8), will be refused.

The appeal site comprises a small B8 storage unit. The proposal seeks its change of use to a dwelling (Use Class C3) and would therefore result in the loss of industrial land, contrary to Policy 24 of the Plan.

The supporting text to Policy 24 states that where a proposal involves a change of use not supported by the Plan, the Council will require satisfactory marketing evidence which demonstrates that the site has been marketed for a minimum period of two years through a commercial agent; on property databases, search engines and other relevant free to view and easily accessible websites; both for its existing industrial use and alternative employment generating uses, including as flexible, start-up, or co-working space; and using prices that genuinely reflect the market value of the property based on the local industrial market and on the existing quality of the accommodation.

While the submitted marketing evidence demonstrates that the appeal site has been marketed for two years using methods consistent with the requirements of Policy 24 of the Plan, there are clearly deficiencies in the approach undertaken.

I agree with the Council that the marketing evidence provides limited information on comparable properties in the surrounding area, referring only to neighbouring units on [address], which differ markedly in the quality of accommodation offered. As a result, the evidence does not enable an informed judgment to be made on an appropriate and competitive asking price for the site. I therefore cannot be confident that the price sought during the marketing period genuinely reflected the market value of the property, having regard to the local industrial market and the condition of the existing accommodation.

Although the unit was advertised stating that alternative uses would be considered, the marketing evidence does not demonstrate that the site was advertised as a potential flexible, start-up, or co-working space as required by the Plan. Moreover, I agree with the Council that, given the unit is at the lower end of the market and likely to appeal to smaller businesses, the absence of an upfront asking price in the published advertisements may have reduced the effectiveness of the marketing exercise.

The supporting text to Policy 24 also makes clear that the provision of marketing in itself does not justify an exception to policy. In addition, any proposal for a change of use must demonstrate that there is no longer demand for an industrial use at the site, and that such demand is unlikely to arise in the foreseeable future, explaining why the site is not suitable for continued commercial, business or service use.

The marketing evidence concludes that several local factors affected the desirability of the unit, including the quality of strategic road access, the availability of units in more desirable locations, the lack of on-site parking, and the shared access arrangements. While these points indicate that higher-quality industrial premises may be available elsewhere and that the site may struggle to compete with them, I am not satisfied that the evidence clearly demonstrates an absence of demand for an industrial use in this location.

The evidence does indicate some interest in the property during the marketing period. However, given the deficiencies identified above in relation to the marketing exercise, it is possible that additional interest may have arisen had the site been advertised differently.

[name] 21 and 24 of the Plan seek, amongst other things, to retain industrial space in the borough. The submitted marketing evidence does not justify an exception to this. Consequently, the proposed loss of industrial space would conflict with Policies 21 and 24 of the Plan.

The Council also referred to Policy 22 of the Plan in relation to the loss of industrial space. Policy 22 relates to proposals providing additional employment floorspace and is not therefore relevant to the determination of this proposal.

The proposal would increase the height of the existing building and introduce new openings, including windows facing [address], side windows to the courtyard, and rooflights to the rear. The appeal site is located at the end of a row of buildings in storage and industrial use. Some units within the row appear to be of recent construction and are uniform in design, while the remaining buildings vary in height, design and fenestration.

Opposite the appeal site are modern residential properties of differing types, designs and materials, with varied fenestration. Accordingly, [address] is characterised by a mix of building types, designs and uses, with no uniformity in appearance. In this context, the design of the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of adjacent buildings.

The appeal site is located outside, but in close proximity to, the CA37 [address] Teddington Conservation Area, which focuses on the commercial centre of the [address] and adjoining residential areas of heritage interest. Given its proximity, the site is within the surroundings in which the Conservation Area is experienced, and therefore forms part of its setting, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

[address] is a small, secluded side road located to the rear of commercial premises on the [address]. In this context, it does not contribute to the significance, character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Given its positioning and separation distance, there is no meaningful interrelationship between the appeal site and the designated area. Consequently, the design of the proposed development would not harm the setting of the Conservation Area.

In relation to sustainable design measures, the proposal would extend the existing building so as to utilise the existing structure and materials. As outlined above, it would perform well against the Plan’s carbon-dioxide emissions requirements, the [name], and the BREEAM Pre-Assessment. Accordingly, the scheme incorporates sustainable design measures that would contribute to a sustainable form of development.

The design of the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the adjacent buildings or the setting of the Conservation Area, and includes sustainable design measures that exceed the minimum requirements of the Plan. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policy D3 of the London Plan and Policies 28 and 29 of the Plan which together seek, amongst other things, to preserve and, where possible, enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas; reinforce local context and distinctiveness; respond positively to existing character; deliver high-quality design; aim for high sustainability standards; and have due regard to the established street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions.

In proposing a design outcome which meets the requirements of the London Plan and the Plan, the proposal would also accord with the design-related requirements of the Framework and the [name] and Small and Medium Housing Sites Supplementary Planning Documents.

The Council also referred to Policy D1 of the London Plan in relation to design. However, Policy D1 concerns the preparation of area assessments and is not therefore relevant to the determination of this proposal.

Although there would be compliance with some aspects of the development plan, I give greater weight to the loss of industrial space. The proposal would conflict with the development plan, when taken as a whole. Moreover, this is not outweighed by the benefits associated with the provision of a new dwelling. Having considered all other matters raised, including the Framework, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.