Appeal 6003149

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to heighten garden wall at [site address] , Richmond upon Thames [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/1915, subject to the following conditions:

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 approved plans: 001, 004.

The materials used in the wall hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing wall.

An application for costs was made against the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames by [name]. This application is the subject of a separate decision

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring property [address] with regard to outlook.

[site address] is a mid-terraced property with a rear garden bounded by brick walls. There is a change in level towards the rear of the garden and the height of the wall to the northeastern boundary increases towards the rear of the site in line with the changes in site levels. At my site visit I observed that the appeal property’s rear garden is lower than that of the neighbouring property [address].

The proposal seeks to raise the height of the garden wall along the northeastern boundary by 885mm. The submission sets out that this is to overcome overlooking from an outhouse to the rear of No 22 which is sited on land elevated above the appeal property.

The increased height of the wall would have a greater impact than the existing wall on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22 with regards to the available outlook. However, having regard to the difference in land levels between the appeal site and No 22, I am not persuaded that the ultimate height of the wall would be so injurious as to result in the contended adverse and overbearing impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of this property.

The proposal would safeguard the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. I therefore find no conflict with policy 46 of the Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (2025) which requires that development protect the amenity and living conditions of occupants of adjoining and neighbouring properties and that proposals do not have an overbearing impact as a result of their height, massing or siting. I also find no conflict with the House extensions and external alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2015) which has similar aims.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. In addition to the standard implementation condition, it is necessary, in the interests of precision, to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. A condition controlling materials is necessary in the interests of local character.

I have omitted a suggested condition which requires the use of Ultra-low sulphur diesel in all non-road transportable industrial equipment or vehicles as there is no particular evidence that this is necessary to protect the amenity of future occupants and/or neighbours given the form and scale of development proposed.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.