Two storey side and single storey rear extensions, dormer roof extension and associated landscaping
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Residential Amenity
Heritage & Conservation
Inspector’s Reasoning
www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 7th July 2022
by Megan Thomas Q.C. Barrister-at-Law
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 July 2022
Appeal A: Ref: APP/L5810/D/21/3287848
29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs Jessica Inwood against the decision of the London Borough
of Richmond Upon Thames.
• The application Ref 21/3214/HOT, dated 13 September 2021, was refused by notice
dated 25 October 2021.
• The development proposed is two storey side and single storey rear extensions, dormer
roof extension and associated landscaping.
Appeal B: Ref: APP/L5810/D/21/3287847
29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs Jessica Inwood against the decision of the London Borough
of Richmond Upon Thames.
• The application Ref 21/3213/HOT, dated 13 September 2021, was refused by notice
dated 25 October 2021.
• The development proposed is two storey side and single storey rear extensions, dormer
roof extension, associated landscaping and roof terrace.
Appeal C: Ref: APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs Jessica Inwood against the decision of the London Borough of
Richmond Upon Thames.
• The application Ref 22/0312/HOT, dated 2 February 2022, was refused by notice dated 5
April 2022.
• The development proposed is a first floor rear extension, single storey side/rear
extensions, a dormer roof extension and rooflight to rear roof slope.
__________________________________________________________________
Decisions
Appeal A Ref: APP/L5810/D/21/3287848
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side
and single storey rear extensions, dormer roof extension and associated
landscaping at 29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA in accordance with the
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
2
terms of the application Ref 21/3214/HOT, dated 13 September 2021, and
subject to the relevant schedule of conditions at the end of this decision letter.
Appeal B Ref: APP/L5810/D/21/3287847
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side
and single storey rear extensions, dormer roof extension, associated
landscaping and roof terrace at 29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA in
accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/3213/HOT, dated 13
September 2021, and subject to the relevant schedule of conditions at the end
of this decision letter.
Appeal C Ref: APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
3. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear
extension, single storey side/rear extensions, a dormer roof extension and
rooflight to rear roof slope at 29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA in
accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/0312/HOT, dated 2
February 2022, and subject to the relevant schedule of conditions at the end of
this decision letter.
Costs Applications
4. Applications for awards of costs have been made by Mrs Jessica Inwood in
relation to these appeals against the London Borough of Richmond Upon
Thames. The applications are the subject of a separate decision.
Procedural Matters
5. As set out above there are three appeals on the same red-edged appeal site.
Appeals A and B (as referred to in this decision letter as opposed to the
references used by the appellant) are for the same development other than
Appeal B includes a first floor rear roof terrace. The planning application for the
development sought pursuant to appeal C described the proposal as a first floor
rear extension but I have used the amended fuller description in the heading
above, as used by the Council in the decision notice, as I consider it reflects the
proposed scheme of development.
6. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid
duplication I have cross-referred to reasons already given in relation to some
issues.
Main Issues – Appeal A
7. The appeal site is located within the Parkleys Estate Conservation Area (“the
Conservation Area”). The main issues are the effect of the first floor side/rear
extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
3
Conservation Area and the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 31
Ham Farm Road in relation to outlook.
Main Issues – Appeal B
8. The main issues are the effect of the proposed first floor side/rear extensions
and roof terrace on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and
Conservation Area, the effect of that development on the living conditions of the
occupants of 31 Ham Farm Road in relation to outlook, and the effect of the roof
terrace on the living conditions of the occupants of 27 and 31 Ham Farm Road
in relation to privacy.
Main Issues – Appeal C
9. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character
and appearance of the host dwelling and the Conservation Area and whether
the proposal has sufficient information to demonstrate that it would avoid
unacceptable detrimental impacts on ecological interests and trees.
Reasons – Appeal A
Character and appearance
10. The appeal site comprises a two storey four-bedroomed detached dwelling on
the southern side of Ham Farm Road. It was built in the mid 1950s. It stands
back from the road and has a generous rear garden. Its neighbour to the west
is 27 Ham Farm Road and to the east is 31 Ham Farm Road. Both those are
two storey detached dwellings with rear gardens and are on a broadly similar
front building line to the appeal dwelling.
11. The area is predominantly residential. It includes a variety of detached housing
mainly on Ham Farm Road, with numerous varying designs, predominantly two
storeys in height with a number of bungalows. There is limited consistency in
terms of typology, detailing and use of materials, albeit that the design and
materials are generally modern and simple. In addition, the Parkleys Estate
accessed from Parkleys is a combination of flatted buildings in either two or
three storey blocks.
12. The Parkleys Estate was the first of the large residential developments by the
celebrated Span Developments Ltd of Eric Lyon and Geoffrey Townsend. The
blocks of flats have been listed (grade II). The Conservation Area includes the
flats and buildings on Ham Farm Road including the appeal site. The
significance of the area in which the appeal site sits derives from the fact that
Span maintained control over the general layout and approved the final designs
of the Ham Farm Road houses. The strict control has created a sense of
consistency to the semi-rural character of this road, but without undermining
the individuality of each house. The form, detailing and use of materials of the
houses are varied, however, all occupy generous garden plots including mature
trees with low front boundaries to the street.
13. The existing building on the appeal site as shown in the submitted plans
consisted of a two storey gable-ended house with chimneys on each end with
single storey elements on each flank end. On the western end the single storey
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
4
element extended back into the rear of the site and was flush at the front with
the main elevation. On the eastern end there was a stepped back single storey
element.
14. The site obtained planning permission in September 2021 (ref.21/1406/HOT)
for single storey side/rear extensions, dormer roof extension and rooflight to
the rear roof slope, an outbuilding to the rear and associated landscaping. That
planning permission has been implemented and was in the course of
construction at the time of my site visit.
15. Turning first to the design, bulk and massing of the proposal as viewed from
the road, the two storey side extension would step back from the main
elevation and would have a roof ridge markedly lower than the ridge on the
main house. In addition, the eastern flank wall of the proposed extension would
be set in from the common boundary with no.31 by about 1m. No.31 is not built
up to the common boundary and whilst the gap at first floor level between nos
29 and 31 would be reduced, verdant views southwards from the road to
vegetation beyond would be sustained. The interrelationship between buildings
and their relationships to surrounding spaces would not be unduly harmed and
a feeling of spaciousness would continue. There would be no interference with
the design intention of the original development in my view.
16. Turning to the proposal as viewed from the rear, the first floor rear extension
has a gable roof which has a ridge which would sit at a similar height to the side
extension front-facing ridge. The extension width would be about 0.5m wider
than half the width of the original building and so not in line with the Council’s
House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document
(2015) but nevertheless it would not look out of proportion to the completed
dwelling. Furthermore, as the plot is a generous size, it would not appear
squeezed into it or over dominant. The appearance of the proposed side/rear
extension from front or rear would be clearly subservient to the main dwelling
and the roof forms would be harmonious.
17. Having noted on my site visit that several dwellings in the Conservation Area
were finished in render or partly rendered, and that the façade of the appeal
site dwelling was in a very poor state of repair, I do not consider it harmful to
the Conservation Area to partially render the dwelling.
18. The Conservation Area is a designated heritage asset and I give great weight to
its preservation. I am also mindful of the statutory duties in sections 66 and 72
of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In this
case, I do not consider that the proposed development would harm the
significance or special interest of the Conservation Area. The sense of
consistency to the semi-rural Ham Farm Road would persist, particularly as
suitable landscaping can be achieved via a planning condition. Moreover, whilst
individuality is expressly recognised in this Conservation Area, the appearance
of the front façade to the streetscene would be suitably simple and unfussy and
would maintain sufficient consistency with the Ham Farm Road dwellings.
19. The proposal would not have an impact on the setting of other nearby
conservation areas and it would not interfere with the settings of any listed
buildings.
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
5
20. Consequently, on the first issue in relation to Appeal A, I conclude that the first
floor side/rear extensions would preserve the character and appearance of the
host dwelling and the Conservation area. They would not be contrary to policies
LP1 or LP3 of the Richmond Local Plan (adopted 2018) (“LP”) or policies in the
Ham and Petersham Neighbourhood Plan (made 2019) (“NDP”).
Living Conditions to Occupants of 31 Ham Farm Road in relation to outlook
21. Policy LP8 of the Richmond Local Plan seeks to protect occupants of nearby
dwellings from visual intrusion and overbearing impacts from new development.
No.31 is situated to the south east of the appeal site. Its main element is a
simple double gable-ended building parallel to the road, similar to the appeal
site, and it has a partial single storey and partial two storey addition to the rear.
The habitable rooms on the first floor rear main element have an outlook over
the top of a single storey element and out to the rear garden. Whilst the
proposed eastern flank wall of the development would be in vision when looking
out of those windows, it would be sufficiently separated from the window to
avoid any undue sense of enclosure for the occupants of no.31. Moreover, it
passes the 45 degree rule test which suggests to me that it would not cause an
unacceptable loss of outlook. There is a two storey rear element at no.31 which
appeared to be near completion on my site visit and this did not have any
windows in its western first floor flank wall from which views of no.29 might be
obtained. The proposed eastern flank wall would not extend so deep into the
rear garden of the appeal site so as to cause a sense of enclosure or
unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupants of no.31 when in their rear
garden.
22. On this issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause
unacceptable living conditions for the occupants of no.31 Ham Farm Road by
reason of loss of outlook. There would be no conflict with policy LP8 of the LP.
Reasons – Appeal B
Character and appearance
23. Appeal B relates to a proposal which is the same as the Appeal A proposal
other than it has an additional element which is a rear roof terrace and privacy
screen at first floor level. The terrace would be situated broadly in the centre of
the building and would serve a bedroom.
24. In relation to the character and appearance of the host dwelling the proposed
terrace and its privacy screen would not be an alien or incongruous feature on
the rear of the dwelling but would harmonise with the modern design of the
rear extensions and large expanses of fenestration. It would be a modest size
and, looked at cumulatively with the other proposed development, it would not
materially increase the bulk, massing or envelope of the building. It would not
harm the significance of the Conservation Area. In addition to these reasons I
adopt the reasoning I have given in paragraphs 10-20 above and I conclude
that the proposed first floor side/rear extensions and the roof terrace would not
harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the Conservation
Area. There would be no conflict with policies LP1 or LP3 of the LP or with
policies of the NDP.
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
6
Living conditions of occupants of 29 and 31 Ham Farm Road in relation to privacy
25. The proposed development includes a 1.8m obscured glass privacy screen
which would be erected to the west of the proposed first floor terrace. On my
site visit, I had access to the first floor of the main building and was able to
assess the likely views from the proposed terrace with the installation of the
proposed privacy screen. Views would be focussed directly down the rear
garden of the appeal site and any oblique views from the outer edges of the
terrace would not allow any material overlooking of the rear gardens of nos 27
or 31. Any views of those rear gardens would be the very distant parts of the
rear gardens and they would, in any event, be filtered by boundary treatments
and vegetation. For those reasons I do not consider that the proposed terrace
with privacy screen would cause any unacceptable overlooking of rear gardens.
26. On this issue I conclude that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy for
the occupants of 27 or 31 Ham Farm Road as a result of the proposed
development. There would be no conflict with policy LP8 of the LP or the
Council’s House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning
Document (2015).
Living conditions of occupants of 31 Ham Farm Road in relation to outlook
27. The addition of the roof terrace and its privacy screen would not add to the
eastern flank wall depth or height and so for the reasons I have given in
paragraphs 21-22 above, I conclude that the proposed first floor side/rear
extensions would not harm the outlook for occupants of no.31 Ham Farm Road.
There would be no conflict with policy LP8 of the LP.
Reasons – Appeal C
Character and Appearance
28. The proposal is for a first floor rear extension, single storey side/rear
extensions, a dormer roof extension and rooflight to rear roof slope. The focus
of the appeal is on the appropriateness of the first floor rear extension because
the other elements (single storey side/rear extensions, dormer roof extension,
rooflight to the rear roof slope, two rooflights to front roof slope) are identical to
those which have been granted planning permission or are not the subject of
objections.
29. The extension at the rear on the first floor in this proposal would be a gable
extension which would not encroach beyond the first floor eastern flank wall of
the existing dwelling. Consequently, it would allow uninterrupted views down
the eastern side of the plot above the eastern ground floor side extension. I do
not agree with the Council that its depth would close off the view from the road
to the landscape beyond. The width of the rear extension would be less than
half the width of the original main house. The ridge of the gable extension
would be about 1440mm lower than the roof ridge on the main house. The
depth would be only slightly deeper than the proposal under appeals A and B. I
consider the proposed development would be sympathetic to the host dwelling
as it would be suitably subservient.
30. Viewed from Ham Farm Road only a modest part of the rear first floor
extension would be visible, and the impression would not be one of a bulky or
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
7
overly deep development on the site. The depth would not appear excessive
even with a rendered external finish and the proposed glazing and Juliette
balcony would not be disproportionate in their overall size and scale to the size
of the dwelling.
31. In relation to appeal A above I have identified the significance of the
Conservation Area. The reasons I have given in paragraphs 10-14 & 17-20
above, apply equally to the proposed first floor rear extension in this appeal (C).
On this issue therefore, I conclude that the proposed first floor rear extension
would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the
Conservation Area. There would be no conflict with policies LP1 or LP3 of the
LP, policy C2 of the NDP or the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD.
Trees and Ecology
32. The Council is concerned that the proposal does not supply sufficient
information in relation to direct or indirect ecological and/or arboricultural
impacts to be able to demonstrate that unacceptable harm to trees or ecology
would occur. However in relation to trees, following approval of application ref.
21/1406/HOT which was accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment
dated 22 April 2021 and a notice of decision which attached a tree condition,
works have started on site. 19 trees on the site were approved for removal. A
pre-start meeting was held on site with the Council’s tree officer. Following this
meeting all tree works that were approved have now been removed and
appropriate tree protection is in place. Therefore, I do not consider that this
reason for refusal warrants refusal of planning permission for the appeal C
proposal in relation to trees.
33. The ecological concern centres on the presence of badgers in and around the
appeal site. I note that in relation to appeal A the Council’s Ecologist was aware
of badgers in the area and was consulted. He or she raised no objections to the
appeal A proposal subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions.
Suitable planning conditions would also overcome any potential harm to
ecological interests in relation to appeal C. I have imposed wildlife-related
conditions and I deal with this under Conditions below.
34. Consequently, I conclude that there is no overall lack of information in relation
to trees or ecology and no reason why suitably drafted conditions cannot ensure
that any direct or indirect impacts are made acceptable. There are no policy
breaches.
Other Matters
35. I have taken into account objections raised by third parties and residents but
none of them raise planning issues which warrant refusal of planning permission
in the appeals. I do not consider that the grant of permission would set a
precedent such that the Council would have difficulty refusing similar
applications in the future, because each decision is taken on its own individual
merits arising from the individual circumstances of each plot and building on it.
Conditions – All Appeals
36. I have considered the imposition of conditions in the light of advice in National
Planning Practice Guidance. The Council suggested conditions in the event that
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
8
the appeals were successful and I have shortened conditions in the light of the
model conditions and only included necessary conditions for each appeal
proposal. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, conditions which tie
the development to the submitted plans is necessary in the interests of
certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling
and the Conservation Area I have attached conditions controlling external
materials and I have made clear in the decision that some rendering of the
existing building or extensions would not be harmful. For the same reason I
have attached conditions requiring hard and soft landscaping to be approved,
requiring an April 2021 Arboricultural Impact Assessment to be followed (for
Appeals A & B) and for a tree planting scheme to be approved by the Local
Planning Authority. Given that a pre-start meeting in relation to trees in
relation to a 2021 planning permission has taken place other tree-related
conditions suggested by the Council are not necessary.
37. In order to protect residential amenity I have imposed conditions prohibiting
use of roofs as amenity areas and controlling non-road mobile machinery
emissions. Given the other conditions and my findings it is not necessary to
impose a condition which requires a specification for the privacy screen or
expressly requires it in perpetuity. Compliance with a fire safety strategy is
necessary in order to meet policy D12 of the London Plan 2021. In order to
protect and enhance biodiversity I have imposed conditions requiring an
ecological enhancement plan and the approval and implementation of an
ecological construction method statement or plan.
Conclusion – All Appeals
38. Having taken all representations into account, for the reasons set out above, I
allow appeal A, appeal B and appeal C.
Megan Thomas QC
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions for Appeal A
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the following plans: 1200; 1201; 1202 and S20/7999/02.
3) No new external finishes (including fenestration) including works of making
good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing unless
otherwise stated on the submitted drawings or in the application
documentation.
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
9
4) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Fire Safety Strategy received by the Local Planning Authority on 14
September 2021.
5) During on-site construction of any phase of development, all non-road
transportable industrial equipment or vehicles which are fitted with an internal
diesel-powered compression ignition engine between 37 and 560KW and not
intended for transporting goods or passengers on roads are required to meet
Stage IIIB of EU Directive 97/68/E and be NRMM registered. Such vehicles must
be run on ultra low sulphur diesel (also known as ULSD 'cleaner Official diesel'
or 'green diesel'). Any deviation from the requirements in this condition shall be
applied for in writing in advance of use from the Local Planning Authority and
the equipment or vehicle shall not be used on the site until the Local Planning
Authority has approved the use in writing.
6) The development hereby approved shall not be implemented other than in
accordance with the principles and methodology as described in the
"Arboricultural Impact Assessment for 29 Ham Farm Road” dated 22/04/2021,
unless otherwise previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
7) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, a tree planting
scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme. If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting a tree
or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or
dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously
damaged) then the tree shall be replaced to reflect the specification of the
approved planting scheme in the next available planting season or in
accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
8) No works shall start until an Ecological Construction Method Statement/Plan
(or equivalent) is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The document should include all possibilities where harm could come
to wildlife and what mitigation will be implemented, in particular with respect to
badgers.
9) Prior to the completion of the development hereby approved details of both
hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed finished
levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; hard surfacing
materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including cultivation and establishment); details of the quantity,
density, size, species, position and proposed planting programme together with
an indication of how they integrate with the proposal and surrounding
streetscape in the long term with regard to their mature size and maintenance.
All species should be of native or non-native plants of known value for wildlife
and include examples of seed/fruit bearing species, pollinator plants and those
which attract night flying insects. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and in any event prior to
the occupation of any part of the development, unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
10
10) An ecological enhancement plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the
approved details prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted.
The plan shall include the following: two bat boxes on the dwelling & one log
sunk into the ground for a stag beetle loggery. Badger access points into the
garden must be retained and if necessary formal gaps/gates created. The
details shall include specific location (including proposed aspect and height),
specific product/dimensions and proposed maintenance.
11) The roof area of the extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as a
balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.
Schedule of Conditions for Appeal B
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the following plans: 1300, 1301,1302 and S20/7999/02.
3) No new external finishes (including fenestration) including works of making
good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing unless
otherwise stated on the submitted drawings or in the application
documentation.
4) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Fire Safety Strategy received by the Local Planning Authority on 14
September 2021.
5) During on-site construction of any phase of development, all non-road
transportable industrial equipment or vehicles which are fitted with an internal
diesel-powered compression ignition engine between 37 and 560KW and not
intended for transporting goods or passengers on roads are required to meet
Stage IIIB of EU Directive 97/68/E and be NRMM registered. Such vehicles must
be run on ultra low sulphur diesel (also known as ULSD 'cleaner Official diesel'
or 'green diesel'). Any deviation from the requirements in this condition shall be
applied for in writing in advance of use from the Local Planning Authority and
the equipment or vehicle shall not be used on the site until the Local Planning
Authority has approved the use in writing.
6) The development hereby approved shall not be implemented other than in
accordance with the principles and methodology as described in the
"Arboricultural Impact Assessment for 29 Ham Farm Road” dated 22/04/2021,
unless otherwise previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
7) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, a tree planting
scheme (including species, planting specification, season of planting & 5 year
aftercare) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme. If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting a tree
or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or
dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously
damaged) then the tree shall be replaced to reflect the specification of the
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
11
approved planting scheme in the next available planting season or in
accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
8) No works shall start until an Ecological Construction Method Statement/Plan
(or equivalent) is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The document should include all possibilities where harm could come
to wildlife and what mitigation will be implemented, in particular with respect to
badgers.
9) Prior to the completion of the development hereby approved details of both
hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed finished
levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; hard surfacing
materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including cultivation and establishment); details of the quantity,
density, size, species, position and proposed planting programme together with
an indication of how they integrate with the proposal and surrounding
streetscape in the long term with regard to their mature size and maintenance.
All species should be of native or non-native plants of known value for wildlife
and include examples of seed/fruit bearing species, pollinator plants and those
which attract night flying insects. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and in any event prior to
the occupation of any part of the development, unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority.
10) An ecological enhancement plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the
approved details prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted.
The plan shall include the following: two bat boxes on the dwelling & one log
sunk into the ground for a stag beetle loggery. Badger access points into the
garden must be retained and if necessary formal gaps/gates created. The
details shall include specific location (including proposed aspect and height),
specific product/dimensions and proposed maintenance.
11) Other than the formal roof terrace shown on the drawings, the roof area of the
extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or
similar amenity area.
Schedule of Conditions for Appeal C
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the following plans: 1600 Rev A, 1601, 1602, S20/7999/01 &
S20/7999/02.
3) No new external finishes (including fenestration) including works of making
good, shall be carried out other than in materials to match the existing unless
otherwise stated on the submitted drawings or in the application
documentation.
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
12
4) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Fire Safety Strategy received by the Local Planning Authority on 2
February 2022.
5) During on-site construction of any phase of development, all non-road
transportable industrial equipment or vehicles which are fitted with an internal
diesel-powered compression ignition engine between 37 and 560KW and not
intended for transporting goods or passengers on roads are required to meet
Stage IIIB of EU Directive 97/68/E and be NRMM registered. Such vehicles must
be run on ultra low sulphur diesel (also known as ULSD 'cleaner Official diesel'
or 'green diesel'). Any deviation from the requirements in this condition shall be
applied for in writing in advance of use from the Local Planning Authority and
the equipment or vehicle shall not be used on the site until the Local Planning
Authority has approved the use in writing.
6) The roof area of the extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as a
balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.
7) No works shall start until an Ecological Construction Method Statement/Plan (or
equivalent) is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The document should include all possibilities where harm could come
to wildlife and what mitigation will be implemented, in particular with respect to
badgers.
8) An ecological enhancement plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the
approved details prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted.
The plan shall include the following: two bat boxes on the dwelling & one log
sunk into the ground for a stag beetle loggery. Badger access points into the
garden must be retained and if necessary formal gaps/gates created. The
details shall include specific location (including proposed aspect and height),
specific product/dimensions and proposed maintenance.
9) Prior to the completion of the development hereby approved details of both
hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed finished
levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; hard surfacing
materials. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written
specifications (including cultivation and establishment); details of the quantity,
density, size, species, position and proposed planting programme together with
an indication of how they integrate with the proposal and surrounding
streetscape in the long term with regard to their mature size and maintenance.
All species should be of native or non-native plants of known value for wildlife
and include examples of seed/fruit bearing species, pollinator plants and those
which attract night flying insects. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and in any event prior to
the occupation of any part of the development, unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority.
10) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, a tree planting
scheme (including species, planting specification, season of planting & 5 year
aftercare) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847, APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
13
approved scheme. If within a period of 5 years from the date of planting a tree
or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or
dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously
damaged) then the tree shall be replaced to reflect the specification of the
approved planting scheme in the next available planting season or in
accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decisions
Site visit made on 7th July 2022
by Megan Thomas Q.C. Barrister-at-Law
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 22 July 2022
Costs Decisions in relation to Appeal Refs: APP/L5810/D/21/3287848,
APP/L5810/D/21/3287847 & APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
29 Ham Farm Road, Ham TW10 5NA
• The applications are made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The applications are made by Mrs Jessica Inwood for full and partial awards of costs
against the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames.
• The appeals relate to the refusal of planning permissions for proposed extensions and
alterations to a dwellinghouse.
Decisions – All Applications
1. The applications for awards of costs are refused.
Reasons – All Applications
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. Amongst other things, the appellant is seeking a full award of the costs of the
three appeals on the basis that if the Council had undertaken a site visit it
would not have refused the three applications and there would have been no
need for the appellants to pursue appeals. It is implied that if the Council had
undertaken a visit it would have been obvious that planning permissions should
be granted.
4. I do not consider that the Council has acted unreasonably in not visiting the site
in relation to these appeals, nor do I consider that if they had done so they
would have granted planning permission in one or more of the planning
applications. The reasoning in relation to the refusal of the planning
applications by the Council is sufficiently substantive and relevant to the cited
adopted Development Plan policies including heritage policies. Whilst I have
allowed the appeals, the planning judgments made by the Council are within the
spectrum of rational planning judgments on which professional planners may
reasonably disagree. Furthermore, I consider that in this case sufficient
information including visual information was either supplied to the Council or
was available electronically for a reasonable judgment to be made about the
impacts of the proposals.
Appeal Decisions APP/L5810/D/21/3287848, APP/L5810/D/21/3287847 & APP/L5810/D/22/3296751
2
5. The Appellant asserts that it could have avoided the expense of commissioning
a Heritage Statement from PowerHaus Consultancy. I do not consider the cost
of the Heritage Statement is a wasted expense of the appeals or one incurred
unnecessarily. The reasons for refusal included allegations of harm to the
Parkleys Estate Conservation Area in which the appeal site sits. A conservation
area is a designated heritage asset which gives rise to the application of NPPF
policy and local policy and involves the application of a statutory duty found in
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The
allegations of harm by the Council were not unfounded or unsupported and a
site visit by the Council would not necessarily have led to the need not to
commission a Heritage Statement.
6. The appellant also alleges that if the Council had properly examined the
application documentation in relation to the Appeal C (application ref:
22/0312/HOT) then it would not have refused that application on the basis of
reason for refusal no.2. A partial award of costs is sought in relation to wasted
costs of replying to this reason in the appeal Statement of Case. Reason for
refusal no.2 alleges that there was a lack of sufficient ecological and
arboricultural information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have
detrimental impacts on ecology or trees. However, I do not consider that the
Council has acted unreasonably in taking this view given the information
supplied to it specifically with application ref. 22/0312/HOT. Whilst I
acknowledge that the Design, Heritage and Access Statement (2022) contained
some tree information and that the appellant sought to rely on the fact that
planning application ref.21/1406/HOT had been granted and development
commenced and that it also contained tree and ecological information, I
conclude that it was not unreasonable for the Council to refuse on ground no.2
for insufficient information submitted with planning application ref.
22/0312/HOT.
7. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been
demonstrated. No awards of costs are warranted in these appeals.
Megan Thomas Q.C.
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.