Installation of a 4-bike box at the front of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002308 117 Hampton Road, Twickenham, TW2 5QN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Dr David Owen against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA25/3294. • The development proposed is described as ‘Installation of a 4-bike box at the front of the property. The box is purpose built: BillyOh "Globel 6'x6' Bicycle Store, Anthracite Grey". The bike box is installed on an existing paved base, between two soil beds and partly obscured by rose bushes. The bike box is directly opposite the front path. The dimensions are: 188 cm x 201 cm base and 167cm max height’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. 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. Main Issue 4. The main issue of the appeal is effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. 117 Hampton Road 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 Appeal Decision 6002308 2 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. 6. The limited examples of structures I observed along Hampton Road 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. 7. Whilst I 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. Whilst I 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 Appeal Decision 6002308 3 townscape, development patterns, views, local urban grain and frontages as well as scale, height, massing, density, landscaping, proportions, form, materials and detailing. 12. The Council refers to the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document, House Extensions and External Alterations SPD (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. Other Matters 13. 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. 14. 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. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR