Erection of a drop kerb and hardstanding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010184 69 Longford Close, Hampton Hill, Hampton TW12 1AD • 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 Mr N Scott against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. • The application Ref is PA26/0228. • The development proposed is the erection of a drop kerb and hardstanding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2025 but does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment of this appeal scheme. Main Issues 3. It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the streetscene and (b) the safety of other highway users. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated within a primarily residential area of similar types of dwellings. These dwellings are set back from the footways along Longford Close to the rear of front gardens which are landscaped and, in some cases, used for off-street parking. This character and appearance of the surrounding area is also recorded in the Hampton Village Planning Guidance (HVPG). The type of landscaping varies with some dwellings having hard landscaped gardens which are generally used for parking. 5. Between the footways and carriageways along either side of the road are grass verges within which there are street trees of varying sizes and types. The HVPG records the very high number of street trees within the area. Overall, the streetscene has a spacious and verdant character and appearance. Appeal Decision 6010184 2 6. Although there are some variations, where they exist, the front boundaries are mix of dwarf walls and hedges. There are gaps in the front boundaries where crossovers exist to enable access to parking spaces within the hard landscaped front gardens. These crossovers have dropped kerbs of varying widths. 7. The proposed development includes using the property’s front garden for parking but because it is already hard landscaped there would not be a material change to the character of the garden itself. The appellant has identified the opportunity to plant some soft landscaping. 8. However, there would be the loss of around 3.6 metres of the front boundary which comprises a low brick wall with pillars and a notable hedge to the rear. The loss of part of the boundary, in particular the hedge, would result in an adverse impact on the verdant character and appearance of the streetscene, albeit not to such a degree to justify this appeal failing, particularly if planting could be introduced into the front garden. 9. However, to construct the proposed crossover (with a width of some 3.6 metres) and a dropped kerb (circa 5.4 metres wide), it would be necessary to develop the grass verge and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to fell a street tree. The felling of this street tree would cause adverse harm to the verdant character and appearance of the streetscene. There are no proposals submitted as part of the appeal to mitigate the loss of this street tree which the council claim could not successfully be relocated because of its age and condition. The loss of the boundary would add to the harm which has been identified. 10. On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policies 28 and 42 of the Richmond Local Plan (RLP). Amongst other matters, these policies seek to resist the loss of trees and for development to be of a high urban design quality, including proposals being compatible with the local character. Highway Safety 11. RLP Policy 48 refers to dropped kerb and crossover proposals being assessed against the council’s Transport Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPD refers to a single crossover being 2.4 metres wide with 0.6 metre ramps on either side equating to a total width for a dropped kerb of 3.6 metres. The SPD identifies that this approach would, amongst other matters, avoid large lengths of footway being made over to crossovers and retain as much kerbside space for general community parking as possible. Matters related to garden loss and minimising visual impact on the streetscene have already been assessed under the first Main Issue. 12. The proposed crossover and dropped kerb would exceed the guidance contained in the SPD. However, the width of the proposed crossover and dropped kerb would not be materially different to some of those which currently exist. The proposed development would not merge with the dropped kerb for No. 69 to create a large length of footway being made over to crossovers. The proposed crossover would lead to the loss of a single on-street parking space which would be off-set by the parking area within the property’s front garden. Further, and as was observed during the site visit, there would remain significant sections of the road whereby on- street parking could continue to occur. Appeal Decision 6010184 3 13. For the reasons given, it concluded that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the safety of other highway users and, as such, it would not conflict with RLP Policy 48 which refers to dropped kerb and crossover proposals not reducing the quality and safety of footways for pedestrians and road users with disabilities. Conclusion 14. Although the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the safety of other highway users, this matter is demonstrably outweighed by the significant harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the streetscene. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR