Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 July 2023 by R Lawrence MRTPI, BSc (hons), PGDip (TP) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 August 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/22/3310901 Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, Hampton Wick KT1 4DT • 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 Mr Max de Kment against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council. • The application Ref 21/0885/FUL, dated 11 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 7 September 2022. • The development proposed is Rear extension at second and third floor levels to form 2 x 1 person flats, with fire escape stair. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I note that the description of development refers to the proposed staircase as a fire escape stair. The plans show this staircase would be a main access to the 2 proposed flats, I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. A Unilateral Undertaking was submitted with the appeal. However, a further updated undertaking was provided during the course of this appeal, amending a reference number within the undertaking.

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision I have had regard to the updated undertaking and have determined the appeal on this basis. Background and Main Issue 4. Planning permission has been previously granted for a rear extension to provide 2 x flats at second and third floor levels. The appeal scheme is in effect a variation of that permission and seeks to provide an additional staircase to the approved scheme. The Council’s sole reason for refusal, relates to the effect of the staircase. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed staircase on the living conditions of existing and future occupants of neighbouring flats within the appeal property, by way of light and outlook. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises a block of flats with an existing rear projection, amenity space and garaging to the rear, and further parking to the front of the building. Existing occupiers of flat Nos 7, 12 and 16 enjoy an outlook towards the rear of the appeal site, the communal amenity space, the garages and mature trees. In the case of ground floor flat No 2, the immediate outlook is of the ground floor cycle store, with views above this towards the mature trees and neighbouring residential properties.

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed staircase would result in built form directly opposite the rear windows to existing flats Nos 2, 7, 12 and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposed staircase would result in built form directly opposite the rear windows to existing flats Nos 2, 7, 12 and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5810/W/22/3310901 16 which would interrupt the outlook currently enjoyed by occupiers. The staircase would be positioned very close to the affected windows, and given its width, would extend across a large portion of the nearest window of each flat. The affected windows in each flat are large and are a key source of outlook. The staircase, together with the proposed additional flats, would create an undue sense of enclosure, adversely impacting upon the outlook for the occupants of the flats. Due to the close proximity of the staircase, I find this effect would be significant. 6. The affected windows to the relevant flats are of a large size and there are also other smaller windows serving the flats on the rear and side elevations. Nonetheless, as the windows are the largest serving the relevant flats, these provide the primary source of outlook. As such, the impact on outlook would be significant. I accept that due to the width of the windows, occupiers would retain some outlook to the left of the proposed staircase, however, the quality and extent of outlook remaining would be very limited compared to the existing position.

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The existing cycle store does have a limited effect upon outlook from the ground floor flat at present. However, the proposed staircase is of a significant scale and would extend to four storeys in height compared to the single storey cycle store, thereby having a much greater impact. 7. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the effect on light, it does not specify whether this is sun or day light. Due to the orientation of the flats, sunlight is relatively limited, however, there appears to be a good level of daylight to the flats from both the rear and side windows. Given the orientation of the site, together with the relative positioning of the staircase, it would be likely to have limited effect on the availability of direct sunlight compared with the approved extension. However, the space to the rear of the affected flats, particularly those at a lower level, would be significantly more enclosed therefore adversely impacting upon general daylight to the flats at a lower level. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that permission exists for the additional flats without the staircase, therefore the extant permission would appear to represent a fall-back position.

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, I have found the effects from the addition of the staircase to be materially harmful. Therefore, the availability of an alternative scheme does not weigh in favour of the proposal. 9. Having regard to the above considerations, the proposed staircase would result in a significant adverse effect upon the living conditions of existing and future occupants of neighbouring flats, in terms of light and outlook. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy LP8 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan 2018 (LP). This policy seeks to (amongst other matters) protect the amenity and living conditions for occupants of neighbouring properties including ensuring good standards of sunlight and daylight and avoiding development which has an overbearing impact through creating a sense of enclosure. 10. The Council’s reason for refusal also cites Policy LP1 (Local Character and Design Quality), which seeks to secure high quality design. My attention has not been drawn to any wording within Policy LP1 that relates to the main issue, it has therefore not been determinative to the appeal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5810/W/22/3310901 Other Matters 11. A completed unilateral undertaking has been submitted during the course of the appeal. The planning obligation is intended to secure a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing and, to prevent residents of the proposed flat access to residents parking permits. These obligations are required to secure compliance with other aspects of the Development Plan. The parking restriction is a form of mitigation and is a neutral matter. The affordable housing contribution, together with the provision of market housing are benefits to the scheme, although the weight to be attached is limited given the small increase in residential units and the limited extent of the contribution. Conclusion 12. The appeal scheme would conflict with the Development Plan. The benefits of the off-site affordable housing contribution, together with the provision of market housing would not outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan in respect of living conditions. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Tabard House, 22 Upper Teddington Road, HAMPTON WICK, KT1 4DT — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — R Lawrence INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3