355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 October 2025 by C Housden BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 November 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/W/25/3366258 355, Oakhurst, Leatherhead Road, Chessington, Kingston Upon Thames KT9 2NQ • 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 P Coffey against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames. • The application Ref is 25/00142/FUL. • The development proposed is described as “(Retrospective) Change of use of agricultural land to garden land. Erection of fence.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. On my visit, I observed that works had commenced through the clearance of the site and removal of the previous rear boundary fence. However, the proposed rear boundary fence had not yet been installed, and grass had not been laid down on the site. These observations are consistent with the evidence before me. 3. I also observed that the site had been covered with an aggregate. However, it is clear from the evidence that this does not form part of the proposed development.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision I have assessed the proposal based on the plans and supporting evidence before me. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • ecology, with specific regard to the effect of the proposal on species and habitats and the provision of biodiversity net gain (BNG); • the effect of the proposal on drainage and subsequent flood risk of the site and wider area; • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision I have assessed the proposal based on the plans and supporting evidence before me. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • ecology, with specific regard to the effect of the proposal on species and habitats and the provision of biodiversity net gain (BNG); • the effect of the proposal on drainage and subsequent flood risk of the site and wider area; • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant development plan policies; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/25/3366258 Reasons Ecology and BNG 5. Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) sets out that the biodiversity gain condition is deemed to apply to every planning permission granted, unless an exemption applies. The appellant states that as they have applied for retrospective planning permission this would meet an exemption, given mandatory BNG does not apply to retrospective planning permissions made under section 73A of the Act. They further note that the pre- commencement condition could not apply to the development as it has already commenced. 6. Given development has commenced before the date of the application, S73A would be the relevant part of the Act relating to the appeal. As such, I find that the exemption applies and mandatory BNG requirement would not apply. 7. However, whilst the statutory condition does not apply, this does not mean that biodiversity is not a material consideration. In particular, I note that Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) requires development proposals to manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure a net biodiversity gain.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Policy DM 6 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Core Strategy (2012) (CS) also requires that proposals protect and promote biodiversity and ensure development does not result in a net loss of biodiversity. 8. The appeal site contains a large mature tree, along with a mixture of small trees, hedges and shrubs situated at the boundary of the site. Jubilee Wood Local Nature Reserve is also situated nearby, although it is separated from the appeal site by the nearby road network. The appeal site is also within close proximity to open countryside and fields. Prior to the clearance works taking place, the evidence describes the appeal site as being overgrown with shrubs and forbs. Presently the site is covered with aggregate, although there is vegetation growing through the ground across the site. 9. In these circumstances, there is a possibility that biodiversity, habitats or species could have already been adversely affected by the site clearance, or could potentially be adversely affected in the future through the construction and operational phases of the development. However, no information has been submitted to assess such matters, and therefore, in these circumstances a precautionary approach should be taken.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision 10. The appellant seeks to justify the lack of information on ecology and biodiversity by setting out that as site clearance works have already been undertaken it is not possible to survey the original site conditions and that mitigation and enhancement conditions on the grant of planning permission could be imposed to satisfy any ecological and biodiversity requirements. 11. However, site clearance works form part of the development before me. Whilst they may have already been undertaken, this is inadequate justification to not supply the relevant information in order to allow for a full assessment of the ecological impact of the development. Furthermore, there are still works to be undertaken relating to clearing the aggregate from the site, laying the grass and installing fencing, along with the ongoing operational effects of the development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/25/3366258 All of which could have effects on ecology that have not been addressed by the evidence before me. 12. The evidence does not show that conditions securing the necessary enhancements and mitigation in relation to biodiversity, species and habitats would be enforceable, precise and reasonable in all respects. 13. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the development would not adversely affect biodiversity, species or habitats within or nearby the appeal site. This would carry significant weight against the proposed development. 14. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy G6 of the LP and DM 6 of the CS. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to protect and promote biodiversity including through habitat enhancement, not result in a net loss of biodiversity and aim to secure a net biodiversity gain informed by the best available ecological information. Drainage 15. The appeal site is situated within Flood Zone 1, but within an area which has been designated as having critical drainage problems. Planning practice guidance (PPG) confirms that such locations with critical drainage problems are included in the areas at risk of flooding.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision The risk of flooding in these areas arises due to run off leading to flooding problems downstream. 16. In such areas, footnote 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that a site-specific flood risk assessment should be provided. A flood risk assessment does not accompany the application. Based on the evidence presented, it has not been shown the risks of flooding from all sources, the potential of the development to increase flooding elsewhere and the measures to deal with these potential effects and risks. 17. The appellant contends that given a permeable surface is proposed, the development would not cause any drainage issues, and a condition could be imposed to ensure that no hard surfacing is installed at the site in the future. However, the site was previously overgrown with shrubs and forbs which would have intercepted rainfall and effected the drainage rate of the site and subsequent runoff rates. Without a flood risk assessment, I cannot conclude that the proposal has not, and would not, have an adverse effect on the drainage of the area which would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. This would carry significant weight against the development. 18.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Therefore, the development would conflict with Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the LP. These policies, amongst other matters seek to ensure that flood risk is minimised. Green Belt 19. The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 153 identifies that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Therefore, the development would conflict with Policies SI 12 and SI 13 of the LP. These policies, amongst other matters seek to ensure that flood risk is minimised. Green Belt 19. The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 153 identifies that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/25/3366258 20. This approach as outlined in the Framework, is reflected in LP Policy G2. However, Policy DM 5 of the CS has a very limited degree of consistency with the Framework. On this basis I have therefore afforded significant weight to the LP Policy G2 and only very limited weight to CS Policy DM 5. I also consider the Framework to carry significant weight as a material consideration. 21. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. Exception (e) of paragraph 154 sets out that the limited infilling in villages would comprise development in the Green Belt which is not inappropriate. 22. The appeal site is situated within the settlement of Malden Rushett. The settlement is washed over by the Green Belt and does not have a boundary defined by the Council’s policy map. CS Policy SB1 states Malden Rushett is to be treated as a washed over settlement, whilst the table in the subtext of Policy SB1 does refer to Malden Rushett in one instance as a village. 23.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision When considering whether a settlement can be considered to be a village in the context of paragraph 154(e), case law1 is clear that whilst development plan policies are a relevant consideration, regard should be had to the situation on the ground. The Council considers the area to form part of the suburban greater London area. However, on my visit I observed that Malden Rushett comprised a fairly small cluster of buildings predominantly set along Leatherhead Road surrounded by countryside and set on its own and away from other settlements. It also had some limited shops, employment sites and services, including a bus stop. I am therefore satisfied that Malden Rushett on the ground has the characteristics and appearance of a village and therefore can be considered as such in my assessment. 24. The appeal site comprises a small gap set between the rear garden of one neighbour and the parking area of another. The rear of the proposed garden would be in line with the existing rear boundaries of the adjacent neighbours. The development would therefore appear as a limited infill within a village and would meet exception (e) of paragraph 154. The proposal would therefore not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision 25. The parties have also referred to other exceptions. However, given that I have found the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt by virtue of exception 154(e) of the Framework, I do not need to consider these matters further. 26. The proposal would comply with Policy G2 of the LP which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. In relation to Policy DM 5 of the CS, whilst carrying very limited weight, nevertheless the proposal would not conflict with any criteria within this policy relevant to the Green Belt. 27. The Council’s associated reason for refusal refers to CS Policy DM 10. However, this relates to the design of developments so is not directly relevant to this specific main issue. 1 Julian Wood v SSCLG and Gravesham Borough Council [2015] https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/W/25/3366258 Character and appearance 28. As previously described, the appeal site is situated to the rear of the properties along Leatherhead Road and is set between an existing rear garden and parking area. The area appears verdant and semi-rural in character, through the built form of Malden Rushett being set against a countryside background. The appeal site would have provided some contribution to this verdant and semi-rural in character through its previous appearance containing shrubs and forbs. 29. However, the appeal site is inset between two established residential curtilages, and would introduce a logical edge to the wider countryside. Therefore, the domestication of this land through the appeal proposal would be in keeping with the immediate surroundings and would not be harmful to the overall verdant and semi-rural character and appearance of the area. 30. Whilst the garden extension would have a greater width than others along Leatherhead Road, given the very limited prominence of the appeal site being set to the rear of and in-between existing properties, the development would not result in any harm to character and appearance of the area in this regard.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the rear edge would be in line with the adjacent neighbours which would ensure the proposal would be in keeping with the pattern of development. 31. The proposal would therefore not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would comply with Policy DM 10 of the CS. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that the elements identified as contributing to the character and local distinctiveness of an area, including the layout and building lines, are respected, maintained or enhanced. 32. Whilst the Council has referred to Policy DM 4 of the CS in its associated reason for refusal, this relates to water management and flood risk so is not directly related to this main issue. Other Matters 33. I have had regard to the appellants request for a split decision, should I only find harm with respect to the proposed fencing. However, given my findings in relation to ecology, biodiversity and drainage relate to the development as a whole, a split decision in this instance would not be appropriate. 34.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — Appeal Decision Whilst the appellant has highlighted that other neighbours have extended their gardens, I have not been provided with details of the particular circumstances of these garden extensions. Furthermore, each case should be assessed on its individual planning merits which I have done so in this case. Conclusion 35. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.

355 Leatherhead Road, CHESSINGTON, KT9 2NQ — Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames — C Housden INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5