Case Reference: 3351726

Appeal Decision
Hearing Held on 21 January 2025
Site visit made on 21 January 2025
by J E Jolly BA (Hons) MA MSc MCIH MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 March 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/24/3351726
Land at junction of Roseleigh Close and Cambridge Park, Cambridge Park,
Twickenham TW1 2JT
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the
London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.
• The application Ref is 23/2401/FUL.
• The development proposed is for the development of 3 No two-storey maisonettes with
accommodation into the roof and a partial basement level on land at junction off
Roseleigh Close and Cambridge Park, associated landscaping, car/cycle parking and
refuse storage at Cambridge Park, East Twickenham.
This decision is issued in accordance with section 56 (2) of the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that
issued on 17 February 2025.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. For certainty, I have used the address and description of development given on
the Council’s Decision Notice.
3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised on 12th
December 2024. The main parties were asked to provide comments on the
updated Framework before and during the Hearing. As such, I have taken
these comments into account in my determination. Consequently, any
reference to Paragraph numbers in the Framework are to the revised 2024
version.
4. Since the appeal was submitted the emerging Richmond Local Plan (eRLP) has
been examined in public. The Council confirmed at the Hearing that only minor
corrections remain. In accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 49 of
the Framework relevant policies in an emerging Local Plan are capable of
carrying weight in the determination of an appeal. As such, the Council now
give the emerging plan significant weight. I see no reason to disagree.
5. Late evidence offered by the appellant in support of the proposal was turned
away at the Hearing. To do otherwise would prejudice not only the interests of
the Council but also interested third parties and consultees, who may have
observations to make on the additional evidence. I have therefore proceeded to
determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence as originally submitted.
Main Issues
6. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on:
• the character and appearance of the area,
• trees and ecology; and
• affordable housing contribution.
Reasons
Character and appearance
7. Roseleigh Close is characterised by established residential dwellings that are
set on landscaped and open-fronted plots. The surrounding area is further
typified by mature garden and street trees. The appeal site is a parcel of land
at the corner of Roseleigh Close that is directly adjacent to the main highway
known as Cambridge Park. The land has a line of five Horse Chestnut trees to
the southern boundary, some of which are protected. The historic use of the
site was as a driveway to a large residential dwelling that was demolished to
make way for the construction of the Cambridge Park Estate in the 1950’s.
8. Even though the appeal site is in private ownership the appeal site is regarded
by some interested parties as a valued community space. However, while there
was some disagreement between the appellant and interested parties at the
Hearing as to the extent and type of past activity that has occurred on the site
and by whom, it was clear to me that the quantum of any community use of
the site over the years has now been proven to have been very limited.
9. Moreover, the Council described the plot as undeveloped land rather than a
‘designated’ open space. As such, even though a previous scheme1 of some
vintage for the site was found to be unacceptable to the Council, at the Hearing
the main parties agreed that the principal of development on the appeal site is
accepted. Furthermore, the Council acknowledged that features of the ‘L’
shaped turn-corner scheme broadly reflect the height, style and pattern of
nearby dwellings.
10. Nevertheless, I noticed at my site inspection that corner plots near to the
appeal site are set back from the road and are relatively informal and open in
nature, such as those seen on the opposite side of the junction with Cambridge
Park and at nearby Beaulieu Close. This arrangement helps to create a sense of
spaciousness in this location and softens the surrounding built form. Indeed,
whether fenced or not, the appeal site has become an established part of the
verdant back drop to Roseleigh Close. Whereas the proposal for the appeal site
would have an extensive footprint that would extend across a large proportion
of the site and include a hardstanding for parking to the front.
1 APP/L5810A/1169000
11. Consequently, notwithstanding that there are larger and more accessible open
spaces at a short walking distance nearby for families to relax and congregate,
such as Marble Hill Park and the Thames Riverside Path, the proposed
development would appear as a bulky and prominent addition when viewed in
either direction along Cambridge Park or for those passing by. This would erode
the sense of spaciousness in this specific location.
12. Nevertheless, the appellant brought to my attention that the scheme would
make efficient use of the site, and that Paragraph 73 of the Framework
recognises that the use of small and medium sites can make an important
contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. This is noted. I
also acknowledge that the proposal would have a number of sustainable
features such as a wildflower garden, a green roof, additional tree planting and
that wildlife could be relocated should the need arise.
13. Even so, notwithstanding the relatively limited number of suitable development
sites available in the Borough, I heard that the Council have a 5.51-year
Housing Land Supply (HLS) for the provision of new homes. Therefore, when
measured against the Council’s up to date HLS, the small-scale benefits
associated with three new dwellings, even in combination, do not outweigh the
substantial harm I have found above.
14. I conclude therefore, the scale and mass of the proposed development would
harm the established character and appearance of the area.
15. Accordingly, in respect of the character and appearance of the area, the
proposal does not meet the aims of Policies LP1, LP12, LP16 and LP39 of the
Richmond Local Plan (2018) (RLP), Policies 15, 16, 28, 34 and 42 of the eRLP
and Policies G1 and G4 of the London Plan (2021), as supported by the East
Twickenham Village Planning Guidance U0177415, which say, amongst other
things, that it should be ensured that development respects, contributes to and
enhances the local environment and character.
Trees and ecology
16. At my site inspection I noticed that although the Horse Chestnut trees to the
front of the appeal site have some wounds at high level there was no evidence
of Canker bleed. The trees appeared to be mature in height and extent and
were in early bud at the time of the site inspection. As such, while I heard that
the trees are unlikely to grow much bigger and it is a point of agreement
between the parties that the trees have recorded ‘Leaf Miner’ disease, there
can be no doubt when in full leaf, that the trees would still provide a high level
of visual and ecological value in this residential-type location.
17. Nonetheless, given the proximity of the proposed development to the trees, the
Council is concerned that occupiers of the new dwellings would bring pressure
to regularly pollard, lop or cut the trees as a consequence of shading to their
dwellings and gardens as well as the inconvenience and clearance of leaf litter
and other detritus associated with the trees at certain times of the year.
18. Indeed, the Council fear that while some of the trees are protected2, in
combination with the effects of climate change, any agreed works would
exacerbate the potential for increased disease that in turn would lead to the
early demise of the Horse Chestnut trees which, despite being a non-native
tree species, is included on the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) ‘Red List’.
19. In addition, that even if the trees were protected during construction, that
there would be a potential reduction of the overall number of trees and hence
erosion of the ecological value of the site in a location where it is evident that a
number of trees have already been lost.
20. In rebuttal, while forwarding the view that occupation of the dwellings and
proximity to the trees would be a matter of choice, the appellant argued any
request for works to the trees would need to be agreed unanimously by all of
the future occupiers, and that in any event as the trees are already fully
mature in height and extent, the need for hard pruning or pollarding of trees
would be very unlikely. Additionally, even if minor maintenance would be
required from time to time it would be similar to that routinely carried out on
Street Trees by the Council.
21. Moreover, while the appellant agreed that the trees would limit the level of
sunlight reaching the proposed PV panels and a limited number of habitable
rooms to the southern elevation, the shading associated with the trees would
have a positive effect on the proposed development. For example, welcome
shade in times of warmer weather associated with climate change and for
certain types of wildlife living in the trees or the shaded garden area below.
22. However, I find to the contrary, even if the future occupiers of the development
appreciated the proximity of verdant and mature trees when initially
purchasing or renting the property, I concur with the Council it is very likely
that they would become weary of the maintenance tasks associated with the
trees over time, such as the collection of leaves from the shaded garden
through an extended period of the year, the cleaning of debris and sap from
windows or as a consequence of anxiety for tree failure during times of high
wind and storms.
23. Furthermore, while direct shading from the trees would be mostly onto the
southern elevation, which appears from the submitted drawings to be
associated with a number of habitable spaces, the other elevations either face
a neighbouring wall to the west or are orientated to the north and east.
24. Therefore, whether the dwellings would be ‘dual aspect’ or not, the orientation
of the scheme, as well as its’ proximity to the trees and a neighbouring
dwelling would reduce light penetration to the new dwellings, particularly at
certain times of the day or year when sunlight is more limited. It is likely then,
in order to improve daylight within the dwellings, that the occupiers would
pressurise the Council to reduce or remove the trees.
2 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Tree Preservation Order 690 (2005)
25. I acknowledge that there are a range of trees in the nearby area that are
relatively close to adjacent dwellings. However, they are mostly free-standing
trees rather than a line of trees. As such, the appeal trees would throw a
greater level of shade than a singular tree, particularly given the orientation of
the site. Moreover, I cannot be certain if the surrounding garden trees and
street trees were planted before or after the relevant dwelling was constructed
or not.
26. Nonetheless, shading provided by the small number of trees to the front of the
site is unlikely to provide sufficient cooling in an urban-type context as
contended by the appellant; and to my mind any benefit to wildlife such as bats
would be eroded by light spill emanating from the property. This would be the
case whether managed by automatic/electric blinds or not.
27. Therefore, while it has been drawn to my attention that another proposal for
the site raised minimal concerns for tree health, in this case, whether the
proposed development would encroach a root protection or not, the above
matters whether singularly or in combination are likely to lead to pressure for
regular and hard reduction of the trees. This would be likely to either diminish
their overall health and/or lead to requests for their complete removal.
28. Overall, given the orientation of the site and quantity of the lined trees that
would be in close proximity to the proposal, I conclude that the development
would lead to pressure from future occupiers to cut or remove the trees. This
would harm the ecological value of the site.
29. It follows then, that in respect of trees and ecology the proposal would be
contrary to Policies LP15 and LP16 of the RLP, London Plan Policies G6 and G7,
and Policies 39 and 42 of the of the eRLP as supported by East Twickenham
Village Planning Guidance U0177416, which when read as a whole are clear
that it should be ensured development protects, respects, contributes to and
enhances trees and landscapes.
Affordable housing contribution
30. The proposal is for 3 new dwellings. Even though small scale, the development
would attract a required contribution (commuted sum) towards affordable
housing provision in the Borough as set out in Policy LP36 of the RLP. At the
Hearing an unsigned Unilateral Undertaking (‘UU’) was unacceptable to the
Council as a number of matters of disagreement remained between the parties.
However, a signed ‘UU’ was submitted within an agreed revised timetable
subsequent to the Hearing.
31. The ‘UU’ has been entered into as a deed pursuant to section 106 of the Act3,
and states that it is a planning obligation for the purposes of that section. It
identifies the land, the person entering into the obligation, and their interest in
the land, and it identifies the local planning authority by whom the obligation is
enforceable. It therefore meets all of the requirements of section 106 (9) of the
Act. Section 106 (3) of the Act provides that a planning obligation is
enforceable by the local planning authority against the person entering into the
obligation and any person deriving title from that person. The definitions and
interpretations contained in the ‘UU’ reinforce this, so the planning obligation
would ‘run’ with the land and bind future owners.
3 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
32. The ‘UU’ has equal legal status to a planning agreement, so, although the
Council is not a party to it, the obligations could be enforced in the same way. I
am therefore satisfied that it would provide a robust mechanism for securing
the required commuted sum of £185,004.00. Moreover, its acceptability has
been confirmed by the Council in writing.
33. Consequently, in respect of an affordable housing contribution, I conclude that
the proposal would meet the requirements of Policy LP36 of the RLP and Policy
11 of the eRLP, as supported by the adopted Supplementary Planning
Document: Affordable Housing, which says that a contribution towards
affordable housing will be expected on all housing sites.
Other Matters
34. The appeal site is located within the setting of Cambridge Park Court, which is
a Building of Townscape Merit that is located in the Cambridge Park
Conservation Area (CA). However, as the development would be small scale
and located on the other side of the highway, I concur with the Council’s Urban
Design Officer that the proposal would not harm the setting of the non-
designated heritage asset or the CA.
Conclusions
35.Whilst the appellant has submitted a ‘UU’ in respect of an affordable housing
contribution that is acceptable to the Council, the proposal would harm the
character and appearance of the area and fail to mitigate harm to trees and
ecology. As such, the proposed development conflicts with the development
plan taken as a whole, and as there are no material considerations of sufficient
weight to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with
the development plan and the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be
dismissed.
J E Jolly
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
• Deon Lombard – Appellant (Deon Lombard Architects)
• Brian Waters – Architect and Agent (The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership)
• Peter Holloway - Arboriculturist
For the Local Planning Authority:
• Andrew Vaughan -Senior Planning Officer (RTPI)
• Debbie Turner – Principal Development Viability Officer (RTPI)
• Jacob Strutt – Arboricultural Officer
• Craig Ruddick – Arboricultural Manager
Interested Parties:
• Ron Sharpe and Amy Sharpe - Resident
• Jennifer Taylor – Landlord
• Andre Zdrzalka - Resident
• William Bossert - Resident
*****End*****