Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 27 January 2026

by Alison Fish BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 4[th] March 2026

Appeal Ref: 6000554 84 Lower Mortlake Road, Richmond-Upon-Thames TW9 2HS

• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames.

• The application Ref is 23/3232/FUL.

• The development proposed is Change of use of building from Class E ‘Commercial, Business and Service’ to Class C3 ‘Residential’ together with rooftop alterations and extensions to provide 21no. residential properties. Refurbishment of façade, to include the installation of balconies together with associated amenities, parking and landscaping.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The Council’s reason for refusal references the Publication Local Plan (Regulation

19). The Richmond upon Thames Local Plan 2024-2039 (LP) was formally adopted on 7 October 2025 and therefore I have determined the appeal in accordance with it.

3. During the appeal process, the Council clarified that reference to Policy 22 of the

LP in reason for refusal 1 was an error and should be read as Policy 21 of the LP. As the appellant’s have addressed this policy in their submissions, I am satisfied no prejudice would be caused by basing my assessment on Policy 21 of the LP.

4. In response to the Council’s third reason for refusal, the appellants submitted a

legal agreement made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Legal Agreement) dated 16 December 2025, during the appeal process. I have had regard to the Legal Agreement in my consideration and determination of the appeal.

Main Issues

5. The main issues are:

   • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of

neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook and daylight;

- whether the proposal would result in the loss of office floorspace within a

Key Office Area; and

---

- whether there are any material considerations which mean that the decision

should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Reasons

Living conditions

6. The two storey residential property to the south of the site consists of four flats. It is

understood that a window at ground and first floor on the north elevation, facing the appeal site, serve single aspect bedrooms in flats 1 and 3 West Sheen Vale.

7. The proposal includes an additional floor to the part of the building closest to these

residential properties. This would increase the height and bulk of the building in close proximity to flats 1 and 3 West Sheen Vale. Whilst none of the windows in flats 1and 3 would experience a reduction in annual probable sunlight hours and the ground floor window would pass the No Sky Line test (NSL), the same window would fail on the vertical sky component test (VSC) and first floor window would fail both tests. This would result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of the existing occupiers of 1 and 3 West Sheen Vale.

8. The outlook from the ground floor window is already compromised by the boundary

fence and outbuildings. For this reason, the increase in the height and mass of the building is unlikely to have an appreciable impact from this window.

9. From the first floor window, the impact would be more greatly felt. The siting, height

and bulk of the proposal, combined with the reduction in VSC and NSL, would result in an overbearing form of development which would have a harmful impact on the occupiers.

10. In both cases, the windows serve secondary bedrooms. Neither room would

experience a reduction in Annual Probable Sunlight Hours and the main living areas face east/west. I have also had regard to the planning permission granted in February 2021[1] (‘the February 2021 permission’) but note that his has now lapsed. Accordingly, the harm that would arise would be on the lower end of the scale, but harm nonetheless.

11. This would conflict with Policy 46 of the LP which supports new development which

does not result in an unacceptable impact on living conditions for existing occupiers in respect of daylight and outlook.

Loss of office floorspace

12. The evidence before me indicates that the Council’s Employment Land and

Premises Needs Assessment (updated April 2023) identifies a shortfall of approximately 23,000sqm of office floorspace over the plan period. The Council have sought to protect existing office floorspace by identifying Key Business Area’s in the LP and utilising Article 4 Directions to protect those offices that make the most valuable contribution to the employment floorspace needs of the area.

13. The appeal property is located within the 72-84 Lower Mortlake Road Key Business

Area (KBA) and comprises of approximately 1,100 square metres (sqm) of office space which is currently vacant. The property is also subject to an Article 4

1 LPA Ref: 20/3359/FUL for extension of the existing office building to provide a new entrance, enlarged office space and external terraces

---

Direction removing permitted development rights for change of use from Class E to residential.

14. The proposal would result in the loss of existing employment floorspace for office

use. This would be contrary to the expectations of Policies 21 and 23 of the LP which seek to protect existing employment floorspace for office use through a no net loss approach with Policy 23 stating that proposals which would result in a net loss of office space will be refused.

15. However, Policies E1 and E2 of The London Plan, adopted March 2021 (TLP)

permit proposals which result in the loss of office space where it can be demonstrated that there is a surplus or no reasonable prospect of the site being used for business purposes. The supporting text to Policy 23 of the LP also requires satisfactory marketing evidence to accompany any proposal where a change of use is not supported by policy.

16. I am told that the property has been vacant since 2019. The February 2021

permission included works to extend and upgrade the building. Internal stripping out works were carried out. However the February 2021 permission was never implemented due to rising costs and that permission has now lapsed. I saw that the building is not currently capable of being occupied as offices without the need for work to be undertaken.

17. The appellants’ submissions[2] include details of the marketing which has been

carried out over the period since August 2020. This included marketing it on the basis that the proposed works to upgrade the building in the February 2021 permission would be carried out and for letting in its entirety or in part. Other Class E uses such as a nursery and gym have been found to be unsuitable uses due to the lack of outside space and structural restrictions respectively.

18. The property has only been marketed by a single commercial property consultant.

Whilst they have expertise in the Richmond property market, it would not be unusual to engage further property consultants if the property had failed to let over an extended period. The property has been marketed for let by standard, established solutions such as a ‘To Let’ board at the property, the circulation of marketing details to clients on the agents’ database and advertising it on a number of websites.

19. There is no evidence that the ‘out of the box’ approach advocated by the

commercial property consultant in their marketing report has been adopted in this instance. There is no evidence that it has been offered for sale. The building is not currently capable of occupation and continuing to market a building on the basis of an expired permission means there is no certainty for prospective occupiers that the works could be carried out. I therefore have some misgivings about the robustness of the marketing which has taken place. I am not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there is no realistic prospect of the building being occupied for any class E purpose within the foreseeable future.

20. The appellants argue that the protectionist stance on office floorspace set out in

Policies 21 and 23 of the Local Plan is unjustified. They contend that the absence of any mechanism to allow the release of surplus office space is inconsistent with the findings of the ELPNA and the position of TLP, both of which indicate that

2 Marketing Report and Addendum Marketing Report by Sterling Shaw

---

excess office floorspace should be repurposed. According to the appellants, the ELPNA shows that demand for office space is lower than previously assumed and that some loss of office stock is necessary to enable the market to reach equilibrium.

21. They further submit that the current pipeline supply of office space is more than

sufficient to meet the needs identified in the ELPNA. They also highlight a significant oversupply of office floorspace in Richmond town centre, which is a more attractive location for tenants seeking high-quality, central offices. They argue that until this prime space is fully occupied, comparable high-quality offices in secondary, edge-of-centre locations, such as the appeal site, are likely to remain vacant. They conclude that offering a lower-quality fit-out at a reduced rent does not draw tenants, because Richmond typically attracts high-calibre occupiers willing to pay premium rents for top-specification offices.

22. The appellants also contend that including the appeal site within a Key Business

Area (KBA) is not supported by the evidence. The KBA contains two other buildings: Avalon House, which is also vacant, and Eminence House, which has been converted to residential use. As a result, none of the buildings within the KBA are currently in office use or make any contribution to the local economy or office market.

23. However, these submissions were made as part of the Regulation 19 consultation.

Notwithstanding these submissions, the examining Inspector concluded that the LP’s approach to increasing jobs and helping businesses to grow, including the designation of KBA, was justified and in general accordance with TLP. Given that the LP was adopted very recently, and that no substantially new evidence has been put to me in this appeal, I see no reason to depart from the view that the examining Inspector came to. A decision to allow the appeal would, in this instance, harmfully undermine the Council’s strategy for the economy contained in the development plan.

24. Bringing all this together, I conclude that the proposal would be contrary to Policies

E1 and E2 of TLP and Policies 21 and 23 of the LP which seek to retain existing office floorspace to support a diverse economy.

Other considerations

25. The appeal at 2 Heron Court[3] was for the conversion of an office to an apartment.

However, that building was not subject to an Article 4 Direction and the scale of the proposal is not comparable to the proposal before me. This attracts limited weight.

26. The Council point to an appeal decision[4] issued in March 2025 which found there to

be a 5.15 year housing land supply. The appellants’ view that the Council’s housing land supply sits at no greater than 4.93 years, is supported by more recent appeal decisions[5]. Even if I took the appellants’ figure, the provision of 21 dwellings, would make only a modest contribution towards supply. This would attract moderate weight.

3 Appeal Ref: [APP/L5810/W/20/3259537](https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=[3259537](https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3259537)) 4 Appeal Ref: [APP/L5810/W/24/3351726](/decision/3351726) Land at Roseleigh Close and Cambridge Park, Twickenham TW1 2JT 5 Appeal Ref: [APP/L5810/W/25/3358930](/decision/3358930) 2 The Terrace, 136 Richmond Hill TW10 6RN and [APP/L5810/W/24/3339060](/decision/3339060) & [APP/L5810/W/24/3339062](https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=[3339062](https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3339062)) Former Stag Brewery, Lower Richmond Road, Mortlake SW14 7ET

---

27. Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) adopts

a positive approach to applications for an alternative use of land. However, the site is identified as a KBA and I have found that the loss of office floorspace would undermine a key economic sector for Richmond. Accordingly, I give this very limited weight.

28. In the event that planning permission were to be granted and implemented, the

planning obligations within the Legal Agreement would secure the provision of affordable housing, a carbon-offset financial contribution, a car parking permit restriction and five years membership to a local car club.

29. The level of affordable housing provision is not disputed by the Council. The Legal

Agreement would secure its provision on site unless reasonable endeavours fail to identify a suitable Registered Provider to operate the affordable housing. The Legal Agreement includes provisions for what ‘reasonable endeavours’ entails and on balance, this would be a sensible approach to take.

30. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied from the information

provided that the submitted Legal Agreement is directly related to the development proposed, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, and necessary to make the development acceptable[6]. With the exception of affordable housing, these obligations serve to comply with relevant polices in the development plan or mitigate the effects of the development and are neutral in my assessment. The provision of affordable housing in this instance is a benefit which attracts significant weight.

31. Although the proposal would amount to the redevelopment of previously developed

land, it does not garner support from Paragraph 73 of the Framework because, for the reasons set out above, it would not be a suitable site.

32. There would be improvements to the sustainability and biodiversity of the building

to which I give modest weight but given my findings in respect of the impact on neighbouring occupiers, I give the improvements to the appearance of the building limited weight.

33. Compliance with development plan policies including those relating to the appeal

sites proximity to services and facilities, and the lack of harm including in respect of highway safety are neutral factors in my consideration of the appeal.

Other Matters

34. The appeal site is located outside but close to the Sheendale Road Conservation

Area (CA). The Council have concluded that the scale and location of the proposal would not be harmful to the setting of the CA and I see no reason to depart from this view.

35. I have considered other matters raised by interested parties including, but not

limited to parking, noise, dust, air quality, outlook and loss of privacy, but given that I have identified harm in respect of the main issues, these are not matters on which my decision turns.

6 As required by Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010

---

Planning Balance

36. For the reasons set out above, the harm identified in respect of the appeal proposal

results in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. A proposal should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

37. Collectively, the proposal would deliver benefits to the sustainability and

biodiversity of the building and there would be benefits to the housing land supply to which I give moderate weight. There are some factors which are neutral in the balance and others I have given very little weight to. I have given significant weight to the provision of 4 units of affordable housing.

38. However, even if Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework were engaged, I find that the

adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Conclusion

39. The proposed development is contrary to the development plan as a whole and

there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.

Alison Fish

INSPECTOR

---