Case Reference: 3249153

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 19-22, and 25-29 January 2021
Site visits made on 12 January 2021 and 2 February 2021
by Peter Rose BA MRTPI DMS MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 April 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/20/3249153
23-27 Arlington Works, Arlington Road, Twickenham TW1 2BB
• 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:18/2714/FUL, dated 10 August 2018, was refused by notice dated
19 September 2019.
• The development proposed is described as ‘redevelopment of the site to provide
610sqm of commercial space (B Class) within existing Buildings of Townscape Merit plus
a new build unit, 24 residential units (5 x 1 bedroom, 12 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3
bedroom) and associated car parking and landscaping’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary matters
Site address
2. A clearer description of the address, not as stated on the application form or
reflected in the banner above, is agreed by the main parties to be Arlington
Works, 23-27 Arlington Road, Twickenham TW1 2BB.
Description of development
3. The application form refers to Use Class B and the application was publicised on
those terms. The proposal was subsequently amended more specifically to
Class B1. The application was determined on that basis and the appeal was
publicised to that effect. In September 2020, changes were made to the Use
Classes Order such that B1 would be superseded by new sub-Class E(g).
4. The proposal includes two new build units (not one) and a small extension to
the Buildings of Townscape Merit.
Plans
5. Amended drawing CA3743 SK006 (Rev D) was submitted prior to the Inquiry
and accepted as part of the appeal. The agreed schedule of recommended
conditions also includes minor updates in the form of drawings 4786 3 10 C,
4786 3 15 B, and 4786 3 25 B.
Planning obligations
6. The appeal is supported by an agreement made between the appellant and
local planning authority pursuant to section 106 of the Act dated
17 February 2021 (the section 106 agreement).
London Plan
7. The Mayor of London’s Publication London Plan, December 20201 (the PVLP)
was considered in detail at the Inquiry. The PVLP was subsequently published
on 2 March 2021 and became operative as part of the development plan on
that date.
8. Reference is made in the Council’s decision and elsewhere to policies set out in
the previous version of the London Plan, The Further Alterations to the London
Plan, March 2015 (the FALP).2 Those references have now been superseded by
the PVLP and the parties have identified the new relevant provisions in
evidence.
Rule 6 interests
9. The Inquiry was addressed by two Rule 6 parties: Twickenham Studios; and by
a joint representation on behalf of Twickenham Park Residents Association and
The Barons Residents Association (the residents’ associations).
10. I consider the appeal on the above terms.
Main issues
11. The main issues are:
• possible implications for a designated waste site;
• possible implications for industrial and employment land policy;
• whether or not the scheme would provide an appropriate mix of uses;
• the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the
appeal site and the surrounding area, and including any implications for
the significance of non-designated heritage assets, and;
• possible implications for the continuing operation of Twickenham Studios.
Reasons
The site
12. Arlington Works comprises an irregularly shaped backland site of some
0.3 hectares located in a predominantly residential area. The site is served by a
relatively long and narrow internal access from Arlington Road. The access is
enclosed to the north by Howmic Court, a post-war housing development, and
by Twickenham Studios (TS) to the south.
1 The London Plan, Publication London Plan, December 2020 The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London
2 As included in the Mayor’s published compendium The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for London
Consolidated with Alterations since 2011 March 2016
13. The site abuts a railway line to the west where it comprises a cleared area
previously associated with the treatment of waste oil. The waste use ceased in
2018 and occupied some 0.08 hectares. Adjacent to the eastern boundary are
post-war single-storey corrugated metal structures (the sheds) in a poor state
of repair but still occupied by commercial tenants.
14. A pair of facing late-Victorian terraced buildings originally separated by cobbled
surfacing and designed as stables or similar occupy the southern part of the
site and are designated as Buildings of Townscape Merit (BTMs). Various other
facilities lie further beyond the BTMs to the south, including a telecoms
enclosure and a toilet block.
15. The metal sheds comprise 8 units and the BTMs 24, and have been identified to
be in various Class B1/B2/B8 use. The Council confirmed that no planning
permissions apply to the units, and that the waste use operated with the
benefit of a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) dating
from August 1994.3 The Certificate includes no limitations beyond ‘use for the
refining of waste oil (other than petroleum or petroleum products)(to include
the use of fuel storage tanks in this connection)’.
16. Much of the site is open hardstanding and comprises access, parking and other
incidental areas. Some parking space is also provided for TS.
Possible implications for a designated waste site
The development plan
17. Policy WLWP 2 of the West London Waste Plan Adopted July 2015
(the Waste Plan) seeks to safeguard and protect existing and allocated waste
sites. Existing waste management sites are defined as those sites managing
waste which are lawfully permitted to do so as set out in Appendix 2. Appendix
2 refers to Sharpes Recycle Oil Ltd and identifies Arlington Oil Reclamation
Facility, Twickenham as an ‘oil reclamation facility’.
18. The policy requires land accommodating existing waste management uses in
West London to be protected for continued use for waste management. To
ensure no loss in existing capacity, re-development of any existing waste
management sites must ensure that the quantity of waste to be managed is
equal to or greater than the quantity of waste which the site is currently
permitted to manage, or that the management of the waste is being moved up
the waste hierarchy.
19. Development for non-waste uses will only be considered on land in existing
waste management use if compensatory and equal provision of capacity for
waste, in scale and quality, is made elsewhere within the West London
Boroughs.
20. Policy LP 24 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Plan as
adopted by the Council 3 July 2018 (the Local Plan) states that proposals
affecting existing waste management sites will be assessed against the policies
of the Waste Plan.
21. Policy SI 8 of the PVLP sets out the need for London’s waste capacity to be
managed sustainably, and includes three particular provisions. Firstly, it seeks
3 Ref: 94/2139/S191
for the equivalent of 100 per cent of London’s waste to be managed within
London and for such net self-sufficiency to be achieved by 2026. Secondly, in
conjunction with Policy SI 9, it seeks to safeguard existing waste management
sites. Thirdly, it seeks to optimise the waste management capacity of existing
sites.
22. Policy SI 9 similarly requires existing waste sites to be safeguarded and
retained in waste management use. It requires that waste plans should be
adopted before considering the loss of waste sites. The proposed loss of an
existing waste site will only be supported where appropriate compensatory
capacity is made within London that must be at or above the same level of the
waste hierarchy and at least meet, and should exceed, the maximum
achievable throughput of the site proposed to be lost.
23. Further, Policy SI 9 requires proposals that would result in the loss of existing
sites for the treatment and/or disposal of hazardous waste not to be permitted
unless compensatory hazardous waste site provision has been secured in
accordance with this policy.
24. The PVLP further explains how any proposed release of current waste sites
should be part of a plan-led process, rather than done on an ad-hoc basis.
Waste sites should only be released to other land uses where waste processing
capacity is re-provided elsewhere within London.
The need for compensation
25. The Waste Plan makes clear that safeguarded sites are an essential resource to
the West London area, and the ‘continued identification’ of the appeal site as
safeguarded in the context of Policy WLWP 2 was expressly endorsed as
recently as 2018 by the Local Plan Inspector as ‘sound’ policy.4
26. The lawful use of the appeal site is for refining waste oil. The extent of
re-provision to be compensated is defined by the development plan with
reference to the PVLP calculation methodology (the maximum throughput over
the last 5 years in the first instance), and the corresponding throughput is
agreed between the parties to be 13,404 tonnes per annum. This methodology
drawing upon existing capacity is also consistent with the broad approach of
the Waste Plan.
Compensation - type and location
27. It is clear that, as part of pre-application discussions, the local planning
authority advised that compensation could relate to a wider definition of
hazardous waste (‘another waste stream’). Further, Council officers indicated
locations could be considered within ‘the wider London generally’ (sic) but that
‘the West London Waste Plan area has to be reviewed as a priority’.5
28. The view offered by officers and upon which the appellant has subsequently
acted was informal, and without prejudice to subsequent formal decisions by
the authority. That earlier position was not maintained by the Council as part of
the authority’s case to the Inquiry. I find the application of policies reflected in
that earlier advice not to be appropriate to the particular circumstances of this
4 Paragraph 85, CDE11 ‘Report on the Examination of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan’ dated 26 April 2018
5 See email dated 7 March 2018
case and instead concur with the more formal assessment of the Council as
subsequently submitted in evidence.
29. In particular, the straightforward reading of Policy WLWP 2 is a requirement for
‘compensatory and equal provision of capacity for waste, in scale and quality
(to be) made elsewhere within the West London Boroughs’. The Waste Plan
expressly identifies the appellant’s operation as an oil reclamation facility.
Logically, if compensation does not involve a similar facility with necessary
capacity, it is difficult to appreciate how the purposes of the policies would be
anything other than compromised. The expectation must therefore relate to the
actual type of processing undertaken on the site and as recognised by the
development plan rather than to hazardous waste treatment more generally.
30. The appellant draws attention to paragraph 5.1.3 of the Waste Plan as not
seeking to specify the type of waste management technology in any site. That
reference must also be read in context. That particular context is not about
safeguarding capacity of existing sites but instead relates to possibilities for
future redevelopment to provide waste management at a number of specified
sites and which do not include the appeal site.
31. Notwithstanding disagreement as to where the operation may lie within the
Waste Plan waste hierarchy, Policy WLWP 2 is clear that compensation needs to
relate to the nature of the existing operation unless the management of the
waste is being moved up the waste hierarchy, and there is no specific or
otherwise detailed proposal to that effect.
Other sites and available capacity
32. The appellant has made initial approaches to a number of hazardous waste
operators with a view to seeking informal expressions of interest towards
providing compensatory facilities for that which would be displaced.
33. None of the responses confirm the availability of a currently available
compensatory facility offering the necessary combination of credentials. In
summary, none are confirmed as offering an oil reclamation facility with the
same type of process as the appeal site and with the available capacity and
located either within the Waste Plan area or as offering the necessary
combination of features more widely within Greater London.
34. The application is not accompanied by any such specific compensatory proposal
and I have little clear evidence to confirm such provision could be imminent or
likely. Even if the required compensatory provisions were to be accepted as
applying more generally to hazardous waste, no specific proposal is part of the
appeal scheme. In the terms of Policy WLWP 2 and of Policy SI 9,
compensatory waste provision has not been secured.
35. I also place little weight on the discontinued status of the waste operation. The
development plan seeks to protect safeguarded sites whether or not they are in
active use. If this were not the case, mere closure could be used to facilitate
redevelopment and so undermine the safeguarding regime required of the
development plan. There is no indication of how or where the previous capacity
of the facility is now accommodated and there is no evidence to conclude that
the loss has been other than detrimental to net self-sufficiency.
Viability
36. The safeguarding policies are not conditional upon viability but, in any case,
very little evidence has been submitted to that effect. Rather, the evidence is
of a site operating prior to closure at its peak 5-year production, and there has
been no clear demonstration to the contrary.
Possible condition
37. During the Inquiry, the appellant suggested a condition to the effect that no
development should take place until a suitable scheme of compensatory
hazardous waste provision, of up to 13,500 tonnes, has been agreed with the
Council. Such provision should be made within the Waste Plan area. If such
capacity cannot be met within the Waste Plan area, the condition would then
allow the shortfall to be made up within the neighbouring area or wider Greater
London area.
38. The suggested terms would provide for hazardous waste generally to satisfy
the compensatory provisions and not be specific to oil waste as required.
Further, provision of ‘up to’ 13,500 tonnes could be anything less than the
defined capacity and would conflict with the terms of Policy SI 9 in that regard.
39. The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that conditions relating to land not
within the control of the applicant should not be imposed if there are no
prospects at all of the action in question being performed within the
time-limit required by the permission. The evidence presented to the Inquiry
does not satisfy me of any reasonable prospect of an appropriate replacement
policy-compliant facility for refining waste oil being in place prior to the 3-year
expiry of a permission. Mere ‘agreement’ of a scheme by the Council is also not
the same as a scheme being implemented and available to compensate within
a specific timescale compliant with commencement of the development.
40. The Framework also requires conditions that are required to be discharged
before development commences to be avoided unless there is a clear
justification. Given the shortcomings of the condition and its remaining conflict
with the development plan, I find no reasonable basis to justify.
Summary of conclusions
41. The development plan requires protection of the site as part of a consistent
west London and broader London-wide strategic approach to the realisation of
self-sufficiency in waste management by 2026. Notwithstanding Policy SI 9’s
expectation that any release of waste sites should be plan-led rather than
ad-hoc, the proposal in any case runs contrary to the plan’s expected retention
of the site for such purposes and would mean permanent loss of a significant
contribution to London’s net self-sufficiency in oil waste management.
42. I therefore find the proposed development would be significantly harmful to
London’s strategic approach to the management of waste. Accordingly, the
scheme would be in conflict with Policy WLWP 2 of the Waste Plan, with Policy
LP 24 of the Local Plan, and with Policies SI 8 and SI 9 of the PVLP. These
policies, in turn, are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework
(the Framework) which defines its environmental objective to include making
effective use of land and minimising waste and pollution.
Possible implications for industrial and employment land policy
The development plan
43. Policy LP 42 of the Local Plan recognises that the Borough has a very limited
supply of industrial floorspace and how demand for this type of land is high. It
therefore seeks to protect, and where possible enhance, the existing stock of
industrial premises to meet local needs.
44. The policy was informed by the Richmond Employment Sites and Premises
Study 2016 Update which demonstrated there was a significant gap between
the demand for industrial premises and available supply. This situation persists
and recent evidence shows a London vacancy rate of 3.5% compared to
Richmond’s rate of 0.6%. This evidence ranks the Borough second lowest in
London for vacancy and suggests the Borough’s supply has actually contracted
over the past 10 years, as demolition has outpaced construction.
45. Policy LP 42 sets out a presumption against loss of industrial land in all parts of
the Borough. Loss of industrial space (outside of the Locally Important
Industrial Land and Business Parks) will only be permitted where robust and
compelling evidence is provided which clearly demonstrates that there is no
longer demand for an industrial based use in a particular location and that
there is not likely to be in the foreseeable future. Significantly, this must
include evidence of completion of a full and proper marketing exercise over a
minimum period of two continuous years in accordance with the approach and
details set out in its accompanying Appendix 5.
46. If marketing fails to identify appropriate future industrial use, the policy then
triggers a sequential approach to possible redevelopment or change of use.
Firstly, it requires consideration of redevelopment for office or alternative
employment uses, and only then for mixed use including other employment
generating or community uses, and residential purposes. The terms of
Policy LP 42, including the duration of the required marketing period, were
expressly supported by the Local Plan Inspector.6
47. Policy LP 40 also seeks to retain land in employment use for business,
industrial or storage purposes. In exceptional circumstances, mixed use
development proposals which come forward for specific employment sites
should retain, and where possible enhance, the level of existing employment
floorspace. It advises the inclusion of residential use within mixed use schemes
will not be appropriate where it would adversely impact on the continued
operation of other established employment uses within that site.
48. Policy E2 of the PVLP similarly requires, amongst other things, for development
proposals that involve the loss of existing B Use Class business space in areas
where there is a shortage of lower-cost space or workspace of particular types,
uses or sizes as identified in a local Development Plan Document, to
demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for
business purposes, or ensure that an equivalent amount of B Use Class
business space is re-provided in the proposal.
49. Policy E4 seeks to ensure retention and enhancement of Non-Designated
Industrial Sites. Any release of industrial land in order to manage issues of
long-term vacancy and to achieve wider planning objectives should be
6 See paragraphs 100 and 101, CDE11
facilitated through the processes of industrial intensification, co-location and
substitution set out in Policy E7. Under Policy E4 Boroughs are only encouraged
to assess the release of industrial land when vacancy rates are above the
London average and there is no evidence such circumstances apply in this
case.
50. Policy E7 encourages mixed-use or residential development proposals on
Non-Designated Industrial Sites only in specified circumstances. These include
where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for industrial and
related purposes, or where the site has been allocated for residential or
mixed-use development, or where industrial, storage or distribution floorspace
is provided as part of mixed-use intensification.
51. Evidence to demonstrate ‘no reasonable prospect’ of Non-Designated Industrial
Sites being used for industrial and related purposes is similarly specified to
include details of vacancy and marketing for at least 12 months, or greater if
required by a local Development Plan Document.
The proposal
52. Agreed figures submitted to the Inquiry identify an existing net internal area of
some 849 square metres of commercial floorspace reducing to some
512 square metres. The scheme would therefore involve a loss of some 337
square metres, a reduction of just under 40% within the general meaning of
paragraph 10.3.1 of the Local Plan. This reflects loss of the sheds but does not
include the surrounding open areas of ancillary use, or the waste use. In
broader terms, the proposed layout suggests that, excluding areas of shared
access, well over half of the site would be lost for industrial-related use and
would instead be residential. Even allowing for a possible existing B1(a)
element of anything up to 119 square metres, significant loss would still be
incurred.
53. The BTMs would be refurbished and there would be a slight gain of some 76
square metres for the small extension. The refurbished industrial units would
be intended for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including creative
industries or studio spaces consistent with the local market, and reflecting a
growing need for adaptable space responding to increasingly diverse and
changing working patterns.
54. Notwithstanding the quantitative loss of industrial space, the appellant
suggests the definition of ‘equivalent’ within the language of Policy E2 is to be
qualified by type, by use and by size. In the appellant’s view the scheme can
be seen to be at least equivalent, particularly as the considerable qualitative
upgrade of the space would for a more intensive, productive use of the site.
55. The scheme is promoted as providing an improved and sustainable industrial
use appropriate to this predominantly residential area.
The possible implications of fallback
56. The appellant further maintains that the Council’s concern to protect industrial
space is undermined by the prospect of existing industrial uses now falling
within new Use Class E and subsequently changing to a non-industrial Class E
activity. This could enable introduction of a variety of other activities now
accommodated within Class E, such as retail, recreation, medical, nursery or
creche uses, and without any prior recourse to the authority.
57. The appellant’s commercial evidence was that the sheds were no longer
fit-for-purpose, and had come to the end of their useful life. It was maintained
that that there is no real prospect of the units being used for another purpose
without physical improvement, but there are no Permitted Development rights
to allow such works. If the premises are not fit for their existing purpose, it
must also be highly questionable whether they can be readily attractive for
other alternative and more discerning activities and likely to be requiring more
bespoke standards of accommodation.
58. I have little evidence to suggest that a shed or similar in a state of disrepair on
a backland site with no street frontage or other physical customer exposure
and set within a row of industrial buildings of similar run-down character might
somehow aspire to the role of a shop or some other public-facing use within
Class E. The appellant was unable to identify any comparable development in
Richmond or elsewhere and I have little market evidence to that effect. To then
speculate that the proposal might somehow be regarded as involving no loss of
industrial space due to the possibility of such widespread unregulated changes
is not credible and is without reasonable foundation.
59. Whilst I acknowledge a theoretical basis to the appellant’s fallback scenario, I
find little reason to substantiate its practical reality as a possibility relative to
the particulars of this case. I am therefore unconvinced there is a real
prospect7 of appreciable loss of existing industrial space occurring, and I afford
this submission little weight.8
Possible conditions
60. The appellant suggests two particular conditions. The first would be to the
effect that the use approved should only be for activities which fall within Use
Class E(g). The second, and related condition, would be to the effect that the
Class E(g) use approved should be available in its entirety prior to the first
occupation of any residential element of the approved development.
61. Whilst these conditions would ensure the commercial accommodation would be
available and remain consistent with industrial activity, they do not overcome
the principal harm arising from the loss of industrial floorspace and associated
areas. The second condition would ensure a degree of compliance with Part D
to PVLP Policy E7 in terms of relative programming but both conditions would
only serve to regulate availability of an otherwise reduced quantity of industrial
space.
Summary of conclusions
62. The scheme would involve a significant loss of industrial floorspace and land
and for which the development plan and accompanying evidence indicate a real
and up-to-date need. The development plan sets out a presumption against the
loss of industrial land and space and the proposal would conflict.
7 The Court of Appeal stated that the basic principle is that for a prospect to be a ‘real prospect’, it does not have
to be probable or likely; a possibility will suffice (as per R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
[2017] EWCA Civ 1314)
8 Post-Inquiry, the proposed Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England)
(Amendment) Order 2021 makes further provision for change of use from the new Class E to residential use, but
this would be subject to control through separate accompanying restrictions
63. Further, in considering possibilities for such losses, the scheme fails to accord
with the sequential approach of Policy LP 42, and the appellant confirmed there
was a very high demand for commercial use in this area.
64. The sequential structure of Policy LP 42 is also of particular significance in
underlining that industrial policy assumes precedence over residential use. This
is because of their relative order within the sequence. Unless the earlier steps
of the policy can be satisfactorily discharged, residential use does not come
into consideration. This industrial presumption is reinforced by Policy LP 40.
65. Whilst the site has not been marketed, an offer has been made by TS to
acquire for industrial use as an extension to its existing premises and
consistent with the terms of the Local Plan’s Appendix 5. That offer, and TS’
serious and continuing interest, further demonstrate the need to retain
industrial use of the site and the continuing relevance of Policy LP 42 and
related policies.
66. The appellant argues there is not a breach of the policy because there is no
loss and, if there had been marketing, it would have shown that there was in
fact demand for industrial use. I find the first assessment to be factually
incorrect, and the second argument merely serves to support the underlying
need to resist loss of industrial space.
67. I do not accept that the proposal amounts to intensification as identified under
the terms of Part C of Policy E7 in relation to mixed-use development on
Non-Designated Industrial Sites. Part A indicates that intensification has a
particular meaning and this is not defined to include the loss of industrial
floorspace. Part C 3) also cross-references to Part C of Policy E2. In this regard,
the proposal fails to demonstrate the site has no reasonable prospect of being
used for business purposes and there is no equivalent amount of B use class
business space being re-provided appropriate in terms of type, use and size.
68. I am also unpersuaded by any suggestion of an intensification of employment
density. Whilst the appellant suggested there could be an increase in
employment numbers on the site from 17 to 50, it was acknowledged this
figure did not reflect proposed employment B1(b) and (c) type uses, and for
which the same government matrix9 indicates much lower densities than B1(a)
office uses. If a density of 47 square metres (corresponding to B1(b) and (c)
uses) were applied, only some 11 employees would be accommodated, less
than the existing position, and still exclusive of the waste use. Densities for
small business workspace could be as low as 60 square metres. In any case,
little convincing evidence of probable densities was before the Inquiry.
69. No viability exercise was presented to demonstrate that refurbishment of the
BTMs could not be achieved independently of the appeal scheme and, indeed,
the evidence is that, generally, the buildings have been continuously let in their
existing condition and remain so.
70. Reference has been made to decisions by the authority in relation to other
industrial sites. From the details provided, it is clear that the particular overall
circumstances of each of those other cases are materially different and I find
the specific merits of the appeal scheme remain as described.
9 Page 29, Homes and Communities Agency Employment Density Guide November 2015 - CDH16
71. I find general consistency between Policy LP 42 and PVLP Policy E2 insofar as
the former provides the local management approach for the strategy outlined
in the latter, and broad consistency between Policies E2, E4 and E7 and Policies
LP 40 and LP 42.
72. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to
Policies LP 40 and LP 42 of the Local Plan and to Policies E2, E4 and E7 of the
PVLP. These policies are consistent with the Framework which, amongst other
things, seeks to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy by
ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places
and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity.
Mix of uses
73. The Council has concerns regarding the operational relationship between the
residential and commercial elements of the scheme.
74. Previous objections regarding accommodation of pedestrian and cycle
movement have now been resolved, but the Council retains concerns regarding
the respective locations of the commercial and residential units. In particular,
both are to be served by the same vehicular access and vehicles attending the
commercial elements would need to pass beyond the dwellings.
75. The commercial units would be limited to uses within Use Class E(g). I would
not expect the scale or nature of such movements to be excessive or disruptive
given the number and size of units. Besides, the likelihood is of various forms
of home deliveries generating not dissimilar vehicle activity in connection with
the dwellings themselves over and above residents’ own movements.
76. I therefore find there would be no harm in relation to the operational
implications arising from the mix of uses. Accordingly, there would be no
conflict with Local Plan Policies LP 1 or LP 35 which seek, amongst other things,
to ensure development respects the suitability and compatibility of uses, taking
account of any potential adverse impacts of the co-location of uses.
Character and appearance
77. Framework policy requires development to be sympathetic to local character
and history. A similar principle is reflected in the National Design Guide. It
emphasises how well-designed places should be integrated into their
surroundings, should be influenced by and influence their context positively,
and be responsive to local heritage.
78. Externally, the site has little exposure to the existing public street-scene but
still forms part of an established residential area. The East Twickenham Village
Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document June 2016 describes
how the east side of Arlington Road is made up of semi-detached houses of
regular design with front garden areas. Whilst referring to blocks of flats on the
west side, it also reflects how the area contains wide pavements with tree-lined
streets and a suggestion they were originally laid out with grass verges.
79. Internally, the existing character of the appeal site is shaped by a combination
of features. These include its sense of backland enclosure, the sheds, the
BTMs, and a general unbuilt form within its central area affording various views
through the site.
80. The opportunity to replace the relatively ramshackle yet prominent sheds
would be a positive feature of the scheme in townscape terms.
81. Whilst relatively utilitarian in form and inward-facing, and in a state of some
disrepair, the BTMs still make a positive contribution to the quality of
townscape consistent with the terms of the Council’s Buildings of Townscape
Merit Supplementary Planning Document Adopted May 2015. Their significance
is as a distinctive and cohesive group of Victorian stable/mews buildings
generally retaining their original architectural interest and integrity. As ancillary
buildings, their original design and position may well have sought to
marginalise their presence within the site. Nevertheless, the open central area
means they remain visible across much of the site as characteristically defining
and established features and this enhances their setting and significance.
82. The Council has raised no in-principle concerns regarding the proposed density
of development. The Framework advises that planning policies and decisions
should support development that makes efficient use of land and, whilst not
substantiated, the appellant indicated at the Inquiry a general need for housing
development to cross-subsidise the proposed commercial accommodation.
83. I acknowledge the need to make optimum use of the available land, and the
appellant’s efforts to produce a quality bespoke design, but find the scale of
residential development to be overwhelming relative to both the distinctiveness
of the BTMs and the wider site character. The proposed scale and position of
the main 3/4-storey building and the smaller adjacent block would serve to
relatively annex and conceal the BTMs. Their significance and setting would be
neither respected nor developed as positive and distinctive features of the site.
84. Further, whilst there would be some garden space to the two residential blocks
and areas of planting elsewhere, provision of soft landscaping throughout the
scheme would be generally limited. Although Arlington Road does contain
blocks of flats, these are set within more generous landscaped settings, and
face towards traditional houses designed with front gardens. The scheme would
thereby also fail to reflect the wider and more spacious character of Arlington
Road.
85. I disagree with the proposition that the proposal largely has to establish its
own place with its own identity. That is to deny the importance of context. The
consequence is a scheme which, by virtue of the scale of built form and its
relationship to the BTMs, would be a cramped over-development of the site not
reflective of its distinctive character and harmful to the settings of the
non-designated heritage assets. An apparent quest to maximise site capacity
has prevailed over an approach more appropriately informed by local context.
86. Notwithstanding the backland character of the site, Local Plan Policy LP 39 still
requires development to reflect the character of the surrounding area.
Similarly, the Council’s Design Quality Supplementary Planning Document
Adopted February 2006 states that design which fails to take the opportunity to
improve the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. An
appropriate design solution does not require the BTMs to be all pervading and
nor be elevated to a status beyond their significance, but it does require their
form and setting to be more respected and acknowledged as distinctive and
referential features. The appeal scheme is markedly lacking in that regard.
87. I therefore conclude the proposed development would be harmful to the
character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area, and
would undermine the significance of the BTMs. Accordingly, there would be
conflict with Local Plan Policies LP 1, LP 4 and LP 39, and with PVLP Policies D3
and D4. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure that the high quality
character and heritage of the Borough will be maintained and enhanced where
opportunities arise and that backland development should reflect the character
of the surrounding area. They aim to ensure that development should be the
most appropriate form for the site, that high quality design and placemaking
are delivered, and that the significance, character and setting of
non-designated heritage assets are preserved, and where possible enhanced.
88. I find these policies to be consistent with the Framework. This also seeks to
ensure that development should establish or maintain a strong sense of place,
and emphasises how heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should
be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.
Possible implications of the development for the continuing operation
of Twickenham Studios
89. TS raises three particular matters: support for the development plan in relation
to industrial policy; implications of noise and disturbance; and loss of parking.
The development plan
90. The development plan recognises the importance of creative industries, and of
TS itself.
91. PVLP Policy HC5 sets out the support expected to be offered to London’s culture
and creative industries and this includes the need to protect existing cultural
venues, facilities and uses where appropriate. It also underlines the
significance of the sector to London and the wider economy. The PVLP
describes creative industries as one of London’s unique strengths.
92. At Borough level, the Local Plan identifies TS as Locally Important Industrial
Land and as of particular importance for locally creative industries.
93. Similar support is drawn from the Framework which explains how planning
policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational
requirements of different sectors, and this includes creative industries.
94. The Inquiry heard how TS has developed an award-winning, worldwide
reputation as one of the most important production and post-production film
facilities in the UK. It was told how TS is now looking to expand its operation
and how the appeal site represents the Studios’ only opportunity to do so at its
existing premises.
95. I have found in relation to the second main issue that the appropriate use of
the appeal site, at least in the first instance by virtue of the sequential test and
other associated policies, is for industrial purposes and waste management.
Aside from the safeguarded waste use, the industrial presumption could
include, together with all other policy-compliant possibilities, opportunities for
TS to pursue expansion. Even in the absence of any other marketing as
expected by the development plan prior to consideration of non-industrial use,
the very real and already expressed interest of TS in seeking to acquire and
develop the site to date demonstrates the validity of the plan’s expectation to
retain the land for industrial purposes.
96. The proper application of development plan policies includes an opportunity for
possible TS expansion onto the site of Arlington Works unless and until such
time as the sequential steps are discharged or such other alternative industrial
development materialises. Should that industrial ambition of the development
plan be abandoned prematurely and without justification, an important
potential opportunity would also be lost for Richmond, for London, and for the
national film industry.
97. The local significance of TS is also underlined by the residents’ associations,
describing it as a ‘respected local employer’ and as reflecting on the local area
as a ’huge commercial success globally’.10
Implications of noise and disturbance
98. The evidence demonstrates the acute sensitivities of the TS premises to noise
and other disturbance. Theatres 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the picture post department
are all directly adjacent to Arlington Works. TS advised the Inquiry how any
external noise and vibration would make mixing impossible. The Inquiry also
heard how the industry is dominated by discerning and demanding clients who
will not tolerate the commercial risks of an imperfect listening environment and
will instead simply take their work elsewhere. It heard concerns of how, at
best, production at TS could be seriously interrupted by building works for
several years, but how, at worst, the entire business might be at risk.
99. In its Committee report, the Council’s Environmental Health service raises no
specific concerns towards TS and indicates, generally, that any potential
impacts of noise and disturbance could be managed through a construction
method statement. I disagree, and find the particular sound sensitivities of TS
mean there could be a very serious specific impact upon the Studios and one
which would require a more direct and focussed response.
100. Dialogue between noise experts representing TS and the appellant
throughout the Inquiry highlighted possibilities for technical mitigation in the
form of planning conditions. I consider that a very robust and bespoke regime
could be devised making reasonable provision for noise and other construction
impacts. TS’ preference would be to follow a similar model to that applied to
the High Speed 2 and Thames Tideway projects for construction noise impacts
specific to sound recording and broadcast studios and which I consider, in
principle, to be appropriate. Significant progress was made by the parties in
that direction, although agreement around finer details of key aspects,
including noise limits and monitoring, were outstanding.
101. Whilst such restrictions may not afford TS the perfect working environment
it seeks, the model approach appears reasonable and justified and has been
found to be appropriate in other similar noise-sensitive circumstances
elsewhere. Such conditions may also help TS to address its perceptive concerns
for future trade arising from the mere presence of a building site adjacent to a
recording studio. This could include possibilities for informed client
communication explaining the restrictions to be in place. In any event, the
same challenges of managing client perceptions would no doubt arise in some
10 Letter from The Barons Residents’ Association dated 2 June 2020 and email from Twickenham Park Residents’
Association dated 5 July 2020, and Mr Hines in evidence
form should TS ever develop the site itself. There are also no existing planning
restrictions upon any noise currently generated within the appeal site.
102. Local Plan Policy LP 10 requires development not lead to detrimental effects
on the amenity of existing occupiers of surrounding land, and for mitigation
measures to be considered. Policy D13 of the PVLP requires that
nuisance-generating development proposed close to noise-sensitive uses
should put in place measures to mitigate and manage any noise impacts for
neighbouring businesses. The Framework also makes clear that existing
businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on
them as a result of development permitted after they were established. I am
satisfied such mitigation could be achieved by way of planning conditions as
described.
Loss of parking
103. The proposal would incur some loss of parking currently available to TS. This
would involve loss of 14 spaces within the main area of the appeal site. A
further 7 spaces are used on the internal access drive where 5 may still be
available.
104. I appreciate that parking may be important to high value global film
productions working to tight deadlines. It was maintained that loss of 16
spaces would impede TS’ operation and this could have implications for its
ability to attract productions to Twickenham if the required facilities are not
available. TS gave evidence that for much of the week, in non-pandemic times,
these parking spaces would be full.
105. I accept that the reduced parking would be inconvenient but exactly how
disruptive is unclear. I am not satisfied from the evidence before me that the
loss would necessarily be critical to the Studios’ continuing viability or
operation, and all other possible options to manage the loss would need to be
fully explored and discounted before reaching such a conclusion. Parking space
within the appeal site is also not land within the ownership and ultimate control
of TS, and I note that no objections are raised by the authority in relation to
any possible issues of displacement parking or other highways consequences
for the surrounding area.
Summary of conclusions
106. The site should remain available for industrial use in accordance with the
development plan policies in my assessment of the second main issue, and that
definition would allow for any ambitions of TS as well as other qualifying
industrial activities. The appeal scheme conflicts with that policy expectation
and, in turn, with the expected support arising from PVLP Policy HC5.
107. If development of the site is to proceed independently of TS, the implications
of the works for its highly noise sensitive operations must be adequately
mitigated. I am satisfied that, in principle, suitably robust conditions could be
attached to a planning permission to reasonably mitigate the noise and
associated implications of the works and so accord with Local Plan Policy LP 10
and with PVLP Policy D13.
108. Thirdly, whilst the loss of parking would be inconvenient to TS, from the
limited evidence available, I am unconvinced of the impact this would have
upon operation of the Studios. I find no significant conflict with the
development plan in this specific regard, and this includes PVLP Policy T6
which, amongst other things, seeks to generally restrict availability of parking
in line with levels of public transport accessibility and connectivity, and Local
Plan Policy LP 45 which similarly seeks to minimise car parking.
Other matters
Section 106 agreement
109. The agreement sets out various matters, including obligations in response to
the Council’s other previous concerns which the authority no longer maintains.
These related to possible implications for Co2 emissions, provision for on-site
children’s play space, and to whether or not the proposal would make adequate
provision for affordable housing.
110. The agreement makes provision for Co2 emissions and play space to the
satisfaction of Local Plan Policies LP 20, LP 22 and LP 31. Policy LP 20 and
LP 22 seek to promote climate change adaptation. Policy LP 31 seeks to ensure
adequate child play facilities in new development. The agreement also makes
provision for affordable housing as expected by Local Plan Policy LP 36 and by
PVLP Policy H4 and which I deal with further under possible benefits below.
111. The Council has confirmed that amended drawing CA3743 SK006 (Rev D),
allied to commitments set out in the section 106 agreement, now address the
authority’s previous concerns regarding the need for adequate off-street
parking, and including any associated implications arising for the free and safe
movement of vehicles, pedestrians and other road users in the vicinity.
112. I note the previous representations on behalf of the residents’ associations
regarding pressures on existing parking. No further representations were made
by the associations at the Inquiry in this regard and no objections were raised
in relation to the revised drawings or to the terms of the section 106
agreement.
113. I am satisfied the scheme would make adequate provision for off-street
parking to serve the development, and there would be no harmful implications
arising for the free and safe movement of vehicles, pedestrians and other road
users in the vicinity. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Local Plan
Policy LP 45.
114. The parties confirmed at the Inquiry they were satisfied with the form and
content of the agreement as a deed. I find the undertaking to be compliant
with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
(as amended) and to be generally fit-for-purpose. Accordingly, I take into
account the commitments and accompanying terms as considerations of my
decision.
Housing land supply
115. Whilst the scheme would contribute to the supply of new housing in
accordance with Local Plan Policy LP 34 and PVLP Policy H1, it is agreed
between the parties that the Borough has been able to demonstrate a 5-year
housing land supply (5YHLS) relative to the requirements of the FALP as
applicable at the time of the Inquiry. The Council’s estimate was a supply of
6.7 years, the appellant’s 5 years.
116. The Borough’s housing target established in the FALP was for an additional
average annual provision of 315 units between 2015 and 2025. This
requirement was exceeded in the 2019/20 financial year, and the Council
remains on course to meet that strategic requirement by 2025.
117. Relative to the PVLP, the Council maintains a supply of 5.14 years, but the
appellant suggests this to be 4.1 years. The appellant’s lower figure appears to
reflect a number of issues, including its application of the government’s
proposed local housing need ‘cities and urban centres uplift’ of 35%.11
118. I regard inclusion of the uplift to be premature. Firstly, the Planning Practice
Guidance advises that a 35% uplift is to be applied to the entire London Plan
area. It makes clear that responsibility for the overall distribution of housing
need in London lies with the Mayor as opposed to individual boroughs so there
is no policy assumption that this level of need will necessarily be met within
each authority.12 Secondly, the government has stated the local housing need
uplift will only be applicable once the next London Plan is being developed.13
Thirdly, and in any case, there is a general transition period for
decision-making for relevant authorities. The Guidance explains how
transitional arrangements apply for six months from its publication date and
during which the uplift would not apply.14
119. I also do not accept that the 5YHLS calculation should reflect an alleged
shortfall which arises from applying the PVLP housing requirement to the period
1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. This pre-dates the PVLP and, besides, for that
period the relevant target was that contained within the FALP and the Council
has confirmed there was no shortfall in its delivery.
120. I have little basis to doubt the appropriateness of longer term methodology.
The PVLP advises the increase in housing delivery required may be achieved
gradually and how Boroughs are encouraged to set out a realistic and, where
appropriate, stepped housing delivery target over a ten-year period.
121. From the detailed evidence, I have no reason to conclude that Richmond’s
anticipated delivery is generally over-optimistic or otherwise incautious.
122. The appellant also makes various references to details of housing need and
standard methodology, but this is a situation where the housing requirement is
set out in an adopted plan which is not more than 5 years old.15
123. The Borough’s 2018 Housing Delivery Test measurement was 141% and no
action was required. The corresponding 2019 measurement was 121% and
similarly required no action. The 2020 measurement recently published in
January 2021 shows Richmond’s measurement to be 112% and with a
continuing consequence of no action.
124. In summary, the evidence is of a Borough which has been able to
demonstrate a 5YHLS to date. The Council’s current details appear robust and
realistic and, notwithstanding the transitional circumstances currently
applicable to London, I have little clear or reasonable basis to conclude that
11 As announced on 16 December 2020 and which will apply across the London Plan area
12 Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 034 Reference ID: 2a-034-20201216
13 ‘Consultation Outcome Government Response to the Local Housing Need Proposals’ in ‘Changes to the Current
Planning System’ updated 16 December 2020
14 Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 037 Reference ID: 2a-037-20201216
15 Framework paragraph 73 refers
Richmond is no longer able to demonstrate a 5YHLS for the purposes of this
appeal.
Overall assessment
i) The development plan as a whole
125. I consider the policies which are most important are those referred to and
variously applied in my assessment of the main issues and other
considerations. Other policies identified by the parties, whilst relevant to
differing degrees, are of less significance to the key aspects and merits of the
scheme, are broadly neutral in their application, and therefore do not carry the
same importance as those identified.
126. I regard the overall basket of most important policies identified to be
generally up-to-date and the submitted details of this scheme give rise to no
material conflicts between policies as they relate to the specifics of the
proposal.
127. I have found conflict and harm in connection with Waste Plan Policy WLWP 2,
with Local Plan Policies 1, 4, 24, 39, 40 and 42, and with PVLP Policies D3, D4,
E2, E4, E7, HC5, SI 8 and SI 9.
128. Set within the wider basket, the lack of compliance identified is such that the
appeal proposal cannot be regarded, read sensibly and in the round, to accord
with the development plan as a whole. The scheme would involve fundamental
conflict with the development plan on a range of important, site-specific
matters and I find this collective discord warrants considerable weight.
ii) Other considerations in favour of the scheme
129. The scheme would make a significant contribution of both market and
affordable housing. It would support the government’s objective of significantly
boosting the supply of homes and thereby help to meet local housing needs.
130. The Borough has particular needs for affordable housing. Between 2014 and
2020, only 312 affordable homes were delivered in Richmond amounting to
just 5% of the need based upon a net annual requirement of 964 units. The
scheme includes provision of eight intermediate housing units in the event of a
‘without grant’ tenure mix or eight affordable rent housing units and two
intermediate housing units pursuant to a ‘with grant’ tenure mix.
131. The site enjoys very good public transport connections and is well placed to
support, and to be served by, a range of local services and other facilities,
including the nearby St Margaret’s local centre.
132. The site is brownfield land. The Framework is supportive of the use of
‘suitable’ brownfield land.
133. There would be economic benefits arising from the proposed SME units. The
more general economic benefits of development would also include investment
in construction and related employment for its duration, and an increase in
subsequent local household expenditure and demand for services from new
residents.
134. The proposal includes a commitment to net biodiversity gain consistent with
the Framework, and details would be addressed by a planning condition.
135. Representations of local residents show support for improvements in local
living conditions arising from cessation of any disruptive industrial use.16 The
appeal site lies within a residential area and neither the waste use nor the
various other industrial activities are regulated by the detailed terms of either a
planning permission or by any restrictions within the CLEUD. A fresh planning
permission could address that absence.
136. I can sympathise with residents’ preference for non-industrial use, but that
matter would have been a consideration for the authority and examining
Inspector in preparing the Local Plan and in formulating the subsequent
presumption in favour of industrial use. Further, the Inquiry heard not just
about the shortage of industrial sites in the Borough, but also of an historic
pattern of long-established industrial sites operating in close proximity to
residential use.
137. In sum, I afford the collective benefits of the development significant weight.
iii) Final planning balance
138. Relevant development plan policies apply and the policies which are most
important for determining the application are not out-of-date within the terms
of Footnote 7 of the Framework or otherwise. The tilted balance of paragraph
11 d) of the Framework is therefore not engaged, and the application remains
to be determined in accordance with the statutory duty under section 38(6).17
139. Section 38(6) requires this appeal to be determined in accordance with the
development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
scheme does not accord with the development plan as a whole, and I find the
considerable weight of the conflicts and harms arising in those regards not to
be out-balanced by the far lesser but still significant weight of other material
considerations. Accordingly, I find that planning permission should be refused.
Conclusion
140. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be
dismissed.
Peter Rose
INSPECTOR
16 See, for example, Mr Buckley’s letter of 11 January 2021, and Mr Hines’ observations to the Inquiry regarding
circumstances following the removal of the waste tanks
17 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
APPEARANCES
For the local planning authority:
Matthew Reed of Queen’s Counsel, instructed by George Chesman of
South London Legal Partnership
He called:
Alan Potter - Partner, BPP Consulting LLP
Scott Davidson - Chartered Town Planner, RBRUT
Barry Sellers - Principal Planner (Urban Design and Conservation), RBRUT
Fiona Dyson - Senior Planning Officer, RBRUT
Contributions were also made to round-table discussions by:
Joanne Capper - Principal Planner Policy, RBRUT
Paul Bradbury - Development Project Officer (affordable housing), RBRUT
Will Marshall - Principal Transport Planner, RBRUT
George Chesman - South London Legal Partnership
For the appellant:
Clive Newberry of Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Philip Villars of WSP
He called:
Matthew Mehegan - Technical Director, Waterman Infrastructure and
Environment Ltd
Andrew Weeks - Head of Department, Featherstone Leigh Commercial
Chris Howe - Director, Brookes Architects Limited
Philip Villars - Head of Planning Consultancy and Environmental Assessment
and Management, WSP
Contributions were also made to round-table discussions by18:
Mark Turner - Associate, Caneparo Associates
Michael Wood - Associate Director, WSP
18 Written contributions were also received from James Tomalin, Managing Director, Aulos Acoustics
For Twickenham Studios:
Richard Ground of Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Mark Batchelor of Boyer
He called:
Sunny Vohra - Chairman, Twickenham Studios
Mark Batchelor - Director, Boyer
Contributions were also made to round-table discussions by Will Martin -
Associate Director, Noise Consultants Ltd
On behalf of Twickenham Park Residents Association and
The Barons Residents Association:
Mr Colin Hines, Chair of Twickenham Park Residents Association and local
resident
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
The following documents were submitted and accepted during the Inquiry:
On behalf of the local planning authority:
Opening statement by Matthew Reed QC
Application publicity details (addresses notified)
Local Plan Authority Monitoring Report - Housing - 2019/20
dated 16 November 2020
Complaints note (Environmental Health extracts)
Plan of large footprint buildings
PowerPoint presentation accompanying Mr Sellers’ evidence-in-chief
BPP Consulting for Richmond Council, Quattro Offer Letter Comments
dated 20 January 2021
BPP Consulting for Richmond Council, Comments of Alternative Capacity
Assessment Method dated 22 January 2021
Extracts from 2018 Policies Map
Updated CIL Compliance Statement attaching to email dated
27 January 2021
Applications for costs
Closing submissions by Matthew Reed QC
On behalf of the appellant:
Opening submissions by Clive Newberry QC
Letters from Brent Oil dated 12 January 2021, Slicker Recycling dated
13 January 2021, and Quattro dated 18 January 2021
Enquiry template for approaches to alternative waste providers attaching to
Dawn Roads’ email of 10 January 2021
Briefing note - Unexploited Waste Capacity (Matthew Mehegan) dated
18 January 2021
Correspondence relating to draft industrial conditions attaching to
Philip Villars’ email of 19 January 2021, and including note ‘Arlington
Industrial Land Policy - London Plan’ of 18 January 2021
Email from Ross Harvey of RBRUT dated 7 March 2018
Emails from Wendy Wong Chang of RBRUT dated 13 and 18 April 2018
Land Registry details
Plan of Zone S, St Margaret’s South CPZ
Summary note of affordable housing offer attaching to email dated
27 January 2021
Suggested waste condition dated 25 January 2021
Rebuttals to applications for costs
Closing submissions by Clive Newberry QC
Jointly on behalf of the local planning authority and appellant:
Amended draft list of suggested conditions, and accompanying
drawings 4786 3 10 C, 4786 3 15 B, and 4786 3 25 B
Updated floorspace comparison attaching to email of 21 January 2021
Draft planning obligation (on-going copies)
London Plan Policies - Conversation Table
Mix of Uses Statement of Disagreement attaching to email of
25 January 2021
Updated Housing Statement of Agreement, including corrected page 8
attaching to email dated 27 January 2021
On behalf of Twickenham Studios:
Opening submissions by Richard Ground QC
PowerPoint presentation accompanying Sunny Vohra’s evidence-in-chief
Email from Tim Cavagin dated 21 January 2021
Email from Craig Irving dated 21 January 2021
Email from Jeremy Rainbird dated 25 January 2021
Court of Appeal judgement, R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough
Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Application for costs
Closing submissions by Richard Ground QC
Jointly on behalf of the appellant and Twickenham Studios:
On-going correspondence between James Tomalin of Aulos Acoustics and
Will Martin of Noise Consultants Ltd regarding possible noise conditions
The following documents were agreed by the parties to be submitted and accepted
after the close of the Inquiry:
Final list of suggested conditions received by email dated 1 February 2021
Amended list of policies most important (updated extract to Statement of
Common Ground) dated 2 February 2021
Completed section 106 agreement dated 17 February 2021


Costs Decision
Inquiry held on 19-22, and 25-29 January 2021
Site visits made on 12 January 2021 and 2 February 2021
by Peter Rose BA MRTPI DMS MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 April 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/20/3249153
Arlington Works, 23-27 Arlington Road, Twickenham, TW1 2BB
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Twickenham Studios for a full award of costs against
[APPELLANT].
• The Inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for a scheme described as ‘redevelopment of the site to provide 610sqm of commercial
space (B Class) within existing Buildings of Townscape Merit plus a new build unit,
24 residential units (5 x 1 bedroom, 12 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom) and
associated car parking and landscaping'.
Decision
1. The application for a full awards of costs is refused.
The submissions for Twickenham Studios
2. The appellant’s evidence on industrial policy was unsatisfactory and had no
reasonable prospect of success. The appellant failed to have any evidence of
marketing or that there is no longer a demand for industrial use, and accepted
there was a market. The appellant failed to take account of clearly material
matters such as an offer from Twickenham Studios who want to use the land
for industrial purposes. The other material considerations the appellant
advanced in the context of this case were clearly inadequate to enjoy any
reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding.
3. Accordingly, the appeal should not have been brought as it had no reasonable
prospect of success1 and a costs award should be made in favour of
Twickenham Studios which was required to be represented in order to protect
its position.
The response by [APPELLANT]
4. The appellant maintains the proposal is policy compliant and would strengthen
and intensify industrial use of the site. This would be reinforced by its proposed
planning conditions.
1 As per Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 053 Reference ID: 16-053-20140306
Reasons
5. I have found the scheme falls significantly short of the development plan’s
expectations in relation to industrial use.
6. Whilst highly relevant and very important to this case, industrial policies still
only form part of the overall development plan context. They also remain to be
weighed as part of overall planning balances relative to other material
considerations, including the appellant’s perceived benefits of the proposal.
7. Although I find the appellant’s application of policies to be flawed, I can
appreciate why it chose to consider this was not a case where it necessarily
had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. The proposal is clearly not in
accordance with the development plan, but other material considerations have
been advanced in favour of the scheme and with supporting evidence.2 In
particular, the appellant has been driven by other perceived attributes of the
development and the weight they should attract, including retention of some
employment, improved commercial accommodation, housing benefits, a
bespoke design and environmental improvement for the local area.
8. In that context, and notwithstanding the clear conflict with the development
plan as a whole and the harm arising, I do not find, on balance, the appellant’s
actions to have been unreasonable. Ultimately, decisions may be taken that
depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material
considerations in a particular case indicate the plan should not be followed.3
Conclusion
9. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour on the part of the appellant
resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense incurred by the appeal, as
indicated in the Guidance, has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, I conclude
that an award of costs is not justified in this instance and the application is
refused.
Peter Rose
INSPECTOR
2 See also Guidance paragraph 053 Reference ID: 16-053-20140306
3 Framework paragraph 12


Costs Decisions
Inquiry held on 19-22, and 25-29 January 2021
Site visits made on 12 January 2021 and 2 February 2021
by Peter Rose BA MRTPI DMS MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 April 2021
Costs applications in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/20/3249153
Arlington Works, 23-27 Arlington Road, Twickenham, TW1 2BB
• The applications are made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The applications are made by the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon
Thames for a full award of costs and, alternatively, for a partial award, against
[APPELLANT].
• The Inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for a scheme described as ‘redevelopment of the site to provide 610sqm of commercial
space (B Class) within existing Buildings of Townscape Merit plus a new build unit,
24 residential units (5 x 1 bedroom, 12 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom) and
associated car parking and landscaping’.
Decisions
1. The applications for full and partial awards of costs are refused.
The submissions for the Council
2. The appellant was unable to meet the compensatory provisions of
Policy WLWP 2. The argument to avoid conflict with Policy LP 42 rested entirely
on the contention that it was possible to move from existing uses to other
activities in Class E. The appellant relied on a mis-reading of Policy E7 by which
industrial land use could be intensified despite a substantial reduction in the
industrial land in question. The appeal was therefore unreasonable, there was
no real prospect of success and should not have been made.1
3. Alternatively, a partial award is sought in respect of costs incurred in dealing
with affordable housing and highways issues. Had the section 106 offer towards
affordable housing been made at an earlier stage, the Council would not have
needed to prepare a proof of evidence on this issue. Similarly, had the relevant
information associated with the revised layout plan and related matters been
made available earlier, the Council would not have been required to prepare
highways evidence.
The response by [APPELLANT]
4. It is not accepted that compensation should only be confined to oil waste or to
sites within the Waste Plan area. The appellant took a diligent approach by
contacting the Council and seeking clarity on these points as far back as 2018
1 As per Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 053 Reference ID: 16-053-20140306
and acted in accordance with the authority’s own advice. The appellant
maintains the proposal to be policy compliant and would strengthen and
intensify industrial use of the site. This would be reinforced by its proposed
planning conditions.
5. In the spirit of active engagement and in accordance with the Inspector’s
instructions, the matters in dispute regarding affordable housing and highways
implications were all narrowed in discussions prior to the Inquiry.
Reasons
Application for a full award
6. I have found the scheme falls significantly short of the development plan’s
expectations in relation to both waste site designation and industrial use.
Whilst the appellant has pursued an application of compensatory waste policy
with which I disagree, the approach taken did reflect previous informal advice
from Council officers as expressly sought by the appellant.2
7. Further, waste and industrial policies, whilst highly relevant and very important
to this case, still only form part of the wider development plan context. They
also remain to be weighed as part of overall planning balances relative to other
material considerations, including the appellant’s perceived benefits of the
proposal.
8. Although I find the appellant’s application of policies to be flawed, I can
appreciate why it chose to consider this was not a case where it necessarily
had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. The proposal is clearly not in
accordance with the development plan, but other material considerations have
been advanced in favour of the scheme and with supporting evidence.3 In
particular, the appellant has been driven by other perceived attributes of the
development and the weight they should attract, including retention of some
employment, improved commercial accommodation, housing benefits, a
bespoke design, and environmental improvement for the local area.
9. In that context, and notwithstanding the clear conflict with the development
plan as a whole and the harm arising, I do not find, on balance, the appellant’s
actions to have been unreasonable. Ultimately, decisions may be taken that
depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material
considerations in a particular case indicate the plan should not be followed.4
Application for partial awards
10. The Planning Practice Guidance and the Inspectorate’s Procedural Guide5 make
clear that an appellant should provide full disclosure of the details of their case
and the arguments being put forward at the time they make their appeal.
11. Despite raising the need for affordable housing information at the Case
Management Conference, required details were not received by the authority
until the Inquiry approached. A similar timescale applies to relevant
information associated with the revised layout plan and related highways
2 That informal advice was not subsequently endorsed at the Inquiry by the Council
3 See also Guidance paragraph 053 Reference ID: 16-053-20140306
4 Framework paragraph 12
5 See Annex J of the Inspectorate’s Procedural Guide Planning Appeals - England March 2021, paras J.2.2 and
J.2.3, and also Guidance paragraph 052 Reference ID: 16-052-20140306
matters. Had those been made available at the time the appeal was made, I
agree the Council would not have been required to prepare unnecessary
evidence.
12. Even so, I regard the emerging details as a positive and genuine attempt by
the appellant to address and resolve the Council’s objections rather than as
part of its case to confront and rebut the authority’s stated opposition to the
scheme through new information. The Procedural Guide also only refers to
indications of on-going discussions or of anticipated discussions to resolve
areas of dispute to be included as part of the appellant’s full statement of case.
Whilst details were progressed relatively late in proceedings, I find the
appellant’s actions well-intended and, on balance, not unreasonable.
Conclusion
13. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour on the part of the appellant
resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense incurred by the appeal, as
indicated in the Guidance, has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, I conclude
that awards of costs are not justified in this instance and the applications are
refused.
Peter Rose
INSPECTOR