Planning appeal decision
Pontoon and land adjacent to Richmond Bridge Pier, Richmond Riverside, RICHMOND, TW9 1TH
(i) Without planning permission and within the last four years, alterations to the existing pontoon, which have consisted of increasing its height with an additional lower deck and raised seating area, altering the external materials, erecting fixed covers with heaters, external railings, lower deck kitchen facilities and ancillary storage space: and (ii) Without planning permission and within the last ten years, a material change of use of the pontoon into a restaurant
- Authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- leisure-sport · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Dignan P
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the development is inappropriate development within the MOL
- The effect of the matters alleged in the notice on the openness and purposes of including land in the MOL
- The effect on character and appearance with particular reference to the Richmond Riverside Conservation Area, the setting of the Grade I listed Richmond Bridge, and the River Thames corridor
- The effect on river-dependent and river-related uses
- If the development constitutes inappropriate development in the MOL, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The extent of restaurant use and associated paraphernalia on the pontoon determined whether the scheme amounted to inappropriate development in the MOL and caused unacceptable heritage/character harm; only a much-reduced configuration (Option 7 plus retained upstream storage) avoided this harm and was therefore permitted.
For the scheme as applied for and Options 1-6, the definitional and openness harm to the MOL (given substantial weight), together with heritage and character harm, outweighed the public benefits of employment, economic activity and river-user access, so very special circumstances did not exist; for Option 7 (with retained upstream storage) no such harm arose and the scheme accorded with the development plan, so permission was granted without needing to strike a balance.
Framework references: 154
Plan policies cited: RLP Policy 28, RLP Policy 29, RLP Policy 40, RLP Policy 41, LP Policy G3, LP Policy SI16
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®