Understanding planning · 13 min read
Planning application documents: what to read first
Understand planning application documents, officer reports and decision notices. Use a reading checklist, document table and worked example to inspect a case.
Application overview
Formation of a timber box, painting studio, above the current shed at the bottom of the garden. One glazed access door with obscured glass leading from step / ladder stair up. Studio supported of existing shed, with two new column props to one side.
Proposal details
- Reference
- PA26/2406
- Alternative references
- PP-15071056
- Ward
- North Richmond Ward [NRR]
- UPRN
- 100022304506
Sign in to view all collected council fields and recorded changes.
Sign in to view collected detailsDocuments 13 of 13
| Document | Published | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Application Form - Without Personal DataApplication Form - Redacted | 8 Jul 2026 | View |
| EXISTING PLAN=327/01Submitted Drawing | 8 Jul 2026 | View |
| PROPOSED PLAN=327/02Submitted Drawing | 8 Jul 2026 | View |
| EXISTNG AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS=327/03Submitted Drawing | 8 Jul 2026 | View |
| Location planSubmitted Drawing | 8 Jul 2026 | View |
| Design and access statementReport | 8 Jul 2026 | View |
| CIL QNRApplication Form | 10 Jul 2026 | View |
| EA FRA QNRReport | 10 Jul 2026 | View |
| RES- FSSReport | 10 Jul 2026 | View |
| Officer ReportReport | 7 Aug 2026 | View |
| decisionDecision Notice | 7 Aug 2026 | View |
| QuestionnaireAppeal Questionnaire | 8 Sept 2026 | View |
| Appeal FormAppeal Form | 8 Sept 2026 | View |
Documents open on the council website. Browse council documents if a link has changed.
Application timeline
Council milestones and published deadlines. A deadline passing does not confirm a decision.
Consultation expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceStatutory expiry date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council sourceDecision due date
Past published deadlineA published target or deadline. It does not confirm an outcome.
Council source
Decision & conditions
Appeal status: Appeal lodged
decisionPlanning conditions
- For the avoidance of doubt the Drawing(s) No(s) and Document(s) to which this decision refers are as follows: EXISTING PLAN = 327/01 PROPOSED PLAN = 327/02 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS = 327/03 Location plan Received 08 July 2026
- In accordance with paragraphs 38-42 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Richmond upon Thames Borough Council takes a positive and proactive approach to the delivery of sustainable development, by: * Providing a formal pre-application service * Providing written policies and guidance, all of which is available to view on the Council's website * Where appropriate, negotiating amendments to secure a positive decision * Determining applications in a timely manner. In this instance: * The applicants did not seek formal pre-application advice, and the scheme was found to be contrary to policy and guidance, and subsequently refused. The Council is ready to enter into discussions, through the Council's formal pre-application service, to advise the applicants of relevant policy and guidance; and where possible assist in the preparation of a new planning permission. More information on the pre-application service and relevant fees can be found online at www.richmond.gov.uk/pre-application_for_developers.
- The proposed garden shed, by reason of its siting, height, scale, and bulk would fail to appear subordinate to the host dwelling and would represent an overly dominant and incongruous form of development that which will negatively impact the character and appearance of the host property and appearance of the rear garden environment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies 15 and 28, and the guidance contained within the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD.
- The proposed garden building, by reason of its height, scale, bulk and massing, would result in an unacceptably overbearing form of development that would create perceptions of overlooking onto private amenity spaces, and an increased sense of enclosure and be detrimental to the outlook enjoyed by neighbouring residential occupiers, in particular, No.s 21 and 25 Castlegate. Therefore, the proposal is in conflict with policy 46 of the Local Plan and the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD.
- The development, by reason of the absence of adequate arboricultural information, such as an Arbouricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan, and Arbouricultural Method Statement, has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not detrimentally impact on the health and longevity of nearby trees. The proposal is contrary to the NPPF and Policy 42 of the Local Plan.
