# 33 Western Avenue, Thorpe, Egham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Ellis
- **Authority:** Runnymede (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010772
- **Application reference:** RU.25/1146
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Subdivision of bungalow into 2 semi-detached dwellings with roof, front and side extensions and dropped kerb
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** N2
- **Development plan policies:** Runnymede 2030 Local Plan SD7, EE9, EE11
- **Main issues:** biodiversity net gain
- **Tags:** tier-2, bng-private-gardens, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme

## Summary
Bungalow-into-two scheme dismissed solely because the statutory BNG condition was not capable of being discharged. All the claimed gain sat in private gardens, and "BNG gains cannot be legally secured in private gardens" (DL ¶9). The Framework changes "do not affect the merits of this case" (DL ¶2).

## What made the difference
The August 2026 DEFRA metric guide requires garden planting to be recorded as vegetated garden, and a 30-year maintenance obligation in private gardens "could not be effectively monitored and enforced" (DL ¶¶10–11). There was no fallback to off-site units or credits. "failure to comply is a fundamental flaw" (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **N2: fail.** statutory BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) — all gain in private gardens; DEFRA metric guide (Aug 2026) says garden gains cannot be legally secured; 30-year maintenance unenforceable; condition not capable of discharge (DL 5-14); Framework not relied on

## Key facts
- Small Sites Metric claimed +14.14% (0.0110 units) from 8 trees and hedge in private gardens
- BNG was the Council's only reason for refusal; no other harm found (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/52dd765b-42c1-4e0c-8495-01a0e3aaaa83
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010772

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010772.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.