Metropolitan Open Land protection has defeated a grey belt argument for a temporary dome in the riverside grounds of a Richmond hotel. An Inspector rejected the proposed retention of the structure, finding both inappropriate development and harm to heritage assets.
Inspector G Powys Jones dismissed appeal 6011874 on 26th October 2026. Bingham Hotel and Restaurant Ltd had sought permission to keep a timber-framed Perspex dome for 18 months at its premises on Petersham Road, beside the Thames.
The wider lesson concerns London’s protected open spaces. The Inspector did not accept that giving Metropolitan Open Land the same level of protection as Green Belt meant that grey belt reasoning could simply be transferred to it. His decision is a planning appeal determination, not a new court judgment.
Why Metropolitan Open Land was not treated as grey belt
The hotel grounds fall within Metropolitan Open Land, often shortened to MOL. London Plan Policy G3 gives that designation the same status and level of protection as Green Belt and protects it against inappropriate development using the applicable national Green Belt tests.
That does not make the designations identical. The Inspector agreed with reasoning in an earlier nearby appeal that GBs and MOL do not have the same purpose
. On that basis, he rejected the application of the grey belt concept to the land before him while recognising that other national Green Belt tests remained relevant.
The distinction is important for proposals involving urban open space. The London Plan’s Policy G3 addresses a designation whose criteria include London’s physical structure, metropolitan recreational facilities, valuable landscapes and strategic green infrastructure.
Planning Geek’s Metropolitan Open Land guide explains the designation and its protection. A site assessment should identify which designation actually applies before assuming a grey belt argument answers the policy objection.
The detached dome was not an extension to the hotel
The appellant also relied on the exception for an extension or addition to an existing building which is not disproportionate compared with the original building. The Inspector found that this did not describe the structure he had seen.
The dome stood apart from the hotel, on a timber platform and at a lower level within its grounds. In the Inspector’s words, it was clearly not an extension or addition to the hotel
. It read as a separate structure rather than part of the existing building.
No other applicable exception was identified. The dome was therefore inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land, carrying substantial weight against it. Its limited effect on openness did not reverse that finding or provide the necessary very special circumstances.
This is a useful distinction between two different questions. A proposal may have a relatively modest visual or spatial effect and still fall outside the relevant exceptions. Limited openness harm does not automatically make development appropriate.
Heritage harm supplied an independent reason for refusal
The site is also within Richmond Hill Conservation Area and the grounds of a Grade II listed hotel, with other listed buildings nearby. The terraced gardens and lawn contribute to the hotel’s setting and to the setting of neighbouring heritage assets.
Although a wall curtailed views from the path beside the river, the grounds could be seen from the opposite bank and adjacent properties. The Inspector considered the landscape and buildings together, rather than assessing the dome solely from the nearest pavement.
It was one of three similar domes in the grounds, with a large tent-like structure also present. Only one dome was the subject of this appeal. The Inspector did not determine applications for the others, but their presence formed part of the visual context he assessed.
The appeal dome was the least conspicuous of the three from most outside viewpoints. Even so, the Inspector found that it contributed to clutter and introduced materials and a form out of keeping with the attractive landscaped surroundings.
The resulting harm affected the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings. The benefits associated with customers using the dome were not enough to outweigh that heritage harm. Resolving the Metropolitan Open Land objection alone would therefore not have secured permission.
Why an 18-month permission was not a solution
The hotel said that the dome provided space for meditation, contemplation and relaxation, supporting guests’ wellbeing. It was presented as an interim use while alternative provision within the hotel was considered.
The Inspector acknowledged that customers could benefit, but gave those public benefits limited weight against the identified harm. The temporary nature of the request did not remove the policy or heritage objections.
A photograph showed that the structure had already been present for at least a year. The Inspector considered that sufficient time had passed to find an alternative, given the explanation that it was an interim arrangement. He did not consider further harmful retention justified.
The appeal also included a concern about protected trees. The Inspector saw no damage during his visit and did not treat that matter as decisive. The outcome rested on heritage and protected-land grounds, rather than a finding that every objection advanced by the council had been proved.
What the decision does and does not establish
The Metropolitan Open Land decision gives applicants and advisers a clear warning against treating grey belt as a general label for any protected site which appears developed or visually contained. The relevant designation, its purposes and the applicable exception must be examined separately.
It also shows why a claim that a structure serves an existing business does not automatically make it an extension to the business premises. The physical relationship, siting and form remained central in this case.
The formal outcome was dismissal of the planning appeal. This was not an enforcement appeal and the decision did not itself impose a new removal deadline. Nor does it create binding legal precedent. It records the Inspector’s reasoning on this proposal and provides a relevant example for other London schemes.
Decision and sources
The primary source is Planning Inspectorate appeal 6011874, relating to Richmond upon Thames application PA26/0092. The brief quotations are Planning Inspectorate material reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments