Richmond upon Thames' Planning Committee has delegated authority to approve a new four-bedroom detached house on Vicarage Road, Hampton Wick, despite concerns about parking and the impact on neighbours. The decision, made at a meeting on Wednesday, followed a resubmission of a previously refused application.
The original application for land between 18 and 20 Vicarage Road was refused for four reasons:
- Inappropriate design/backland development.
- Adverse impact on No. 18 Vicarage Road.
- Absence of a legal agreement to secure an appropriate affordable housing contribution.
- Absence of a legal agreement restricting future occupiers' eligibility for parking permits.
The application was called in by Councillor Brown, who raised concerns about overdevelopment, loss of garden space, and the impact on neighbours. The committee ultimately delegated authority to the Head of Development Management to approve the application, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions outlined in the officer's report. These conditions include:
- Completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement securing the Heads of Terms set out in Section 9 of the officer's report.
- Conditions and informatives set out in Sections 10 and 11 of the officer's report.
- Additional and amendments to conditions and heads of terms as required, subject to these not being significant in nature.
Chris Tankard, a planning officer, explained that the current proposal was almost identical to the previous one, except for the addition of a cycle store at the front of the site. The key difference was the applicant's agreement to enter into a legal agreement restricting future residents from applying for parking permits.
Nicola Walker, the architect for the project, addressed the committee, stating that the designs had been subject to numerous critiques and that both planning officers and the appeal inspector had found no fault with the design in policy terms. She quoted the appeal inspector's report, which stated that the proposal would not cause undue harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would comply with policies seeking to protect amenity and living conditions.
Councillor Jim Millard raised concerns about the potential impact on neighbours, particularly those at number 18. He welcomed the proposed condition preventing the roof from being used as a terrace and asked for clarification on the wording to ensure there was no ambiguity. Mr Tankard responded that the use of the roof as a terrace was conditioned and that any changes would require fresh planning permission or enforcement action.
Concerns were also raised about the height of the fence along the boundary of number 18. Councillor Millard expressed concern that the fence as drawn was creating a dominant and overbearing structure affecting the neighbor's outdoor space and amenity. The architect offered to reduce the fence height along the boundary of number 18 to two metres high. Mr. Tankard confirmed that the drawings did not show the fencing to be greater than two metres in height and clarified that the drawings indicate the fencing to be reduced in height at the point where the single-storey rear extension terminates. He added that a planning condition would capture the offer at a later stage.
Councillor Julia Neden-Watts sought clarification about the parking restriction. Mr Tankard confirmed that the parking restriction would mean future residents would either have to find paid private parking or live a car-free life.
Councillor Buckley noted the low public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of two, despite the proximity of Hampton Wick station. Mr Tankard explained that the PTAL ratings were set by Transport for London (TfL).
During the views section, Councillor Buckley said that the development seemed reasonable and that he was minded to approve it. Councillor Freese agreed, stating that she could not see how it was refused last time and that she was happy to support it this time.
Councillor Neden-Watts added that intelligent and imaginative uses of spaces between existing dwellings were not unwelcome and that she was happy to add wording to make it clear about the fence height and the use of the roof.
Councillors then voted unanimously in favour of the officer's recommendation.
