At a meeting of the planning committee, Richmond upon Thames Council delegated authority to the Head of Development Management to approve an application for a new detached house on Vicarage Road, and also voted to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for an oak tree on Nelson Road.

Land between 18 and 20 Vicarage Road, Hampton Wick

The committee delegated authority to the Head of Development Management to approve an application for a new four-bedroom detached house with associated gardens and a home office, cycle and refuse stores, at land between 18 and 20 Vicarage Road, Hampton Wick. This was subject to conditions, informatives, and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement¹

The application had previously been refused but the decision was overturned on appeal. The only reason for the appeal being upheld was the absence of a legal agreement restricting future occupants' eligibility for parking permits.

Councillor Robin Brown had requested that the application be referred to the planning committee due to concerns about overdevelopment, loss of amenity for neighbours, and loss of garden space.

Donna Walker, the architect for the project, addressed the committee, stating that the designs had been subject to numerous critiques and that the planning officers and the appeal inspector could find no fault with the current design in policy terms. She quoted the appeal inspector's report, which stated that the dwelling has adequate separation and similar spacing to that existing between dwellings, respect for the context of existing building heights and materiality and enhancement of the street frontage.

Councillor Jim Millard spoke to raise concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on neighbouring residents, in particular the neighbours at number 18, who are concerned that their amenity could be significantly affected. He welcomed the proposed condition preventing the roof from being used as a terrace and asked that the committee and officers make sure that they perhaps word it in a way that there's no grey area about whether this is considered a roof.

During questions, Councillor Best asked about assurances regarding potential subsidence, given the construction of a basement floor. Ms Walker responded that a basement assessment was done and submitted as part of the application and they were reassured that there was no risk in that regard.

Councillor Jonathan Cardy, Chair of the Planning Committee, asked about the heating arrangements for the building. Ms Walker said that they would probably use an air source heat pump² and that the building would be naturally ventilated and well insulated, meeting all the modern standards and exceeding them.

Councillor John Coombs asked how natural ventilation would be achieved, given that some of the windows on the side were fixed. Ms Walker responded that the fixed windows only serve the stairs and possibly a bathroom, but no habitable rooms.

Councillor Andrée Frieze asked about the condition recommended by the council's transport officer regarding the construction management plan³ (CMP). Chris Tankard, Area Team Manager North (Development Management), responded that the condition was DB 49, specifying what further information is required in the proper construction management plan and statement that will be required.

Councillor Frieze also asked about the conditions recommended by the council's ecology officer. Mr Tankard responded that those relate to NS13 regarding external lighting and ecological enhancements.

Councillor Julia Neden-Watts asked for clarification about the offer to reduce the fence height to two metres. Mr Tankard said that the drawings do not show the fencing to be greater height than that, and that the detail can be put forward at a later stage.

Councillor Neden-Watts also asked about the parking restriction and what that practically means for a family living in the house. Mr Tankard responded that the options would be to find a space outside of the CPZ⁴ or rent a private garage in the area for their car.

Councillor Michael Butlin noted that the public transport accessibility level (PTAL) was rated as two, which is a low rating, despite Hampton Wick being five minutes away. He said that he thought the accessibility was excellent and wondered why it came out as two. Mr Tankard responded that sometimes peak areas are given a poor rating, even when close to train stations and nearby bus routes, because the PTAL ratings are set by Transport for London.

Councillor Millard thanked Mr Tankard for his response on the conditions, but said he was not clear about how it can be ensured that the two metres is adhered to for that boundary for number 18. Mr Tankard responded that if councillors were wishing for a specified height to be introduced into the wording of the condition, he would be more inclined to do that as an informative, so that you are giving advice to the applicant that a fence of a certain height is likely to be proved acceptable if submitted pursuant to the condition that is recommended.

Councillor Jonathan Cardy asked if it would be appropriate to have conditions in also for some sort of heat pump arrangement for heating, either air source or ground source, and hedgehog accessibility. Mr Tankard responded that the heat pump is not something that he had been aware of, and that it would be a requirement for the provision of plant which would need planning permission if it was being dealt with separately to this planning permission.

Councillor Frieze asked how the contribution to a car club would work. Mr Tankard responded that the council do not usually take contributions towards car clubs, and that it is either something that the development has to be a member of, or the developer to provide future occupants with free membership for a five or ten year period.

Councillor Coombs said that he hoped the architect was still listening, because she said it was going to have a heat pump, which is why councillors were asking questions about the heat pump.

Councillor Coombs also asked how it can be ensured that a heat pump is installed, given that it is not in the application. Mr Tankard responded that no air source heat pump is shown on the drawings, which is the starting point, and that it is not incorporated within the description of development.

Councillor Buckley said that somebody spent all his time banging on about the wonders of solar panels and it does seem to meet the parameters. He said that it seems to be a reasonable development in his view.

Councillor Frieze said that she was minded to approve it, and that she could not see how it was refused last time, because it is an infill and it's not excessive back garden development.

Councillor Neden-Watts said that with the resolution of the issue around the parking, she agreed that there were no grounds to refuse it. She added that in a borough such as Richmond, where it is difficult to find sites to build houses on, intelligent and imaginative uses of spaces between existing dwellings is not unwelcome.

The committee agreed to a condition of two metres on the fencing, and informatives on heat pumps and hedgehog access.

The committee voted unanimously in favour of the officer's recommendation.

Tree Preservation Order: Outside 328 Nelson Road, Whitton

The committee voted to confirm Tree Preservation Order TP25-0009 of 2025, for a publicly owned oak tree outside 328 Nelson Road, Whitton.

Jacob Strutt, Arboriculture Officer, introduced the item, explaining that the council was made aware of an intention to prune the tree in such a way that would be damaging to the appearance of the specimen and create an unacceptable degree of wounding that could act as a gateway to disease and impact its short and long-term health.

Councillor Paulina Vassileva said that she was concerned that if the TPO is granted and the resident isn't able to prune the tree at all, she was concerned about the health and safety impacts on that. Mr Strutt responded that the tree is already managed under the council's tree policy, and that once the branches are within two metres of the building, they are pruned back to keep clearance.

Councillor Neden-Watts sought clarification that if there's a TPO, it doesn't mean that work to the tree can't be undertaken. Mr Strutt confirmed that the TPO being in place means that the work is undertaken only if it's acceptable to the council, because you have to ask permission.

Councillor Richard Pyne asked if street trees receive attention or pruning every four years, and if this tree is also covered by that policy. Mr Strutt responded that the tree is covered by the policy, but at present no pruning works are recommended from the previous tomogram that was taken.

Councillor Jonathan Cardy asked if there was some sort of regular check for oak processionary moth⁵ on the street trees, and if that would be the council's responsibility for the whole tree. Mr Strutt responded that they check for them under the regular surveys, but he did not know that they've got a separate survey for all the trees in the borough for oak processionary moth.

Councillor Vassileva asked what the liability of the council is if part of those branches, if not pruned, were to fall down. Mr Strutt responded that the council is only liable if they haven't carried out their tree survey or haven't carried out the necessary work.

Councillor Michael Butlin asked if something falls off of that tree in a storm and crashes into the house or vehicles, if the person living in the house has to pay to repair his house. Mr Strutt responded that it depends why the tree has failed, and that it's more of an insurance question.

Councillor Coombs said that a TPO doesn't stop people applying to do work on the tree if they want, and that all a TPO means is that they have to say to the council what they want to do, and the council can say yes you can do it or no you can't.

Councillor Jonathan Cardy said that this tree dominates its streetscape and that there's a fairly strong reason for a tree preservation order, though the council do need to give appropriate reassurances to residents who are worried that there is regular checking for OPM and other risky things.

The committee voted unanimously to confirm the Tree Preservation Order.