Development Intent
AtlasRichmond Upon ThamesPolicy46
Planning Atlas›Richmond Upon Thames›46
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Richmond Upon Thames · Local Plan · Policy

46 — Amenity and Living Conditions.

How Richmond Upon Thames actually applies 46: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

46 is a published Richmond Upon Thames planning policy. This page records where it appears in the council's published planning decisions.

Cited under: Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (adopted)

Richmond Upon Thames · 46
Where 46 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~7
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
46
times cited
in parsed decision notices
—
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
15 of 29
officer reach
52% of officers recorded in this period
Heathfield Ward [HTF]
top hotspot ward
7 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 46 requires all development to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupants and the visual amenity of the area. The Council will support development that ensures adequate daylight, sunlight, outlooks, privacy, and visual amenity, and does not harm the reasonable enjoyment of buildings and spaces. This applies to all development, and applicants must consider the Council's SPDs and other Local Plan policies.

Plain-English summary of the adopted policy text below. The full text is the rule; this is the gist.

The policy — as adopted

Amenity and Living Conditions

A. All development will be required to protect the amenity and living conditions for occupants of new, existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties and the visual amenity of the area as a whole. The Council will support development where it: 1. Ensures the design and layout of buildings does not have an unacceptable impact on levels of daylight and sunlight on the host building or neighbouring properties, including gardens and outdoor spaces; where existing daylight and sunlight conditions are already substandard, they should be improved where possible; 2. Ensures that adequate outlooks are provided for new occupants, and that heights, massing and siting of new development retains adequate outlooks for neighbouring occupants, avoiding any undue sense of enclosure; 3. Ensures that acceptable standards of privacy are provided and retained, without a diminution of the design quality; development should not result in unacceptable levels of overlooking (or perceived overlooking); balconies should not cause unacceptable overlooking or noise or disturbance to nearby occupiers; 4. Ensures that proposals are not visually intrusive or have an overbearing impact as a result of their height, massing or siting; visual amenity from adjoining sites and from the public realm should not be unacceptably compromised; 5. Ensures there is no harm to the reasonable enjoyment of the use of buildings, gardens and other spaces due to increases in traffic, servicing, parking, noise, light, disturbance, air pollution, odours or vibration or local micro-climate effects; 6. Provides adequate outdoor amenity space for new occupiers in accordance with Policy 13 'Housing Mix and Standards ', which is free from excessive noise or disturbance, pollution, odour, sense of enclosure, unacceptable loss of privacy, wind and overshadowing. B. Applicants are expected to have regard to the guidance set out within the Council’s SPDs relating to design, including Village Planning Guidance, House Extensions and External Alterations, and Small and Medium Housing Sites, as well as other Local Plan policies on infill and backland developments and housing mix and standards. C. Development will be expected to address London Plan Policy D13 on the Agent of Change principle, and accord with Policy 53 'Local Environmental Impacts'.

Verbatim from the adopted Richmond Upon Thames plan · source document. The council's published plan is the authoritative version.

How it lands
2% in approvals · 98% in refusals
46 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Heathfield Ward [HTF]7
Whitton Ward [WTT]4
St. Margarets & North Twickenham Ward [SMN]4
What cites it — application types
all years on record · click a slice to filter
What it means in practice

Not filled in yet. This will hold how officers actually argue 46 case by case, classified from their decision reports — the classification pass hasn't run. Nothing is paraphrased in its place.

What the published record shows

46 appears most often in Heathfield Ward [HTF], Whitton Ward [WTT], St. Margarets & North Twickenham Ward [SMN]. It appears across 15 of 29 officers recorded in this period. The map shows the pattern for the selected period.

Who cites it — case-officer spreadfrom parsed decision notices · click an officer
Who leans on this policy — and how often — is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Why it is cited — and what follows
2%
in approvals
1 citations
98%
in refusals
45 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 46 appears. It does not yet claim that the policy caused those outcomes.

Reason · role · consequence

Not filled in yet — the classification pass over the citing passages hasn't run. When it has, this shows why 46 was used, whether it supported approval or refusal, and what changed as a result. No conclusion is shown until that classification has been checked.

Why this policy is cited, and what follows, is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Does it hold up? — appeal performance

No Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions on record cite 46. When one lands (the appeals table refreshes each weekday), the dismissed/allowed record appears here — never estimated.

Related — follow the thread
Richmond Upon Thames
Back to the borough policy record
Open →
Committee record
What reaches members, and what they do with it
Open →
Case officers
Richmond Upon Thames's decision-makers
Open →
Citations, officer spread, ward and application-type counts parsed from published Richmond Upon Thames decision notices (high-confidence parses, approvals and refusals), joined to the canonical application record. One citation = one decision citing the policy. See the policy overview for every policy cited.

Atlas intelligence summarises patterns and observations from published planning records. Past decisions do not indicate how any future application will be determined. Every application is assessed on its own merits, having regard to the proposal, site, evidence and policies applying at the time. This information is provided for general information only and is not planning, legal, financial or professional advice.