Environmental campaigners say plans to make it easier to convert front gardens into parking spaces would make Richmond borough "far less green, pleasant and healthy".

Richmond Council is proposing changes to the application criteria for residents to convert their front and side gardens to accommodate parking, which would make many more gardens eligible.

The planned changes would significantly reduce the minimum size of front gardens that could be considered for conversion and the required minimum distance from a junction, while scrapping the need for a parking stress test.

Countryside charity CPRE London opposes the plans and describes front garden parking as an "environmental disaster".

Alice Roberts, from CPRE London, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): "It's unbelievable that Richmond wants to enable more paving-over of front gardens, when we urgently need a halt to converting gardens for parking.

"Fifty years ago London was like a sponge, but too much paving-over means too much rainwater now runs off into the sewers which are completely overwhelmed in heavy rainfall, causing flooding and sewage overflow pollution."

Christine Eborall, from campaign group Ealing Front Gardens Project, said the plans would result in an "epidemic of front garden paving and concreting" in Richmond.

She told the LDRS this would "rapidly increase flood risk" in the borough and surrounding areas, while claiming the group had found permeable paving can fail after a few years in heavy downpours.

Ms Eborall said paved front gardens also worsen pollution, biodiversity loss, carbon storage, food for pollinators and ground water accumulation, along with damaging people's health.

It comes after the council's policy and performance review board looked at Richmond's vehicle crossover policy in May 2023. The only formal application process needed to convert all or part of a front garden into parking is for a crossover, which allows vehicles to legally pass over a public footway or grass verge to access a property. A section of kerb must be lowered, known as a dropped kerb, and a driveway created to link the road to the property.

The board said the council had stricter rules compared to others on the approval of vehicle crossovers, that relatively large numbers of applications for crossovers were refused and up to 2,000 crossovers in the borough were unauthorised.

The board was also told more residents were replacing petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles, which they wanted to charge at home.

The authority's transport committee approved plans to change the criteria for vehicle crossovers in November. This includes reducing the current minimum width of eligible gardens from 7.2metres to 4.8m and the depth from 6m to 4.8m, along with slashing the minimum distance from a junction from 15m to 5m.

The need for a parking stress test, which considers the availability of street parking spaces when a crossover would reduce this, would also be scrapped under the proposals.

Councillors said residents should aim to keep at least 10% of the converted front gardens as soft landscaping, which includes grass and plants. The decision was referred to the environment committee for consideration, which will take place on 16 January.

A new council report said the current crossover policy had aimed to "protect the environment" but many authorised and unauthorised front garden conversions had been installed without any soft landscaping or boundary features and giving little consideration to drainage.

It said proposed crossovers would need to have suitable drainage and consider biodiversity under the amended policy, while existing unauthorised crossovers would require permeable paving with soft landscaping before being authorised.

The report added: "These changes will help residents meet their aspirations for front garden parking while being accompanied by suitable safeguards to maintain and improve environmental quality. The changes should allow many existing unauthorised crossovers to be replaced by much improved safer and greener versions."

But Ms Eborall argued the proposals would make Richmond "far less green, pleasant and healthy". She said: "The reduced size will mean householders try to squeeze their vehicles in, leaving even less space for plants.

"The council's proposed 10% remaining green is paltry and in any case it can't control what people do with their front gardens after the crossover is put in. There's nothing to prevent any remaining green area being taken out – this is happening all the time as people seek to charge all their electric vehicles overnight."

She added: "The council should instead be creative in providing on-street charging points and, together with other councils, strongly lobby central government so that there is no VAT cost difference between at-home and on-street charging."

The council's environment committee will discuss the proposed changes on 16 January. Richmond Council has been contacted for comment.