Development Intent
AtlasRichmond Upon ThamesCommittee
Planning Atlas›Richmond Upon Thames›Planning Committee
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

Planning committee.

Richmond Upon Thames's planning committee decides the applications officers don't settle under delegation. It approved 89% of the 100 decisions that reached it, hears just 0.5% of decisions to committee, and of the 39 refusals traced in recent minutes, 2 were overturned at appeal. Where it acts, and on what, is below.[1]

Liberal Democrat majority21 members100 committee decisions2020–26
Richmond Upon Thames · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
100
Committee decisions
2020–26
21
Members
Liberal Democrat majority
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
Public planning-committee records, minutes and decision notices. Conduct in an official capacity only.
Members refusing officer-recommended approvals — London-wide[3]Dashed line = average per year
avg 4492016302017212018382019652020552021582022462023512024702025

Committee refusals of officer-recommended approvals traced in minutes across all 33 boroughs, by year. Richmond Upon Thames's own officer-alignment trend needs the officer recommendation on each committee item — a minutes-level source still being loaded.

What goes to committee — by application type[1]
Full Application: 59% — click to filter the pageHouseholder Application: 18% — click to filter the pageRemoval or variation of a condition: 8%Works to Tree/s in Conservation Area: 7%Other: 8%
Full Application59%
Householder Application18%
Removal or variation of a condition8%
Works to Tree/s in Conservation Area7%
Other8%

Share of the 100 committee decisions on record. The call-in reason itself comes from committee minutes — not yet loaded.

In context — Versus London committees
Refusals in committee minutes39 · 9th of 33
lower is betterdashed = London avg
Refused against officer advice ⚠ unverified7 · 16th of 33
lower is betterdashed = London avg
Refusals overturned at appeal2 · 17th of 33
lower is betterdashed = London avg
Grounds the committee acts on[2]

Richmond Upon Thames's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage right now, so refusal citations aren't reliable enough to publish as a table — an estimate would be worse than nothing.

How Richmond Upon Thames applies its planning policies →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approved
9
9/9
7
5/7
6
6/6
Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside Ward [HMP]
6
5/6
5
5/5
Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside Ward - Historic [HPR]
4
2/4
4
1/4
3
3/3
3
2/3
3
3/3
3
3/3
3
2/3
3
3/3
3
2/3
3
3/3
2
2/2
2
2/2
2
0/2
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
0/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
0/1
9
9/9
7
5/7
6
6/6
Show all 27 rows
Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside Ward [HMP]
6
5/6
5
5/5
Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside Ward - Historic [HPR]
4
2/4
4
1/4
3
3/3
3
2/3
3
3/3
3
3/3
3
2/3
3
3/3
3
2/3
3
3/3
2
2/2
2
2/2
2
0/2
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
0/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
1/1
1
0/1

Where the 80 committee decisions on record land, 2020–26.[1] Click the map above to explore spatially, or a row to open the ward.

The members — votes recorded

Member by member: the planning-committee votes recorded against each councillor in the published minutes, and how they lean.[2] How often each votes with the officer recommendation needs the officer rec on every item — not yet loaded, so it isn't shown.

Meeting minutes

The committee figures on this page are derived from Richmond Upon Thames's published decision notices and committee minutes. Agendas, full minutes and webcasts are published on the council's own democracy website — the source of truth for every meeting.

How these figures are derived — methodology ↗
Recent committee decisions
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
24/1662/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-01-22
22/3004/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-10-15
24/1662/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2026-01-22
22/3004/FUL
Full Application
Approved
2025-10-15
Full decision history locked
Subscribe to see all 80 decisions →
Committee members— subscriber data
At a glance
CommitteePlanning Committee
ControlLiberal Democrat majority
Members21
Decisions100 (2020–26)
Committee approval89%
Delegated99.5%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
Committee Watch →
When members overturn the officer line — and how those calls fare at appeal.
The politics of housing in Richmond Upon Thames →
Council composition, and how each councillor votes on planning applications.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Committee vs delegated split, committee approval rate and every committee-decided application — the decision-level field on Richmond Upon Thames's published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
  2. [2]Committee membership, party control and per-member vote counts — Richmond Upon Thames membership records and published planning-committee minutes; member matching across inconsistent name forms is still being completed.
  3. [3]Refusals against officer advice and appeal outcomes — committee minutes cross-matched with Planning Inspectorate appeal decisions (Committee Watch dataset, all 33 boroughs). · Committee Watch
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.