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

Policy.

The policies that actually decide outcomes in Richmond Upon Thames — how often each is cited in the officers' own reports, where it bites hardest, and who leans on it. The plan text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

205 citations200 reports parsedRichmond Upon Thames Local Plan (a…
Richmond Upon Thames · policy map
Where policy is quoted most — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~20
At a glance
205[1]
Total citations
across 200 officer reports
92%[1]
Citations on refusals
borough baseline — see the In refusals column
Richmond Upon Thames L[1]
Development plan
most-cited framework in reports
—
CIL (residential)
schedule not yet sourced
—
5-year land supply
position statement not yet sourced
Citations by policy — what gets invoked 🔒click a policy — reshapes the map
28 · Local Character and Design Quality (Strategic Policy)
61
46 · Amenity and Living Conditions
46
42 · Trees, Woodland and Landscape
24
29 · Designated Heritage Assets
16
6 · Sustainable Construction Standards
15
11 · Affordable Housing (Strategic Policy)
9
30 · Non-designated Heritage Assets
7
4 · Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Promoting Energy Efficiency (Strategic Policy)
7
Full citation counts are subscriber dataSubscribe to see the counts →
What kind of ground gets cited[1]
Housing delivery7%
Design & heritage41%
Amenity22%
Sustainability16%
Other grounds14%

Grounds classified from each policy's own cited title. Click a slice — reshapes the map.

The policies that decide outcomes — Richmond Upon Thames

Every plan policy recurring in Richmond Upon Thames officer reports, ranked by how often it's cited. Click a policy for its full record — and the officer who leans on it most.

PolicyCitationsIn refusalsAppeal survivalCites it most
46 — Amenity and Living Conditions4698% · 1.1×—subscriber data
42 — Trees, Woodland and Landscape24100% · 1.1×—subscriber data
The full policy roster and per-policy officer breakdown are subscriber data.Subscribe to see all policies →

Citation counts from Richmond Upon Thames officer reports.[1] “In refusals” = share of a policy's citations that sit on refusals; × = that share against the borough average (needs 20+ citations). Appeal survival = of PINS appeal decisions citing the policy, the share dismissed (refusal held); a rate needs 5+ decisive appeals, fewer show the count. Methodology →

The borough framework

The development-plan documents Richmond Upon Thames officers actually cite, counted across parsed reports. CIL and land-supply figures aren't sourced yet and are shown as pending, not estimated.

Most cited
Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan (adopted)
205 report mentions
The hierarchy
National — NPPFpage pending
Strategic — London Planpage pending
Local — Richmond Upon Thames plan →
What wins here — approval rate by application type[2]

Bar = volume · figure = approval rate, across Richmond Upon Thames's substantive decisions.

Householder
82%
Full / major planning
81%
Prior approval
81%
Conditions & amendments
85%
Listed building
85%
Lawful development
84%
Grounds for refusal at committee[3]

Why the planning committee refuses applications, from 39 refusals in the loaded minutes. Committee refusals are relatively few — most decisions are settled by officers.

Design Character
15
Policy Conflict
14
Transport Highway
10
Amenity
8
Heritage Conservation
8
Neighbour Impact
8
Overdevelopment
7
Land Use
5
Policies cited on refusal — borough-wide[4]

Richmond Upon Thames's decision-notice parsing doesn't have enough high-confidence coverage yet to publish a borough-wide refusal-citation breakdown.

Sources & method
  1. [1]Policy citations, per-policy officer counts and ward citation counts — parsed from 1,018 published Richmond Upon Thames officer reports (delegated and committee), joined to the canonical application record for wards. Approvals included — refusal notices alone only show the refusal side.
  2. [2]Approval rate by application type — Richmond Upon Thames's substantive decision record. · methodology
  3. [3]Committee refusal grounds and committee-cited policies — published Richmond Upon Thames planning-committee minutes. · committee record
  4. [4]Borough-wide refusal-notice policy citations — decision-notice parsing (high-confidence notices only).
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.