Development Intent
Planning AtlasRichmond Upon Thames28
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Richmond Upon Thames · Local Plan · Policy

28 — Local Character and Design Quality (Strategic Policy).

How Richmond Upon Thames actually applies 28: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

28 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 · 28
Where 28 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~7
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
61
times cited
in parsed decision notices
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
20 of 29
officer reach
69% of officers recorded in this period
Fulwell & Hampton Hill Ward [FLW]
top hotspot ward
7 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 28 requires all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality, respecting the local character and heritage of Richmond upon Thames. Development proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the site and its context, and take opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings, spaces, and the local area. The Council will resist the removal of shopfronts of architectural or historic interest and exercise strict control over advertisements and hoardings to ensure they do not harm the character of individual buildings and streets.

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

The policy — as adopted

Local Character and Design Quality (Strategic Policy)

A. The Council will require all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality. The character and heritage of the borough has been identified in the borough-wide characterisation work undertaken as part of the Urban Design Study. The ‘places’ as identified in the Study will need to be maintained and their character enhanced where opportunities arise. Development proposals will have to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the site and how it relates to its existing context, including character and appearance, and take opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings, spaces and the local area. B. To ensure development respects, contributes to and maximises opportunities to enhance the local environment and character, proposals must reflect and demonstrate the following principles: 1. Ensure the proposal is compatible with the local character, including the relationship to existing townscape, development patterns, views, local urban grain and frontages as well as scale, height, massing, density, landscaping, proportions, form, materials and detailing; 2. Ensure the development provides a high-quality sustainable design, construction and layout, including adaptability to climate change whilst responding positively to the local character as identified in the Urban Design Study and Conservation Area Appraisals/Statements; 3. Use a design-led approach to optimise the potential of a development site through layout, siting and access arrangements, to ensure the development integrates positively with its surroundings; 4. Ensure the development takes account of the existing urban grain and development patterns, including relationship of heights to widths; 5. Sympathetically upgrading and reusing existing buildings, rather than demolishing and building new, allows a better response to the local character whilst also making substantial energy savings due to the embodied carbon in existing buildings that would otherwise be lost through demolition (see also Policy 4 'Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Promoting Energy Efficiency (Strategic Policy) '); 6. Ensure the development responds to and where possible improves existing patterns of movement, permeability and street widths that encourage and promote active travel and well-being; 7. Maximise opportunities for urban greening, and integrate existing and incorporate new natural features into a multifunctional network that supports quality of place and biodiversity, which address climate change and resilience; 8. Ensure public realm is well-designed, safe, accessible, inclusive, attractive, well-connected, related to the local and historic context, and easy to understand, service and maintain (as set out in London Plan Policy D8); 9. Ensure the design, layout and materials respect and respond to the historic environment and any relevant heritage assets; 10. Ensure developments achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design, in accordance with London Plan Policy D5, with the aim of providing connectivity and permeability throughout (as such gated developments will not be permitted); 11. Minimise opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour, based on an understanding of the locality and site-specific circumstances, utilising principles of natural surveillance and orientation of buildings as well as uses, with all major development expected to meet the standards and objectives of the Secured by Design initiative; 12. Consider the holistic impact on the local suitable microclimate, including as a result of lighting features; and 13. Ensure the development’s proposed uses are suitable and compatible for the proposed location, providing a mix of uses including local services and facilities to support daily life and enable Richmond upon Thames Local Plan Track Changes Version for Environment Committee Sep communities to ‘live locally’ in accordance with Policy 1, taking account of any potential adverse impacts of the co-location of uses through the layout, design and management of the site. C. All proposals, including extensions, alterations and shopfronts, will be assessed against the policies contained within an adopted neighbourhood plan where applicable, and the advice set out in the Urban Design Study and the relevant Village Planning Guidance and other SPDs relating to character and design. Shopfronts D. The Council will resist the removal of shopfronts of architectural or historic interest. Shopfronts, including signage and illumination, should complement the proportions, character, materials and detailing, surrounding streetscene and the building of which it forms part. Blinds, canopies or shutters, where acceptable in principle, must be appropriate to the character of the shopfront and the context within which it is located. External security grilles and large illuminated fascias will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. In sensitive areas, such as Conservation Areas and relevant Character Areas as identified in the Urban Design Study and the Village Planning Guidance SPDs, rigid and gloss finish blinds will generally be unacceptable. Advertisements and hoardings E. The Council will exercise strict control over the design and siting of advertisements and hoardings to ensure the character of individual buildings and streets are not materially harmed, having regard to the interests of amenity and public safety (including highway safety).

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

How it lands
0% in approvals · 100% in refusals
61 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Fulwell & Hampton Hill Ward [FLW]7
St. Margarets & North Twickenham Ward [SMN]7
Heathfield Ward [HTF]6
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 28 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

28 appears most often in Fulwell & Hampton Hill Ward [FLW], St. Margarets & North Twickenham Ward [SMN], Heathfield Ward [HTF]. It appears across 20 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
0%
in approvals
0 citations
100%
in refusals
61 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 28 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 28 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 28. 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.