Development Intent
Planning AtlasRichmond Upon Thames29
PolicyPoliticalCommitteeOfficersAgents & developersViabilityMapAppeals
Richmond Upon Thames · Local Plan · Policy

29 — Designated Heritage Assets.

How Richmond Upon Thames actually applies 29: who leans on it, where it bites hardest, and how often it's invoked. The policy text is the rule; this is the behaviour.

29 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 · 29
Where 29 is quoted — by ward
Fewer ~0
More citations ~3
Showing
re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
16
times cited
in parsed decision notices
appeal survival
no PINS appeal decisions cite it
11 of 29
officer reach
38% of officers recorded in this period
Twickenham Riverside Ward [TRW]
top hotspot ward
3 citations
What this policy is about

Policy 29 requires development to conserve and enhance the historic environment of Richmond upon Thames. The Council will resist development that harms designated heritage assets, including listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments, and Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Development proposals will be assessed against the requirement to avoid harm and justify the proposal, with a focus on conserving and enhancing the significance of these assets.

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

The policy — as adopted

Designated Heritage Assets

A. The Council will require development to conserve and, where possible, take opportunities to make a positive contribution to, the historic environment of the borough. Development proposals likely to adversely affect the significance of heritage assets will be assessed against the requirement to seek to avoid harm and the justification for the proposal. The significance (including the settings) of the borough's designated heritage assets, encompassing Conservation Areas, listed buildings, Scheduled Monuments as well as the Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, will be conserved and enhanced by the following means: 1. Give great weight to the conservation of the heritage asset when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of the asset. 2. Total loss of or substantial harm to a listed building should be wholly exceptional and will therefore be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss in line with national policy requirements. 3. Resist the change of use of listed buildings where their significance would be harmed, particularly where the current use contributes to the character of the surrounding area and to its sense of place, unless it secures the optimum viable use and/or there are public benefits to outweigh the harm. 4. Resist the removal or modification of features such as original structure, layout, architectural features, materials as well as later features that contribute to the significance of the listed buildings. 5. Demolitions (in whole or in part), alterations, extensions and any other modifications to listed buildings should be based on a proportionate understanding of the significance of the heritage asset. 6. Require, where appropriate, the reinstatement of internal and external features of special architectural or historic significance within listed buildings, and the removal of internal and external features that harm the significance of the asset, commensurate with the extent of proposed development. 7. Require the use of appropriate materials and techniques and strongly encourage any works or repairs to a designated heritage asset to be carried out in a correct, scholarly manner by appropriate specialists. Richmond upon Thames Local Plan Track Changes Version for Environment Committee Sept 8. 9. B. Resist substantial demolition in Conservation Areas and any changes that could harm heritage assets, unless it can be demonstrated that: 1. 2. 3. Protect and enhance the borough’s registered Historic Parks and Gardens by ensuring that proposals do not have an adverse effect on their significance, including their setting and/or views to and from the registered landscape. Protect Scheduled Monuments by ensuring proposals do not have an adverse impact on their significance. in the case of substantial harm or loss to the significance of the heritage asset, it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; in the case of less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset, that the public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use, outweigh that harm; or the building or part of the building or structure makes no positive contribution to the character or distinctiveness of the area. All proposals in Conservation Areas are required to preserve and, where possible, enhance the character or the appearance of the Conservation Area. Where there is evidence of intentional damage or deliberate neglect to a designated heritage asset, its current condition will not be taken into account in the decision-making process. Outline planning applications will not be accepted in Conservation Areas unless it can be demonstrated that the impacts of the development on the significance of the area can be fully assessed including views and vistas. The Council's Conservation Area Statements, and where available Conservation Area Studies, and/or Management Plans, will be used as a basis for assessing development proposals within, or where it would affect the setting of, Conservation Areas, together with other policy guidance, such as Village Planning Guidance SPDs. Sympathetic measures to make energy and carbon savings in historic and listed buildings are encouraged, by adopting a ‘whole house approach’ and understanding all the factors that affect energy use to avoid maladaptation. Any potential damages to the structure or heritage value, or impacting the setting of, historic buildings have to be avoided.

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
16 citations in the selected period
The approval/refusal split is subscriber intelligenceUnlock →
Where it bites
Twickenham Riverside Ward [TRW]3
East Sheen Ward [EST]3
North Richmond Ward [NRR]2
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 29 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

29 appears most often in Twickenham Riverside Ward [TRW], East Sheen Ward [EST], North Richmond Ward [NRR]. It appears across 11 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
16 citations

This shows the decision reports in which 29 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 29 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 29. 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.