London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

How Richmond upon Thames decides on small housing schemes

Every decision on sites of nine units or fewer, coded from the council's own register and refreshed each quarter. What gets built, what gets approved, and what trips applications up.

Last updated April 2026 392 applications tracked Window: Jan 2023 to Mar 2026 8 areas, 5 scheme types
Applications logged
392
Full, householder and minor resi since Jan 2023
Decided so far
281
231 approved, 50 refused, 16 withdrawn
Approval rate
82%
Roughly four in five decided applications
Typical time to decide
8 weeks
Median determination time across all small sites

Richmond upon Thames, area by area

Colour shows how often applications get approved. Numbers show how many were decided. Hover or tap an area for detail.

Barnes & Mortlake 26 East Sheen 17 Richmond 34 Kew 6 Twickenham 38 Whitton & Fulwell 29 Teddington 23 Hampton 13 Approval rate 58% 83%
Spotlight

Barnes & Mortlake

Decisions
26
Approved
15
Refused
11
Approval rate
58%
Hover or tap any tile to see that area’s detail.
Tile positions are schematic, not to geographic scale. Each hex represents one of Richmond upon Thames’s sub-areas as defined in the council’s own planning framework.

Kew approves 83% of applications. Barnes & Mortlake, closer to 58%. Same borough, same policy, 25 percentage points of difference.

Which kinds of schemes get approved?

Bar length shows how many of each type were decided. The split shows the share approved versus refused. Conversion is by far the most common route in Richmond upon Thames, but it's end-of-terrace that sees the highest approval rate.

Approved Refused Bar length = sample size (max n=124)
Conversion
87%n=124
Demolish & rebuild
73%n=48
Extension
81%n=42
Backland
64%n=14
End-of-terrace
90%n=10
Scheme types with fewer than 10 decisions in the window are not shown here.
Conversion, dividing one home into flats
Demolish & rebuild, existing building replaced with new homes
Extension, rear, side or upward additions creating a new unit
Backland, new build on rear gardens or courtyard land
End-of-terrace, new infill at the end of a terraced row

Why applications fail in Richmond upon Thames

Of every hundred reasons cited in refused decisions in Richmond upon Thames, open space accounts for the biggest slice at 34%.

Open space, loss of garden or green space 34
Policy, affordable housing, density targets 33
Delegated process 33
Read as: “Of every 100 reasons cited in a refusal, 34 relate to open space.” A single refusal often names two or more reasons. Based on 3 reasons extracted from refused decision notices.

In Richmond upon Thames, the most common ground for refusal is open space.

Is Richmond upon Thames getting busier?

Decisions per quarter have fallen since 2023, and approval rates have drifted upward over the same window.

Decisions per quarter
Approval rate (%)
0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% borough avg 82% '23 Q2 · 85% · n=20 '23 Q3 · 84% · n=19 '23 Q4 · 56% · n=18 '24 Q1 · 68% · n=31 '24 Q2 · 74% · n=27 '24 Q3 · 72% · n=36 '24 Q4 · 79% · n=19 '25 Q1 · 100% · n=7 '25 Q2 · 95% · n=20 '25 Q3 · 100% · n=24 '25 Q4 · 87% · n=15 '26 Q1 · 100% · n=15 '26 Q2 · 100% · n=13 '23 Q2 '23 Q3 '23 Q4 '24 Q1 '24 Q2 '24 Q3 '24 Q4 '25 Q1 '25 Q2 '25 Q3 '25 Q4 '26 Q1 '26 Q2
Hover any bar or dot for exact quarterly values. The most recent quarter may be partial while pending decisions work through.

Interrogate the data yourself

Every figure on this page comes from Richmond upon Thames's own planning decisions. We publish the underlying data so you can check it, replicate our findings, or use it in your own tools. Verify against the council's planning portal before relying on any record, and tell us if you spot a problem.

Decided small-site applications, 1 to 9 units. Planning-decision layer only: Energy Performance Certificate, Land Registry and case-officer fields are held back. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Methodology.

Thinking about a specific site?

The dashboard gives you the borough picture. If you’re weighing a particular site, the Red Line Review is an independent second opinion before you commit six figures — one sentence on what I’d do if it were my money, and why.

Data sources & method

Applications. Sourced from the Greater London Authority (GLA) Planning Datahub and Richmond upon Thames Council’s online planning register. Covers full planning, householder, and minor residential applications of nine units or fewer decided in the window shown above.

Decisions and timing. Outcomes and determination times are taken from the council’s published decision notices.

Refusal reasons. Extracted from refused decision notices that were publicly available. Not every refusal has a readable notice, so totals count all refusals but the reason breakdown covers only those we could read.

Scheme classification. Site types (conversion, demolish & rebuild, extension, and so on) are coded from application descriptions and drawings. Areas are mapped from postcodes and ward names using the council’s own sub-area definitions.

Update frequency. Refreshed quarterly. Next refresh: July 2026.

Nothing here is planning advice. Outcomes are historical and do not predict individual cases. Approval rates vary with site specifics, policy context, and case officer. For a read on a particular site, request a Red Line Review. See our Terms of Use for full details on how this data is compiled and the limits of its use.