Richmond Golf Club, Sudbrook Lane, Petersham, Richmond, TW10 7AS Data via plota.co.uk

PA26/2221 - Full Application Approved

Proposal

Replacement of the existing asphalt and mineral felt roof with copper sheet. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
30 Jun 2026
✓
Consultation
10 Jul 2026
✓
Approved
16 Sept 2026

Approved on 16 Sept 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 17 Sept 2026

Site constraints 13

Metropolitan Open Land
Green belt level protection inside London.
The London Plan gives Metropolitan Open Land the same protection as green belt: inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Petersham conservation area
Demolition needs planning permission and permitted development is restricted.
The council must give weight to preserving or enhancing the area's character and appearance. Not every council has published its boundaries as open data.
Council document ↗
Agricultural land, grade 3a
Best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Source: the Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map (Defra and Natural England, 2025; the Welsh Government's Predictive ALC Map 2 in Wales), a model rather than a site survey. A site survey can differ.
Where development of farmland is needed, policy prefers poorer land over the best and most versatile (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Three sources: Natural England's post-1988 field surveys, which are definitive where they exist; the Defra predictive map for England (2025) and the Welsh Government predictive map, modelled from the soil map with 3a and 3b split; and the 1970s provisional map, which planners and other services still show, coarser and with grade 3 undivided. Where the provisional and predicted grades disagree, treat the predicted grade as the current estimate and expect an application to carry its own survey.
Archaeological priority area: The Sudbrooke Park APA covers The Richmond Golf Club
An assessment or field evaluation may be asked for before ground works.
The council or Historic England considers archaeology likely here. A desk-based assessment, and sometimes trial trenching, can be asked for with the application.
Air quality management area: Richmond AQMA
The council has declared the area as failing an air quality objective.
Schemes that add traffic, parking or combustion plant are assessed against the area's action plan and may need an air quality assessment.
Council record ↗
Special area of conservation 111 m away: Richmond Park
Work nearby can need a habitats assessment.
Harm to a protected site is only accepted where there is no alternative and an overriding public interest.
Habitat network: Restorable Habitat
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
1 listed building within 150 m
Nearest: Richmond Golf Club Sudbrook Park, Grade I, 31 m away
The site itself is not listed. Listed building consent is needed for work that affects the special interest of a listed building, inside or out, on top of planning permission. Setting can be a consideration for buildings nearby; there is no fixed radius.
Historic England ↗
SSSI 111 m away: Richmond Park SSSI
Natural England may need consulting, depending on what is proposed.
Sites of special scientific interest are the best wildlife and geological sites in the country. Development likely to harm one is rarely permitted.
Also on the record
Registered park or garden 110 m away: Richmond Park; Priority habitat 4 m away: Good quality semi improved grassland; Public transport access: PTAL 0 (very poor), TfL 2023, for the 100 m square; National infrastructure project 1235 m away: Teddington Direct River Abstraction (TDRA), at pre-application.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · Not green belt · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 6 October 2026. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Planning Inspectorate, Transport for London (public transport access levels, Powered by TfL Open Data, OGL v3.0, contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2025) and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Richmond upon Thames - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Application type
Full Application
Postcode
TW10 7AS
Received
30 Jun 2026
Validated
30 Jun 2026
Ward
Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside Ward [HMP]
Case officer
Show
Target decision
25 Aug 2026
Decision
Granted Permission
Decision date
16 Sept 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show
Agent
Copperstone Consultants Ltd

How this decision compares

Decided in 78 days from validation, 30 days slower than Richmond upon Thames's median of 48 for extensions. Approved, as 86% of extensions here are.

78%decided within 8 weeks
86%approved
1,177decided in the last year

Plota live figures for extensions decided by Richmond upon Thames in the last twelve months, from validation. Richmond upon Thames decision record →

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-15035787
Comments by
31 Jul 2026
Site or press notice
10 Jul 2026
Statutory expiry
21 Jul 2026
Richmond upon Thames
Planning Authority Score
4.4/10
Below average
#182 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Richmond upon Thames ranks #130 out of 296 councils for householder decision speed. Richmond upon Thames is also one of the strictest councils - it refuses more householder applications than almost any other, with only 82% approved vs 90% nationally.

One of the strictest councils
only 82% approved vs 90% nationally
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Richmond upon Thames decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
81%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #257 of 296
82%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #268 of 296
69%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #130 of 296
35%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #104 of 296
68%
Minor dwellings approved
181 decided (1-9 homes)
100%
Major dwellings approved
3 decided (10+ homes)
47%
Change of use approved
17 decided
1,888
Total decisions
358 refused in the year to March 2026