Crane Tidal Gates, adjacent to Waterside Apartments, Railshead Road, Twickenham Data via plota.co.uk

PA26/2631 - Section 192 Permitted Development Approved

Proposal

Replacement of existing tidal gates Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
12 Aug 2026
✓
Validated
13 Aug 2026
✓
Approved
21 Sept 2026

Approved on 21 Sept 2026 · Delegated Decision · Last checked 23 Sept 2026

Site constraints 16

Listed building: at the site
List entry 1390991 · 18 m away · 3 more listed buildings within 150 m (1 Grade II*, 2 Grade II)
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.
Show the other 3 with distances
Historic England ↗
Flood zone 3, rivers and sea
High chance: a 1 in 100 or greater annual chance from rivers, or 1 in 200 from the sea. Any development here needs a flood risk assessment. Defences are not counted.
The Environment Agency flood map for planning. Homes in zone 3 must also pass the sequential test. Surface water flooding is a separate map.
Flood map ↗
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.
Isleworth Riverside conservation area
Also Isleworth Riverside. 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.
Designated open space
Borough-designated open space.
Loss of protected open space is resisted unless it is replaced by space of equal or better quality nearby.
Archaeological priority area
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: Hounslow 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 ↗
Scheduled monument 52 m away: London's Early Porcelain Industries: The Isleworth Pottery
Its setting is a consideration for work nearby.
Nationally important archaeology protected by the Secretary of State. Work that affects the monument or its setting is rarely permitted.
Historic England ↗
Local nature reserve 138 m away: Isleworth Ait
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: Priority Rivers
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Thames Path 21 m away
Matters where it crosses or adjoins the site; the route and its margin are protected.
Also on the record
Flood defence 1 m away (wall, designed for a 1 in 100 year flood); National infrastructure project 548 m away: Expansion of Heathrow Airport (Third Runway), at pre-application; Registered park or garden 231 m away: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Inside the Hounslow built-up area; Public transport access: PTAL 1b (very poor), TfL 2023, for the 100 m square.
Not affected
Not green belt

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
Section 192 Permitted Development
Received
12 Aug 2026
Validated
13 Aug 2026
Ward
St. Margarets & North Twickenham Ward [SMN]
Case officer
Show
Target decision
7 Oct 2026
Decision
Granted Permission
Decision date
21 Sept 2026
Decision level
Delegated Decision
Applicant
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 39 days from validation, 9 days faster than Richmond upon Thames's median of 48 for utility and infrastructure works. Approved, as 89% of utility and infrastructure works here are.

79%decided within 8 weeks
89%approved
85decided in the last year

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

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