Search Results

79 issues found for 'richmond':

  • Vine Road (NCN 4)

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 1 thread

    This issue is with the part of National Cycle Route 4 between the junction of Vine Road with Upper Richmond Road to the south and the combined cycle/pedestrian path from Vine Road just north of the northerly level-crossing (over the Hounslow Line) to Barnes Station. This road is narrow, poorly surfaced (potholes, cracks, etc) and heavily trafficked during the rush hours; moreover, the approach to the Upper Richmond Road is pretty steep, meaning that all but strong and expert cyclists have to dismount and cross on foot past the lines of cars going up and down to reach the Toucan crossing of Upper Richmond Road which leads to the dedicated cycle path on the west side of Priory Lane en route to Richmond Park.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Richmond to Twickenham and towards Feltham

    Created by Paul L // 0 threads

    This route is a greenway in its western half and does avoid most traffic. There are Toucan crossings of major roads.
    Some Twickenham backroads are narrow and through traffic needs discouraging.
    Two underpasses in Crane Park are low and narrow.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Richmond Circus Kew Road south toucan crossing

    Created by Paul James // 0 threads

    The tucan crossing is out of phase with the lights at Church Road meaning that traffic coming along the A316 into Kew Rd is not held at the tucan but is then stopped at Church Rd so that cyclists and pedestrians have to wait for traffic to enter Kew Rd.

    Re-phase the lights so that the tucan crossing is red for the roadway at the same time that it is red for the lights at Church Rd, so that there is a single green phase along the cycleway across the end of Kew Rd.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • One Way Streets - Make 2 way for Bicycles

    Created by Ross // 3 threads

    At the April '15 cycling liason group, Richmond Council asked members of the public to submit one way streets that would benefit from a treatment to make them 2 way for bicycles. When implemented correctly this can be a great way to facilitate bicycle journeys over other modes. The list that RCC are submitting is below, if you know of others post here and RCC will add them to the list.

    Somerton Avenue @ Clifford
    South Worple Way East End
    Kingsway
    Richmond Hill
    Ormond Road
    Paradise Road
    George Street
    Eton Street
    Richmond Green
    Grove Road
    Park Road
    Glebe Way
    1st Cross Road
    Kew Station Approach
    Wiggins Lane Ham
    The Vineyard
    Cumberland Road
    Leybourne Park
    Priests Bridge

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Sheen Rd / Upper Richmond Rd West - segregation needed

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 0 threads

    Despite the cycle lanes being mandatory along this stretch the road layout is such that vehicles frequently intrude into the cyclelane - as this bus did.

    White paint does not work on this stretch and some other segregation method is needed -eg a kerb; vertical posts or similar.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • St Margarets Rd / Richmond Rd - no protection for cycling

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 0 threads

    The route from Richmond Bridge to St Margarets is very busy with traffic and offers very little protection for people cycling. LCN 37 attempts to divert you through Rosslyn Road but this is very inconvenient for westbound cyclists since it requires you to cross the main road twice just to enjoy a short section of quiet road. Providing protected space for cycling along this stretch of road would link up Richmond Bridge to the quiet route down Amyand Park Road to Twickenham town centre.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Roehampton Lane, Upper Richmond Road, Rocks Road junction

    Created by timlennon // 0 threads

    Letter for TfL, copied to RCC, by local resident:

    I am a resident of the Dover House Estate area and regularly use the crossroads of the Upper Richmond Road (A206) with Roehampton Lane and Rocks Lane (A306) as pedestrian, cyclist and/or car driver. There are three major issues with this junction which need to be addressed.

    The first is the pedestrian crossings, which are poorly timed/synchronised and inadequate. There is a significant volume of pedestrian traffic to and from the station and bus stops and the university, yet to cross the road safely using the crossings can easily add 5 mins to the journey. This is mainly as there are push button crossings on only two of the four arms of the junction, a third having provision to cross which requires too much calculated risk (and insufficient island space considering the probability of standing in the middle for some time), and the fourth having no sensible provision at all. There is a high proportion of children using the crossing - with buggies, scooters, bikes, and on the south west corner insufficient pavement space for the volume of pedestrian traffic at peak times. The timing/synchronisation of the green men requires pedestrians to stand in the middle islands for an overly long period of time - during which time they cannot help but notice the very high level of exhaust fumes. Given that the only traffic flowing south along the A306 and allowed to turn right on to the A205 is buses and cycles, the extended wait for the green man in the middle of the A205 to head south seems unnecessary. Heading north there is a similarly unnecessary wait for the green man, as motorised traffic heading east along the A205 is also at a red light while that heading north on the A306 is on green.

    The second major problem is the filter lane for motorists turning right off the A205 into the A306 to head north. This only operates at peak times, leaving motorists with a choice between being stuck in the middle waiting for a second round of lights or skipping through an amber or red light (frequently even though they were first in the queue). There is simply too much traffic heading east to not have the filter light operating for a greater part of the day. Even when the filter light is in operation it is for such an insufficiently short period that unless you are among the first three cars you are almost certainly going to wait for at least two rounds of lights - at peak times I have waited for the fifth round of lights. This in turn causes a tail back and high levels of air pollution.

    The third major problem is the lack of cycle ways. There is a large number of cyclists on both these major roads but for something like a 500m radius around this junction there is no cycle way despite it bring both possible and dangerous without. The temporary narrowing of Barnes Station bridge only exacerbates the situation and since being put there some years ago seems to have been forgotten. This area is a real hole in the cycle way network and a blackspot considering the attractive options in every direction coming into/out of it.

    The junction is an accident just waiting to happen on many levels. I would be grateful if you could me a detailed response to each of the points I raise with where at all possible a timetable for when they can each be expected to be resolved.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Removal of cycle track on Putney Embankment

    Anon // 1 thread

    Wandsworth Council in TMO 1644 propose removing the contra-flow segregated cycle track at the eastern end of Putney Embankment to allow a hoarding to be built around the Thames Tideway tunnel construction site. The track will be re-opened when the work is complete, but this could take at least a year. It is proposed that eastbound cyclists join the Upper Richmond road by the Dukes Head pub and then continue on this road. Wandsworth Cycling Campaign objected to this on the grounds that the Upper Richmond Road is extremely heavily trafficked and the proposed diversion involved cycling past a row pf parking bays . This would be very difficult and hazardous for the mix of cyclists using the Thames Path of which this forms part. We asked that the parking bays be temporarily removed and replaced by a 1.5 to 2 m cycle lane separated from the motor traffic by wands or similar. For west-bound cyclists using the narrow lane left on Putney Embankment past the work site, we asked for the installation of 'Do not overtake cyclists' signs.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Link Meadlands Drive to Ham Avenues - surfacing

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 1 thread

    Providing a cycle-friendly surface on the path from Meadlands Drive to the road serving the German School and the Polo Club would improve cycling access to Strathmore and Russell Schools and help provide a better quiet route from Meadlands Drive area towards Richmond - providing more/better options for avoiding the busy Petersham Road.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Draft Sutton Sustainable Transport Strategy 2020-2025 Consultation

    Created by Marcus Howarth // 1 thread

    The draft document is linked right at the bottom of the consulation page, again here

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/15a9o8nCb5R9rs5iPINp8M2zrr3Qm-Axr/view

    from 1.3

    Everyone benefits from sustainable transport because it means that we are:
    • Keeping the air cleaner through alternative travel choices, such as walking, cycling to work, using public transport or using electric vehicles, while improving public health;
    • Improving safety for travellers, especially for people with disabilities, children, older residents and other vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists;

    1.13 In July 2019, the London Borough of Sutton declared a climate emergency, and pledged to make the borough carbon neutral. Air quality improvements and carbon reduction are byproducts of, and some of many reasons for, sustainable transport.

    from section 4

    Cycle mode share is low, 1.1% of all journeys and among the lowest share in London. 

    5.7 Essentially, more people in Sutton are choosing to use their car for journeys of less than 2km than anywhere else in London.

    See Section 6 re. cycling. 

    6.12 The existing number of cycling trips made each year in Sutton is 7,700, out of a total in outer London of 208,200 trips.
    However, there is a potential for 234,900 daily cyclable trips, which would mean that 3% of all borough journeys would be by cycle. This
    figure is higher than boroughs of similar size and population such as Harrow, Merton and Richmond upon Thames.
    6.13 As with walkable trips, Sutton also has the highest number of potentially cyclable trips per resident that are currently made by a motorised mode of travel22.

    Targets include

    Appendix F : no mention of cycleways

    also saw under Developer checklists:

    Cycling
    G6g) The Council, landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and funding agencies will work together to implement the place-based projects in the Sutton Public Realm Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2020).
    G6h) The Council, landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and funding agencies will work together to implement the Liveable Neighbourhoods schemes and to bid for and implement future schemes where possible.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • South Worple Way - new banned left turn - needs "Except Cycles" exemption

    Created by Tom B // 1 thread

    Following a consultation ( https://consultation.richmond.gov.uk/highways-transport/proposed-banned-left-turn-from-south-worple-way ), Richmond Council has now put up 'No Left Turn' signs at the eastern end of South Worple Way, just before the junction with White Hart Lane, to try and prevent dangerous driving and motor vehicles blocking this very tight junction by trying to use it to get across the railway crossing.

    Cycles do not cause the same issues in relation to endangering pedestrians waiting on the very narrow pavements, or blocking the road (as cycles take up less room and, if it is necessary while waiting at the railway crossing, they can easily be moved aside by riders).

    North and South Worple ways are important through routes for cyclists as they allow people to avoid the much busier Mortlake High Street and Upper Richmond Road. However, motorists can use these routes for rat-running (and can do so aggressively, in my experience, particularly on North Worple Way), and therefore it is important to show that cyclists have equal if not greater priority on these quiet routes.

    It would be good to make it clear that the banned left turn from South Worple Way onto White Hart Lane is not intended to apply to cyclists by adding an "Except Cycles" sign to the new signage. This would help avoid any potential misunderstanding by (and consequent conflict with) drivers and other road users.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Kew Rd Puffin Crossing Proposal

    Created by Paul L // 3 threads

    Richmond Council say
    "a signalised PUFFIN crossing with pedestrian countdown outside number 182 Kew Road (previously outside 180) Footway widening both sides of Kew Road. We have attempted to minimise the impact on the cycle lanes by introducing long tapers and following existing extended footways where possible. The kerb widening is essential to ensure sightlines to the signal heads past the many street trees."
    We suggested cranked supports for the signals to avoid the loss of cycle lanes but they claim TFL disapproval.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Twickenham Bridge to Thames Path

    Created by Paul James // 1 thread

    The cycleways along the Thames Path and along Ducks Walk are not connected with the south/east side cycleway across Twickenham Bridge and only to the north/west side cycleway via a long detour through Old Deer Park or along The Avenue.

    A ramped way down from the bridge would create a useful route for people into and out of Richmond town center that is currently only possible by using two flights of steps.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Provide safe access to the schools in the ward so that children can cycle to them.

    Created by timlennon // 0 threads

    There are a lot of schools in our ward, and a lot of traffic. Children should be able to cycle to them safely without having to share space with high volume, fast traffic. Schools should all have 20mph zones, with car-free access around the school, and protected routes to arrive there.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Sheen Lane Traffic Calming

    Created by Ross // 1 thread

    https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?gl=uk&mid=z-ea3VIs1n24.kfBnDgw-g7fg

    Sheen Lane provides access to a number of schools, yet is a busy route with no space allocated for cycling. It should be safe for children to make their way to the numerous local schools by bicycle, and it would open up access to Richmond Park for visitors who wanted to cycle from Mortlake Station. The junction with the South Circular is especially unpleasant for both cycling and walking, and deeply unwelcoming.

    How to do this: Raised zebra crossing at Vicarage Road, Palmerston Road and E Sheen Library, 20 mph signs to continue park speed limit to Mortlake station, removal of centre lane white lines, toucan crossing at A205 to allow cyclists to cross, with care, at same time as pedestrians, advanced stop boxes at level crossing and A205 junction, wider pavement on East side between York Way and Wayside - should be wide enough for a pushchair, improved signage and right turn access to North/South Worple Way - these are underused ward quiet routes leading to several primary schools and nurseries.
    Sheen Lane is a key route in the ward, cycle volume could increase dramatically with some minor road improvements. Calming and reducing traffic on Sheen Lane would encourage recreational and school commuting cyclists to use this route more frequently. Sheen Lane as a pleasant cycle route would provide quiet cycle link routes to many schools; Tower house, Thomson House, Sheen Mount, Barnes, Ibstock, Mary Magdalens and also link together tens of miles of Thames Path and Richmond Park traffic free routes that could be enjoyed by cyclists from 8 - 80. It would attract more recreational cyclists to get off at Mortlake station and spend money and time on our high street.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Cycling to School in St Margarets and North Twickenham

    Created by Kate // 1 thread

    There are three schools in this ward (St. Stephens Primary, Orleans Primary, Richmond Upon Thames College) and more just on the edge of the ward boundaries (Chase Bridge, St Mary’s, Ivybridge, Worple Primary, Orleans Secondary) and there is a lot of traffic. Children should be able to cycle to them safely without having to share space with high volume, fast moving traffic. The roads surrounding these schools should all have 20mph zones including larger roads such as St Margarets Road, which is a heavily used link between areas. There should be car-free access around the schools, and protected routes to arrive there. In due course there should be a default 20 mile an hour limit on all residential roads in the borough.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Sheen Road _ Pedestrian Crossing Consultation

    Created by Ross // 2 threads

    https://consultation.richmond.gov.uk/community-engagement/sheen-road-proposed-zebra-crossing-upgrade/consult_view

    Let's see what happens!

    Council Plans to change the Zebra crossing in this area. RCC responded to try to shape the plans to encourage more cycling and walking.
    -------
    Sheen Road Zebra Crossing Proposed Upgrade - Response from Richmond Cycling Campaign (RCC)

    RCC is in general supportive of improving crossings when the upgrades benefit both pedestrians and cyclists. This proposal unfortunately has not fully thought through the interaction of cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles, unfortunately we cannot support it in its current form.

    RCC would recommend that the scheme is implemented with the changes outlined below. The recommended changes will ensure that vulnerable road users safety is prioritised and the comfort of the cycling and pedestrian experience is enhanced:

    The crossing should be raised to slow approaching vehicles. Vehicle speeds are too high in this area, particularly considering the proximity to a primary school.
    Removal of the central refuge to create a single stage crossing is to be applauded. This will remove a cycle pinch point and will correctly prioritise pedestrians over other road users.
    The new road space that is created by the removal of the central refuge should be used to extend the existing mandatory cycle lanes on each side of the carriageway. It is our understanding that the 2015 TSRGD (traffic signs regulations and general directions) will permit the extension of the cycle lanes over the crossing. The work should pay heed to this so that this can be incorporated when the new regulations go live.
    Keep the zebra crossing. RCC cannot support the removal of the zebra crossing at this location, changing to a traffic light controlled crossing, prioritises vehicular traffic over pedestrians and those on bicycles. It is RCC’s belief that concerns, from users, that vehicles are not stopping in a timely fashion at this location are due to excessive speeds rather than the style of crossing. As mentioned earlier lower speeds should be achieved through a raised crossing to make the zebra crossing more effective. An enhanced zebra crossing keeps priority with the most vulnerable road users.
    The proposal suggests widening the pavement to make the crossing shorter. This would only have a marginal impact on the time to cross. The pavements should not be widened since this will not permit a continuous cycle lane. It will force cyclists to pull in front of fast moving motor vehicles, creating a new pinch point and hazard for cyclists.
    The railings on either side of the road should be removed. TfL research has shown that these encourage high traffic speeds and do little to protect vulnerable road users.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Tudor Drive / Dukes Ave / A307 Junction

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 1 thread

    Dear RCC - I have written because of a junction which is a frequent danger spot to cycle through. It is the junction where Dukes Avenue and Tudor Drive intersect with the A307 Upper Ham Road and Richmond Road.

    1. The painted arrows in the middle of the junction suggest that turning traffic should pass on each other's left. This creates a serious blind spot for oncoming traffic and for the cyclist turning. Traffic code 181 suggests vehicles can pass either way but highlight that left to left is the more dangerous for this reason. 90% of the time motorists pass according to how the arrows are painted leaving a cyclist who is turning blind to oncoming traffic. The 10% of the time when a vehicle decides to turn right to right this puts them head on with a vehicle who may have decided to pass left to left. Very dangerous for a cyclist in either situation, there does't seem to be a safe way to tackle this junction as what ever you do.
    https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

    2. Recently I was waiting to turn right on this junction (left to left position) when a motorist behind me undertook me to place himself to my left blocking oncoming traffic to pass on my left and therefor forcing them to drive at me and pass on my right. Simply because he didn't want to wait behind me until the coast was clear that I could turn.

    3. Needless to say the ASL's at this junction are almost completely ignored.

    I hate cycling past and turning at this junction. Is there any way it can be improved to become safer for cyclists? A short head start (green light for cyclists) would be ideal but I doubt this will ever happen.

    Google Streetview shows the problem nicely: http://goo.gl/maps/8gdo2

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Church Rd/Larkfield Rd to A316 - reverse the one way street

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 0 threads

    Cycling north down church rd; and wanting to go east on the A316, cyclists can avoid Richmond Circus by makin a right turn onto St. Johns Rd. However, this right turn is on a bend and there are frequently queues of north bound traffic that obscure the view of oncoming vehicles until you reach the bend - see streetview here http://goo.gl/maps/dvlKe ; coupled with a downhill gradient cyclists are tempted to cut across Church Rd at this point at speed despite poor visibility.

    Reversing the direction of the Larkfield Rd / St Johns Rd one way system would allow northbound cyclists to make a right turn into Larkfield rd to cycle round and pick up the A316 - with much better view of oncoming traffic. Coming the other way, westbound cyclists heading for Richmond Station could then use St Johns Road to get to Richmond Station - which is slightly shorter and easier route.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Manor Circus

    Created by Paul James // 0 threads

    West side the cycleway terminates at the Manor Rd zebra crossing.

    East side it vanishes 20 meters from the junction at the Lower Richmond Rd zebra crossing.

    Path between is not shared use and is very narrow due to excessive road width on roundabout due to dedicated turning lane and large roundabout center.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Teddington Lock Bridge - End of Route ??

    Created by Paul L // 0 threads

    Richmond Council have installed a " End of Route" "Cyclists Dismount" sign

    This is highly misleading as NCR4 continues on the far side of the bridge.

    The London Cycle Design Standards have :

    A cycle route should never disappear abruptly

    ‘End’ signing and ‘Cyclists Dismount’ signs should not be used because they showthat consideration for cyclists has simply ended.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Make Sheen Lane, from Park Gate to Mortlake Railway station, a safe route for cycling to school

    Created by timlennon // 0 threads

    Sheen Lane provides access to a number of schools, yet is a busy route with no space allocated for cycling. It should be safe for children to make their way to the numerous local schools by bicycle, and it would open up access to Richmond Park for visitors who wanted to cycle from Mortlake Station. Measures such as 20mph and traffic calming are needed here, along with re-alignment of parking..

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Lower Mortlake Road side roads

    Created by Paul James // 0 threads

    All the sideroads between Richmond Circus and Manor Circus are a danger to cyclists on the cycleway.

    There is no warning to motorists that there will be crossing cyclists and the building angles make it hard to see if anything is coming.

    Turning traffic from the A316 can have an obscured view of the cycleway due to foliage.

    Decrease corner radii.
    Make road hump more pronounced.
    Make cycle surface colour continuous across roadway.
    Add markings across roadway.
    Add warning signage.
    Move give way lines back to before cycleway or add additional give way lines.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Star and Garter Hill

    Created by Andrew Woodward // 0 threads

    Can we include the Star and Garter Hill in our list of shared footpaths (actually a footway in this case). Slow-moving cyclists travelling up the hill from Petersham Gate to Richmond Gate have difficulty with fast passing cars on the hill who overtake too closely. This does not occur in the downhill direction because cyclists can travel much faster. The suggested solution is to permit cycling on the footway up the hill only. There are very few pedestrians and in any case the cyclists will necessarily be travelling very slowly so they would cause no problems. The traffic signals at the bottom of the hill would need some alteration to facilitate cyclists crossing from the Petersham Road onto the footway up the hill.

    Please sign in to vote.

  • Roehampton Gate Cafe

    Created by timlennon // 0 threads

    Comment from RCC correspondence: The only question to ask is: What would the Dutch do? There is far too much unrestricted tarmac area for vehicles, and the Mini-roundabout does not slow down cars sufficiently. Restricting the space for cars so as to slow them down, and increasing the protected space for cyclists and pedestrians is a must. But, why stop at Richmond Hill? The Roehampton Gate is also dangerous. Maybe make the park access-only for motor vehicles, so you can only get to the nearest car park. That could easily be achieved by placing no entry and right/left turn only signs ( except cycles) around the park, so that you would simply have to pick the appropriate entrance to visit a specific area of the park, or even better, just park and walk. That would make it safer by reducing a lot of the through traffic that makes it dangerous. I'd also like it to be closed to motor vehicles on Saturday mornings between 8 and 12 noon, but you can't have everything. One final thought. The car park at the Roehampton Cafe is dangerous on a Saturday morning. So many cyclists and cars pushing through. The space in front of the cafe is especially dangerous with lots of excited kids on hire bikes . That space was recently blocked off to cars whilst the cafe was refurbished, but alas it's now been re-opened. Should have kept it shut for safety. Plus, it could be used for bike parking to ease the pressure on space outside the cafe. Unfortunately, the Royal Parks don't seem to have a clue.

    Please sign in to vote.

74 threads found for 'richmond':

19 planning applications found for 'richmond':

}

23/00620/MISC28 The Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) (Amendment) Regulations 2017-toob intends to install fixed line...

Rushmoor

The Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) (Amendment) Regulations 2017-toob intends to install fixed line broadband electronic communications apparatus (cabinets) opposite 35 Richmond Close in Farnborough, at: FB102-UE

23/00620/MISC28
}

22/1496/SDD03 Tree contribution as required by Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 2.1 - 2.4 of the S106 agreement at Richmond Inn

Richmond

Tree contribution as required by Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 2.1 - 2.4 of the S106 agreement at Richmond Inn

22/1496/SDD03
}

LA10/2024/0189/F Adjustments to the curtilage of No. 21 Richmond Park and erection of 4 No. detached dwellings, garages and associated access road,...

Fermanagh and Omagh

Adjustments to the curtilage of No. 21 Richmond Park and erection of 4 No. detached dwellings, garages and associated access road, on development lands to the south east of 21 Richmond Park, Killyclogher, Omagh BT79 7SJ

LA10/2024/0189/F
}

23/T0812/TCA Richmond Council Treeworks Planning Application

Richmond

Richmond Council Treeworks Planning Application

23/T0812/TCA
}

23/02953/TCA Location: 189 Richmond Rd, Kingston upon Thames KT2 5DD1. Lime x 4 Reduce regrowth back to previous reduction points. (Approx...

Kingston

Location: 189 Richmond Rd, Kingston upon Thames KT2 5DD1. Lime x 4 Reduce regrowth back to previous reduction points. (Approx 2.5m)Reduce back branches growing over garden by 2.5m.Retain internal lateral spread for screening purpose. (Tree Heights 16m)

23/02953/TCA

7-2024-18099-M Erection of 86 non illuminated sponsorship signs on 33 roundabouts (Richmond Hill removed from list) (mixture of 1,2,3,4 & 5 per...

Bournemouth

Erection of 86 non illuminated sponsorship signs on 33 roundabouts (Richmond Hill removed from list) (mixture of 1,2,3,4 & 5 per roundabout) - Regulation 3

7-2024-18099-M
}

2023/4442 Lawful Development Certificate to confirm commencement of planning permission ref: 2020/3575 dated 01/02/2021 (Erection of a...

Wandsworth

Lawful Development Certificate to confirm commencement of planning permission ref: 2020/3575 dated 01/02/2021 (Erection of a single-storey (plus basement) 3-bedroom detached dwellinghouse on land to the side of the existing dwelling at 332 Upper Richmond Road.)

2023/4442

23/3252/FUL Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and associated works comprising of two charging terminals on the carriageway...

Richmond

Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and associated works comprising of two charging terminals on the carriageway adjacent to 199-207 Upper Richmond Road West.

23/3252/FUL
}

DM2024/00376 Application to vary condition 1 (approved drawings) of planning permission Ref: DM2022/00267 for the 'Demolition of the existing two...

Sutton

Application to vary condition 1 (approved drawings) of planning permission Ref: DM2022/00267 for the 'Demolition of the existing two storey buildings and redevelopment of the site including the erection of 5 two storey terraced houses with accommodation in the roofspace, erection of a detached tw...

DM2024/00376
}

2024/0294 Consultation from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames: Demolition of an existing outbuilding and it's replacement with a similar...

Elmbridge

Consultation from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames: Demolition of an existing outbuilding and it's replacement with a similar outbuilding. [23/3245/HOT]

2024/0294
}

24/T0037/TCA The bark on Tree 1 and Tree 2 would indicate that they are ash saplings. We wish to have these two trees professional removed to make...

Richmond

The bark on Tree 1 and Tree 2 would indicate that they are ash saplings. We wish to have these two trees professional removed to make way for planting of new trees as per planning approval 19/3568/DD03 - 09/06/2021 Tree 1 diameter, measured 1.5m from the ground is 9.5cm - see IMG_0775.jpeg Tree 2...

24/T0037/TCA

24/0084 FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS ONTO NORTH HOUSES LANE (KNOWN VARIOUSLY AS THE 'B5410', THE 'T6 ROAD' AND THE 'M55 LINK ROAD') AND CONSTRUCTION OF...

Fylde

FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS ONTO NORTH HOUSES LANE (KNOWN VARIOUSLY AS THE 'B5410', THE 'T6 ROAD' AND THE 'M55 LINK ROAD') AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONNECTING ROAD BETWEEN NEW ACCESS AND INTERNAL SPINE ROAD OF THE RICHMOND POINT DEVELOPMENT (KNOWN AS ‘PARKINSON BOULEVARD’) INCLUDING ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY REC...

24/0084
}

23/T1093/TCA request to fell palm tree in back garden of 43 Richmond hill road Tree species - Trachycarpus fortunei (Chusan Palm) Fell to ground...

Richmond

request to fell palm tree in back garden of 43 Richmond hill road Tree species - Trachycarpus fortunei (Chusan Palm) Fell to ground level and remove all arisings. Grind stump to 12-18 inches below ground level. Ground to be left level upon completion. Palm tree named T1 in attached survey drawing...

23/T1093/TCA
}

P/TRD/2023/06129 T1 - Conifer - Removal of branch back to common boundary of no. 3 Richmond Road to 25 Kings Road under regulation 14 as branch has...

Dorset

T1 - Conifer - Removal of branch back to common boundary of no. 3 Richmond Road to 25 Kings Road under regulation 14 as branch has partially broken and fallen into no. 3 Richmond Road.

P/TRD/2023/06129
}

2024/0135 Consultation from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames: Conversion and extension of the site including Ruston and Karslake Buildings...

Elmbridge

Consultation from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames: Conversion and extension of the site including Ruston and Karslake Buildings andworks at basement level to provide 36 no. residential units (Use Class C3) and318.8sqm flexible business space (Use Class E(g)), associated car parking,access ...

2024/0135

23/2824/FUL Planning application for the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure adjacent to 334 - 336 Upper Richmond Road,...

Richmond

Planning application for the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure adjacent to 334 - 336 Upper Richmond Road, London, SW14 7JR.

23/2824/FUL
}

2024/0276/NMA Non material amendment application in relation to 2023/0271/RES for changes:-1. Addition of a shared double garage (DG2) to serve...

Rutland

Non material amendment application in relation to 2023/0271/RES for changes:-1. Addition of a shared double garage (DG2) to serve plots 46-47.2. Change proposed brick and tile types as per below list of alternatives, - 'Weinerberger Maplehurst Light Multi' replace with 'Weinerberger New Red Multi...

2024/0276/NMA
}

AT/2024/0064 T1 - Sweet Chestnut - Sweet chestnut ( located in school grounds) Remove x2 limbs marked on photo. To reduce density of canopy to...

Torbay

T1 - Sweet Chestnut - Sweet chestnut ( located in school grounds) Remove x2 limbs marked on photo. To reduce density of canopy to increase light to Richmond court flats.T2 Western Red Cedar - Crown lift Western Rd Cedar to eves of the Richmond court roof (approximately 6 metres from ground level)...

AT/2024/0064
}

24/01160/FUL Erection of 1no 3 bed dwelling on land to the rear of 11 Richmond Road.

Bath

Erection of 1no 3 bed dwelling on land to the rear of 11 Richmond Road.

24/01160/FUL
Back to top