The Watermans Arms food hygiene rating
Pub/bar/nightclub · Richmond-Upon-Thames
The Watermans Arms holds a 4, meaning hygiene standards at the pub are good. It is a solid result, the inspector found nothing serious, though a 5 was just out of reach.
The rating: 4 - Good
The rating dates from 12 June 2025, 13 months ago. Councils typically re-inspect higher-risk businesses every six months to two years, with well-run, low-risk places visited least often, so this is a normal gap.
Address: 375 Lonsdale Road, Barnes, SW13 9PY
How it compares in Richmond-Upon-Thames
In Richmond-Upon-Thames, 73% of rated places manage a 5, so The Watermans Arms sits behind roughly 1,011 nearby businesses. 17% of the borough shares its 4.
| 5 out of 5 | 1,011 | 73% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 out of 5 | 239 | 17% | ← The Watermans Arms | |
| 3 out of 5 | 105 | 8% | ||
| 2 out of 5 | 13 | 1% | ||
| 1 out of 5 | 23 | 2% | ||
| 0 out of 5 | 1 | <1% |
A further 162 businesses in the area are awaiting inspection or exempt, so are not counted above.
What the inspector found
- Hygienic food handling Good
- Cleanliness & condition of the building Very good
- How well they manage food safety Generally satisfactory
An inspection scores three things: how food is handled, the physical condition of the premises, and how much the inspector trusts management to keep standards up. At The Watermans Arms none of the three raised a concern, the overall rating is only ever as strong as its weakest area, so a clean sweep is what produces a high score.
Questions about The Watermans Arms
What is The Watermans Arms's food hygiene rating?
The Watermans Arms has a food hygiene rating of 4 out of 5 (good), given by Richmond-Upon-Thames Council on 12 June 2025.
Is The Watermans Arms safe to eat at?
The rating covers hygiene standards found at inspection, not the food itself. At 4 out of 5, the inspector found hygiene standards at this pub to be good, the top end of the scale.
When was The Watermans Arms last inspected?
The Watermans Arms was last inspected on 12 June 2025, 13 months ago. Food hygiene inspections are unannounced, and the rating is published by Richmond-Upon-Thames Council rather than by the business.
What did the inspector find at The Watermans Arms?
The inspector scored three areas. Hygienic food handling was rated "good", the cleanliness and condition of the building "very good", and confidence in the management of food safety "generally satisfactory". Lower concern in all three is what earns a high overall rating.
How does The Watermans Arms compare to other places in Richmond-Upon-Thames?
73% of the 1,392 rated food businesses in Richmond-Upon-Thames hold the top rating of 5, while The Watermans Arms holds a 4. 239 places in the area share that rating.
Who decides the rating?
Richmond-Upon-Thames Council inspects The Watermans Arms and sets the rating; the Food Standards Agency publishes it. Neither the business nor this site can change a rating, a business that disagrees can appeal to its council, and can request a re-inspection once it has fixed the problems.
Tell me when this changes
The Food Standards Agency publishes only a business's rating today, not what it scored before, and not when it moves. We check every UK rating each night. Watch The Watermans Arms and we will email you the morning after its rating changes.
Free, for three businesses, forever. No password, we send you a link. How rating alerts work →
Understanding this rating
More food hygiene ratings near here
The Watermans Arms is one of 1,379 rated food businesses in Richmond upon Thames. See every hygiene rating in Richmond upon Thames →
Richmond-Upon-Thames inspects and rates 1,554 food businesses across its whole area. See every food hygiene rating in Richmond-Upon-Thames →
The official record is held by the council: http://www.richmond.gov.uk
Rating from the Food Standards Agency under the Open Government Licence. Ratings reflect standards found at the time of inspection and can change. If you think a rating is wrong, the official record is held by the FSA and the local authority; corrections there flow through here. How ratings work →