Andrew Vaughan.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 75% across 95 decided planning applications, spanning 17 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Richmond Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Vaughan's reports frequently work through a numbered list of 'key issues for consideration' (Principle, Design, Neighbour Amenity, Trees, Fire Safety etc.) as distinct headed sections, and he draws on planning history and appeal decisions as material considerations, including referencing his own borough's prior refusals and Inspector findings on the same or comparable sites. Several reports concern non-householder matters (Use Class E changes, MOL, telecoms, Green Belt/office policy) rather than only routine extensions.
· lists numbered 'key issues for consideration' (e.g. Principle, Design, Neighbour Amenity, Trees, Fire Safety) as the report's own structure before assessing each
· treats a prior appeal decision on the same site as a 'material consideration of substantial weight' and explicitly directs subsequent assessment around it
· when refusing, ties reasoning to a named external precedent (e.g. a previous Inspector decision on the same building) rather than relying only on the SPD text
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a prior appeal decision on the same site or comparable scheme should carry substantial weight in the current assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: separation distances and boundary gaps between neighbouring extensions rather than depth alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a proposal in MOL/Green Belt is proportionate compared to a fallback Permitted Development scheme
“The proposed inset addition, canopy and rooflight and replacement would not visible from the streetscape and will be constructed in matching materials. This proposal will ensure that the western elevation of the dwelling will retain a uniform and cohesive appearance.”
20/2953/HOT
“The existing equipment on the roof was installed following an appeal. A subsequent appeal against the refusal for yet more telecommunications equipment over and above this was dismissed for very clear reasons by the Council, which were subsequently agreed by a Planning Inspector in the resultant appeal”
20/2963/FUL
“At 3.45 metres and with a width of in excess of 5 metres and depth of over 4 metres the proposed garden building would be significantly higher than other outbuildings in neighbouring gardens within Enmore gardens which are of a more incidental nature.”
21-2117-HOT 37 Enmore gardens Garden room Andrew Vaughan
Measured from 35 published Richmond Upon Thames officer reports written by this officer, with recited policy boilerplate stripped before any counting. These describe how this officer works and writes — they are not outcome predictions. Every quote is from a named public report.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 35 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
- [2]Appeal overturn and decision-time benchmarks — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) appeal decisions and application date pairs; not yet computed per officer, shown as a dash until they are. · PINS appeals casework
- [3]Condition load — Richmond Upon Thames's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 35 published Richmond Upon Thames officer reports written by this officer, recited policy boilerplate stripped before counting; disposition text coded from their own reasoning with every quote machine-verified verbatim. Descriptive of how they work — not outcome predictions.