Development Intent
AtlasRichmond Upon ThamesOfficersBen Haworth
Planning Atlas›Richmond Upon Thames›Ben Haworth
Case officer · Richmond Upon Thames Planning

Ben Haworth.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 88% across 254 decided planning applications, spanning 7 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer254 decisions88% approvalSave
Richmond Upon Thames · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
254
Applications
2022–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%89%202584%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate88% · 11th of 67
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports294 officer reports parsed
12%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
11%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
4%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
61%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Richmond Upon Thames's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Richmond Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.

Flooding & drainage
1.78× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.53× borough avg
Energy & sustainability
1.27× borough avg
Trees & landscape
1.17× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
1.03× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

Assigned Ben Haworth on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“Where the proposed ground-floor extension has been stepped-in with a 4m depth, it is considered to successfully appear as a subordinate addition to the main property. However, the longer portion of the extension with a greater height fails to appear subordinate, and the total scale exceeds that which would generally appear subservient”

24/1826/HOT

“Design quality, while welcome, is not of itself a VSC unless it delivers tangible enhancements.”

24/2561/FUL

“While a landscape plan has been provided, it is insufficient for the purposes of assessing the impact of construction and associated activities on these existing trees and does not provide any corresponding BS5837 tree survey data that can be independently verified”

24/2306/HOT

Measured from 294 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 294 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4Teddington Station
202 times cited
D12Teddington School
196 times cited
HC1
101 times cited
SI 12
49 times cited
D14
23 times cited
G7
15 times cited
G3
8 times cited
G6
7 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
47
83%
45
89%
32
92%
29
87%
27
100%
26
86%
21
89%
47
83%
45
89%
32
92%
Show all 7 rows
29
87%
27
100%
26
86%
21
89%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
PA26/1651
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-04
PA26/1445
Householder Application
Refused
2026-06-02
PA26/1651
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-04
PA26/1445
Householder Application
Refused
2026-06-02
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 254 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Planning
2. Place Architecture and Design Ltd.
3. Ian Upton Architects Limited
4. IGB Architect
At a glance
OfficerBen Haworth
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications254 (2022–26)
Approval rate88%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2022–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — Richmond Upon Thames's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 294 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.