Fariba Ismat.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 90% across 385 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Ismat's reports work through a short fixed list of 'key planning issues' (typically Design/Appearance/Local Character, Neighbouring Amenities, and occasionally Flood Risk or Trees) and repeatedly justify departures from the SPD's general rules (raising a ridge, reducing setback) by pointing to what neighbouring properties on the same street already look like, treating existing street character as the main test of acceptability rather than the SPD figure in isolation.
· states the general SPD rule (e.g. raising ridge height is 'normally not supported') and then explains why the specific street context makes an exception acceptable in this instance
· surveys what alterations neighbouring numbered houses on the same street have already had (roof changes, dormers, garage conversions) to judge whether 'uniformity' has already been lost
· in refusals, states the specific numeric SPD limit the proposal exceeds (e.g. a stated depth limit for a semi-detached dwelling) as the operative reason
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: what alterations have already been made to specific neighbouring numbered properties on the same street, used to judge whether the area's uniformity is already compromised
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the precise SPD numeric threshold (depth, setback, height) that a scheme complies with or exceeds
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether floor levels would be raised or lowered in a Flood Zone 2/3 site as the key flood-risk test for minor works
“However, it is noted that surrounding properties have been altered by different extensions i.e. no. 64 has had its roof design completely changed from its original form, no. 66 has been extended by a side dormer and no. 68 by a front dormer. Hence, the uniformity of roof designs has already been lost”
20/0453/HOT
“Raising the ridge height is normally not supported, however in this instance raising the ridge height will bring the host site in line with neighbouring building height and is considered to add height consistency with positive impact on the street scene”
20/0502/HOT
“The current proposal is to add a further extension to the rear and side, exceeds the above limit and is not considered to have an understanding of the site and how it relates to host BTM and the historic setting of the wider Waterworks building and the Conservation area.”
20/1788/HOT
Measured from 374 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 374 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 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 374 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.