Development Intent
AtlasRichmond Upon ThamesOfficersGabby Westley
Case officer · Richmond Upon Thames Planning

Gabby Westley.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 83% across 35 decided planning applications, spanning 1 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer35 decisions83% 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 →
35
Applications
2025–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%100%202581%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compareVersus peers
Approval rate83% · 26th 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 reports25 officer reports parsed
0%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
0%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
32%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
53%
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.

Bulk & massing
2.78× borough avg
Daylight & sunlight
2.49× borough avg
Noise & disturbance
2.14× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.71× borough avg
Character & heritage
1.51× borough avg

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

Assigned Gabby Westley 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

the appeal proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling; the Sandycoombe Road street scene; and the Cambridge Park Conservation Area.

PA25/3901

The flue would serve three residential flats and vents vertically; accordingly, it is not expected to generate harmful noise emissions or unacceptable odour levels.

PA25/4428

� Avoiding any increase to the ridge height, which is normally unacceptable.

PA25/4447

Measured from 25 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 25 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D4Teddington Station
20 times cited
D12Teddington School
20 times cited
HC1
17 times cited
D14
5 times cited
D5Queens Road Clinic
3 times cited
D3Teddington Library
1 times cited
D6The Causeway, Teddington
1 times cited
D7Former playingfield, School House Lane
1 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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
PA26/1240
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-02
PA26/0169
Full Application
Refused
2026-05-21
PA26/1240
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-02
PA26/0169
Full Application
Refused
2026-05-21
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 35 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
At a glance
OfficerGabby Westley
RolePlanning officer
Experience
Applications35 (2025–26)
Approval rate83%
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, 2025–26. · 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 25 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.