Gaetano Perillo.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 81% across 833 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Perillo's file is dominated by prior notification (PS192/PDE) reports that reduce to compliance checklists against permitted-development classes, with little discursive reasoning; his full householder (HOT/FUL) reports discuss neighbour amenity property-by-property, naming specific neighbouring addresses and giving a distance or figure (eaves height, projection depth) before concluding on overbearing, overlooking or daylight/sunlight loss.
· runs through PD compliance criteria as a checklist ('Compliant. Compliant. Compliant.') in PS192/PDE reports rather than narrative reasoning
· in full applications, addresses each neighbouring property by number/address in turn under 'Neighbour Amenity', giving a specific eaves height or projection figure for each
· references a previously refused or withdrawn scheme on the same site (e.g. a withdrawn application or an appeal decision) to explain why the current revised proposal is now considered acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the proposal complies with the specific numeric thresholds of the relevant GPDO permitted development class
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: an eaves height figure (commonly 2.2 metres) at the shared boundary to mitigate overbearing/loss of light
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a revised/resubmitted scheme addresses the specific reasons an earlier version was refused or withdrawn
“Inspector goes on stating that "while there is a varied rear building line at the property, the increased depth of the projection, and more substantial construction with solid sections of wall and an uncharacteristic flat roof, would result in the proposed extension being a bulky and prominent feature."”
20/2365/HOT
“In order to address overlooking issues, a planning condition is considered necessary and reasonable, which would require that the proposed upper floor side window would at no time be openable or glazed, otherwise than in obscured glass, below a minimum height of 1.7 metres (5'7") above the relevant floor level.”
20/2099/HOT
Measured from 898 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 898 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 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 898 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.