Harri Mclady.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 64% across 63 decided planning applications, spanning 11 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×.
“The proposed rear extension, by reason of its proposed depth and footprint, results in an unsympathetic and dominant form of development which adversely impacts on the scale and proportions of the host building and erodes the development pattern of the rear building line of the wider locality.”
PA25/0228
“it is considered that full width rear dormer windows have become part of the established character of this street and whilst such dormer windows will be contrary to the above SPD as it encourages two smaller dormer windows as opposed to one larger dormer, however, it would be unreasonable and unjustifiable to refuse the proposal”
PA25/0957
Measured from 64 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 64 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025.[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, 2025. · 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 64 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.