James Phillips.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 76% across 273 decided planning applications, spanning 13 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×.
Phillips gives precise dormer/extension dimensions (height, width, depth in metres) measured against the specific roof slope or elevation they sit on, and repeatedly weighs whether a feature would 'dominate' relative to the host house or would help 'reunify' or match an adjoining semi-detached pair, drawing on conservation area appraisal wording for the specific named conservation area.
· gives the precise dimensions of a dormer or extension (height/width/depth) and the dimensions of the roof slope or wall it sits within, before judging dominance
· quotes directly from a named conservation area appraisal or statement (e.g. King Edward's Grove Conservation Area Statement) to frame 'problems and pressures' relevant to the specific proposal
· considers whether an asymmetrical alteration would help 'reunify' a semi-detached pair of houses or would instead disrupt existing pair symmetry
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: exact dormer/extension dimensions set against the specific roof slope or wall dimensions it occupies
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named conservation area appraisal/statement wording identifying specific 'problems and pressures' relevant to the proposal
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an alteration would disrupt or help reunify the symmetry of a semi-detached or paired building
“While the dormers on both houses would not be identical, the overall massing would be similar and to some extent would help reunify the pair of houses.”
22/3124/HOT
“The King Edward's Grove Conservation Area (KEGCA) Appraisal, on the subject of dormers, says that 'historic detailing of houses in the area is largely intact, and although there are dormer window extensions which are visible from a public domain, these are currently on a minority of properties and not disproportionate in size to the roof planes'.”
22/3124/HOT
Measured from 301 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 301 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
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.
- [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]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 301 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.