Lara Reynolds.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jul 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 86% across 77 decided planning applications, spanning 7 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Not enough dated decisions for a trend yet.
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×.
Reynolds structures her reports with named sub-heading labels for each discrete design element of a scheme (e.g. 'Two-Storey Extension', 'Single-Storey Extension', 'Roof Lights', 'Front Door') and reaches a separate acceptability conclusion under each before a final 'Summary' section. In refusal cases she draws directly on appeal decisions and comparator consents on the same street (citing specific addresses and reference numbers) to establish what has and has not been found acceptable in that group of buildings, and she treats a proposal's relationship to a previously refused scheme on the same site as a live comparator.
· breaks a single application into named element-specific sub-headings (e.g. 'Two-Storey Extension', 'Single-Storey Extension', 'Roof Lights', 'Front Door') each with its own conclusion, followed by a 'Summary' section
· cites specific comparator addresses and their planning/appeal reference numbers on the same street to establish an accepted pattern (e.g. side-extension setbacks)
· explicitly compares a current scheme against a previously refused application on the same site, stating what has changed and whether that is sufficient to overcome the prior reasons for refusal
· gives precise SPD compliance figures (e.g. extension width as a fraction of original elevation width) before stating whether the scheme meets or fails that numeric test
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether each distinct element of a scheme (extension, roof lights, front door, etc.) is separately justified under its own heading rather than folded into one design conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: documented comparator extensions/consents on the same street, by address and reference number, supporting or undermining a claim of consistency with local character
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise conformity of an extension's width/depth with the numeric thresholds in the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD (e.g. less than half the width of the original elevation)
“the extension will measure at 9.66m along the side (north) elevation and 3.49m along the rear elevation. This is less than half the width of the original property's respective elevations and is consistent with the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD which requires that two-storey extensions be less than half this width.”
24/3177/HOT 67 Mortlake Road Kew Richmond TW9 4AA Part single, part two-storey side extensions. Lara Reynolds 12/02/2025
“Whilst it is acknowledged that this this proposal has sought to reduce the scale of the proposed dormers and shift them to be entirely within the infill section of roof between existing valleys, this is not considered sufficient to overcome reasons for objection stated in 23/2700/FUL.”
24/2924/FUL
Measured from 68 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 68 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 7 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[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, 2024–25. · 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 68 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.