Madeleine Marks.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 80% across 73 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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×.
Marks's reports follow a consistent numbered-issue format ('The key issues for consideration are: I. Design and impact on heritage assets II. Impact on neighbour amenity III. Flooding IV...') across almost every application, then addresses each numbered issue under its own bracketed section label. Her transport/parking assessments cite specific Transport SPD dimensional limits (e.g. crossover width) and state the numeric extent by which a proposal exceeds them. Flooding sections are near-universal even on minor applications and typically conclude with a specific named mitigation condition (e.g. a water butt).
· opens nearly every report with an identical numbered list of 'key issues for consideration' (design/heritage, neighbour amenity, flooding, etc.) before addressing each as its own section
· states a numeric SPD threshold (e.g. crossover width of 2.4m) and then states by how much the proposal exceeds or falls within it
· includes a Flooding sub-section in almost every report regardless of scheme size, and typically closes it by naming a specific mitigation condition (e.g. a water butt) tied to a named policy
· records Tree Officer or Conservation Officer consultation responses (with dates) verbatim before drawing her own conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise measured compliance (or extent of exceedance) against the Transport SPD's stated crossover/driveway dimensions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a flood-risk sub-section addressing groundwater/surface-water susceptibility even for minor applications, typically resolved through a named condition
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether extension depth/height and materials match specific neighbouring comparator properties named by address
“This is not consistent with the SPD on House Extensions and External Alterations, which encourages new windows to generally reflect the style and scale of those of the existing dwellinghouse”
PA25/4150
“The proposal exceeds this preference by 2.6m”
PA25/2960
Measured from 96 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 96 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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.
- [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]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 96 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.