Roberta Henriques.
Recently active — last recorded decision Apr 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 77% across 181 decided planning applications, spanning 7 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×.
Henriques' longer full applications work through an extended sequence of numbered 'Issue' headings covering sustainability (Be Lean/Be Clean/Be Green), transport, trees, ecology and flood risk in turn, each closed off with a policy-compliance statement. On larger schemes she names specific tree species lost and replacement planting numbers, and quotes construction management plan restrictions (e.g. HGV delivery time windows) directly from the applicant's submitted CMP.
· works through a numbered list of 'Issues' (sustainability, transport, trees, ecology, flood risk) as separate sub-sections within one report
· quotes specific figures from supporting documents (tree species and counts lost/replaced, BREEAM percentage scores, water consumption litres/person/day) rather than summarising them
· quotes directly from a submitted Construction Management Plan (e.g. specific HGV restriction hours) to show the CMP has been read and is considered acceptable
· carries forward an identical flood-risk/heritage assessment from a related prior application by name when a new application repeats the same scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a Sustainable Construction Assessment or BREEAM score with a specific percentage/rating, not just a general sustainability claim
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a Construction Management Plan with concrete routing, vehicle numbers and delivery-time restrictions, assessed for acceptability rather than just noted as submitted
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: named tree species being lost and a quantified replacement planting scheme to weigh against that loss
“HGVs will be restricted between 8:15-9:30 and 14:30-16:00 in order to avoid the peak hours of the school, specifically morning drop off and afternoon pick up”
23/2146/FUL
“The loss of 8x trees (T1: Lawsons Cypress, T2: Japanese maple T3: Bay tree & 3x Pencil Cypress + 2x Amazonica Cypress) in the rear garden to facilitate the construction is regrettable. Furthermore, the proposed planting of 15 No. trees of more suitable species goes a long way to compensating for this loss”
23/2146/FUL
“A Statement from Green Tiger Sustainability confirms that the proposed dwelling would have a water consumption of 103.2 litres/person/day”
23/2729/FUL
Measured from 140 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 140 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 7 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–25.[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, 2023–25. · 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 140 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.