Richard Kealey.
Recently active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 87% across 333 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 Hammersmith And Fulham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Kealey has the highest refusal share among the coded officers with a corpus this size (21 of 141 sampled), consistent with a caseload weighted toward listed buildings and conservation-area window/heritage alterations. He is distinctive for tracking the iterative negotiation history of a scheme within the report itself — noting specific elements (a canopy, a bin store relocation, external stairs) that were 'omitted from the scheme' or amended in response to concerns raised by the Council's Conservation and Urban Design team or by Officers directly, before reaching his final finding on the amended proposal. On window/door replacement in listed and conservation-area contexts, he treats a genuine 'like for like' replacement as neutral for both heritage and amenity purposes, but pays close attention to whether replacement is only visible from public vantage points.
· narrates the iterative negotiation history within the report itself, identifying specific elements that were omitted or amended in response to objections from the Conservation and Urban Design team or Officers before assessing the final, amended scheme
· treats a genuinely 'like for like' window or door replacement as neutral for amenity purposes, focusing scrutiny instead on visibility from public vantage points and conservation-area character
· has a comparatively high refusal rate consistent with a caseload weighted toward listed buildings and heritage-sensitive conservation-area alterations
· which specific elements of a scheme were omitted or amended during the application process in response to Conservation and Urban Design team or Officer concerns
· whether a window or door replacement is genuinely like-for-like and whether it would be visible from public vantage points
· whether a listed or heritage-sensitive building's character would be harmed by the proposal as amended
“Officers initially raised concerns over the large free-standing canopy and an advertisement to the front proposed due to the prominent location, position and impact it would have on the listed building. This was echoed in an objection received. These were omitted from the scheme.”
2020/00470/LBC
“Doors to the rear would be painted grey which does not match the existing however would not be visible when viewed from the street.”
2020/00403/FUL
Measured from 141 published Hammersmith And Fulham 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 141 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–24.[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 Hammersmith And Fulham planning register and published decision notices, 2020–24. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Hammersmith And Fulham decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 141 published Hammersmith And Fulham 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.