Development Intent
AtlasRichmond Upon ThamesOfficersAlice Murphy
Planning Atlas›Richmond Upon Thames›Alice Murphy
Case officer · Richmond Upon Thames Planning

Alice Murphy.

Active — last recorded decision May 2026

A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 79% across 803 decided planning applications, spanning 30 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.

Planning officer803 decisions79% approvalSave
Richmond Upon Thames · ward map
Approval rate — by ward
Lower ~68%
Higher ~90%
ShowingAll years · subscriber →across all years on record — a period re-scopes the headline figures and the trend
At a glanceEach metric links to the investigation behind it
All investigations →
803
Applications
2020–26
Approval rate over time — tougher or softer 🔒Dashed line = London average
avg 81%88%202072%202181%202273%202376%202479%202579%2026
Approval-rate trend is subscriber dataSubscribe to see the trend →
What they decide — by application type
How they compare — Versus peers
Approval rate79% · 42nd of 67
higher is betterdashed = London avg
Decision time— · publishes with decision notices
in development
Appeal overturn— · publishes with decision notices
in development
How this officer decides — from their own reports741 officer reports parsed
8%
Approves despite concerns
of approvals record a documented reservation
9%
Negotiated approvals
approvals mentioning revisions/amendments
16%
"On balance" reports
reports using explicit balancing language
58%
Bespoke reasoning
of report text written for the case, not recited
What they write about — vs Richmond Upon Thames's average officer

Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Richmond Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.

Precedent & consistency
1.56× borough avg
Materials & detailing
1.11× borough avg
Privacy & overlooking
1.1× borough avg
Outlook & amenity
1× borough avg
Trees & landscape
0.99× borough avg

Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.

How they reason — coded from their reports

Murphy's reports are dominated by dense, numeric physical descriptions of the proposed works (exact depths, eaves heights, ridge heights, widths in metres) for garden extensions, dormers, garages and outbuildings, most under the [Professional comments] heading, with the conclusion on design compliance with LP1 and the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD following directly from those measurements. Neighbour amenity, where addressed, is folded into the same paragraph rather than given its own heading in most reports.

Observable habits

· opens with a bare list of the proposal's physical dimensions (depth, width, eaves height, maximum height) before making any design judgement

· checks a new extension's dimensions and roof form against a specific SPD clause (e.g. depth-related privacy/overlooking thresholds, or Permitted Development Class A/C limits) and states compliance line by line

· cites specific comparator permissions/appeals at neighbouring addresses (e.g. an adjoining semi-detached pair's approved extension) to justify consistency of scale

What their reports consistently look for

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: precise dimensions of the proposed extension or structure (depth, width, eaves height, maximum height) stated before any design conclusion

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether proposed materials (brickwork, render, tiles/slate) match or harmonise with the existing dwelling

· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific SPD threshold (e.g. 2m/3.5m extension depth, dormer set-in from eaves/ridge) that the scheme is measured against

Assigned Alice Murphy on a live case?What they pay attention to, how they reason, and what their reports consistently look for — so you can address it before they raise it.Subscribe to unlock →
In their own words

“The applicant proposes a single storey side infill extension which would project 2m from the existing side of the outrigger to the northern property boundary. The eaves height will be 2.82m at the boundary for a depth of 5.6m and the maximum height is 3.8m where the roof of the extension meets the outrigger.”

19/3721/HOT

“The 2.25m boundary treatment for a depth of 3.5m is proposed to mitigate potential overlooking between properties as the proposed raised platform is on the boundary between no.436 and the subject site. This will ensure the privacy of adjoining occupants is safeguarded.”

19/3773/HOT

“The dormer extension will be set in 750mm from the eaves, 450mm from the ridge. Therefore, the dormer is not considered to dominate the existing roof.”

20/0049/FUL

Measured from 741 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.

Policy playbook — what this officer cites[3]

The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 741 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.

D12Teddington School
197 times cited
D4Teddington Station
134 times cited
LP 8
120 times cited
LP 1
119 times cited
D3Teddington Library
107 times cited
SI12
90 times cited
SI13
86 times cited
HC1
62 times cited
Which policies this officer leans on is subscriber intelligenceSubscribe to unlock →
Decisions by ward
Ward
Decisions
Approval rate
70
79%
56
81%
52
77%
51
83%
47
70%
46
82%
46
76%
40
90%
39
82%
39
76%
39
77%
38
74%
27
81%
25
75%
22
83%
21
80%
15
86%
15
86%
14
79%
14
79%
14
58%
10
70%
10
80%
10
70%
6
100%
6
60%
3
67%
2
100%
2
0%
1
100%
70
79%
56
81%
52
77%
Show all 30 rows
51
83%
47
70%
46
82%
46
76%
40
90%
39
82%
39
76%
39
77%
38
74%
27
81%
25
75%
22
83%
21
80%
15
86%
15
86%
14
79%
14
79%
14
58%
10
70%
10
80%
10
70%
6
100%
6
60%
3
67%
2
100%
2
0%
1
100%

Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.

Recent applications
Address
Reference
Type
Outcome
Date
PA26/1280
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-05
PA25/1636
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-04
PA26/1280
Householder Application
Approved
2026-06-05
PA25/1636
Full Application
Approved
2026-06-04
Full application history locked
Subscribe to see all 803 decisions →
Consultants approved most— subscriber data
1. Property Design and Draw Ltd
2. Gill Architecture Ltd
3. 50 Degrees North Ltd
4. Create design
At a glance
OfficerAlice Murphy
RolePlanning officer
Experience—
Applications803 (2020–26)
Approval rate79%
London approval avg81%
Who decides here
GovernmentMayor of LondonCouncilCommitteeOfficersDecisionsApplicantsInspectorate
Related investigations
When committees overrule officers like this one →
How often members depart from officer recommendations, and how those overrides fare at appeal.
How much gets decided without a committee →
The delegated share by borough and officer — where the real power over decisions sits.
Sources & method
  1. [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · methodology
  2. [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. [3]Condition load — Richmond Upon Thames's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
  4. [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 741 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.
Methodology is published in full so every number is traceable to its primary source.