Brad Greening.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 74% across 201 decided planning applications, spanning 15 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×.
Greening's design assessments frequently quote specific setback and width measurements against the SPD's stated minimums (e.g. the 1m recess rule) and then justify a departure from the strict figure by reference to compensating factors such as a lower roofline or reduced width, rather than treating the SPD figures as a hard pass/fail test. He often name-checks a Council Conservation Officer's own comments verbatim as a distinct piece of evidence within the design section.
· states the precise SPD-recommended figure (e.g. 1m recess) alongside the actual proposed figure (e.g. 0.75m) and explains why the shortfall is still acceptable given other compensating design features
· directly quotes the Council's Conservation Officer or Urban Design specialist's comments as freestanding evidence within the design assessment
· compares the current scheme explicitly to a previously refused or approved scheme at the same or a related address to justify or distinguish the current recommendation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the exact SPD setback/width figure compared numerically against what is actually proposed, rather than a general character judgement alone
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific verbatim comment from the Council's Conservation Officer or Urban Design specialist to support (or occasionally qualify) the design conclusion
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named comparator scheme (by address and application reference) used to benchmark scale or precedent
“While the SPD recommends 1m, this is considered appropriate to maintain subordinance, and the roof form will be set lower than the original.”
24/1365/HOT
“While the SPD for Household Extensions recommends a minimum recess of 1m for side extensions behind the principal fa�ade of the original building, it is considered that overall, the combination of recess, reduced height and width will ensure that the extension appears ancillary and sensitive to the original building form and design.”
24/1943/HOT
“The proposal has been reviewed by a Council Conservation Officer who provided the following context for the area: The site is on the edge of the Twickenham Green Conservation Area. The Conservation Officer goes on to assess that: Overall, the visual impact would be minimal, and the materials would be exactly matching.”
24/1974/FUL
Measured from 231 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 231 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 15 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–26.[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, 2024–26. · 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 231 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.