George Sellers.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 80% across 206 decided planning applications, spanning 9 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×.
Sellers writes discursive, site-specific design paragraphs that place a scheme against named neighbouring properties and streets (e.g. 'Byfield Road', 'the opposite side of Ferry Road') to justify departures from SPD guidance on the basis of local precedent, and he quotes at length from a previous refused scheme's officer report or appeal decision when a revised application returns to committee.
· quotes verbatim from an earlier officer report or appeal decision on the same site before assessing the new/revised scheme against it
· justifies non-compliance with SPD numeric guidance (e.g. full-width dormers, exceeding recommended depth) by pointing to specific named neighbouring streets or properties with similar features
· separates a habitable-room amenity assessment by estimating a neighbour's internal room size/use from available plans on file when the interior layout is not known
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a dormer or extension leaves an adequate margin of original roof/wall visible on either side per SPD guidance
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: local precedent on the same street for a non-compliant feature (e.g. full-width dormers) as justification for acceptability
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: which specific neighbouring windows serve habitable rooms, to determine whether a fence or extension height increases sense of enclosure
“It is recognised the that height of the boundary wall already creates a sense of enclosure at the constrained side return of this neighbouring property, which makes it sensitive to any material worsening of that situation.”
24/3228/HOT
“Assuming the kitchen is of similar dimensions to that of the neighbours, for which the LPA have plans on file, it would be in excess of 16sqm and be considered a habitable room for the purposes of an amenity assessment.”
24/3228/HOT
Measured from 156 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 156 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 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 156 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.