Izabela Moorhouse.
Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 78% across 423 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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×.
Moorhouse's reports move quickly through window-hierarchy and materials-matching detail for heritage/BTM and conservation-area properties, repeatedly checking whether replacement fenestration or extensions 'retain an acceptable window hierarchy' and match host-dwelling materials, and she names the specific comparator property on the same row (e.g. 'no. 74', 'no. 9') used to justify eaves height or depth.
· checks new or replacement windows/doors against the concept of an 'acceptable window hierarchy' relative to the rest of the host dwelling
· names a specific numbered neighbouring property on the same row that already has a matching extension/depth as the basis for finding no additional harm
· notes when submitted drawings fail to illustrate neighbouring context and flags missing information (e.g. bin capacity, glazing bar details) as points requiring further detail or conditions
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether new/replacement fenestration retains an acceptable window hierarchy matching the host dwelling
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific numbered neighbouring property with an equivalent existing extension used as the precedent for 'no additional harm'
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: missing technical detail (glazing bar sections, bin/cycle capacity) that would need to be secured by condition
“Officers consider the reinstatement of the bay window to enhance the character of the property, with it noted that this would involve the reinstatement of an original feature.”
22/0307/FUL
“It is noted that No.10 benefits from a rear extension of the same depth as the proposed, which abuts the boundary. As such, no additional harm would arise.”
22/0544/HOT 8 Rectory Road, Barnes, SW13 0DT Alterations to rear
Measured from 419 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 419 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–25.[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, 2022–25. · 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 419 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.