Max Williams.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 90% across 121 decided planning applications, spanning 6 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×.
Williams treats multi-element householder schemes as a set of discrete extensions (ground floor rear, first floor rear, two-storey side, outbuilding, porch, etc.), assessing each against the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD's numeric width/depth/setback rules and stating a separate acceptance or objection for each before an overall 'Summary'. He distinguishes primary/habitable windows from secondary or non-habitable windows when assessing loss of outlook, and where a permitted-development fallback exists he cites it explicitly as a reason not to object to an otherwise non-compliant element.
· assesses each structural element of a scheme (ground floor extension, first floor extension, side extension, porch, outbuilding) under its own named heading with a distinct compliance conclusion
· labels affected neighbour windows as habitable/non-habitable or primary/secondary before deciding whether a loss of outlook is significant
· invokes the permitted-development fallback position explicitly (i.e. that a feature 'could otherwise be developed at the site without the need for planning permission') as a reason to withhold objection
· references a specific prior/superseded application on the same site by reference number when explaining why a revised element is now considered acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether each individual structural element (not just the scheme as a whole) meets its own specific SPD dimensional threshold
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether affected neighbouring windows serve habitable rooms and are primary or secondary, before weighing loss of outlook or light
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a feature could be built anyway under permitted development rights, which is used to justify non-objection to a borderline design
“Council accepts the proposed first-floor extension given it is of an appropriate width relative to the form of both the existing and proposed dwelling”
PA25/2425
“it is acknowledged that these windows appear to be to non-habitable rooms or secondary windows”
PA25/2425
Measured from 108 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 108 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2025–26.[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, 2025–26. · 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 108 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.