Sarah Griffee.
Active — last recorded decision Apr 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 76% across 400 decided planning applications, spanning 23 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×.
Griffee's reports open the design discussion by first establishing the site's heritage status (Building of Townscape Merit, listed, conservation area, or none of these) before assessing the proposal, and she gives weight to an extant fallback position (a prior lawful development certificate) when judging whether a scheme's harm is decisive. Several of her report headers repeat a templated '[Design and Heritage Assets] Neighbour amenity' label even where the body text that follows only addresses one of those two topics.
· opens design assessment by explicitly stating the site's heritage designation status (BTM / listed / conservation area / none) before assessing the specific works
· gives explicit weight to an extant lawful development certificate or fallback position as a factor supporting acceptability of a scheme
· for shopfront/frontage cases, weighs viability/marketing evidence for retained commercial floorspace against the policy presumption to resist loss of A1 floorspace
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a clear statement of the site's heritage designation (BTM, listed, conservation area, or none) as the first step of the design assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether an extension's height stays below the cill of the first-floor windows as the test for it reading as 'subservient'
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: viability/marketing evidence when a proposal would reduce retail (A1) floorspace, to judge whether the remaining unit stays commercially viable
“it is recognised that under application 19/2498/PS192, a lawful development certificate was granted including for a single storey rear extension. As this permission is extant, it is a valid fallback position which shall be given weight in the assessment of this application”
20/2065/HOT
“the two-storey height is less than that of the host building and the flat roof is of a different design”
20/0744/FUL
“Policy LP26 does set out that there may be scope for conversion of floorspace to other non-A1 uses provided the commercial use remains of viable size”
20/1867/FUL
Measured from 233 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 233 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 23 rows
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.
- [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]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 233 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.