Sarah Haous.
Recently active — last recorded decision Feb 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 60% across 31 decided planning applications, spanning 10 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×.
Haous's reports frequently describe a site visit conducted on a specific date to check a named neighbour's concern (e.g. light pollution), and she records both supporting and objecting neighbour comments by house number before reaching a conclusion. In refusal reports she quotes Urban Design consultee comments directly and in full rather than paraphrasing them.
· records a site visit on a specific date undertaken to check a specific neighbour objection (e.g. light pollution, height impact) before concluding on it
· cites supporting and objecting neighbours individually by house number rather than summarising 'objections received'
· quotes Urban Design/consultee comments verbatim in reports recommending refusal, rather than paraphrasing the consultee's concern
· flags where a lack of information (e.g. no BRE assessment, inaccurate depiction of a neighbour's windows on plans) prevents a full amenity assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a dated site visit specifically addressing the neighbour's stated concern (e.g. light pollution, overlooking)
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether the plans accurately depict a neighbouring property's existing windows/features, since inaccuracies are treated as undermining the amenity assessment
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: direct quotation of the Urban Design consultee's comments on design/scale rather than a summarised finding
“A site visit was conducted on the 16th of October 2024. During this site visit, it was confirmed that light pollution would not be of great impact to neighbouring properties”
24/2302/HOT
“The proposals would achieve what appears to be only a very cramped mezzanine room. Externally, however, the proposed side dormer would appear oversized. It does not reflect guidance in the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD in terms of respecting existing scale by not being stepped down from the ridge.”
24/2475/HOT
“an objection was received from the adjoining pair with concerns of overshadowing onto their garden, as well as inaccurate portrayals of their property on the proposed plans, where their property was drawn as having a fenestrated door and one window, when in fact it was raised in the objection that they have two windows”
24/3101/HOT
Measured from 30 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 30 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024–25.[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, 2024–25. · 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 30 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.