Thomas Faherty.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 69% across 298 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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×.
Faherty's larger residential-conversion reports run through a fixed sequence of policy tests (housing mix, amenity space, sustainability, affordable housing, parking/refuse, neighbour amenity), and on affordable housing he routinely sets the applicant's own viability figure against an independent assessor's (Bespoke's) reviewed figure, quoting both numbers. He also gives specific Sustainable Construction Checklist scores and BREEAM percentage figures rather than a general sustainability finding.
· sets the applicant's submitted affordable housing viability contribution figure directly against the Council's independent assessor's (Bespoke's) reviewed figure, quoting both in pounds
· cites specific Sustainable Construction Checklist scores (e.g. 'a total of 36') and named ratings (e.g. 'C rating for a domestic refurbishment') rather than describing sustainability performance qualitatively
· walks through housing mix/amenity space/affordable housing/sustainability/parking as separate labelled sections in sequence for conversion and change-of-use schemes
· explains the loss-of-housing policy test (LP38/LP35) by referencing the specific criteria (a, b, c) and stating how the scheme measures against each
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a completed affordable housing viability pro-forma, checked and where needed independently reassessed (by Bespoke) against comparable open market values
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a specific Sustainable Construction Checklist score and rating, or a BREEAM pre-assessment percentage, rather than a general sustainability statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: whether a loss-of-housing justification statement satisfies each of the LP38 criteria in turn (incapable of improvement to a satisfactory standard; no adverse impact on local character; reasonable standard of accommodation)
“This review found the proposed scheme is not viable and could not provide an affordable housing contribution (a nil CIL contribution has been allowed for, however a CIL liability would only increase the deficit)”
19/3415/FUL
“A completed Sustainable Construction Checklist has been submitted which indicates a total of 36 (C rating for a domestic refurbishment); suggesting that the scheme would provide minimal effort to increase sustainability beyond general compliance”
19/3415/FUL
“an independent assessment of this report was commissioned by the Council and it concluded that the scheme shows a residual site value of �307,000 which is below the benchmark land value of �400,000 without any allowance for affordable housing”
20/0145/FUL
Measured from 225 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 225 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 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 225 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.