Tim Wilson.
Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025
A case officer at Richmond Upon Thames with an approval rate of 86% across 106 decided planning applications, spanning 12 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×.
Wilson's reports frequently justify an extension's acceptability by naming a specific neighbouring property with a similarly-scaled existing extension ('a similar massing to the side extension at No. 11 Luther Road'), and where a scheme follows a previously refused application, he sets out precisely what was reduced or amended (setback distance, depth) to overcome the prior refusal reasons. He also separately assesses each of the two most-affected neighbouring properties by name in extension cases.
· names one specific comparator property with a similarly-scaled existing extension to justify a design conclusion (e.g. 'similar massing to the side extension at No. 11 Luther Road')
· when a resubmission follows a refusal, itemises the precise changes made (setback distance, depth reduction) that are said to overcome the previous reasons for refusal
· separately assesses each of the (usually two) most-affected neighbouring properties by address before reaching an overall amenity conclusion
· notes where an internal consultee (Transport, Trees) raised an objection and explains how that objection specifically bears on the recommendation
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a named comparator property with an existing extension of similar scale/massing to justify why the proposal is acceptable
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: for resubmissions, a specific account of what was reduced or altered (setback, depth) since the previously refused scheme
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: a distinct, named assessment of each of the most-affected neighbouring properties rather than one general amenity conclusion
“the current proposal has maintained the separation between the rear ancillary building and rear extension, setback the extension by 1.2m from the western boundary and reduced the depth by 0.9m. Therefore, the proposal is considered to overcome the reasons for the initial refusal”
24/2149/HOT 145 Powder Mill Lane, Twickenham, TW2 6EG Single storey side
“The height is limited to single storey and would have a similar massing to the side extension at No. 11 Luther Road”
24/1703/HOT
“The existing garage is 3.5m wide by 6.3m deep which meets the standards for one parking space. The conversion of the garage would result in the loss of this space and would be counter to the condition of the original permission requiring its use as a garage.”
24/2162/HOT
Measured from 120 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 120 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 12 rows
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 120 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.