Andrea Templeton.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Bromley with an approval rate of 82% across 11 decided planning applications, spanning 9 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 Bromley reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Templeton has the highest refusal share of the volume officers in this corpus (33 of 149 recommendations recorded as refused), and her refusals concentrate on Policy 8 side-space non-compliance and resubmissions that have not materially changed from a previously refused scheme. She treats a resubmission's own comparison to its refused predecessor as the load-bearing test — a scheme is refused again where it 'mirror[s] those of the previous application' or where 'the current design proposal has not overcome the previous (historical) concerns' — rather than reassessing the proposal purely on its own terms, and she is precise about the exact side-space distance retained ('1.2 metres', '0.5m') measured against the Policy 8 minimum.
· on resubmissions, explicitly measures the current scheme's dimensions against its own previously-refused predecessor before assessing the current proposal on its merits, rather than treating each application in isolation
· cites the exact retained side-space distance in metres against Policy 8's 1m minimum, naming the specific neighbouring property the space is measured to
· will refuse on a design/bulk objection even where highways and other technical consultees raise no objection, treating design as an independent gate rather than folding it into an overall balance
· the precise side-space distance retained in metres against Policy 8's 1m-per-storey-height minimum, named to the specific affected boundary
· whether a resubmission's stated design changes genuinely resolve the previous application's reasons for refusal, not merely restate a reduced version of the same scheme
· the specific comparable/precedent application reference for a similar granted or refused scheme in the same street or conservation area
“The proposed side extension would be sited 1.2 metres from the boundary with this neighbour at lower ground level, would be two-storeys in height”
25/03042/HPA
“The overall dimensions of the proposed extension mirror those of the previous application. The proposed side extension is therefore disproportionately large in relation to the host dwelling, and the current design proposal has not overcome the previous (historical) concerns”
25/03042/HPA
Measured from 149 published Bromley 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 149 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 9 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2024.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
No named planning consultants on this officer's decided applications.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Bromley planning register and published decision notices, 2024. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Bromley decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 149 published Bromley 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.