Neilide Griffin.
Active — last recorded decision Nov 2024
A case officer at Bromley with an approval rate of 67% across 7 decided planning applications, spanning 7 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×.
Griffin's refusals (33 of 140) turn heavily on rear-extension depth relative to the host dwelling and its neighbours — she routinely compares the proposed depth against 'other examples of single storey rear extensions in the locality' and will refuse where a scheme 'almost double[s] the depth of the ground floor of the property' even when the design itself, materials and fenestration are separately assessed as acceptable. Where a scheme is granted, she is willing to cite a specific nearby approved precedent by its own reference to support an otherwise borderline judgement on separation distance, the same precedent-citing habit seen across several of this borough's officers but applied here specifically to depth/scale rather than design detailing.
· measures a rear extension's depth against 'other examples...in the locality' as an explicit comparator before reaching a verdict on excessiveness, rather than assessing depth in isolation
· separates the design/appearance test from the amenity-impact test as two distinct paragraphs, and can conclude a scheme is acceptable on materials/fenestration while still refusing on depth/scale alone
· cites a specific comparable granted scheme's own application reference to support a separation-distance judgement on side extensions
· how a proposed extension's depth compares numerically to other extensions already built or approved nearby, not just whether it exceeds a general policy figure
· whether a design/appearance conclusion and an amenity/scale conclusion are reached independently, so an acceptable design can still be refused on massing alone
· the specific application reference for a comparable approved scheme cited in support of a separation-distance judgement
“The extension's depth is significant and notably deeper than other examples of single storey rear extensions in the locality. It will almost double the depth of the ground floor of the property”
25/03004/HPA
“It has also been noted that a similar scheme has been approved at a nearby property under 22/01854/FULL6 at No.18”
25/01985/FULL6
Measured from 140 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 140 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
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 140 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.