Andrew Forrest.
Recently active — last recorded decision Jan 2025
A case officer at Kingston Upon Thames with an approval rate of 70% across 641 decided planning applications, spanning 36 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 Kingston Upon Thames reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Forrest is Kingston's telecommunications (TEL) prior-approval specialist and is distinctive for a near-identical refusal formula on rooftop/streetworks mast applications -- describing the apparatus as resulting in 'an incongruous addition ... that would be visually intrusive and create visual clutter and detract from the character and appearance' of the area -- applied consistently regardless of the specific technology or site, and for quantifying a new mast's height against named local street-furniture comparators (telegraph poles, street lamp columns) to justify visual harm. On his non-telecoms caseload he applies the same 'proportionate and subordinate' extension formula and named-policy citation style used borough-wide, but with markedly less narrative elaboration than colleagues with larger HOU/FUL caseloads.
· applies a near-identical 'incongruous addition ... visually intrusive and create visual clutter' refusal formula to rooftop/streetworks telecoms mast applications, largely independent of the specific technology proposed
· quantifies a proposed mast's height against named local street-furniture comparators (telegraph poles at ~8m, street lamp columns at ~10m) to justify a finding of visual harm
· on non-telecoms extensions, applies the borough-wide 'proportionate and subordinate addition' formula with comparatively brief case-specific elaboration
· whether a proposed telecoms mast's height, when compared to named local street furniture (telegraph poles, lamp columns), would be visually intrusive
· whether telecoms apparatus would be sited in a 'highly visible' rooftop or streetscene location
· whether an extension keeps a 'subordinate and proportionate' relationship to the host dwelling, assessed briefly
“It is considered that the proposal would result in an incongruous addition to the host property that would be visually intrusive and create visual clutter”
20/00472/TEL
“This would be due to the increased height of 2.5m to a total height of 15m which is in excess of 5 to 7m higher than a standard telegraph pole (8m) and street lamp column (10m)”
20/00519/TEL
Measured from 124 published Kingston 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 124 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 36 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–25.[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 Kingston Upon Thames planning register and published decision notices, 2020–25. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Kingston Upon Thames 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 124 published Kingston 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.